Moneyball (2011)

Moneyball is perhaps the most difficult film of the year for me to appropriately gauge my own enjoyment of. I know I enjoyed it. I remember laughing, smiling, cheering, feeling completely engaged in the subject matter like it was yesterday. Just what prompted those emotions to rise out from within me remains a bit of a mystery.

I remember the sequences which most tickled my various emotional receptors, but the interconnecting components which built to those sequences are foggy at best. If I had to narrow it down to a single reason, it would be the way Moneyball is designed.

Moneyball relies heavily on an interweaving of plot structures that could be most accurately defined as being part of the beginning or middle of a narrative. This is a technique that co-writer Aaron Sorkin executed to great effect in 2010's Social Network, where once again there was no singular climatic point which the narrative reached out to. Instead both films rely on character building, witty interplay, and audience interest in development of the backdrop device to build the film.

However, Moneyball lacks one of the more crucial aspects of Social Network's success, colorful characters. Outside of Beane (Brad Pitt) and Brand (Jonah Hill), there's not much left for viewers to hold onto. The core group of players which earn themselves the most screen time are generally down played, given a few good scenes, and then moved past. Even in the most crucial moment of one of their careers - and the film's closest thing to a climax - the setup is not wholly capable of meeting the viewer half way on the emotional response.

I suppose the most clear cut word for describing the feeling Moneyball inspires is "almost." From the direction to the acting to the writing, every bit feels like it's almost right where it needs to be. But it is that minute missing component that ultimately ends up weighing down Moneyball's potential. It's enough for two hours, and for many that's enough for all.

Overall Score: 7.00/10

Credits
Director: Bennett Miller
Screenplay: Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin
Story: Stan Chervin
Book: Michael Lewis

50/50 (2011)

Often times in life its not the fears you plan for that throw up roadblocks, but rather the fears you never saw coming. The ones you hide behind under the belief that you're too young, live too healthy of a lifestyle, or too cautious and therefore they'll never happen to you. The very fears that allow you to get up in the morning and jog past busy streets, take those roller coaster rides, have that second hot dog, and breeze through the day while your conventional worries hog the rest of the time. Worries about your job, your living space, or your social environment.

Enter "cancer," the one word no human being on the planet wants to hear. Especially not when its directed in diagnostic format at them. But perhaps the greater question is once that word is out there, how do you react?

There's a lot to admire in the 2011 dramady that is 50/50. Its central figurehead is not a conventional cinema protagonist. The surrounding cast is each doused in their own collection of flaws and visible shortcomings as people, friends, and lovers. The approach taken to the very serious subject matter of cancer can be off putting to some, given the stark contrasting movements between levitating humor and emotional lashing out.

But at the core of it all is Adam, and I have to say he's quite a well crafted character, and one given the full treatment by Joseph Gordon Levitt. While it would have been easy to place Adam on the back-burner and use him as a medium to craft the characters around him, 50/50 Dives in head first in dealing with Adam's new found dilemma. We go on a journey through treatment, and the stages of acceptance as Adam not only overcomes some of his interpersonal problems, but also comes to embrace some of those peculiarities that make him who he is.

Behind the camera Jonathan Levine treads the thin line between style and substance. He intervenes only when he feels an added laugh or emotional tug can be gained through a bit of camera trickery, but for the most part holds himself at bay. His organization of shots and movement never left me wanting, never jerked me out of the film, or disassociated me with the characters. Will Reiser's steady pen boosts each character by laying on a level of complexity for each. Adam chews his nails, his therapist is unsure of herself and lacks seasoned confidence, his mother struggles with his father who has Alzheimer's and can't find a way to connect with her now sick son, his best friend tries his best to cheer Adam up but his plans are often misguided and seemingly selfish, and his girlfriend doesn't know how to be there when he needs her the most.

All of this plays out in a sea of well crafted drama and comedy, that floats below the line of greatness for me. Despite a few incredibly relatable and powerful dramatic moments, I still felt just on the cuff of that lasting emotional connection. As if there were a missing piece that would have turned a few passing sniffles and grins into a waterworks of tears and endless smiles. The added meh factor of Seth Rogan playing Seth Rogan squared did little to amplify my love for the characters. I don't dislike Rogan but his brand of comedy felt a bit out of touch with the emotional tone of the rest of the film. Sure Reiser and Levine do a find job of wrangling it in at the necessary moments of drama, but for the most part I wouldn't have minded him being put farther into the background.

Overall Score: 8.00/10

Film Credits:
Directed By - Jonathan Levine
Written By - Will Reiser

Contagion (2011)

Overall Score: 7.00/10

Ensembles are a tricky business. When done correctly they can become the magnum opus epic their creator so wishes to create. When done incorrectly they can feel disjointed, jarring, and unintelligible. Then there are those which fluctuate in the middle. Those ensemble works that fluctuate between greatness and sporadic, and unfortunately Contagion dips into the latter a tad too often.

Contagion takes the age old Hollywood premise and thrusts it into the modern world. What happens when a deadly, highly contagious virus enters society? Throwing a more realistic spin on the issue than your usual "I'm Mr. Evil General and I want to blow up the city" that has latched onto this plot line more times than I care to count (granted the number is probably around 3), King of Sporadic Quality, Steven Soderbergh, carefully crafts such a scenario. With fine attention to the various details involved, and some well placed reminders of social impact, Soderbergh is able to create tension in what could easily be construed as a crash course in Biology.

For my money the real heart and soul of Contagion lies on the shoulder of Matt Damon. Not only is he the character with the majority of the screen time, he's also the only character not wrapped up in the scientific and political narrative. In a sense, he's meant to represent the viewer. What would happen if you or I were to go through this scenario. The average man thrust in a world of uncertainty and chaos. And I have to admit it, if Soderbergh had made the entire film on just him I think this movie would have been inching closer to that coveted 9 rather than wrestling around in the 7 range.

The problem for me is, it didn't have to be that way. Kate Winslet is geared up for the emotional scientist point of view but she's out of sight and out of mind too often, and is cut off just as she's starting to gain traction. Marion Coitillard is next on the emotional bandwagon, but just as she enters an emotional setup scenario. The plot is left hanging, only to reemerge briefly in the end with none of the dots in the middle to make the necessary connection. Not to mention the incredibly apparent flatness of the emotions portrayed in her plot, even though many of the characters are dealing with deep personal issues. So that really just leaves us with Lawrence Fishburne whose plot wavers back and forth between some kind of interesting politics and decent emotional investment. He's definitely the forerunner for the next real honest connection, but his plot is sporadic at best.

He also becomes a big representative of Soderbergh's primary fault in Contagion - after the fact character building. I can think of several scenarios in this film where a character the audience is well familiar with will be in the middle of an emotional/important conversation with someone that the audience has no clue about. And not until after the conversation or towards the middle of it do we find out who that person is. It's hard to gain emotional traction when you can't relate to the levity of the situation. Sure this might work in a bubble for a twist, but the scenes aren't set up that way and I don't think it is what Soderbergh had in mind.

So what does that leave us with? Well there is Gwyneth Paltrow but she is more of a catalyst than a real player. Which puts us in the hands of Jude Law. I like what Law does here. He's a villain that's not really that villainous. More so the kind of blogger I try my best to distance myself with. In other words he's a narcissistic, arrogant arse of a human being. He comes to govern a strong shift in society to not trust the government with any task that influences their life. But more so than that he represents the lengths to which people will go to benefit from that mindset.

While it would be quick and easy to label the quality of Law and Damon's plots indicative of the overall quality of the film, one would forget the sheer number of half realized ideas floating about among all the other plot lines. That the aggregate quality of all the stories comes out positive does imply that in order to get the pudding you're going to have to deal with a few plain salads. A few stories which we might forgive their brevity due to their relative importance, but all the same often stumble about before they get to where they were going.

Soderbergh has a keen eye, and can create an environment for any story to thrive, but this one struggles to outweigh its lackluster moments. The monotone delivery of too many lines by too many actors who ought to know better doesn't bring things to life. It doesn't make the scenes more realistic. So he leaves us with the films few real emotional moments to hold onto. Reminders of what might have been.

Film Credits:
Directed By: Steven Soderbergh
Written By: Scott Z. Burns

The Uni and Leaves of Grass

Normally I like to do proper reviews for films I watch. These usually consist of the generic format that I've installed, and honed over the last year (to better or worse results, that's entirely up to you).

Still, I find myself today feeling a bit peckish for absurdity and retaliation. The absurd peckish feelings most likely derives my distaste for monotony, which forever battles my mental gravitation towards monotony (I know, it's weird). The retaliation comes strictly from my desire to do an entire post (minus this introduction) in images out of spite for blogger not allowing images to be uploaded. 

So, without further ado, I give you Leaves of Grass, starring Edward Norton, written & directed by/co-starring Tim Blake Nelson through the varying emotions Uni experience while watching it (in chronological viewing order)

For those of you wondering -- Yes, I do morph into a different species of mammal every time I experience an emotion. Try thinking about that the next time you go and listen to a podcast I'm in. Who knows what animal I could be!

Oh, and for those of you who really care I'd give Leaves of Grass a 5/10.

Machete (2010)

MACHETE

DIRECTED BY: ROBERT RODRIGUEZ & ETHAN MANIQUIS

WRITTEN BY: ROBERT RODRIGUEZ & ALVARO RODRIGUEZ

OVERALL SCORE: 6.00/10

After being setup to take the fall during a hired hit on racist senator Charles McLaughlin (Robert De Niro), ex-Federale Machete (Danny Trejo) enacts vengeance on those behind the scenes. Meanwhile local illegal immigrant helper Luz (Michelle Rodriguez) must work with FBI Sartana (Jessica Alba) to help deal with an impending race war.

---------------------------------------

Much in the same vein of last year's Black Dynamite, I found myself once again drawn to a film, if for no other reason than, for its desire to satire a section of filmmaking. Returning, on some level, to Grindhouse films (though this time, much notably more tame in style), Rodriguez creates an interesting, albeit underwhelming, world for our over the top hero to perform carnage in. And Carnage is exactly what we get.

Always with a sense of comical over the top antics, Rodriguez balances message, action, and style with a hint of that old school skill that helped make him a name. It's a start in the right direction, but a foreboding of what can go wrong if he swerves too far. For, as you might well imagine, Machete works as much in its favor as it does out of it.

When it's being ironic (pretty much every time Trejo is passed as a sex symbol) Machete is fun, upbeat, and amusing. When it's dealing with the message, Machete is short winded, and only barely manages to connect the dots. When dealing with its plot Machete just lets things happen for no particular reason and hopes for the best.

The characters are fun, but most of them are cardboard and disposable coming and going into what I can only imagine are magic time delay boxes when the plot sees fit. Though I'm sure you're saying, who cares about plot!? Well, I do, and since it's my review that's where I'm going. You see, Machete, no matter what else it does builds to one particular moment. It's hinted at in the commercials, and we all know its coming... and when it does. I believe we all know the saying going out with a whimper instead of a bang?

It's not that the scene is bad, it's done in a way meant to be amusing and cheesy. Rather, it's that there's just not much to it. You'd think with the talent involved that finale would be more grand, more intense, over the top, and out there. Despite a couple of scenes (a handful ripped right from the trailer) it never reaches there. It entertains, but fizzles quickly into the realm of the forgotten. A strong showing, just not a strong impact.

Worthy of your time for its ability to, at times, be hilarious, smart, and fun just long enough for the runtime to take its course.

If you can get into Machete without expecting too much in the realm of viable plot or intricate details you'll be able to find it entertaining for most counts. Still, despite its promise, and foundation, Machete never escapes its own desire for homage, and allows cheese to get the better of itself, keeping it from rising beyond mindless entertainment. No matter how well intention a mindless action film it might be.

The Town (2010)

THE TOWN

DIRECTED BY: BEN AFFLECK
WRITTEN BY: PETER CRAIG, BEN AFFLECK, & AARON STOCKARD
NOVEL BY: CHUCK HOGAN ("PRINCE OF THIEVES")
OVERALL SCORE: 7.50/10

Seasoned bank robbers, headed by Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck), run into trouble as MacRay begins to develop feelings for Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall), a bank manager they took hostage in their latest heist. Fearing what she may know MacRay must balance his hot-headed childhood friend James (Jeremy Renner) and a ever tightening grip of FBI investigators, headed by Agent Frawly (Jon Hamm).

"I'll see you again, on this side or the other."

Perhaps the most striking quality of The Town is its overwhelming ability to sell you on all of its various elements during the film's runtime. Make no mistake about it, Affleck's direction is top form, and it quite honestly has to be. I'm not saying the writing here is bad. In fact the dialogue is well formed, and like his debut, Gone Baby Gone, Affleck manages to blend morally ambiguous characters and plot points quite nicely. It's just that, when it comes to characters, the ones on display here aren't nearly as deep as they'd like to appear.

MacRay, whose warring moral conscious lay at the heart of the film, is handled with great heart by Affleck, but all too often the film self-justifies his actions, contradicting them here and there. Hall is a delight as Claire, but there's not enough back story, and time spent, for her relationship with MacRay to have developed to all it needed to be.

The real shining performances lay in the more supporting roles. Renner is the show stealer as James, bringing all the intensity and raw emotion lacking during some of the films finer moments. While Blake Lively steps up her game ten fold as Krista, the often ignored drug addict ex-girlfriend of MacRay's. Still leaving Postlewaithe being predictably awesome, and Hamm handling his role well enough, despite it being monotone.

What really saves, or perhaps better stated - creates, The Town is the direction. The carefully designed, and executed action/heist sequences. The smooth editing (minus the roadside diner conversation) intertwines the history and present of our crew of criminals brilliantly. Still maintaining an element of ambiguity that, while it tries to humanize these criminals, it seldom tries to justify them (just MacRay).

It wants you to care about them for who they are, both good and bad. It wants you to understand that with growing up in a certain community, comes the ideals of that community. That no matter how flawed they may be, they exist in the heart of these people, because that's what they know. It's the life they know, and it's the way they are. The Town does a wonderful job of capturing that societal truth, and while it may not always add up well, it presents it with great precision.

The Town makes up for its narrative woes with beautifully orchestrated shots, and direction. Utilizing both action and character moments to move the plot forward, all the while keeping enough to itself that it doesn't totally give way. It may not be quite as great as it could have been, but from start to finish it's worth every moment of your time.


Note: I've read a lot of commenters pointing out they don't wish to see it fearing the trailer gave away the entire movie. I can tell you it really doesn't give away anything unless you have the film's context. About 3/4 the commercial takes place in scenes from the first half of the film, most from the opening heist sequence.

The Red Riding Trilogy

In the Year of Our Lord - 1974:

Directed by: Julian Jarrold
Trilogy Written by: David Peace (novel) & Tony Grisoni

Grounded by a solid performance from Andrew Garfield, and a great supporting cast of Sean Bean, Eddie Marsan, and Rebecca Hall, 1974 is a beautifully shot introductory element to the trilogy. Setting the series in tone, and in narrative, it creates the starting point from which the other two films must follow.

The film's shining quality is how it blends plot, action, and character breakdown seamlessly. Capturing deep emotional struggles beneath, as each character tries to present their own uncaring to what's going on around them.

While it will provide some answers to the questions it presents, 1974 leaves you hooked, and begging for more. My one real complaint would lie in the middle in which the plot begins to drag before heading into a powerhouse of a finale. A finale which, quite honestly, saves the film several times over.

In the Year of Our Lord - 1980:
Directed By: James Marsh

In the context of the entire trilogy 1980 suffers from 3 problems. The first being that it is in many respects a stand alone story which provides some context which is later developed in the final installment. Secondly it lacks the beautiful imagery, and style, of the first and final installment. Lastly, there's just not enough depth there to make it gripping.

There's no hiding my enjoyment for watching Paddy Considine act, and here he brings some of his best acting to the forefront. As well you have lesser known British actors such as Sean Harris, Tony Pitts, Maxine Peake, and Warren Clarke stepping up to meet that level, giving 1980 one of the best all around performances of the trilogy.

1980 also benefits from having a rather quick paced plot with plenty going on. Lots of dealing with uncovering corruption, murder, and providing a bit of rounding out to some of the character's we've seen, but not known until now.

In the Year of Our Lord -1983:
Directed By: Anand Tucker

Perhaps the most visually surreal entry, 1983 does a brilliant job of tying together the loose ends left by 1974 and 1980. Linking the three films together in a story of redemption, and uncovering. Headlined by two strong performances by David Morrissey who spends the first two installments as a back ground character, and Mark Addy as a solicitor trying to prove the innocence of those accused of the lead in crimes.

Perhaps the most striking thing about 1983 is how those characters who merely served as background for the first two installments really come to light here. How much impact they really had on the plot development of the previous two films, and the crimes surrounding them. If nothing, I greatly enjoy how it all tied together, even if it isn't a perfect knot.

The only real issue I had with the plot lied in the heavy use of flashbacks. They were in many cases necessary, but not well blended, and towards the end it became hard to keep track of what time frame I was looking at. Luckily the placement of certain characters makes it a bit easier on the viewer.

--------------------------

As a whole you won't find many television movies as provocative, or indeed captivating, as this Red Riding trilogy. The acting is splendid throughout, and, while it never achieves an element of perfection, it certainly makes for a gripping weekend event.

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (2010)

PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME

DIRECTED BY: MIKE NEWELL
WRITTEN BY: BOAZ YAKIN, DOUG MIRO, & CARLO BERNARD
BASED ON THE VIDEO GAME BY: JORDAN MECHNER
OVERALL SCORE: 4.50/10

After the mysterious death of his adoptive father, the king of Persia, street orphan turned Prince, Dastan (Jake Gyllenhaal), finds himself being accused, and must flee his brothers quickly, in order to prove himself innocent.

------------------------------------------------------------------

The greatest flaw of Prince of Persia lies not with the directing, acting, or even its obviously better for a video game premise. Rather, it lies solely in the story. Prince of Persia's entire narrative is built on one simple belief: it has an ace in the hole ready to change everything the viewer things. That ace in the hole being, of course, time.

Only one problem: If you're over the age of 12, or have seen more than a handful of fantasy films, it's big ace in the hole ending is so blatantly obvious it pains the viewer to wait for it. And through all its action sequences, running, character development, and the like all I did was wait, and hope.

Hope that the writers had the good sense to adhere to their own story. That they wouldn't do what I so feared they would. Alas, they did go down that road... and bitter is the only lasting taste I can state.

I'm not a fan of the film's ending, to the point where its obviousness weakens any strength the leading elements may have possessed. Like a horrible poker player, Prince of Persia believe it's only teasing you by showing you one of its cards, not realizing that's basically shown you the entire hand. And when you seek to surprise in the end, showing too much is always a bad thing.

Though the journey must still count for something. Like The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects show, if the journey is well crafted, all can be enjoyed even if the ending is known. Here the journey is crafted with an incredible dedication to mediocrity. Flat characters (spray on tans galore), and dialogue that would make cheese seek to mold. Perhaps the one films real saving grace lies in the charisma of its leading actors.

They may not have been the right choices for the role, but they're the only thing that keeps the film afloat despite its insipid plot. Add to that a few creative fight sequences (some of which owe more than they'd care to admit to Indiana Jones) and you get a way to pass some time.

From the moment its key plot kicks in Prince of Persia drags its feet to an ending anyone can see coming, and to the detriment of the leading plot. Add to that a few too many spray on tans, and cheesy dialogue, and you'll find PoP is little more than a cheap summer flick layered with problems.

The Secret of Kells (2009)

THE SECRET OF KELLS

DIRECTED BY: TOMM MOORE & NORA TWOMEY
WRITTEN BY: FABRICE ZIOLKOWSKI
OVERALL SCORE: 6.75/10

As his uncle (Brendan Gleeson) builds a giant wall to protect his city's inhabitants, Brendan (Evan McGuire) sneaks out into the forbidden forest in order to help in the completion of the famed Book of Kells. Though on his adventures he befriends Aisling (Christen Mooney), one of the last remaining fairies.

"I've lived through many ages. I've seen suffering in the darkness. Yet I have seen beauty thrive in the most fragile of places. I have seen the book. The book that turns darkness into light." - Aisling

Visually stunning, maturely crafted, and wonderfully mystical, The Secret of Kells is an animated film I hate... because it's so damned close to being absolutely perfect. That's the best way I can sum up my reaction to Kells.

A collection of great moments, rushed together too quickly, leaving the backbone too frail (especially as the film sprints at epic pace to its ending). While the voice acting suffers from being dreadfully flat, a constant reminder it's only an animated film. Those two things are painful to admit, because I felt so much while watching the film that it was right there. Right on the cuff of greatness, and it just couldn't connect.

I say that noting the immense beauty of the film. The characters, especially Aisling, are captivating. Full of layers, complexity, and intrigue. The movie manages to be light hearted, and dark at the same time. The battle between Brandon and Crom Craunch towards the finale is perhaps one of the top animated scenes I've ever witnessed.

Perhaps that's what I would note most strongly about The Secret of Kells. It's great strengths lie in its unspoken sequences. I don't blame the general cast, most of which have never acted before, but I just felt so deprived given the depth taken in creating such a rich visual experience. Though that's not to say I don't wholeheartedly recommend the film to everyone who enjoys animated adventures.

There's a certain charm, and beauty, that allows the film to escape its lesser qualities. Constantly waring with itself to display its strengths. In the end, despite it all, it does manage to do that. Though perhaps not to the results we all so desperately desire, and the animation truly deserve.

Flat voice acting, and failure to support its plot with more arches, The Secret of Kells is an amazing visual feat, that barely escapes the down weight of its weaker elements.