Moneyball

by Stewart Smith on March 7, 2012

Moneyball posterNerds like me are usually turned off by movies like this, because they appear to be entirely sports based. I mean, I personally show little interest in basketball or football, so I always tend to avoid these sorts of films. I realized from watching this, however, that there are several quite important sports movies out there including Field of Dreams, Pride of the Yankees and Rocky.

Why? Because a lot of these movies have an inspirational story of determination, victory and defeat with highly powerful emotion that is quite often true to life. In fact, many sports movies don’t necessarily require more than a basic knowledge of the sport to enjoy.

Director Bennett Miller’s Moneyball is no different. It tells the true story of Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), General Manager for the 2001 Oakland Athletics, a failing Major League Baseball team on a low budget. In a last ditch attempt to regain status, he hires fresh-out-of-Yale graduate Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), who uses a statistical formula to assess players instead of basing choice on popularity or other forms of bias.

Although Moneyball is a “sports movie,” the players themselves are considered minor, and the primary focus is on the general manager and the economics of the game. Speaking of which, I also considered this a learning opportunity as to the way the sports business is run.

I considered the acting to be an emotional masterpiece. Brad Pitt portrays Billy as a desperate man with a regretful past who tries to place his feelings last – a situation unhealthy both physically and socially. Jonah Hill plays a serious role as Peter Brand, a character who lacks confidence throughout the beginning of the film, but gains it over time and becomes a sort of advisor to Billy during tough times.

All in all, this movie was a worthwhile experience. It is essentially a baseball movie, but it is less about baseball than business. And for that, I give it a far more positive review.

Age Recommendation: 12+. There is some intense language, but I think the larger issue is whether or not a child will understand it.

Final Verdict: Drags on a little at parts, but kept me content throughout most of the film anyway. 8/10

Bookmark and Share

{ 1 comment }

Hugo

by Stewart Smith on February 20, 2012

Hugo posterWhen I was much smaller, I had a really good school librarian. She worked hard on her library, and you could tell that she loved her job. She would always be ready to give out book recommendations to her students, young and old, and would oversee weekly trips to the library for all classes, as well as watching over it during breaks and after school. Sadly, the year after I left the school, she was laid off. But I hear she is happy with her new school, so I wish her well.

One of her best book recommendations was The Invention of Hugo Cabret, by Brian Selznick. This book became the basis of the Oscar-nominated Hugo, directed by Martin Scorsese. The film adaptation was actually the most Academy Award-nominated film of 2011, with a total of 11 including Best Picture and Best Director.

The story revolves around a boy named Hugo (Asa Butterfield) who lives alone in a Paris train station. After his father dies in a fire, he is taken in by his uncle to help maintain the station clocks. After his uncle disappears, Hugo makes his living by winding the clocks, and stealing food and parts to help him finish a secret project that he and his father had worked on. Threatened with being sent to the orphanage by the Station Inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), he is caught stealing by shopkeeper (Ben Kingsley) and his daughter (Chloë Grace Moretz).

When I saw that this piece of my childhood was being made into a film, I was, as would be expected, scared to death. When a book is made into a movie, especially those made for children, the quality often suffers. An example is The Tale of Despereaux, which changed the book to suit a terrible movie, an absolutely horrendous decision.

What worried me the most was the prospect of losing the book’s artwork. The book is famous because it is told almost entirely through a storyboard-like series of black & white sketches. What movie could replace such beautiful drawings?

Our librarian was equally worried. So much so that she called up the studio to request they make it in black & white. They disagreed. After all, who could make a successful movie like that?

However, the book’s artwork seemed to greatly influence the cinematography. Although not in black & white, the film makes creative use of the camera and of CGI to create incredible landscape shots of scenes like the train station. This was absolutely wonderful for me, because instead of cringing while watching a movie based on a book, I actually felt nostalgic.

I won’t give away what then happens, but the film is a tribute to French filmmaker Georges Méliès and his special effects. Speaking of special effects, the movie was filmed in 3D, which was surprisingly immersive.

Hugo‘s director is the legendary Martin Scorsese, who is known for usually making much darker and violent movies such as Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Shutter Island, Gangs of New York and The Departed – for which he won the Oscar for Best Director in 2007. He said that he was inspired to make Hugo by his 12 year-old daughter and his desire to see the world through “the imagination and Creativity of a child.”

Age Recommendation: There’s no bad language or graphic violence in the movie, so I would let kids of all ages see it, if they want to. Of course, do have them read the book, too, will you?

Final Verdict: The plot was a bit weak, and felt a little kiddish. The 3D visuals were excellent. But the movie faces a lot of competition at the Oscars this year. Still, I’m giving it 8/10, which isn’t bad.

Hugo a received Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Achievement in Art Direction, Cinematography, Costume Design, Film Editing, Adapted Screenplay, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Original Score, and of course, Visual Effects.

Bookmark and Share

{ 3 comments }

The Artist

by Stewart Smith on February 17, 2012

The Artist posterThe Artist is one of the nine movies in line for the Academy Award for Best Picture. It is also in the race for Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Directing, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, and Best Original Screenplay…  And it’s silent!

You heard me right. Apart from the excellent music score, the movie is silent throughout…  Oh, and it’s in black & white!

I bet some of you out there are saying, “So why does it deserve all these nominations? Surely the 1920s’ format is just some sort of gimmick!”

Well, as a matter of fact, it isn’t.

Let’s look at a few of these nominations individually. First up is Best Original Screenplay. The story starts out in the middle of a silent movie theater. From there we watch an actor in a torture scene. This displays the idea of a silent theater’s appeal to the common audience. As the movie within a movie progresses, we see the reactions of the crowd as the prisoner tries to make his escape. We then cut behind the scenes, watching the actors and producers all hanging around on the other side of the screen.

When the film ends, the lead actor, George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) walks out onto the stage. He is supposed to bow and make way for the leading actress, but instead he hogs the spotlight and displays tricks with his trained stage dog, Uggie. (Who is, by the way, a giant hit with the real life press.)  This shows how much George adores his job, and how much he loves to be the center of attention.

George has a chance meeting with a young would-be actress and dancer Peppy Miller (Bérénice Bejo) and helps her get a part in his new film.

A few years later, sound in movies is invented, unwilling to make the leap to the “talkies,” George is fired and Peppy takes over the spotlight. Faced with a crisis of purpose, we follow George’s desperate attempts to cling to his old life as he falls into a spiral of depression. Certainly a movie with such deep emotion hand-carved into its surface must receive due recognition.

The movie may be in a silent format, but being in such a form allows the audience to focus on some things more frequently put on secondary priority, including cinematography and music. The camerawork in The Artist is exquisite. It both captures the feel of an old-time movie, and uses modern technology to create a sharper picture and more dynamic transitions. Although a French production, the movie was shot on location here in Los Angeles and is a real homage to old Hollywood.

The music in The Artist is absolutely riveting. Because movies lacked sound in the 1920s, they often provided music from an orchestra stationed below the stage. This means that the clearest way filmmakers had to display emotion was through a good score. And this one takes the cake. I am certain that this will win the Oscar for Best Original Score for its powerful and beautiful masterpiece of a soundtrack by composer Ludovic Bource.

Now let’s look at the Lead Actor and Supporting Actress. Another thing that a lack of talking requires is emotion. This is what all the cameras and composers worked so hard to supplement. The difference between a “talkie’s” emotion and that of a silent movie is that in a “talkie” a sad man can just say, “I am feeling sad,” and that is the end of it. With a silent movie, you don’t have speech to make life easier. Everything has to be conveyed through emotion. And with these two performers, I felt extremely impacted in this beautiful way.

All these incredible, magical things, are what make The Artist so great. It can take music, emotion, and cinematography and blend them together to make a fantastic work of art – all without the aid of sound or color. And this is why it deserves its nomination for Best Picture of 2012.

Age Recommendation: It can be dramatically distressing at times. There isn’t really any profanity or violence otherwise, so I guess I would say 11 and up, a MATURE 11 and up.

Final Verdict: A thrilling performance. I loved it. 10/10

Bookmark and Share

{ 5 comments }

The Descendants

by Stewart Smith on February 15, 2012

The Descendants movie posterHawaii is equivalent to Heaven. That is the idea of the general public. And to live in Hawaii is an indicator of success, wealth, and a wonderful life. Of course, the general public tends to overrate the lives of others so that they can complain about their own. And The Descendants brings this to light.

Matt King (George Clooney) is an Hawaiian resident whose wife is put into a coma after a boating accident. The family has been given hope, and are all thinking positively about her recovery, until the doctor pulls Matt aside to tell him that she’s not going to make it.

With the time to pull the plug nearing, Matt and his daughters Alex (Shailene Woodley) and Scottie (Amara Miller) are given the job of traveling around the island to tell all their relatives of her condition.

Meanwhile, Matt as trustee of his extended family’s plot of untouched Hawaiian land, must make a decision about selling it. And yet is he having second thoughts?

The movie is a comedy/tragedy, which you wouldn’t expect to work and yet it kind of does. The emotion put forth by Clooney was incredibly powerful, and the inner conflict his character must have been feeling is hugely apparent. Why would he be conflicted? I won’t spoil it for you.

Another, more humorous element would be the controversial nature of Sid (Nick Krause), Alex’s “beach dude” friend who comes along for the ride. Although he may laugh at some inappropriate moments, he is a well-made blend of awkward humor and misunderstanding. You’d think that this character could turn the whole film corny, and yet, somehow, he only improves upon the acting, perhaps by providing a stereotypical beach boy to conflict with the always on edge Matt.

The teenager Alex, the only one of the three supporting characters who really knows what is going on, has an interesting outlook too. Her father was never there for her and her sister, so they grew a little spoiled. We first meet her drunk and falling over, having snuck outside her boarding school at night. All of a sudden, this girl has to grow up and deal with being the only reasonable confidant that Matt has.

And of course, there’s the little sister Scottie, who is kept blissfully unaware of her mother’s unrecoverable status. Scottie is an interesting character. She is a swearing, disrespectful little child who learned to imitate her big sister’s bad behavior.  But although Alex became more serious after she learned of her mother’s condition, Scottie  proudly displays the effect that her sister has had on her.

As for age appropriateness…  No. At one point Scottie (who is only ten, by the way) calls her sister a “Motherless Ho.” Enough said. Still, the thing that bugs me about the MPAA is that kids our age (13, 14) aren’t saints ourselves, especially those of us who live in Los Angeles. So although it’s understandable that parents don’t want such language and themes, it is an inevitable phase, so we might as well accept it.

However, don’t take a ten or eleven year old kid to this. The kid who swears is THEIR age, and that could turn out to be pretty problematic.

Age Recommendation: 13, 14+.

Final Verdict: A humorous tear-dropper. The kids were a little on the edgy side, but other than that it’s great. 9/10.

The Descendants has been nominated for five Academy Awards including Best Picture; George Clooney for Best Actor; Alexander Payne for Best Director; plus nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Achievement in Film Editing.

Bookmark and Share

{ 1 comment }

Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

by Stewart Smith on January 1, 2012

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows posterI love logic. Critical thinking, problem solving, I can’t get enough of the stuff. I suppose if you go more fundamentally, I love plot. I love deep feeling in the characters. I love it when thought is put into the way a story is told beyond the most simple of explanations. This is why I didn’t like Cowboys &. Aliens, why I didn’t like Shrek Forever After. They lacked heart. They lacked thought. You walk in, ACTION, that’s it. Don’t get me wrong, I like action, but you can’t have a good story if you don’t have something to ponder beyond “Big explosion, gun shot, wait is he going to die? No wait, never mind, he’s the main character.”

So naturally, a couple of my favorite genres are Mystery and thought driven Thriller. Now you may say, “But Stewart! You just went through all this time discussing why action is bad!” No, I went through saying why action alone is bad. Looking back at my first statement, I like action if it walks hand in hand with plot. And in the thriller movies I like, usually both are retained nicely.

The classic Sherlock Holmes series of books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is without a doubt the most well known set of detective novels ever composed. Written in the nineteenth century, the stories are told from the perspective of Watson, assistant to a man named Sherlock Holmes. A private crime fighter, Sherlock is known for his extraordinary abilities of deduction and observation. The perfect character for a logical thinker such as myself.

Now with the two recent Sherlock Holmes film adaptations by Warner Brothers, Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, I get the best of both worlds! I have a character that can think logically and thoughtfully, and I get him punching people! How fun. But that’s a double edged sword, as this leaves me to obsess over the details of how it relates to the books.

And yet thankfully, that is patched up as well! Sherlock Holmes is a character who, like James Bond, can be put into a story out of context. So as long as the characters are preserved along with the basic setting, all can fit nicely in a sweet canon bundle. And the movie makers managed to do this, and in the end that helped them enormously. They had no book to stick to and no story to stretch and squeeze over a two hour period. It was all original, and thus could be adjusted more easily without causing fissures in the plot.

The action itself in these films was, for the most part, original. The fight scenes were played off first in slow motion as Sherlock thought about them and then were reenacted in real life with regular speed.  I myself absolutely adored that; detail stands out more when you can stop and calmly watch the ripples in a man’s injured cheek as his tooth flies into the air. It takes some getting used to, but in both films it was abandoned before long to preserve the essence of unpredictability. Which was a little disappointing, but it was good nonetheless as it preserved the unpredictability of Sherlock Holmes, who would, in the books, never reveal his plans and would always leave you guessing as to what he will do next.

I heard there was some controversy to how Robert Downey Jr. portrays Sherlock Holmes. Some people  think he is too young. I agree, as he takes some getting used to. As for Dr. Watson, played by Jude Law, I always envisioned him as short and chubby. Of course, this is probably because my first actual Sherlock Holmes-style experience was with Disney’s The Great Mouse Detective. Rachel McAdams starred as Irene Alder (Doyle’s A Scandal in Bohemia, anyone?), the female lead in the first film. She makes a dramatic (ahem) early exit in the second film, making way for Noomi Rapace (star of the original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) as Madam Simza Heron. Other major appearances included Jared Harris as Professor Moriarty, Stephan Fry as Holmes’ Brother, and Kelly Reilly as Watson’s betrothed.

These movies, however, do have their downsides. I should have mentioned earlier that I also adore humor, but as a comedy, these were fairly weak. Well, I must be fair.  The first was quite witty, but the second lost most of that. In the end I found that I enjoyed them more when I pushed past the comedy stance and just saw each as a thriller/mystery.

Age Recommendation: As with most mysteries and thrillers, death is a common theme. Be sure that your child can take such blows before whisking them off to the theater and/or television set. My parents say that I am more sensitive to death than they ever were, however, so maybe that’s just my overreaction. Lots of children nowadays play violent games consistently anyway.

Final Verdict: An exceedingly well thought out series with plenty of action and yet story to go around. As a comedy, the second film failed miserably, but I don’t see it as fair to rate them as a pair (rhyme!), so I give the first movie 8.5/10 and the second 7/10.

Bookmark and Share

{ 1 comment }

Anonymous

by Stewart Smith on November 17, 2011

Anonymous PosterHow funny. A movie about Shakespeare that isn’t a reenactment of his plays or a documentary. No, director Roland Emmerich, known for blockbusters like Independence Day (1996), has taken a turn in theme with his new political/historical thriller Anonymous.  By historical, I don’t mean it relies on actual facts, as Anonymous is entirely built upon conspiracy theory.

In the movie Anonymous, the Earl of Oxford, Edward DaVere (Rhys Ivan), lives in the Elizabethan era (1558 – 1603), when writing plays is not considered par for someone of his status.  However, born with a unique talent for the written word, he longs to make his work public.  Therefore, he entrusts the release of his work to the renowned playwright Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto).

Queen Elizabeth, who allegedly has a love affair with DaVere, is portrayed at the different ages of her life by actresses Vanessa Redgrave and her real life daughter, Joely Richardson.

Where does Shakespeare fit into all of this? Well, that is where I get a little bit pissed off. Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) is portrayed as a drunken, lying scumbag who steps up to claim the plays as his.  He cheats, steals from, and blackmails both Jonson and DaVere, and that is no hyperbole. He even attacks someone in one part. What a mockery of common belief! Just think, the filmmakers may be wrong, and if they are, they just insulted an artist. And even if they are right, who cares? We have the wonderful stories, isn’t that enough?

The movie’s plot itself was confusing and tied up. It used the method of “time jumping” far too often with far too little warning. I don’t know if this is just me, but I needed to read a summary afterwards in order to actually understand it.

But if I must praise this film for some little thing, it’s that it was a visual feast. They took the unsolved mysteries of history and brought them into the story. In addition, they tried- and succeeded- at displaying how Shakespeare plays were performed in the sixteenth century. The scenery and costumes, from the streets of London and the Globe Theatre to the Court of Queen Elizabeth, appear extremely accurate and give a great feel of the time. You have to praise the amount of research that must have gone into this.

Age Recommendation: There is blood and violence, there are sex scandals, and all these are themes that the unaware child should not see. I know there were a few dramatic parts that made me flinch. But putting all that aside, the real problem is the historical interpretation and the difficulty in understanding it. However, if your child is old enough to really “get” the movie, then by all means, let them see it. But there’s no point taking a kid to a movie if they won’t get anything out of it.

Final Verdict: Attempted to make a little known conspiracy theory public, but did a poor job of conveying it. 4/10

Bookmark and Share

{ 4 comments }

Puss in Boots

October 29, 2011

Puss in Boots is the latest attempt from DreamWorks Animation to cash in on the Shrek franchise, but does it work? Let’s take a look back: Shrek: An absolute classic example of a seemingly hopeless romance. Shrek can be compared to life in general, which is the number one thing any form of media should go [...]

Read the full article →

The Ides of March

October 26, 2011

Caesar: Who is it in the press that calls on me? I hear a tongue shriller than all the music Cry “Caesar!” Speak, Caesar is turn’d to hear. Soothsayer: Beware the ides of March. Caesar: What man is that? Brutus: A soothsayer bids you beware the ides of March. ~ Julius Caesar, William Shakespeare “The Ides [...]

Read the full article →

The Office (Season 8)

October 22, 2011

Spoiler alert: This review is for the new season of The Office. If you haven’t seen the last few episodes or the end of Season Seven, I do not recommend reading it. Earlier this year, Steve Carrel, the star of NBC’s popular sitcom The Office, quit after closing his seven year contract. This sent many [...]

Read the full article →

Crazy, Stupid, Love.

August 12, 2011

“Aww, a romance …  This movie will be so sappy.” Wrong. It may be a romance, but it’s a romantic comedy. It’s no chick flick. Crazy, Stupid, Love is a new movie starring Steve Carell (of TV’s The Office), which tells a number of stories about a group of interacting people and their stories of the [...]

Read the full article →

← Previous Entries