44° Pueblo, CO
SOCO Student Media from Colorado State University Pueblo

The Today

SOCO Student Media from Colorado State University Pueblo

The Today

SOCO Student Media from Colorado State University Pueblo

The Today

    Leatherheads movie review

    leatherheads_header.jpgGeorge Clooney is a well-known, award-winning actor and a timeless heartthrob, but as a director, at least in one particular case, he falls short of his excellent credentials.  Leatherheads, despite being a good portrayal of an era, is a yawn.

    Following the rise of professional football in the 1920s, Leatherheads stars The Office’s John Krasinski and the director himself, George Clooney.

    Krasinski plays a football star/ war hero who joins Clooney’s professional team, turning it into something it could’ve never been otherwise and actually drawing crowds to the league that was considered a joke prior.

    Renee Zellweger also graces the film with some sharp-wit and feminism for the era as a journalist trying to discredit Krasinski’s war history.  Zellweger offers a refreshing portrayal of a woman at the beginning as the only woman in her news room at the Chicago Tribune.  Her role as feminist hero is quickly broken as she begins a love triangle between Clooney and Krasinski. 

    One thing I can say for Zellweger is that she fits very well into this era.  She looked like she came straight out of the ‘20s as she did in Chicago.

    The best thing about Leatherheads is that it is a good period piece.  It shows a good example of the ‘20s era with the wardrobe and dialogue choice.  One thing that people can’t say about Leatherheads is that it’s inaccurate.

    Despite its accuracy, Leatherheads leaves audiences bored.  The story is highly predictable.  It would have been nice to see Clooney take some more risks, like using scene transitions other than black and white photos, and make the film a little more exciting and surprising.

    From seeing the previews, one would expect the film to be a little more humorous but the jokes are a bit dry resulting in no more than a light chuckle and sometimes nothing at all. 

    I would call the movie a watch-checker and give it a rating of six out of ten.  The only thing that saves it from dipping below a five is the romanticism of the 1920s itself.

    View Comments (1)
    Donate to The Today

    Your donation will support the student journalists of Colorado State University Pueblo. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment and cover our annual website hosting costs.

    More to Discover
    Donate to The Today

    Comments (1)

    All The Today Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    • A

      AlJan 17, 2009 at 6:56 am

      No inaccuracies? are you kidding? It was full of inaccuracies. Germans weren’t called “Jerries” ins WW1. The phrase “Lounge lizard” didn’t come into use until the 1960s. Black singers were not backed by white musicians until at least the 1940s. Chicago’s skyline didn’t have close to that many skyscrapers in 1925. Totally unclear where Clooney gets his money to back the Bulldogs and pay out for tons of stuff before gate receipts came in. The railroad tracks would not have been illuminated by streetlights. All those soldiers in the unit would have been discharged after WW1 — the army was very small in the 1920s. And the idea that Zellweger “called” all those privates is absurd. Phones were very rare in the working class (privates) back then. Congress would not have appointed a football commissioner. And these people playing without chinguards never seem to have any bruises on their face and they all have all their teeth. The Tribune never would have printed Duluth’s 3-0 record as their lead story. Pro football barely made the sports pages back then.

      Reply