I doubt when this flick was given the big pitch to the studio it was referenced as Pearl Harbor without, you know, Pearl Harbor. In a just world, the meeting would have ended there.
Maybe this is a decent movie, maybe it isn’t, but we have all the pieces of a bomb in the making. Dueling metrosexuals, a love triangle stripped from a Michael Bay movie (and what most thought was the worst part of said Bay movie) and Natalie Portman, who other than sharing the same curves as Maguire, has shown no inclination of ability to carry a movie.
Maguire is the better actor, so he wins the meatier part over Jake – the mentally damaged and schizo vet – the crazed soldier, with the gun in the drive way, being emasculated by his daughter at the dinner table. Granted, drama isn’t exactly the Marx brothers, but it does have to be entertaining – I don’t see anything entertaining.
It’s a shame, because it didn’t have to be that way for Maguire. Gyllenhaal “souled” his soul to celebrity affectations long ago, be it the gay cowboy schtick, the pouty veneer or being on the right side of every pseudo cause-celeb available. Maguire earned his reputation through credible performances. It peaked with Spider-Man, he became a leading man and a rather reliable box office earner (it also continued in Seabiscuit, one of the best movies of the decade). The part missing from that formula since is “man.” The first Spider flick, Maguire went from gawky teenager to hero, consumed with guilt and burden. The movie captured the essence of the comic – Peter Parker’s journey from geek to man. The film culminated in Parker turning down his true love to keep her safe, a move only a man would make. It wasn’t necessarily a happy ending, but it was ultimately satisfying and the right one. Negating all of that is what killed the third movie. No surprise that Maguire hasn’t been seen since.
Maguire can act, he showed that in Seabiscuit, but he can also fall victim to the same affectations as Gyllenhaal, maybe even more so in another retake on Coming Home with the prerequisite Hollywood Iraq War template. Watching the two share angst for two hours doesn’t strike me as either entertaining or a good movie.
The first time I saw that trailer it actually started to lure me in. Then it went typical Hollywood turning the veteran into a gun-wielding, home-smashing psycho. I could look past the fact that it uses other Hollywood cliches such as the lower middle class family (whose son probably goes into the military because he has no other options) and the setting of a bleak winter’s stark, frozen landscapes in middle America.
This trailer screams America hating, military bashing tripe. Oh, and by the way, the Gyllenhaal character, whom the trailer makes out to be the noble one? He’s an ex-convict. While the veteran is the one who goes all psycho-violent. Given Hollywood’s current gutless stance toward events in the real world, it would not surprise me in the least if Gyllenhaal’s character is so calm and well-adjusted because he converted to Islam during his time behind bars.
If they wanted to be original they would have made it a couple of upper middle brother’s living in New York, one brother is a lawyer compensating for his guilt about not having the guts to serve in the military, while the other brother became a Marine Corp officer after getting a degree in literature & history from Harvard. And instead of taking the typical route of psycho-violence meant to shock our sensibilities, the movie would stay “small” by focusing on the human drama created by these two very different worldviews.
Instead it’s cliche after cliche after cliche.
Never got Portman. Bad actress. So shes turning into a female Sean Penn – she only does “important movies”. All I need to know.
Portman is exhibit A in Hollywood’s bad template for developing actresses. Oddly, she gave her best performances as a child – running solid beside Jean Reno and Gary Oldman, and then a star-making turn in the always excellent “Beautiful Girls.” Her rising star got her the Star Wars gig, where she turned into a wooden plank. Lucas deserves blame for that, as does Portman, who failed to deliver in capturing the spirit of Carrie Fisher. If one wants evidence of the lack of charisma in Hollywood, check out the original Star Wars cast versus the prequel version.
ScarJo has hit the same wall. She was better as a young actress. She was good (not great, and not nearly as great as Portman in “Beautiful Girls) in the “Horse Whisperer.” Once she got her curves and became a sex symbol, she started mailing it in more than FedEx.
She can try and hide in “important” roles, but those roles are box office poison. Unless she makes a buck or turns those roles into award winners, she’ll eventually be toast. I don’t see her aging well either given her prepubescent appearance.
Portman gets the hype, but give me Anna Faris. She’s done absolute crap at times, but she’s almost always good in it, sells her self and doesn’t take herself too seriously. She’s one role away from being the most important actress in Hollywood.