Review: Playing for Keeps

It took me a long tiome to decide to do a movie review here in my blog. I see so many movies it would get boring quickly if I reviewed even 25% of them. My buddy Rich and I go to the Hamilton AMC 24 every Saturday morning for an early show, usually before 10 a.m. One reason is because I like action movies like Quentin Tarrantino's new Django Unchained coming out at month end, syfy like Avatar, fantasy like Lord of the Rings, and just plain good movies like The King's Speech and Lincoln (saw it twice). The second reason is because I plan for it and look forward to it. The third reason is the cost, only six bucks, and on my retired income that counts a lot. The fourth reason, if you need more, is that the theatre is practically empty that early.

So I like movies. This year I've seen over fifty movies. It's been a slow year. My usual average is sixty.

I liked Playing for Keeps, surprisingly. I say surprisingly because when Rich and I saw the trailer, we both agreed it was either a chick flick, or a Disney family flick. Certainly not action and adventure like we like. So we wrote it off and agreed it wasn't on our list.

Then came today, December 15th, Saturday.

I called Rich last nite after looking up the shows on the AMC Hamilton website. Not a lot of choices. We had already seen Argo (excellent), Killing them Softly (excellent, but Brad was subdued), Flight (excellent - Denzel's the man), Life of Pi (excellent cinematography and special effects -- especially the tiger Mr. Parker), Lincoln (both times extremely excellent), Red Dawn (good story - I thought it was an okay remake), and Skyfall (Daniel is definitely my favorite Bond now). Rich and I knew we were going to see The Hobbitt, but not on opening weekend. Hitchcock was left (not interested), the Guardians (for kids), and Playing for Keeps. Neither Rich nor I can abide horror movies, so The Collection was definitely off the table. Even when desperate, we refuse to see them, no matter how appealing they make the trailer, or how good the actors, like Trespass (2011), with Nicole Kidman, and Nicholas Cage, which was borderline horror, in my opinion.

So guess what, rather than miss a good movie opportunity, we saw Gerard Butler do a good job as an internationally famous, but washed-up, soccer player. I've always loved Jessica Biel, his ex-wife, so she could do no wrong in my eyes. The rest of the cast, with short parts, were good also. Except Dennis Quaid's character. He was meant to be loathed, and it was easy to do. But he seemed half drunk all the time, and this really was, almost, a family picture. I wouldn't take my kids to it unless you want them to see consenting adults do it, even though it's all done off screen.

Catherine Zeta-Jones has to be the prettiest face and body in show business, and she's bipolar like I am, too boot. Uma Thurman was full-bodied and stunningly beautiful as well, and I've always been ambivalent about her. Not her acting abilities -- she's topnotch, but her looks sometimes can be, well, not as good as they could be.

I can say all this because these are all actors -- they're not real people. I'm commenting on their widescreen selves only. But, to sum up, it was an excellent cast, excellent, poignant story that kept me interested to the end, and it had the ending I was wanting and hoping for. Surprising in fact after all the roadblocks thrown in George and Stacie's path towards togetherness. It was very well done that way. And their son, Lewis, played by Noah Lomax, was superb. Just the kind of conflicted 8 (?) year-old I would expect.

So, to sum up, this was definitely another Hollywood formula movie, mostly for adults and families. But it did reach my heart, and I was very happy for the reunited threesome in the end.