Should Have Spent More Time Being it’s Namesake; Divergent, in Review

Many times on this site, I have gone back and forth on what I think a good book adaptation is. Honestly, I feel like if you are going to make a book into a film, I kind of expect you to make it your own. Stay true to the story but make it your own. If I want the story that is available in the book, then I’d rather use my imagination and read the book. But I guess that would be an “inspired by” situation and not an adaptation, such as Divergent.

In the distant future, a great war ravaged the United States and has left the entire country in an apocalyptic state. In a wall-in city that was once Chicago (the place of choice for destruction in literature now), a society of people have decided on a class system that keeps everything (and everyone) in order. People are divided into five subcategories, called factions: Abnegation (the selfless), Amity (the peaceful), Candor (the truthful), Erudite (the intelligent), and Dauntless (the brave).

Fast forward many years and Beatrice Prior (Shailene Woodley), the daughter of an Abnegation government official, is preparing to take the test that will suggest what faction she should join. But when her test reveals that she doesn’t fit into any of the factions, called Divergent, she is warned not to tell anyone and to choose the faction she comes from. Will Beatrice carve her own path or stay in Abnegation during a turbulent time for the factions.

I’ve read all three books in the Divergent series, which I enjoyed far more than most young adult fantasy books that have been coming out lately, including The Hunger Games. Maybe the final book in the series, Allegiant, fell flat but still enjoyable all the same. So you would think with this great source material, Summit Entertainment could produce a real competitor for Katniss Everdeen…

But instead of trying to carve its own path, Divergent decides not to be divergent at all. Instead it has been branded, marketed, and filmed as “the next Hunger Games” when it should have tried being original or more faithful to the source material.

Potentially this film could have been both edgy and grown up, but instead decides to play it safe. Why director Neil Burger stays so complacent for a film about being different and revolution is beyond me. I’m not saying R-rated violence or substance is needed, but I none-the-less find it distracting when someone gets a bullet wound and nothing comes out. When did the young adult genre get redefined and overtaken by pubescent preteens?

The standout performance comes from Kate Winslet, which is a bit sad because Shailene Woodley should be the strongest of the bunch. I’m not saying miss Woodley is not strong or puts forth a good performance, but I maintain that she isn’t the best choice for this role. What young actress would have been stronger, though? I can’t really say. Maybe Emma Watson? Regardless, there is a certain amount of verve that is missing for this strong and feminine character. But much to my surprise, I actually enjoyed Theo James as Four/Tobias. That is when he is not attempting to let his English accent stray into whatever androgynous accent he was aiming for.

*Spoilers in this next paragraph. Be thee warned.

As for the rest of the cast, they are mostly forgettable. This really is not their fault though. Again, the fault lies with straying from a strong character-driven story with plenty of action to a film focused more so on the action. This leaves the viewer with murky relationships and without fully understanding the characters. So when Will is gunned down by  Tris, you really don’t feel anything because you don’t really feel any connection to the character. Or when Al kills himself by diving into the chasm, you don’t really feel sorry for the lad. Or who even remembers what happened to Edward.

There was a lot of potential here. And a lot of it was wasted. Where there could have been a new king over the YA genre; instead it is just a forgettable foot soldier.

Verdict: Rent it!

*Rated PG-13/ UK: 12A for intense violence and action, thematic elements, and some sensuality. 139 minutes. Directed by Neil Burger (The Illusionist, Limitless).

**Thanks to my friend Cody for seeing this with me.

I Saw A Film Today… Her

Why do I love movies? It is something I know but can’t explain. It is something that is constantly evolving and morphing in definition. A good film will transform you I believe, make you a more whole person or give you a new outlook on the purpose of life. You have to experience them completely the way the filmmaker intended you to. You have to blindly jump head first into the unknown abyssal beginning and let it encompass your whole being for two hours until the credits roll.

Maybe that makes me odd, that films affect me and shape me like that. I can see the glazing eyes and draining interest when trying to talk to a “normal” person about some symbolism or interpretation in something I recently saw. It’s uncomfortable and embarrassing mostly, but what parts of anyone’s life are not really?

I guess to tie this up neatly, we all have personal philosophies. For some it comes from a singular source. Some many. Some well founded. Many dangerous. But they are our philosophies. They are why we live, why we love, why we hate, why we lift ourselves up in the morning.  Mine happens to be movies. I live for movies. And I live for movies like Her.

In a slightly distant future Los Angeles, Theodore Twombly (joaquin Phoenix) makes his living writing personal letters for people who have trouble articulating emotions. Outside of his job, Theodore is an introverted man still having trouble getting over the split from his wife Catherine (Rooney Mara).

Looking for something that will lift him from his slump, Theodore get an OS- an artificially intelligent operating system. His system is named Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson), and they both quickly fall in love with each other.

The idea to make a film of a man falling in love with, basically, a phone app is quite a bold concept. But I was admittedly puzzled when talking with many people before it came out. They scoffed at that concept, someone falling in love with technology. But it’s not really all that strange if you think about it. Think of that one person you know who constantly is buried in a smart phone or tablet- is it so implausible that a human could fall in love with technology in an intimate way?

What really made this madly enjoyable film work is that director Spike Jonze simultaneously makes you recognize the hurdles of loving an artificial life and making you forget that Samantha is artificial at all. She is as real to the audience as she is to Theodore. The nakedness of sharing. The joy of a kiss. The electricity of the first time skin touches skin. The insecurity of staleness. The sadness of distance. The abandoned tundra of loss. Jonze breathes a quirk and irresistible smile or frown into these facets of the life experiment of love.

The cast of this film, which if broken down into a pie chart, the majority of the circle would be Joaquin Phoenix. A smaller portion would be Scarlett Johansson’s voice. And an even smaller portion would be miscellaneous other fair-skinned people (you’d really think there would be less white people, eh?) such as brilliant ladies Rooney Mara and Amy Adams. The chemistry between Phoenix and Johansson, as previously mentioned, is the magic of the film. Phoenix has now fully stepped out of the madness of the I’m Still Here era of his career, which is nice to see honestly.

Her is a truly great love film, one that reminds of Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation, and just as good.

Verdict: See it!

*Rated R/UK:15 for language, sexual content, and brief graphic nudity. 126 minutes. Directed by Spike Jonze (Where the Wild Things Are, Being John Malkovich).

** Poster by Vero Navarro (unconfirmed).

*** Thanks to my friend Cody for screening this with me.

I Saw A Film Today… Twelve Years A Slave

It needs to be noted that recently my laptop ceased to operate. Which, to be fair, the thing did boot up a year longer than I expected it to. But regardless of the longevity of my previous mediocre laptop, it does leave me in a sticky spot. That little Compaq CQ whatever was my primary/only way of running this website, as infrequent as it was at times. And it looks like it may be a little while before I would feel comfortable with my finances to purchase a new one. With all that under consideration, running this website will for the foreseeable future be difficult to run, but I will continue to do so. So now that we’ve dealt with that business, onward we march.

Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a free black man in 1840’s Saratoga Springs, New York. While his wife is away, Solomon accepts a job playing the fiddle from two white men. After having a drink with the men one night, he awakens the next morning chained to the floor of a cell. It takes little time for Solomon to come to the terrifying realization that he has been robbed of his freedom.

As a Slave, Solomon is transferred around the South to many plantation owners. He first stays with benevolent William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) who eventually must transfer his debt to violent and vicious cotton plantation owner Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender). As the years pass, Solomon comes to terms that he may spend the rest of his life as a slave, but can a Canadian laborer (Brad Pitt) change his future?

Twelve Years A Slave is probably the starkest and most honest portrayals of the horrors of slavery in the Southern United States during that point in time. But the brilliance of Steve McQueen is he handles these matters and moments of brutality with care and grace. For what Roman Polanski’s The Pianist exploited the horrors of Jewish oppression in Europe during World War ll, McQueen has done the same for blacks in the 1800’s.

But where Polanski liked to use gory and shock value, McQueen displays instances of brutality with both truth and class. Yes, there are plenty of moments of pure squirm-inducing agony and pain, but he makes it feel manageable for the viewer. Makes watching the film easy to watch, as if these things are not out-of-place. Which is more terrifying than any outright gore could accomplish.

One of the complaints I’ve heard from some white critics and movie goers is that this film is “anti-climatic”, which is udder bollocks to be blunt with you. Spoiler here for those without deductive skills when it comes to films title, Solomon Northup becomes a free man again after being a slave for twelve years. A man who is free and to be stripped of that to only fight his way back to his freedom is far from anti-climatic. The climax, the tight shot of Solomon being taken away from the Epps farm, was such a release that brought tears rolling my eyes, unashamedly. I’m sorry that there is no nugget of redemption for white people here, but then again this film is not about you. Shocker, I know.

This notion of anti-climatism also made me ponder why certain white American Southerners have paid admission to see this film. To note, in my rural area of west Tennessee, Twelve Years hasn’t been a big seller. Maybe the audiences made treks to nearby Memphis theaters that were playing this film weeks before my local was screening it. But regardless, I noticed nearly half the people who went to see it were old, white people. Which, I wonder cautiously, what their intent is in seeing it. Are they genuinely interested in the subject or do they have some morbidly sick lust to see slaves being beaten and abused?

Maybe this notion is farfetched. As a white man, there are things I will probably never understand about oppression the way others will or have. But then again, I do daily see the still bent and corrupted southern culture that likes to project itself as “courteous” and “sophisticated”. People like to relish about all the rosy “virtues” of being a southerner, but when you bring up the blemishes and scars of history the reaction is always the same. A little “Dammit man, it happened. Let’s just forget about it” or a “What are they complaining about now?” always seems to crop up.

Nearly all the performers in this work are Oscar-worthy. Michael Fassbender is unflinchingly brutal and down right terrifying at times. His chess match with the brilliant Chiwetel Ejiofor is a terse exchange to behold. Newcomer Lupita Nyong’o is great as Patsey, the subject of most of the abuse in this film. I look forward to seeing more of this young woman, as long as she doesn’t take some stupid rom-com role which seems to happen so often to freshmen. The supporting cast, if it is even right to call the talents of Benedict Cumberbatch, Brad Pitt, Paul Dano, Paul Giamatti, Alfre Woodard, and Scoot McNairy supporting, are great as well.

Ultimately, McQueen’s Twelve Years A Slave will be remember for it’s view on American Southern slavery, but what may be overlooked is the central theme of this film. Survival. The lengths one is willing to go for what seems an impossible hope. Now that’s what makes a good film great.

Verdict: See it.

*Rated R for violence/cruelty, some nudity, and brief sexuality. 133 minutes. Directed by Steve McQueen (Shame, Hunger).

** Thanks to my friends Cody and Monica for seeing this with me.

*** Poster by Daniel Norris.

I Saw A Film Today… Prisoners

There are a few things that I could talk about here. I could talk about how Jake Gyllenhaal’s appearance on Inside the Actors Studio was probably one of my favorite episodes to date. I could talk about how at the very moment I am typing this The Morning Thunder Buffalo has now turned four years old. But I’m going to talk about how during my screening of Prisoners there were two people trying to have an intimate exchange of body fluids (hint: it wasn’t saliva). I mean, who wants to get freaky while a film about child abduction is unfolding on a giant screen? Or, for that matter, who wants to have sex at a theater at all? I clean theaters on the weekend and they are nasty at times. Well, most of the time- we, as Americans, are pretty lazy when it comes to cleaning up our messes in public places. But, back on track, I just don’t see the appeal of getting tobacco spit and half a Snickers bars stuck to my nethers for a bit of in-and-out. Top tip:  If your lover want to explore your pumpkin patch in a theater, move along to another farmer. Now, let’s talk about some kidnapping.

On Thanksgiving day, Keller and Grace Dover (Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello) are having dinner at their friends, The Birches (Viola Davis, Terrance Howard). While recovering from gorging themselves, the two families realize that their young daughters are nowhere to be found. After their son recalls a strange RV being parked near their house, a man hunt for the vehicle quickly leads to the arrest of Alex Jones (Paul Dano), a young man with the intelligence of ten-year-old.

After Alex is let go because of lack of evidence, Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) is put on the case. But when desperation settles into the being of Mr. Dover, he decides to take the investigation into his own hands. While both men have a lot of questions, once they begin digging they soon find the unsettling answers that accompany them.

Prisoners, in all meaning of the word and without any misconceptions, is a thriller. And coincidentally is one of the best films so far this year. I worried that a film that is 146 minutes long wouldn’t be able to legitimately keep a thrilling pace the entire time. But the magic of this film is that it knows how to pace itself. It has a steady beat most of the time but when the action need a kick, it delivers. This contrast makes for an intense and true edge-of-your-seat experience.

This film is also intelligent, another aspect that has been absent from films under this genres banner. The script is sparse on dialogue at times, and thankfully so. It keeps your attention because you actually have to pay attention to the details. So yeah, you have to stop checking Facebook every five minutes on your phone to keep up with the plot. Trust me, Aunt Marcy’s staph infection photos will still be there after the movie. Sadly, I might add.

The only flaw I really noticed with the film is its ending. No, not the last forty seconds of the film, which some could find annoying where others find brilliance. I mean the last fifteen to twenty minutes. Everything seems to wrap up and connect a little to easily and conveniently.  To note, I don’t believe it takes anything away from the film. I just think it would be more interesting if a few things were left unanswered.

The performances in this film are masterful. In an already varied and impressive resume, this is the standout performance of Jake Gyllenhaal’s career. Detective Loki is methodical, impulsive, and smart, and Gyllenhaal fully embodies this man. The mystery surrounding him is what draws you in. To the opposite of him is a man who makes it very clear what he wants. Hugh Jackman is a bloody mad man in this film, hellbent, irrational, and a force that is the heartbeat of the film. And with a supporting cast as strong as Viola Davis, Paul Dano, Terrance Howard, Melissa Leo, Maria Bello, and young underrated actor David Dastmalchian, You really can’t do much better in modern cinema.

Prisoners is a highly appropriate title for this film, as everyone in it is a prisoner to something. It’s simply a great film, one that demands to be watched again, not because of its complexities, but because of its brilliant execution.

Verdict: See it!

*Rated R for disturbing violent content including torture, and language throughout. 146 minutes. Directed by Denis Villeneuve (Incendies).

** Thanks to my friend Cody for seeing this with me.

I Saw A Film Today… The Perks of Being A Wallflower

High school, for most people, is a pretty hellish experience. The people in your age group are your heaviest, vocal, and most brutal critics of every thing you ever do. Mix that with the pains of a growing body and a growing sexual and emotional attraction to another, it’s a bloody confusing time of life, often embarrassing. Well, my experience was anyways. That’s why it’s a bit sad that Hollywood has rarely got this experience correct in the so-called coming-of-age film. These films promise the anguish most go through, yet it usually results in some candy coated version or overly dramatic. Thankfully, author and now director Stephen Chbosky’s The Perks of Being A Wallflower sheds most of that coating.

Charlie (Logan Lerman) is about to nervously begin his freshmen year of high school somewhere in the North-East of America. With heavy baggage in the form of family dysfunction and the recent loses of his friend and his Aunt Helen (Melanie Lynskey), Charlie struggles to make friends other than his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd).

But eventually Charlie is befriended by brother/sister duo Sam (Emma Watson) and Patrick (Ezra Miller). Patrick is a quirky gay teen senior who is secretly having a relationship with the quarterback of the football team (Future drama bomb? You bet). Sam is a sweet girl who was once a big party-goer but now less so. Immediately Charlie develops a crush on her.

The two siblings show Charlie a world he has never experienced before. They introduce him to new music, drugs, and other friends who in turn introduce him to sex. Oh, and they also introduce him to the supposed wonders of The Rocky Horror Picture Show. But with this new life, new troubles and haunting images from his past plague him.

The Perks of Being A Wallflower is a rare gem in the way that it is a frank and broad look at the highs and hells of high school. The brush stroke is wide here, ranging from the joys of friendship to the horrors of childhood issues and nearly everything in between. That is quite an accomplishment for a film in this peppered genre of hits and (mostly) misses. But it is not invulnerable to some of the stereotypes and melodrama that are hallmarks of the high school film unfortunately. Perks retains some of the after school special aspects, which lost its appeal in the late 90’s.

I think the greatest contribution to the pacing and success of this film is that Stephen Chbosky took the helm of the director’s chair. Who better to direct this material than the man who created it? After seeing this film I read Chobsky’s much hailed epistolary novel and there really isn’t much difference between the two. Things that were changed were for the betterment of the film and things emitted were mostly unimportant to the story. A faithful reproduction, to say the least.

Logan Lerman is so self-deprecating and fresh in this role as Charlie, which is basically the definition of the average teen, right? It’s quite a growing-up role for the Percy Jackson actor. He evokes sadness and virgin intrigue so effortlessly. Ezra Miller, hot off his stellar performance in We Need to Talk About Kevin, is brilliant. The troubles a gay teen faces, one in the 90’s no less, are portrayed effortlessly portrayed by him. The rejection, the pain, and ridicule are all on display, and Miller never holds back.

Emma Watson disrobes of her Hogwarts uniform and sultrily steps in the role of Sam. She is friendly, caring, but has a past that she is trying to recover from. The character is supposed to be the free spirit, and Watson is. The supporting cast is great too. Paul Rudd puts his signature leisurely manner to work here as Charlies mentor. Scott Pilgrim alums Johnny Simmons and Mae Whitman also do well as the love interest opposite of Lerman and Miller.  Joan Cusack and Tom Savini even make appearances.

I fell in love with Perks. It’s honesty is what has drawn me towards it. Not shying from common “peer pressures” gives life. The examination of a serious mental issue and feelings of inadequacy are main points. Few coming-of-age films truly feel like you’re experiencing someone coming of age. But the three main performers are in their own separate ways coming of age in this film.

Verdict: See it!

*Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material, drug and alcohol use, sexual content including references, and a fight- all involving teens (Really, teen fighting is a rating? Alrighty then MPAA). 102 minutes.

**Perks of Being A Wallflower is available on home media February 12th.

I Saw A Film Today… The Hunger Games

The book or the film? It is a question that has plagued cinemas forever. Really it’s a catch-22 situation. If you read the book, your expectation of the movie will not be met because someone else doesn’t have the vision or imagination as you do. Characters, scenery, and architecture are not what you expect. But the problem with seeing the film before reading the book is all imagination is gone. When you read you will only see what you saw in the film. And to not use your imagination in this way is very sad indeed. But with almost all things, there are always exceptions.

******

Years after a war has devoured what we know as North America, 16-year-old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) lives in the Appalachia coal town known as District 12. In a barbaric tradition that started after the war, anyone from the ages of 12 to 18 must put their name in a lottery that will decide if they are to participate in the Hunger Games.

The Games are an event held every year that pits 24 teens, one boy and one girl from each of the 12 districts, to fight to the death until there is only one victor. And when Katniss’ younger sister is chosen to participate, Katniss instead takes her place by volunteering.

Katniss is joined by Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and their mentor Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson) in the journey to the capital to meet with the other competitors and prepare for the Games. Then the time comes. Let the Games begin!

Going in to The Hunger Games, I didn’t really know what to expect from it. My knowledge of Suzanne Collins’ novel was less than my description above. But I was thoroughly thrilled with what this film offered. It was a story that could have easily been a straight-forward action film with no plot. Thankfully, the crew behind the film stayed faithful to the source material (or at least that’s what many of the people who have read the book have told me). It has action but really it’s more about teenagers growing up under extreme circumstances.

Originally I did take issue with how the film was shot. And to a certain extent, I still do. Gary Ross’ shaky camera approach works for some scenes, but for the action sequences they just don’t. It was too extreme and ultimately illegible. Did he do this to keep a PG-13 rating or did he genuinely think this would be the best look?

Another problem I hadwas how slow this film started. This normally isn’t a problem but in this slow period not a whole lot is accomplished. They dwell a long time on the training for the games without really accomplishing or learning anything new. You learn very little about most of the other competitors other than the blond guy is going to be a challenge to defeat. And I also wasn’t crazy on the ending. Almost feels like instead of an original ending, they decided to go the easy route.

Young Jennifer Lawrence has a bright future ahead of her. Her performance is very good. She may show weakness in the more emotional scenes but that’s the charm of her I believe. Her innocence is her charm. Josh Hutcherson does well enough as well. Maybe not as skilled as Lawrence but near the end of the film he really takes control of his character.

The supporting cast is great as well.  Woody Harrelson is, well, good ole’ Woody. The ways he slurs his words and casual demeanor are him at his best. I’ve never been much of a fan of Lenny Kravitz’s music but there might be a future for him in acting. Another surprise performance was from little Amandla Stenberg as Rue.

I found The Hunger Games to be a thoroughly good film. Then again this film is a little more for fans of the books than me. Which is good because most of the fans have reacted positively to it. Not to say there are not one or two people whingeing out there.

Verdict: SEE IT!

*Rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material (nice wording, eh?) and disturbing images- all involving teens.

**Poster by Adam Juresko

I Saw A Film Today… 50/50

Seth Rogen has been in a comedy where he was the friend of a person with cancer before 50/50. That movie was called Funny People and it was bloody horrible. With a cast such as Leslie Mann, Adam Sandler, and Rogen you would think different. Well, Sandler maybe not. But it was just dull and not funny. Now I’m hoping that Rogen can redeem himself with this film.

******

Adam (Joseph Gordan- Levitt) is a regular young man for the most part. He has a schlubby best friend Kyle (Rogen) and a snarky, arty girlfriend Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard). He has a good job at a radio station. But this all changes when he goes to the doctor and learns that he has a rare form of cancer on his spine.

While still being confused about this point in his life, Adam does his best to embrace it. He and Kyle try using his illness to pick up women after Rachael is caught cheating on him. And he has also developed a good system of people to surround him. He has Kyle. He has his neurotic mother (Anjelica Huston). He has his psychiatrist, Katie (Anna Kendrick). And when receieving his chemotherapy, he has two older gents (Phillip Baker Hall, Matt Frewer) who can score great medical weed.

But the closer Adam get’s to his surgery, the more the pressure starts to get to him. Will his friends be able to keep him together before the big day?

50/50 is an oddly heartwarming film, and not in the Terms of Endearment sense. I’m not saying I know from experience the trials of cancer, but I’m guessing this is an accurate depiction of the process. I say this considering this is based on the experiences of Will Reiser, who is the writer of the movie and experienced cancer firsthand.

The film, although quite hilarious, has it’s fair share of serious and dramatic moments. But unlike most other dramedies, these moments don’t seem forced onto you. They come off naturally and genuinely necessary to the mood of the film.

Joseph Gordan-Levitt is quite good in this film. It’s probably one of the best performances of his career in fact. His comedic timing is near perfection, as was his highly dramatic moments. Seth Rogen is okay I guess. He has his moments but it’s nothing you haven’t seen before really. His overly enthused fuel that has been the staple of all his performances is in full display here. In truth, it’s his tamer moments that were his best.

Anna Kendrick is also really good. She is perfectly cast as Adam’s uptight psychiatrist. Bryce Dallas Howard is fantastic as well, although in the future I would just like to see her play a role where she doesn’t play the mean girl. As for the supporting cast, mostly everyone is great with Anjelica Huston being the exception. It was quite nice to see Matt Frewer and Phillip Baker Hall cut loose with Gordan- Levitt and Rogen. And Adam’s dad (portrayed by Serge Houde) may have had a minimal presence in the film, but he does it so well that it is worth mentioning.

50/50 takes everything that Funny People meant to do and then does it. Not only does it but does it fantastically.

Verdict: SEE IT!

*Poster by Jesse Payne

I Saw A Film Today… Moneyball

Baseball is a sport filled with heartbreak like no other. Sure there are plenty of great moments but at the end of those great moments is someone else with a broken heart. Just ask any Red Sox fans. Especially during this time of the year when playoffs are right around the corner. While seeing Moneyball, I was receiving disappointing text message updates about how my team the Atlanta Braves were throwing away any chance of clinching the wild card (And as we know now, this is reality). But I’m not here to reflect on the Braves but on the story of Billy Beane and his underdog Athletics and how they changed the game of baseball.

******

Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) is the General Manager of the Oakland Athletics and his team just lost to the New York Yankee’s in the postseason. Now Billy is tasked with trying to replace three key players on his team with a third of the budget of a big team, such as the Yankees.

While on a recruiting trip in Cleveland, Billy meets Peter Brand (the now extinct chubby Jonah Hill). Peter has radical ideas about how to change the game of baseball is soon hired by Beane. Together the two start recruiting new players based on certain statistics instead of other more uncertain aspects.

But with anything new, Beane’s new theory is not met with open arms. Many in his own organization think he is putting their jobs in jeopardy, especially the team’s manager, Art Howe (Phillip Seymour Hoffman). With Beane’s job on the line, is the risk worth it?

Most sports film are meant for some form of inspiration. From Rocky to Rudy, the main thesis of these films is to show the underdog become the man on top. Moneyball does this as well, in a sense. Billy Beane goes from a man looked down upon in his own clubhouse to a man being offered $12.5 million by the Boston Red Sox. No doubt, Beane changed how baseball players are drafted now, but is it a good thing? On the one hand yes, but on the other not really.

Moneyball is a really engaging film, even though the opening 20 minutes or so are just a bit dull. It doesn’t have to completely do with the story, it’s just shot in such a mundane way. But it is an engaging film none-the-less for those who enjoy the inner working of the sport, just as The Social Network was for people who wanted to know the behind the scenes workings of Facebook. And using actual footage from the season instead of reenacting most of  it was a nice touch. But would someone who doesn’t follow baseball really be interested in this film? I’m guessing not.

Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill put in great performances here and really are the heart and soul of the film. To my surprise they both work together really well. Pitt has one of the best performances in his career because of how naturally he portrayed the role. I’ve always found Jonah Hill to be a talented actor but one who has never taken a good role. I’m glad the people behind this film took a chance on him. As for the rest of the cast, they are fine but nothing memorable. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is good but under-utilized.

I liked Moneyball, but there were many things stopping me from really liking it. The whole film could have been trimmed down by 15 to 30 minutes. But if you are a fan of baseball and interested in how we play baseball today, you will enjoy this film.

Verdict: SEE IT!

*Poster by Hunter Langston

Comments? Opinions? Leave them below.

I Saw A Film Today… The King’s Speech

Not hours after seeing The King’s Speech, I came across an article in The Guardian discussing falsehoods in the above film. Basically the article is the writer nitpicking about tiny problems with Timothy Spall’s portrayal of Winston Churchill. Is this article going to dash any hope this film had at the Oscar’s this year? No, but it does mark the beginning of what I call “award politics”. That time when all films are put under the microscope by many and critiqued over any small detail. But this site was not created for politics, it was created to celebrate accomplishments in film. And with that, lets dive in to the inspiring story of King George VI.

*********************

Prince Albert, The Duke of York (Colin Firth) is asked to give the closing speech at the closing of the 1925 Empire Exhibition at Wembley Stadium. A task that is difficult for Albert because he has since childhood had a speech impediment. Needless to say, his speech is disastrous.

After many failed speech therapy sessions, the future king has given up any hope. His wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) has not and decides to visit one more therapist. Who she meets is an unorthodox Australian Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). Initially resistant to Logue’s ways, Albert soon warms to him.

As the sessions between Albert and Logue are going on, so are many other issues. After the death of King George V (Michael Gambon) and his brother Edward (Guy Pearce) abdicates from the throne, Albert has now become King George VI. And with the war with Germany looming the king will have to give speeches. Has the sessions with Logue paid off?

On the surface The King’s Speech is a film about a man overcoming his stammering. But when you dig deeper you realize it’s a story about a man’s troubled childhood. Although Albert lived a privileged life, he lived a life where any form of “imperfection” was abolished or punished for. An example of this is when Albert was young he was left-handed. But since it would have been looked down upon, his parents had him switch.

The film certainly does stand out from the other Academy Award choices this year and may just be this years Best Picture choice. It’s use of fish-eye lenses gives you the claustrophobic feeling that I’m sure most with speech impediments feel. Although the film could have been all serious and straight forward, it instead has a bit of comedy in it as well. This includes a humorous bit between Firth and Rush and the use of those words we consider inappropriate.

The cast that make up this film is a fantastic group of English thespians. All are well-known, from Colin Firth to Timothy Spall. The banter and connection between Firth and Rush is great and one of the best features of this film.  And Helena Bonham-Carter is nothing short of spectacular, proving once again that she does not need Tim Burton films to shine.

The King’s Speech is just a great film all around, whether it be the great acting or the great story. If it happens to be playing in your area and you have not seen it, try to make the effort to catch a showing.

Verdict: SEE IT!

Any thoughts? Opinions? Leave them below.

I Saw A Film Today… Life As We Know It

I dislike Katherine Heigl. It is not because if I were to ask any tween on the street what Gray’s Anatomy is, they would reply “Like, O.M.G, I love that show!” instead of “a revolutionary medical book from the 1850’s”. Okay, maybe that does annoy me a bit. But I really don’t think she’s a good actress. All of her roles are the same and nothing sets her apart from other actresses. She’s always the cold, career determined single woman with a high voice. But after seeing thirty minutes of Life As We know It while on break at work, I decided to give this film a watch.

*********************

Holly (Heigl) and Messer (Josh Duhamel) don’t get along. They met on a disastrous blind date set up by their friends Peter and Alison that did not even last five minutes. The only reason they still have any form of contact is because they are the godparents of Peter and Alison’s daughter, Sophie.

But when Peter and Alison suddenly die in a car crash, Holly and Messer abruptly learn that the parents named them Sophie’s legal guardians in the event of such a situation. The two must learn to put each others differences aside and quickly learn how to be parents. But can they? Will their careers interfere? Will bills and finances build up?

Life As We Know it is a rather formulaic romantic drama but it was a better one than I have seen in a long time. It was well written and well acted. Even though Katherine Heigl does play the stereotype I mentioned above in this film, she does it better than ever and for once I had sympathy for her character. Josh Duhamel is also a joy to watch.

This film has some problems, such as pacing. Coming in at an hour and fifty-five minutes, there were a few scenes that could have been cut or trimmed down. And the supporting cast, with the exception of  Josh Lucas, was a stereotype from previous romantic films.

Even with these problems, Life As We Know It has a lot going for it. It has a soul that is missing with other films in the same genre. If you are looking for a good romantic comedy/drama, then check out this movie as a matinée or with loved one.

Verdict: SEE IT!

So have you seen Life As We Know It? What did you think? Leave your comments and opinions below.