Reviews of the Past: ‘The Dark Knight Rises’

The next set of reviews we’ll be publishing are some of the ones Roger Thomas has done exclusively for The Stanly News & Press. Roger has written movie reviews for The Stanly News & Press and other outlets for years, long before starting this blog. So we decided it would be good to give readers a sample of his previous work, in addition to posts of reviews of current films. Other reviews will run daily.

Tom Hardy and Christian Bale

As I considered writing this review, I reflected a great deal on the events that happened in Colorado the night the film opened.

I was at a midnight showing of “The Dark Knight Rises” here in Albemarle. They, of course, are in a different time zone than us, but everything else was similar. The victims were only attempting to do what my friends and I did on Thursday night, July 19.

I am sure they waited in line. They ordered snacks. They entered the theater with great anticipation. And they perhaps even cheered, as many did in our local theater, when the film finally began.

In a statement, Christopher Nolan, director of “The Dark Knight Rises,” offered these words: “I believe movies are one of the great American art forms and the shared experience of watching a story unfold on screen is an important and joyful pastime. The movie theater is my home, and the idea that someone would violate that innocent and hopeful place in such an unbearably savage way is devastating to me. Nothing any of us can say could ever adequately express our feelings for the innocent victims of this appalling crime, but our thoughts are with them and their families.”

Affirming Nolan’s words, and recognizing as many have said before me, “To let fear force us to abandon experiences we cherish is a way of affirming the victory of those who seek to terrorize us,” I now offer my thoughts of the film “The Dark Knight Rises.”

In a word, “The Dark Knight Rises” (TDKR) is epic. Bigger and more ambitious than the first two Nolan Batman films. Gotham City is taken hostage by the villain Bane. Catwoman steals from and flirts with Bruce Wayne. Butler Alfred gives his best speech of the series. Batman is royally defeated in a fight scene. Add to this a young cop who figures out Batman’s identity, a young woman taking the reins of Wayne Enterprises and possibly Bruce Wayne’s heart and new toys from Lucius Fox. And all this happens in the first half of the film.

It almost seems that Nolan and his co-writer/brother Jonathon Nolan, realizing this is their last Batman flick, decided to throw in as much as they could. Thus the word epic. It is a grand achievement, bigger and bolder than either of the other two films.

But alas, bigger is not always better. Acknowledging this statement may begin a great debate with comic book fans everywhere, “TDKR” is not as good as its predecessor, “The Dark Knight.”

The Dark Knight” is as near to a perfect superhero film as has ever been created. Tom Hardy does a fine job as menacing Bane, but I doubt he will get an Oscar as did the late Heath Ledger for his portrayal of the Joker. (And may no one say that he would not have received the award had he not passed away. Ledger would have won regardless.) All the performances in the new film are good, but none of them come close to Ledger’s work as the most fiendish villain in comic book movie history.

I also believe the script for “The Dark Knight” is stronger. There are several lines in that film that I still quote four years later. There are some subtle and some overt stabs at political issues in “Dark Knight” that are more poignant than in anything I remember in the new film. “TDKR” tells a good story, but the dialogue does not have the same bite as the previous film. Plus, the script of “TDKR” has several plot holes that one must overlook to fully embrace the story.

But with that said, there is much to like here. Again, I like the scope of the film. I liked much of the humor. I especially enjoyed the story arc for new character Officer Blake. Catwoman is great. Michael Caine’s performance, though smaller in this film, is almost Oscar-worthy. All the scenes following Batman and Bane’s first brawl concerning the recovery of Bruce Wayne are the best parts of the film. Gotham City looked great. And I am glad that Gary Oldman’s Commissioner Gordon was given more to do. And that’s just stuff off the top of my head.

In the end, Nolan has given film lovers one of the greatest trilogies in cinema history. And so what if the final installment is not quite as great as the previous film. “The Dark Knight” is a very high achievement to match. I know I will revisit this trilogy many times in the years ahead. So if you have not yet seen “The Dark Knight Rises,” my recommendation is to go. Few films this year will offer more excitement.

Box Office results

Domestic gross: $448,139,099

Foreign gross: $636,300,000

Production budget: $250 million

Opening weekend: $160,887,295

NOTE: Information from Boxofficemojo.com

Reviews of the Past: ‘The Hunger Games’

The next set of reviews we’ll be publishing are some of the ones Roger Thomas has done exclusively for The Stanly News & Press. Roger has written movie reviews for The Stanly News & Press and other outlets for years, long before starting this blog. So we decided it would be good to give readers a sample of his previous work, in addition to posts of reviews of current films. Other reviews will run daily.

Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson

NOTE: Read Roger’s “Catching Fire” review here

Thursday: Roger’s review on “Mockingjay Part 1”

I read “The Hunger Games” novel at the encouragement of a friend and her daughter who both loved the book.

I had purchased the book over a year before and it sat on my shelf because other reading and many tasks came first. Over lunch one day I was challenged to take it down and enter the world of Katniss Everdeen. A challenge I embraced, and am glad of it.

By this point most already know that “Hunger Games” is a story of a future world where teenagers are forced by the government to participate in a match to the death. And as interesting as the game actually is, author Suzanne Collins also creates a captivating world where the elite live in the Capital and find great amusement in the game and the rest are forced to be suppliers of the Capital’s needs and the producers of the game’s participants.  Put another way, the “have nots” give up their most precious commodity so the “haves” can have their sport.

This past weekend the film version of “The Hunger Games” premiered to almost record box office success. It had the third largest opening weekend in history (behind “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2” and “The Dark Knight.”) Of course, success at the box office does not always mean a successful adaptation or a well-made film.

In this case “Games” is both a successful adaptation and a well-made film. In the former category the film succeeds in telling the novel’s story faithfully and emotionally. As is almost always the case, certain elements of the story are eliminated and others are enhanced, but for the most part, good choices were made by the screenwriters (a list which includes author Collins and director Gary Ross).

I would also applaud the screenplay for adding something not in the novel. The story in the book is all told in first person from the perspective of Katniss. The reader learns what she is thinking and feeling; there is never a question about her motivation and choices.

However, readers do not get a glimpse of what is happening elsewhere in the story. One of the strengths of the film is the several scenes where Katniss is not present. These aid the viewer in understanding exactly how and why the Hunger Games happen. As much as I enjoyed the book, these additions are one way the film outshines the text.

In the latter category of the film being well-made, there are many strengths. Gary Ross has only directed three films in his career and he has given the world two great films in the last fifteen years: “Pleasantville” and “Seabiscuit.” I am not ready to place “The Hunger Games” in the league as these two efforts, but it is certainly good enough to make one wish Ross would direct at least one film a year instead of three since 1998.

Other strengths of the film include beautiful cinematography (filmed in North Carolina), a engaging musical score by James Newton Howard (who may pick up his ninth Oscar nomination and perhaps his first win ever for his contribution in Games), and a large and engaging cast.  Not every actor in the film shines equally, and certainly none shine as bright as Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, but there are a lot of juicy supporting roles with gifted actors giving their best.

One minor criticism is the use of handheld camera’s for several of the action sequences. This is a fad that has lasted too long. Shots with shaky cameras are a distraction not an enhancement to scene and often create confusion about what is actually transpiring on the screen. This is true not just of “Hunger Games,” but of many films of the last several years.

Finally, there are already articles stating “The Hunger Games” has religious meanings or political subtexts. Is it conservative or liberal symbolism? That is in the eye of the beholder.

But without a doubt, it is a well-made adaption of a very engaging book. And now it is time for me to follow the advice of my friend and her daughter and start reading the second novel, “Catching Fire.”

Box Office results

Domestic gross: $408,010,692

Foreign gross: $283,237,076

Production budget: $78 million

Opening weekend: $152,535,747

NOTE: Information from Boxofficemojo.com

Reviews of the Past: ‘Moonrise Kingdom’

The next set of reviews we’ll be publishing are some of the ones Roger Thomas has done exclusively for The Stanly News & Press. Roger has written movie reviews for The Stanly News & Press and other outlets for years, long before starting this blog. So we decided it would be good to give readers a sample of his previous work, in addition to posts of reviews of current films. Other reviews will run daily.

Bill Murray, Frances McDormand, Ed Norton and Bruce Willis

Thus far, “Moonrise Kingdom” is the best-reviewed film of 2012. It has scored eight 100 scores from various other critics.

Metacritic, a website that averages film review scores to draw a consensus, has “Moonrise Kingdom” scoring an 84 at this time, the highest score of any film released so far this year. (That is fifteen points above “The Avengers” and twenty points ahead of my favorite film of 2012 thus far, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel.”) All those critics may be correct, but I do not think so.

Writer-Director Wes Anderson’s films are an acquired taste; one I have not yet acquired. I have seen most of his recent films: “Rushmore” (1998), “The Royal Tenenbaums” (2001), “The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou” (2004), “Fantastic Mr. Fox” (2009) and “Moonrise Kingdom” (2012). If I were forced to pick a favorite, it would be “Mr. Fox.” “Moonrise Kingdom” would come in second.

So in the 14 years that I have been giving Anderson the benefit of the doubt, I guess I am starting to like his films more. Just not as much as most other critics.

Moonrise Kingdom” is a quirky love story about a young boy who abandons his scout troop camp and talks the girl he loves into running away from home so that they can live in the wilderness together. The story takes place on an island therefore the entire scout troop, the island police and the girl’s family all begin a search for the missing children. And all of this is played for laughs.

There are some very humorous moments. A bit with homemade earrings is especially inspired. I also liked the various personalities of the scout troop. The film is filled with great adult actors including Oscar-winners Frances McDormand and Tilda Swinton, Oscar nominees Bill Murray (an Anderson favorite), Ed Norton, and Harvey Keitel, and action star Bruce Willis. However, none of these stars outshined the children. The youngsters got all the best laughs of the film.

Beyond the occasions of clever humor, there are many surreal moments in the story. Some of these work better than others. But in the end, this quirky comedy never achieved the level of artistry I found in a couple of other films I have seen recently.

I have already reviewed the brilliant “Bernie” which is the funniest film I have seen in a long time. I would also compare this to the weird and witty “Safety Not Guaranteed.” (I will be reviewing this film soon.) “Safety Not Guaranteed” may not play out in the real world, but it is not in the same league with “Moonrise Kingdom” when it comes to the surreal. “Moonrise Kingdom,” like most of Anderson’s films, exists in a world far from our own, and at some point the world of his films gets tiresome.

Though there were some strong moments in “Moonrise Kingdom,” by the end of the film my ability to enjoy the film had been exhausted.

As I write about “Moonrise Kingdom,” I remember something I thought as I exited the theater. I wondered about the experience of watching this film with my children. I have discovered through the years that watching films with my daughter and son often causes me to view the films differently, or perhaps I see the films for the first time again. I am not sure Anderson was attempting to make a family film, but I think maybe I might like it more if my family watched it together.

Either way, I do not believe “Moonrise Kingdom” is the best film of the 2012. I have seen better, and I hope to see a lot more better films before December 31st.

Box Office results

Domestic gross: $45,512,466

Foreign gross: $22,750,700

Production budget: $16 million

Opening weekend: $522,996

NOTE: Information from Boxofficemojo.com

Reviews of the Past: ‘Man of Steel’

The next set of reviews we’ll be publishing are some of the ones Roger Thomas has done exclusively for The Stanly News & Press. Roger has written movie reviews for The Stanly News & Press and other outlets for years, long before starting this blog. So we decided it would be good to give readers a sample of his previous work, in addition to posts of reviews of current films. Other reviews will run daily.

Henry Cavill as Superman

I have seen all of the Superman movies. I watched the television series “Lois and Clark” fairly regularly for four seasons and “Smallville” faithfully for ten years. I enjoy the Superman character and I am especially intrigued by depictions of his origin story. I like “Man of Steel,” well, most of it anyway.

Here is what I like the most. I love all the flashbacks to his childhood and youth as the boy learns what it means to be a hero. It was clever to show the man, with his conviction to do good, saving others from an exploding oil rig and then reveal the early life that shaped the man’s righteous persona.

I also like the depiction of Lois Lane by Amy Adams. This story varies greatly from previous versions of Lane and I thought it was one of the more brilliant aspects of the film to let her plotline go off in unexpected directions. Lane is always depicted as intelligent, and yet in most versions she is never clever enough to track down the past of a hero.

Jonathon Kent’s concerns are also a nice twist. Though different than other versions, it also seems more authentic. Perhaps in past versions, Superman was existing in a different America, but the skepticism, if not cynicism, of Clark’s dad seems prudent in the second decade of the twenty-first century.

When I first heard that Henry Cavill had been cast in the lead role I was a bit perplexed. Cavill had been King Henry VIII’s best friend through four seasons of “The Tudors,” and it was hard to imagine him in any other role. I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly he became Superman (all other roles and actors forgotten). There are a lot of good actors in this film: Amy Adams, Laurence Fishburne, Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Michael Shannon, and these are just the ones who have been nominated for Oscars. Cavill holds his own in scenes with all of these and many more.

Finally, I liked the heart of this film. It was very poignant in certain moments. There are at least two maybe three very emotional experiences during the 143 minute running time. I had not anticipated this when I bought my ticket to “Man of Steel.”

These are just a few things that make “Man of Steel” worth the price of admission.

But alas, the film is not perfect. The first fifteen minutes are far too busy. I appreciate the filmmakers showing us Krypton and setting up events to come, but less would have been more as far as the visuals are concerned.

The same is true for the last forty minutes or so. This section of the film is basically two extensive fight scenes. The scenes last too long and are for the most part repetitive and stagnant. Nothing new is happening. Superman throws Zod; Zod throws Superman. And buildings collapse. There is one moment when a minor character is trapped, but there is not real tension because the character has not been developed enough for the audience to care. Oh wait, it is time for someone else to be drug down a street as asphalt flies in all directions.

The final moments of the fight redeems some of the last half hour, and the scenes following the climax are great. But when they start writing the script of “Man of Steel 2,” I say shave off twenty minutes of the climatic battle.

I know I am not perhaps the target audience for “Man of Steel.” (That would be teenage boys between the ages of eight and eighty.) However, for me, everything between Krypton and the final two fights is what makes this film special. I would not have thought that the quieter moments would be the ones when the new Superman flick soared the highest.

Box Office results

Domestic gross: $291,045,518

Foreign gross: $377,000,000

Production budget: $225 million

Opening weekend: $116,619,362

NOTE: Information from Boxofficemojo.com

Cinema Corner: Nov. 13

NOTE: I failed to post this a couple of weeks ago. Sorry about that. — Jason

Reviews by Roger Thomas. Design by Jason O. Boyd, The Stanly News & Press

Reviews of the Past: Remembering Roger Ebert

Gene Siskel and Robert Ebert

I remember where I was when I first heard that Gene Siskel had died of cancer in February of 1999. I remember Siskel saying before his death that he wanted his young son and his friend Roger Ebert to go see the new “Star Wars” movie together. It was those kind of comments that endeared Siskel and Ebert to their constant viewers and readers.

A total of 14 years have passed and I feel I have only become closer to Roger Ebert as the days have gone by. Make no mistake: I have never meet Roger Ebert and we have certainly never had a conversation, but in a very real way, I feel I have gotten to know him through his work.

I do not remember when I started watching “Siskel and Ebert at the Movies” but I know it was sometime in the seventies when I was just a teenager. I remember when the two got in a fight over Siskel revealing the secret of “The Crying Game.” If you watched that argument as I did, you know it seemed they were going to come to blows.

I also remember that in 1993 they both picked “Schindler’s List” as their choice for Best Picture of the year. (A choice with which I have always agreed.) There were many times that I did not agree with them, mostly when I was younger. As I aged and matured, I found more and more wisdom in the multitude of reviews they wrote or spoke.

These last fourteen years, when it has only been Ebert, I have realized that we agree a lot. I would never read his review until after I saw the movie. If it was a movie I was reviewing for ethicsdaily.com or later The Stanly News & Press, I would wait until I had written my opinions. I did not want his profound thoughts to muddle my inferior ramblings.

But in the end, I was so very often pleased to discover that though he was much more articulate and a vastly superior writer, we had very similar experiences in the darkened theater. We liked certain movies, sometimes for the very same reasons.

Just this past year, Roger Ebert gave three stars (out of four) for a film that got almost no critical endorsements and bombed at the box office. He praised the film and said that it was “made with more care and intelligence than many a more film.” I may be the only other film writer who praised “Chasing Mavericks.”

Then there was “The Odd Life of Timothy Green.” I have praised this film twice in the SNAP, first in my original review and then later when I did my Top Ten List. I still think it was one of the best and most overlooked films of 2012. And like “Mavericks,” it was scorned by many a critic.

After I saw “Odd Life,” I was almost afraid to read what Roger Ebert thought of it because I felt so deeply connected to the story. What joy I felt when I went to his website and discovered that he had given it three and half stars and commented on the film in this way: “a warm and lovely fantasy, is the kind of full-bodied family film being pushed aside in favor of franchises and slam-bang confusion” and “instead of being simpleminded like too many family films, it treats the characters with care and concern.”

Roger Ebert, though we never met, rereading your words reminds me why I am going to miss you so much. You might not be the reason I love movies, but through what I learned from you and your buddy Siskel, I have discovered great films through the years, and my taste has certainly become more discerning.

I want to close this tribute with my all-time favorite Ebert quote. It came from a review he did of a film whose title I can no longer remember. (I actually think I used this quote in a review I wrote previously for the SNAP, but it is worth reading again.) Roger Ebert wrote: “Most people choose movies that provide exactly what they expect, and tell them things they already know. We are put on this planet only once, and to limit ourselves to the familiar is a crime against our minds.”

Amen, Mr. Ebert and thanks for the memories.

Holidays offering some great films

People who know me personally know I love the holiday season. I love Christmas, the decorating, the shopping, the music, the holiday movies that have become traditions in our home, and almost everything about Christmas brings me great joy.  On top of all of that, December is the month when Hollywood sends out its best hoping to catch the eye of Oscar. Here are eight films I am really looking forward to seeing very soon:

OPEN … AND ENJOY

The Imitation Game   Nov. 28

Benedict Cumberbatch in “The Imitation Game.” (Photo courtesy of the Weinstein Company)

The trailer has been in theatres for months now. I am certain I have seen it at least fifty times. Every single time, however, I see something new. The production values seem incredible and the story intriguing. It also just picked up several Hollywood Film Awards, which might mean it is destined for a few Oscars. (Disclaimer: HFA do not hold the prestige of an Academy Award.)

From ComingSoon.net

STUDIO: The Weinstein Company

DIRECTOR: Morten Tyldum

MPAA RATING: PG-13 (for some sexual references, mature thematic material and historical smoking)

SCREENWRITER: Graham Moore

STARRING: Keira Knightley, Allen Leech, Mark Strong, Charles Dance, Matthew Goode, Benedict Cumberbatch, Matthew Beard, Rory Kinnear

GENRE: Drama, Biography

---

 

The Theory of Everything   Friday

The film seems to explain some of the compelling ideas of Stephen Hawking while also depicting the love between him and his first wife as Hawking became more and more debilitated by his disease. Another glimpse at history that has my interest peaking.

From ComingSoon.net

STUDIO: Focus Features

DIRECTOR: James Marsh

MPAA RATING: PG-13 (for some thematic elements and suggestive material)

SCREENWRITER: Anthony McCarten

STARRING: David Thewlis, Emily Watson, Charlie Cox, Simon McBurney, Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones

GENRE: Drama, Romance

---

 

Mr. Turner   Dec. 19

Any film from Mike Leigh has my attention. He directed two films that I consider some of the best family dramas ever: “Secrets and Lies” and “Vera Drake.” This story of an artist who is never given the credit he deserves seems to be a great new canvas for Leigh to offer insight on human nature.

More information from IMDB.com

---

 

Unbroken   Dec. 25

Finn Wittrock as Francis ‘Mac’ McNamara in “Unbroken.” (Photo courtesy of Legendary Pictures)

The trailer almost brings tears to my eyes, at least it did the first several times I saw it. I have friends who have read the book and say it is an incredible experience. The trailer shows a lot, but I am hoping director Angelina Jolie has saved the best parts for the cinema.

From ComingSoon.net

STUDIO: Universal Pictures

DIRECTOR: Angelina Jolie

MPAA RATING: PG-13 (for war violence including intense sequences of brutality, and for brief language)

SCREENWRITERS: Richard LaGravenese, William Nicholson,Ethan Coen, Joel Coen

STARRING: Garrett Hedlund, Jack O’Connell, Domhnall Gleeson, Finn Wittrock, Miyavi

GENRE: Drama

---

 

Foxcatcher   Out now

Steve Carrell transformed by make-up and giving a performance of a lifetime is enough to get me into a theatre seat. I know very little about the true story upon which this film is based, and I am hoping to keep it that way. I want the experience of learning this story through the film.

From ComingSoon.net

STUDIO: Sony Pictures Classics

DIRECTOR: Bennett Miller

MPAA RATING: R (for some drug use and a scene of violence)

SCREENWRITERS: Dan Futterman, E. Max Frye

STARRING: Mark Ruffalo, Steve Carell, Sienna Miller, Vanessa Redgrave, Channing Tatum, Anthony Michael Hall

GENRE: Drama

---

 

Wild   Dec. 5

From the director of “Dallas Buyers Club,” along comes this film with Reese Witherspoon. That is really all one needs to know. She is getting some Oscar buzz again. The story looks powerful as well. All of us who have experienced the loss of our mother may want to take a box of tissues with us; at least that is what I have heard.

More information from IMDB.com

---

 

The Homesman   Out now

This looks to be one of the best westerns since Clint Eastwood’s Oscar-winning “Unforgiven.” Directed by and starring Tommy Lee Jones (who was one of the leads in the greatest western ever filmed, “Lonesome Dove,”), the film looks great and was a stellar cast who have collected lots of previous Oscars and nominations.

From ComingSoon.net

STUDIO: Roadside Attractions

DIRECTOR: Tommy Lee Jones

MPAA RATING: R (for violence, sexual content, some disturbing behavior and nudity)

SCREENWRITERS: Tommy Lee Jones, Kieran Fitzgerald, Wesley A. Oliver

STARRING: Tommy Lee Jones, Meryl Streep, Miranda Otto,Hilary Swank, James Spader, Hailee Steinfeld, Grace Gummer, Sonja Richter

GENRE: Drama

---

 

Selma   Dec. 25

David Oyelowo and Carmen Ejogo as Martin Luther King Jr. and Coretta Scott King in “Selma.” (Photo courtesy of Paramount Pictures)

I have not seen a trailer, poster or anything about this film other than a few snapshots, but the buzz is that it could completely change the Oscar race by becoming the front runner as soon as critics start to see it.

From ComingSoon.net

STUDIO: Paramount Pictures

DIRECTOR: Ava DuVernay

MPAA RATING: N/A

SCREENWRITER: Paul Webb

STARRING: Tim Roth, Tom Wilkinson, Oprah Winfrey,Alessandro Nivola, Cuba Gooding Jr., David Oyelowo, Carmen Ejogo, Lorraine Toussaint, Giovanni Ribisi Common

GENRE: Drama, Biography

---

 

STOCKING STUFFERS

These are the eight I am most anxious to see. But don’t miss out on a few more that are on my list for the holiday season: “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” “Into the Woods,” “Exodus: Gods and Kings,” “American Sniper” and “A Most Violent Year.” May you have a Merry Christmas and see a few great films during the season!

Cinema Corner: Nov. 20, 2014 edition

Reviews by Roger Thomas. Design by Jason O. Boyd, The Stanly News & Press.

Reviews of the Past: ‘Mud’

The next set of reviews we’ll be publishing are some of the ones Roger Thomas has done exclusively for The Stanly News & Press. Roger has written movie reviews for The Stanly News & Press and other outlets for years, long before starting this blog. So we decided it would be good to give readers a sample of his previous work, in addition to posts of reviews of current films. Other reviews will run daily.

Left to right: Matthew McConaughey, Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland

As I watched the film “Mud” I was taken back to 1996 to another film that I have loved for almost two decades.

Both films take place in Arkansas. Each film is flavored by their Southern settings. Both films involve young boys meeting strangers. In both there have been deaths, killings in fact that happened sometime before the stories begin. There is also the threat of more violence to come. Both films have female characters that make bad choices. And in each case, the stranger ends up acting to save a young boy, in one way or another.

Mud” does many things right. First, the cast is very strong. Matthew McConaughey creates a title character that is fascinating. As more and more details come out about this mysterious stranger, one can easily become enthralled in the decisions and choices he will make as events play out.

There is some early Oscar buzz swirling around McConaughey; he has been here before however and he has never ended up with a ticket to the big dance. It is far too early to be handicapping any contenders at this point.

Reese Witherspoon and Sam Shepard also do fine work in supporting roles. However the best performances are the two young leads: Tye Sheridan and Jacob Lofland. The audience experiences all the events of the film through their young eyes and viewers understand what is happening as the boys make discoveries. “Mud” succeeds because these two young actors make Ellis (Sheridan) and Neckbone (Lofland) authentic and worthy of empathy.

The film has other strengths. I have lived in small towns most of my life. I think I understand them. This film captures small town life. (I was even in college with a boy whose parents moved to DeWitt, Arkansas while we were in school together. Some of this film was shot in DeWitt.) Scenes in parking lots, cheap hotels, and various other places all seem authentic, places I have been or at least past in my small town experiences.

The film also boasts some fine cinematography especially on the water and a screenplay that has almost as many twists and turns as the river, and some very strong scenes between Mud and the boys.

In the end though, this film is not driven by how well it is made. It works only if the audience cares about the three leads. For me, I had invested enough by the climax that I wanted all three of them to survive.

Any time a film can make you care about fictional characters, especially one such as “Mud,” there is worthy achievement on the filmmakers’ part. “Mud” is a successful film and deserves to find a larger audience.

If anyone is not clear on the film I referenced in the opening paragraph, it is Billy Bob Thornton’s masterpiece, “Sling Blade.” I have seen that film more times than I can count. “Mud” is not as strong as “Sling Blade.” The story is not captivating and Mud is not the same caliber of hero as Karl.

I keep hoping that Thornton will make a sequel to “Sling Blade;” a sequel to “Mud” would be fine too, but given a choice of only one, I would definitely vote for “Sling Blade.”

There is a reason why Thornton’s film beat “The English Patient” for Best Screenplay in 1996. “Mud” is not quite “Sling Blade,” but for 2013, it is one of the better films thus far.

And if you are a fan of Karl Childers and Frank Wheatley (Lucas Black at 14 acting circles around his “Sling Blade” co-stars), you will especially like this very similar story set in rural Arkansas. And if you have not seen the earlier film, rent “Sling Blade” and also check out “Mud.” It is well worth the price of admission.

Box Office results

Domestic gross: $21,590,086

Foreign gross: NA

Production budget: NA

Opening weekend: $2,215,891

NOTE: Information from Boxofficemojo.com

Reviews of the Past: ‘Oblivion’

The next set of reviews we’ll be publishing are some of the ones Roger Thomas has done exclusively for The Stanly News & Press. Roger has written movie reviews for The Stanly News & Press and other outlets for years, long before starting this blog. So we decided it would be good to give readers a sample of his previous work, in addition to posts of reviews of current films. Other reviews will run daily.

Olga Kurylenko and Tom Cruise

Tom Cruise knows his way around a good sci-fi film. In 2002, he starred in Steven Spielberg’s “Minority Report,” a movie I proclaimed as the best film of that year. “Minority Report” was not just a intriguing mystery and creative story, it was about important serious ideas. In the wake of 9-11, when our whole nation was questioning how much privacy should we give up for the sake of security, “Report” raised issues that were futuristic yet somehow omnipresent.

Three years later, Cruise joined director Spielberg for another sci-fi endeavor, this one with less ideas but it did have an age old story done to near perfection. “War of the Worlds” focused on the destruction of our planet by aliens as seen through the eyes of one family and the action and suspense hardly ceased for the 116 minutes the film played. The film is not as smart and thought-provoking as “Minority Report,” but once again Cruise had ventured into sci-fi and helped create a film worthy of many viewings.

Not since “War of the Worlds” has Cruise forayed into the world of sci-fi, unless one considers the “Mission Impossible” movies to be science fiction. After two successes in the genre, one could hope that Cruise would pull out another exceptional venture. Alas, perhaps Cruise needs to make the journey with Spielberg for the film to match “Report” or “War.”

Joseph Kosinski directs “Oblivion.” His one other directing credit is “Tron: Legacy.” That should have been a sign for me. I am not a fan of the “Tron sequel,” and as you have probably already guessed, I am not proclaiming “Oblivion” to be a successor to “Minority Report” and “War of the Worlds.”

But allow me to add a world of praise. Both “Tron: Legacy” and “Oblivion” are stunning with their visuals. You could watch “Oblivion” with the sound turned off, and it would be a feast for the eyes. We have been looking at great visuals since the dinosaurs roared in “Jurassic Park.” At some point we should become immune to impressive sights on the big screen, but like a child seeing his first film in a theater, I still sit in awe of great effects-created-visuals. And “Oblivion” has those in abundance.

Unfortunately, it has little else. The problem with the story is that it seems all too familiar. I kept thinking, now this is going to happen, and it did. Or this is the secret, and it was. And that really does not mean what we have been told it means, and it did not. I do not want to give anything away, because some of you will see it in spite of my advice, but much of this film has already been done in better movies.

The biggest twist of “Oblivion” is lifted straight from a much better film, “Moon.” “Moon” opened in 2009 and stars Sam Rockwell. If you are a sci-fi fan and have not seen it, rent it. With each passing minute, “Moon” becomes more intriguing smarter and compelling. On the other hand, “Oblivion” spirals into sci-fi clichés and already played plot twists that not even stellar visuals can save.   

Even the presence of Morgan Freeman could not save this film. Enough said.

“Oblivion” is not the last apocalyptic earth we will be able to visit this year at the multi-plex. “After Earth,” starring Will Smith and Jaden Smith and directed by M. Night Shyamalan, will open in theaters the Friday after Memorial Day. Here’s hoping that the director of “The Sixth Sense,” “Signs” and “Unbreakable” can offer more surprises in his story than one will ever find in “Oblivion.”

May Tom Cruise find at least one more good, if not great, sci-fi role during his career. And is it too much to hope for that film to be directed by Spielberg as well?

Box Office results

Domestic gross: $89,107,235

Foreign gross: $197,061,337

Production budget: $120 million

Opening weekend: $37,054,485

NOTE: Information from Boxofficemojo.com