Movie Review: Living

 

Michael's Movie Grade: A

A beautiful British remake of a Japanese classic. 

To many movie buffs, remaking Akira Kurasawa's Ikiru (1952), seems sacrilegious. I would be lying if I said I didn't have a healthy amount of skepticism about remaking such a masterpiece. However, Living turned out to be a truly beautiful film, whose biggest fault is simply that the original was even better. Like the original, this is a movie that tackles huge subjects, including life and death. It approaches these subjects in a non-pretentious and straightforward manner, but one that does not lack depth and complexities. The film deals with an older man, who discovers that he has a terminal disease and only has six months to live. Unlike many films which would take a simplistic quit your job and do what you always dreamed of approach; this film takes a very different approach. The main character has followed the same routine every day and found himself simply going through life in a mechanical and joyless manner. This is something that happens to all of us and sometimes mechanically following a routine can make us forgot about the passion, we once had for our lives. Some early scenes show him trying to indulge in frivolities that he had never partaken in. Yet unlike many other movies that would have these as pure joyous scenes, here they are anything but. They are just as joyless as the early scenes in the office. This is portrayed in a purely cinematic and visual way, that put us in his shoes better than any dialogue ever could. Yet this is not a joyless film and is in fact delves into a completely different kind of joy. While I do not want to give much away, this movie deals heavily with the internal search for a way to spend the little time he has left truly living, rather than an external. This is something that is not only much deeper and thought provoking compared to what we see in so many movies with similar premises, but also one that is more emotionally investing. This movie does a wonderful job of making you truly care about our main character and go on the emotional journey with him. This is not done through an overabundance of dialogue or characters philosophizing in ways that a regular person would never do. In fact this is presented in a rather quiet and subdued manner that manages to get its point across clearly without ever telling us directly what that point is. The result is an incredibly emotionally powerful movie and one that by the end brought real tears to my eyes.

This movie also is a visual treat for those of us who are fans of 50's cinema. The whole film has the look of a movie from the 1950's (this is especially true of the opening scenes). This not only gives this film a wonderful and unique look for a modern movie, but it also perfectly brings to life the setting of 1950's London. The use of black and white in some of the early flash back scenes is also a wonderful visual touch which brings real life to the type of scenes that have become almost cliché today. The wonderful use of color in this movie, as well as how well it uses its British settings also give it ways to make this film feel diffrent from the classic it is remaking, while still being a faithful remake. This movie also benefits from an incredibly human and moving performance by Bill Nighy. His performance is very human and vulnerable, while always keeping the character feel like someone we can respect instead of simply pity. 

This is a truly wonderful movie, with a powerful quiet beauty. It may be a remake of a masterpiece, but it is still a great movie by its own merits. 

Movie Review: Nightmare Alley

 

Michael's Movie Grade: A-

A fantastic modern day film noir that shows director, Guillermo del Toro at his best. 

One could argue that this story did not need to be told again on the big screen after the excellent 1947 film version, but Del Toro's new adaption of William Lindsay Gresham’s novel proves that wrong by being a truly great movie. This story definitely plays perfectly to the strengths of Del Toro as a director, and as soon as the movie starts his stamp is fully felt. Though this movie takes place in 1940's America, it feels like it takes place in a world all of its own. This is especially true of the early scenes in the carnival which has a creepy and disturbing vibe before anything even happens giving the audience and uneasy feeling of dread, perfectly foreshadowing what is going to follow. However, the sense of atmosphere is prevalent even when we leave the carnival. Much of this is due to the excellent work of not only Del Toro but also cinematographer Dan Laustsen (who previously worked with Del Toro on The Shape of Water and Crimson Peak), who does not waste a single shot of this movie. Yet none of this atmosphere overwhelms the story or characters. This story is a dark and disturbing fable that hits hard emotionally. Even if you figure out or already know where this story is going, the ending still sends shivers down your spine. That is because nearly everything in the story is perfectly setting this up and leading you to this natural conclusion. Despite how melodramatic these twists and turns can be looking back on them, when you watch the film, they are completely gripping. This movie also serves as a character study of a man whose greed and cockiness leads him down a dangerous and deadly path. This is not an easy role to play, but Bradley Cooper does an incredible job. He makes this character feel real and relatable. And while the character is in no way traditionally likable, we are fascinated by him and feel a sense of pity towards him that emotionally pulls us into the story. Cooper does all this seeming effortlessly. This is not to say the rest of the cast isn't excellent as well. This film features a wealth of great actors who all do an incredible job. This movie also benefits from incredibly intelligently written dialogue. The scenes our "hero" shares with the movie's femme fatale are so incredibly well written that it is hard not simply have your eyes and ears glued to the screen. 

For any fan of Film-noir, this movie is a must watch. 

Movie Review: West Side Story

 

Michael's Movie Grade: A+

An incredible adaption of the classic musical that holds its own with the beloved 1961 film version. 

This movie is incredibly cinematic. There is not a second of film wasted and every shot is incredibly beautiful and breath taking to look at. Director Steven Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz Kaminski (who have worked together on such films as Schindler's List (1993), Saving Private Ryan (1998) and War Horse (2011)) are both at the top of their game with this film. In fact, the film is so cinematic that it is hard to think that this was a stage play at one time. Justin Peck's choreography is equally impressive. These dance numbers truly come to life. They at once feel larger than life and like something truly spectacular, yet at the same time, they are of full service to the story and help perfectly to define the emotional center of each of these scenes. None of this copies the 1961 film and in fact the musical numbers have a unique look and feel all their own. Still at the same time they each have just as much cinematic and emotional power as they did in the previous film. Because of this the movie doesn't feel like a remake but rather a retelling of a great story. Speaking of the story, there is a reason this story has lived on through these past few decades and has been steadily performed as a stage play. Based on Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, this story is just as touch and powerful today as it was when it was first written. Though the love story in West Side Story is beautiful, the play has never been just about the romance. The deeper themes of racism, poverty, senseless violence, hatred and the pointlessness of gangs have always ringed through and spoken to people of any age and any generation that has come around since the play was originally written. This movie captures all of that perfectly. The love story is touching and completely believable and the deeper themes are told in an intelligent and powerful way. All this touched my heart deeply as I watched the film and my eyes were transfixed to the screen unable to look away. Having seen the previous movie and the stage play, of course I knew what was going to happen in the end, but my emotional connection with this new version of the story was so strong that I still found myself overwhelmed with emotion many times throughout this movie. I 100% admit to even crying at the end. I cannot remember the last time I was this emotionally torn and moved by a newly released movie as I was here. The cast is also excellent. I was especially impressed with Rachel Zegler as Maria. This may be her first movie but you could never tell it from her performance here. Ariana DeBose as Anita was perfectly good. She captures the energy and feistiness needed for this character, but she also captures the more dramatic scenes with such an intensity, that I don't see how anyone could not be moved by it. Rita Moreno (who played Anita in the 1961 film) has a smaller role, but she is fantastic in it. 

As someone who loves the 1961 movie, I was skeptical when I saw there was going to be another West Side Story movie, but I needn't be. This is an incredible movie that can easily hold its own with 1961 film. In short this is one of those films that makes a cinema fan fall in love with movies all over again. 

Movie Review: Rebecca

 

Michael's Movie Grade: D

As a massive Hitchcock fan, I knew this new film would not compare to Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 masterpiece of a movie version of the same novel. However that film is so ingrained in my mind, that I found not comparing the two to be a very difficult undertaking. Still if I take this movie as its own thing, it is honestly rather bland. 

This movie has a major fault that simply nothing can overcome and this is that the film is strangely emotionless. There is not one scene that hit the emotional notes it was trying for. While to say this adaption does not have the same amount of suspense as the Alfred Hitchcock classic is a no brainer (he is the master of suspense after all), but this film has no suspense at all. Rebecca is a story that thrives on suspense, mystery and an other-worldly feeling, none of which is present here. While this film is not unfaithful to its source material, it tells the story in such a bland going through the motions way that the entire atmosphere is gone. The lack of emotion is also hurt by the lack of chemistry between our two leads. There is no feeling of romance between the two and this is especially evident in the early scenes that focus on their romance, which are quite frankly really boring. As they are presented her, the characters by themselves are not very interesting, but together they are even more boring. Even the music score (by the usually reliable Clint Mansell) feels like it is going through the motions. 

On the bright side this movie does look quite pretty and Kristin Scott Thomas' performance stands out.

I recommend skipping this movie and watching the 1940 Alfred Hitchcock version or reading the great novel instead.   

-Michael J. Ruhland 

Movie Review: Midway

Michael's Movie Grade: B

A very enjoyable if flawed war movie.

If you want a war film that offers something new or thought provoking, it is best to look somewhere else, but if you want one that is definitely an enjoyable watch this is a darn good choice. As should be excepted from a movie directed by Roland Emmerich the action scenes were fantastic. The visual effects work nearly perfectly and these scenes never lose their sense of pure excitement. The excellence of the action scenes did not take me by surprise, but the effectiveness of one of the main characters did. This character was that of Dick Best (Ed Sherkin). This character is a very engaging and human character that manages at the same time to be as cool as any character in a war movie could be. Equally great but given less time is his wife Anne (Mandy Moore), who provides both some of the film's funniest and most touching moments in her too brief screen time. It is unfortunate that the other characters couldn't be as fleshed out as these two are, but honestly the film has too many important characters to delve into all of them in its less than two and a half hour running time. However all the characters are likable enough for us to enjoy watching them and there is not a weak link in this film's excellent cast.

While the film is often given cliché moments and bits of dialogue, the film overcomes this with pure sincerity. You can tell that the filmmakers really appreciate the men who fought this battle and the whole film comes off as a very heartfelt tribute to them. This gives the film a power and a likability even its most cliché scenes. I don't see how someone could go home from watching this film and not feel a sense of awe and wonder at what these brave men faced. It is too rare these days to get a war film with this strong of a sense of sincerity and it was certainly greatly appreciated by me.

To be fair this film covers too much history to truly fit into its running time. Because of this many important parts of the true story don't get the true attention they deserve. Also because of this I will suggest that it is best to go into this film with somewhat of a knowledge of World War 2 so the weight of certain points of the story aren't lost on you with the fact that they are given not enough time.

Overall this is a very heartfelt and fun movie that I definitely recommend to war movie fans, even if it is not without its faults.

-Michael J. Ruhland  

Movie Review: The Lion King

Michael's Movie Grade: F

Another heartless, soulless and lifeless Disney remake, just what we need. When will it all end?

I love Disney, you love Disney, we all love Disney. The studio has brought us so many great movies, over such a long period of time. Not only that but they have shown multiple times in recent years that they are still capable of making great films. That is why these current remakes are so disheartening. They feel like the studio simply going through the motions without putting any of the same heart or passion that went into the movies we love so much. It is hard to believe that such talent could be wasted on a movie like this. After all not only is it from a great studio, but if you take the time to read the credits, you will see how many who worked on this movie, also played a part in some truly great films.

This movie is sadly a shot for shot remake. I admit out of the gate, I don't understand these films. Shot for shot remakes are never as good as the original, but at the same time make it impossible not to compare to the original. In my mind a remake should be a new take on a story that has been told in cinema before. However nearly every line and every action comes directly from the 1994 movie. The only additions seem to be new "jokes." These "jokes" are horribly and painfully unfunny. The bickering of two hyenas has to be some of the worst comedy relief ever put into a Disney movie.  Not helping are more Pumba fart jokes. Now I am not some pretentious guy who turns up his nose at all fart jokes and says "how dare they?" I admit myself to laughing at the campfire scene in Blazing Saddles every time I see that movie. That said these fart jokes are terrible and completely forced. Some of Zazu's new blatherings are equally bad and unfunny.  

While it is very impressive that the animation can look so much like real animals, it is also completely pointless and hurts the movie more than it helps. Personally I can't understand how anybody could watch the 1994 Lion King and think that animals looking photorealistic could in any way improve the movie. Truth is while those cartoony characters could express their emotions beautifully through their faces, these photorealistic characters can't. Because of this many scenes that left an emotional impact in the 1994 film are completely devoid of any emotion. The idea of these extremely realistic animals talking and singing sometimes is pulled off okay, but there are other times when it just looks silly and takes you completely out of the movie.

Just don't waste your time with this. Watch the 1994 film at home instead. Hopefully one day Disney will stop making these remakes and regain their full potential. However that day will sadly not be coming soon.  

-Michael J. Ruhland

Movie Review: Aladdin

Michael's Movie Grade: D-

Review: Everything that is wrong with this movie can be summed up in the character of the genie. This character is trying to find his own personality separate from the character in the 1992, but fails for the simple reason that he spends too much time copying the previous Genie. He sings the same songs, says lines directly from the 1992 film and redoes various comedy bits. The problem is this cannot be replicated here. Much of the original Genie's charm comes from two places. The first is the vocal performance of Robin Williams, and the second is the high energy animation (supervised by Eric Goldberg). Since neither of those are possible in a live action remake after Robin Williams passed away, the scene copying what the Genie did in the first version is bound to fall way short. When the Genie is allowed to be a different character from the 1992 version, it is often too little and feels out of place. It is hard to picture the Genie you see in these scenes as the same character that was in the You Never Had a Friend Like Me or Prince Ali musical numbers.

The rest of the film's problems come from the exact same situation. The movie cannot have it both ways. In other words it can't be both a carbon copy of the 1992 film and have its own identity as well. Whenever this movie tries to add something new to the story it is unbelievably forced in. Ideas like Jasmine wanting to be Sultan or Genie having a love interest are not bad ideas at all. In fact if done right they could be quite interesting. They are not done right though. They are given too little time to be fleshed out or leave much of an impact, and add nothing to the story whatsoever. These interesting ideas simply feel out of place and like they are simply there to make the movie longer than the 1992 version (why this would be necessary is a mystery to me). A new musical number called Speechless on the other hand doesn't try to give the film any different identity. Instead it sounds like songwriters trying too hard to sound just like the songs you hear in the Disney films of the 1990's. When the film takes scenes directly from the 1992 movie, it is often done in a very lifeless way, falling way short of the 1992 movie. The musical numbers lack energy, the comedy lacks real laughs, the romance feels generic and the whole film lacks a sense of heart or magic.

Movies like this beg the simple question, "why?" There is no reason for this movie to exist besides money. It is simply a weaker version of the 1992 film, with no reason to recommend it over that film.

-Michael J. Ruhland

Que Sera Sera

Doris Day has passed away early this week. As many of you may have heard she is not going to have a funeral, headstone or memorial service. It seems that though she did not write the song Que Sera Sera that the song in many ways reflected her philosophy on life. We shouldn't dwell on what we can't change, but instead just enjoy life for what it is. Also a funeral service is never fully needed. Though she may have passed from this earth, due to her films and music, she will last eternally. So lets celebrate the incredible talent of Doris Day right now and watch her perform her signature song in the movie she introduced it, Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956). 


-Michael J. Ruhland 

Bing Crosby Songs From the Movies

Today is the birthday of the one and only Bing Crosby. To celebrate today we will look at a selection of Bing performing some great songs in the movies. 

Our first song is from Bing's film debut, a delightful movie that is just starting to get the attention it deserves recently, King of Jazz (1930). This movie is pretty much the movie equivalent of a TV variety show. There is no story, but instead just a bunch of musical numbers and comedy skits. The film would star the man who at that time was known as the King of Jazz, Paul Whiteman and his orchestra. At this time Bing had not yet begun his solo career instead he was part of the vocal trio The Rhythm Boys. At this time the group was touring with Paul Whiteman so they ended up appearing in the picture. The following is a song from the movie that featured them. This is the extremely catchy Happy Feet written by Milton Ager and Jack Yellen. If this song doesn't make you want to dance nothing ever will. Now we have a delightful song from the often overlooked movie Double or Nothing (1937). This song, The Moon Got in My Eyes features Bing performing without any instruments but instead with a band of singers taking the place of the backing instruments. In the film they were called the sing band. This song was written by Johnny Burke and Arthur Johnson. A year before this film, Bing had recorded another song by these two, one of his most popular songs, Pennies From Heaven. Next comes Bing performing one of my favorite songs he recorded, Moonlight Becomes You. Johnny Burke served as one of the writers on this song as well. He cowrote it with James Van Heusen. The would also write together such major hits for Bing as Swinging on a Star, Sunday Monday or Always and Going My Way. This version of Moonlight Becomes You is from Road to Morocco, one of the series of fantastic "Road" movies Bing made with Bob Hope. Last is Bing Crosby performing the Cole Porter song, That's Jazz with Jazz legend Louis Armstrong in the movie, High Society (1956), a musical remake of the classic The Philadelphia Story (1940). I admit to preferring The Philadelphia Story but this is a great musical number. 










-Michael J. Ruhland

Movie Review: Dumbo

Michael's Movie Grade: D

Review: The 1941 Dumbo is my favorite animated Disney movie. It is a film I can watch over and over again and love just as much each time. My love for that movie knows no bounds. Sadly I can't say the same for this movie.

This film can be split into two parts. The first is a retelling of the 1941 movie and the second is essentially what would happen after people see an elephant fly. Neither part is honestly very good. The first part seems like a surprisingly rushed version of the 1941 film. This is strange considering that movie's short runtime (64 minutes) and the fact that quite a bit was left out (Timothy Mouse, the crows, most of the songs). However everything here feels like it could have been given much more time to develop. What its clearly missing here because of that is any emotional connection. Even in this versions take on Baby Mine is completely tear free, missing all of what made the original one of the most powerful scenes in Disney history. There is also the fact that too much here is said in dialogue rather than the mostly visual way the first movie was told. Dumbo himself is also a problem here. True he may look more realistic, but he doesn't emote as well as the 1941 version. Under Bill Tytla's animation the original Dumbo was a perfect example of what character animation can be. It is impossible not to emotionally attach to that Dumbo. This Dumbo never feels as real because we don't get the same amount of emotion from him. The first part of this movie just makes one think of how much better the 1941 version is. The second part is even worse. It feels like it comes out of nowhere and belongs in a completely different movie. The second part is also incredibly clichéd and dull. Most of this revolves around the human characters, who are simply boring. They are all just one dimensional stereotypes of movie characters we have seen a million times before. Due to the clichés it is also hard to find anybody who can't guess what is going to happen next. The 1941 movie's charm lied heavily in its simplicity and dedication to telling a very simply story as well as possible. This part is lacking such simplicity. There are too many characters and not enough focus on one thing. It doesn't help that there is a big action scene towards the end of this movie, that could not feel more forced or out of place.

There are still a few good things about this movie but they are far and in-between. Danny Elfman's score is as usual quite good, some of the flying scenes are quite impressive and I like the creative way to put the pink elephants in this movie. Still this is downed out by what doesn't work.

To be honest I didn't hate this movie as much as I thought I would. I still didn't like the movie though and I certainly would never call it a good movie. My recommendation is to stick with the classic 1941 movie.

-Michael J. Ruhland      

Movie Review: What Men Want

Michael's Movie Grade: F

Review: Bottom of the barrel comedy, this is as bad as it gets folks.

Despite this being called a "comedy" I never laughed once watching it. In this near two hour movie there is not one funny joke to be found. Much of the humor is of the vulgar variety. While vulgar humor can be funny it is not funny simply because it is vulgar and it especially doesn't get funnier the more vulgar it is. This movie however has a sense of humor that seems to think these things are true. The film gets extremely raunchy and thinks that is enough to make it funny. It isn't. The jokes that are not based on vulgarity are instead simply focused on male stereotypes. You know men aren't too bright, they constantly think about sex, and they are gross. Whether or not you are offended by these stereotypes the jokes aren't funny either way. Like with the raunchy humor, the film seems to think these stereotypes are funny just because they are there. That simply is not true and they just seem like cheap and easy jokes that completely miss the mark. Though not as bad as the humor itself (what could be?), the attempts at adding heart to this film is horrible. It feels so forced and like it belongs in another movie. It is hard to take a message about truly listening to others and learning that there is more to them than you think seriously when almost all the characters are nothing but stereotypes. True the love interest, the assistant and the sports star are nice guys, but that doesn't change that they are a minority in this movie, as all the other guys are completely and utter shallow. There being more to people than meets the eye must simply apply to a small minority. Even with this the nice guys are nothing but bland and forgettable. Also a sweet little message is completely overwhelmed by the raunchy humor and is completely defeated by that. When the "heart" comes in it felt like it comes in from nowhere. Not helping any of this is that our main character is not likable or pleasant to watch and the storyline is one cliché after another. Worse of all there is not one good quality about the whole movie.

This movie is not only bad, it is astonishingly bad. It may be only February but I have no doubt this is going to be one of the worst movies of the year. Avoid at all costs.

-Michael J. Ruhland

Movie Review: Miss Bala

Michael's Movie Grade: D-


Review: Bland and boring film that simply gives you no reason to care about what is going on.

The main problem with this film is the characters. There is never a second when any of them feel real. Our hero (Gina Rodriguez) is the only one that even comes close, but that is just because her fear in the situation is perfectly relatable (and Rodriguez's talent as a performer) and not because of any semblance of personality. Her best friend (Christina Rodlo) can only be viewed as a plot device and not an actual character. The rest of the characters are absolutely horribly written. They seem to do nothing but spout the most cliché dialogue imaginable and move the plot. This gets embarrassingly bad at times and it hard to take so many scenes seriously. This movie at times tries to make the characters morally complex but because you can't take it seriously, this is laughably bad. To make matters worse this film has you watch the main character go through horrible things including sexual harassment. This makes the movie very unpleasant and since this is a movie without any depth, there is nothing to justify this. This movie has twists and turns as you might except from a thriller. Now I have grown used to expecting the twists and turns in this sort of movie, but this film does worse than being predictable. When the twist and turns come, I just plain old didn't care, because the movie gave me no reason to.

Gina Rodriguez may have a future as an action movie star. Her performance here shows her more than capable of carrying this out. However for that to come to be she will need a better vehicle than this. The film is simply clumsy and boring.

This movie was a remake of a Mexican film of the same name. I have not seen that movie, but I am still certain it has to be better than this.

-Michael J. Ruhland    

Movie Review: The Upside

Michael's Movie Grade: B

Review: I have to swim against what the majority of critics are saying about this movie. I for one really enjoyed it. Is it as good The Intouchables (in case you didn't know this is a remake of that movie)? No. However this does not mean it is not a good movie on its own terms.

If I could only use one word to say what is good about this movie, I would use charming. It is true the story is predictable and often cliché. There is little here, even those who haven't seen The Intouchables haven't seen before and it is easy to know what will happen next. However this movie successeds very well, because it is so charming. The leads of this movie are perfect. Kevin Hart gets to play a less over the top role here, and he turns in one of the best performances of his career, so far. He not only hits the comedy notes perfectly, but also the dramatic notes. He can play a serious scene with a powerful and quiet subtlety that is really amazing. Hart proves here he is not only a comedian, but a darn good actor. After this I would actually watch him in a completely serious role, something I'd never thought I'd say. He still gets to show off his comedic skills and has some really funny moments here. Bryan Cranston is also perfect in his role. He as well gets to show off both his comedic and dramatic skills here. He brings such charm and charisma to this role, that one can't help but enjoy. His comic scenes involve him using droll sarcasm in the way only he can. His delivery of the comedic lines is simply fantastic. He also brings the pure emotion needed for the role. You can feel the inner pain he is going through just by looking at him. The two actors also have excellent chemistry together. While the story is cliché and nothing new, that doesn't mean it can't be effective. This movie tells its story pure and simply, creating a swiftly moving 123 minutes. Not a single scene ever drags. The emotional scenes work quite well and the humor can be laugh at loud funny. More than that this is a feel good movie that actually makes you feel good.


Again yes we have seen this before, but if we are going to see it again this movie does quite a good job.


-Michael J. Ruhland  

Movie Review: A Star is Born

Review Written By Michael J. Ruhland









Michael's Movie Grade: A-

Review: The worst thing I can say about this film is that the 1937, and the 1954 version are better (I don't like the 1976 version, to be honest). That as many of my fellow movie fans know is not even an insult. This is a fantastic movie that proves (just as the '54 version did) that the basic story of A Star is Born is timeless and can be adapted to any time period.

The reason the story holds up so well, even though we have seen it three times before is that everybody working on the film seems to have a complete passion for what they are doing. This is not a phoned in, get a few bucks from an easy audience remake. This is a film made by people who still love the basic story and want to introduce it to a new generation and tell it in their own way. Every emotional scene in this movie is still just as powerful as ever. Even though I knew how the story would end up, because I have seen the previous versions, I still found myself tearing up and feeling uncomfortable (in a good way). Bradley Cooper proves himself a very good director right out of the gate. There is not a shot wasted in this movie and the use of montage is near perfect. Adding to this movie is the great cinematography by Matthew Libatique. The whole movie looks visually great. The performances from our two leads are also fantastic, and I agree with those saying there might be a good acting career ahead for Lady Gaga.


One thing that really stand out in this movie is the music. The songs are absolutely fantastic. Many of them were cowritten by Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga themselves. Honestly I could see myself buying a Bradley Cooper album if he ever decided to put any out. The man has a really good voice and songwriting talent to spare. Not only that but he has a real presence when performing his songs that amazed me. I know it has been said many times, but Lady Gaga's voice is amazing. Her type of music isn't always mine, but her talent can not be denied. She really gets to show how amazing her talent is as these songs show her voice to her best advantage. Backing up Bradley Cooper is Lukas Nelson and Promise of the Real (Lukas is the son of country music legend Willie Nelson for those who don't know). They are a fantastic country-rock band and their energy is perfectly captured here. Lady Gaga suggested to Cooper that the music be preformed and record live. This idea works brilliantly as during the song numbers there is that amazing energy that can be felt when watching a great concert film. These scenes make you feel like you are at a concert and give you the same excitement.


There are a few missteps in this movie. For instance the SNL scene doesn't work at all and the movie can feel a little long towards the end. Still these faults are completely overcome by what is great about this movie.

All in all, this is what a remake should be and a great movie.

-Michael J. Ruhland