Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Jersey Boys: A Separate Opinion

Growing up, Jersey Boys has been and still is one of my favorite musicals of all time.  The show has stunning lighting that shines' off of the actors' faces, but not distractedly.  The music is lively, toe-tapping, and edgy, and almost begs for the audience to sing along with them.  Few songs - if any - fall flat, and the story takes turns as appropriate.  It is a satisfying experience, and if the show ever plays in your area, please take the opportunity to see one of the most delightful musicals of the 21st century.

The film, however, is a different story.  It started in 2010 when cult director Jon Favreau was announced as director, but it fell apart years later when nothing got off the ground.  That led to one of Hollywood's favorites, Oscar-winner Clint Eastwood, taking the helm to adapt one of the most successful Broadway shows of all time.

Of course, Eastwood has had his career - Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby are both some of the best films of their respective decades.  The two show Eastwood's versatility with handling any type of dramatic film, and these two scratch the surface.  Jersey Boys, of course, falls down a different path of the Eastwood formula, with no violence and all music.  It's a different style, but it made the public faithful based on his fantastic record.

The film was cast with mostly actors from the Broadway show:  John Lloyd Young as Frankie Valli, Erich Bergen as Bob Gaudio, Michael Lomenada as Nick Massi, and Renee Marino as Mary Delgado. It's a respectable decision; the actors are familiar with their lines and the music.  Indeed, they faithfully adapt the musical with the stellar vocals and slick harmonies that made the Four Seasons famous to begin with.

The flaw was the delivery of the performances.  Although the actors do a fine job at character, the studio is far different from the stage.  One thing reliant on theatre is the projection from the actors, to convey to members from the front to the way back what they are saying and why it is happening.  The acting improved as the film went along, but there were instances in which actors went from excessively (and sometimes hilariously) loud to inaudibly soft.  One example of too soft are the bar scenes, where background characters can barely be heard, which doesn't make sense when the actors are speaking a mouse's sound.  It threw me out of the feeling that I was investing in a story, and more that I saw successful actors trying to adapt in a different environment.

Christopher Walken did an adequate job as the mobster Gyp DeCarlo, but it was also slightly distracting.  Walken is well past his glory days, and this performance shows.  His veteran experience helped to establish the best relationships in the film, but it felt miscast simultaneously.  It was more of a man who simply did not fit his part.

Another performance strongly miscast was Mike Doyle as the flamboyant record dealer Bob Crewe.  The character simply lacked enthusiasm and energy when he was onscreen.  When Bob Gaudio wrote a new song expected to be a "hit," Crewe did a poor job at conveying any type of enthusiasm to express excitement.  His tone was consistently monotonous, and he almost looked bored whenever he was in a scene. 

The biggest sin of any of the cast was Vincent Piazza as the cool man of the Four Seasons, the one who did all the work and didn't take questions from nobody:  Tommy DeVito.  Given there may be an expectation to realize a character whose performance won a Tony, but Piazza gave the most bland, atrocious, and disrespectful performance to a character in 2014.  Originally portrayed by Christian Hoff, Tommy had swagger; he was a bad kid on the streets of Belleville whom nobody messed with.  Here Eastwood presents an actor who has a fine tenor voice, but lacks any kind of motivation in his character.  When Tommy is mad, he isn't believably mad; when he has his routine to assemble the group, he has no presence as an Alpha, almost as if Frankie or silent Nick would be a better leader.  Lastly, when he gets in trouble with the law, it's almost borderline hilarious to see him get arrested for his crime.  Piazza conveys no troubling bad boy with a cool walk and a likable swagger - we see, again, another character who looks bored, and looks like a goodie two-shoes trying to be bad to impress Frankie, Nick, and Bob.

One issue from Eastwood was the music.  Although I stated it sounds fantastic, Eastwood went the route of Tom Hooper and made the actors sing live on set.  That led to evident flaws with Hooper's film - how I desire to skip when Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried sing A Heart Full of Love - and Jersey Boys is no exception.  There are a few melody notes that sound flat in primary songs, and a handful of songs that sound unfaithful to the fantastic Broadway soundtrack almost ten years ago.  

The other issue is the usage of the music.  Although it sounds ideal in theory, combining Walk Like a Man and the scene when Bob (spoilers) loses his virginity simply took away from the charm of the song..  Although it would be repetitive to have a third consecutive song sung on a stage, the scene could have been handled better in a way that doesn't have to combine dialogue to present the show-stopping energy of the song.

Lastly, saving Oh, What a Night as the ensemble finale track doesn't stand out as well as it does onstage.  The song is always done after bows, and it engages the audience to sing along and clap.  Here, it would have been more appropriate to end with Who Loves You and then go straight to credits.  It still ends on a high note, and the audience doesn't have to awkwardly sit there and watch actors do a reprise of a song that never happened in the film.  The audience won't clap for a performance that isn't done live, and that's the issue with the end.  Also that Christopher Walken looks so out of place that whenever the camera focused on him, I burst out laughing.

This is the song that should have blended in with the Bob scene, just as the stage version had it written.

I won't give a rating to this film, as I feel I can't do adequate justice to balance out my flaws with what actually went well.  If you are a die-hard Four Seasons fan and didn't have the opportunity to see the show, check it out, but only for a snowed-in rental.  If not, please go see this show live because it is a memorable experience, deserving of the Tony for Best Musical.



Thursday, January 15, 2015

Early, Early, Early Oscar Predictions

It's been a while, hasn't it?  Anyway, these are going to be some incredibly premature predictions for what I believe will win the Oscar per category.  I'm going to exclude nominations for Best Animated Short, Best Short Film, and both Documentary nominations, as I believe I don't have the knowledge to critically predict a winner without looking up bandwagons online.

I'm going to be very brief with what I believe will win.  I won't go into detail of any of the winners, but I will add a subsequent "What About..?" category below and a personal choice for what I believe deserves what.

Disclaimer:  I have not yet seen anything.  I even have The Theory of Everything winning something, but I am yet to see it.  Again, very premature predictions.

Nominations will be copy-pasted from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/style-blog/wp/2015/01/15/2015-oscar-nominations-complete-coverage/

Sound Mixing“American Sniper,” John Reitz, Gregg Rudloff and Walt Martin
“Birdman,” Jon Taylor, Frank A Montano and Thomas Varga 

“Interstellar,” Garry A. Rizzo, Gregg Landaker and Mark Weingarten
“Unbroken,” Jon Taylor, Frank A Montano and David Lee
”Whiplash,” Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins and Thomas Curley

Predicted Winner:  "Interstellar"
My Choice:  "Birdman"

Sound Editing“American Sniper,” Alan Robert Murray and Bub Asman
“Birdman,” Martin Hermandez and Aaron Glascock
“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” Brent Burge and Jason Canovas
“Interstellar,” Richard King
“Unbroken,” Becky Sullivan and Andrew Decristofaro

Predicted Winner:  "American Sniper"
What About...?:  "Gone Girl"
My Choice:  "Interstellar"

Visual Effects“Captain America: Winter Soldier,” Dan DeLeeuw, Russell Earl, Bryan Grill and Dan Sudick
“Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, Daniel Barrett and Erik Winquist
“Guardians of the Galaxy,” Stephanie Ceretti, Nicolas Aithadi, Jonathan Fawkner and Paul Corbould
“Interstellar,” Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Ian Hunter and Scott Fisher
“X-Men: Days of Future Past,” Richard Stammers, Lou Pecora, Tim Crosbie and Cameron Waldbauer"

Predicted Winner:  "Interstellar"
My Choice:  "Interstellar"

Production Design“The Grand Budapest Hotel,” Production design: Adam Stockhausen, Set Decoration: Anna Pinnock
“The Imitation Game,” Production design: Maria Djurkovic, Set Decoration: Tatiana Macdonald
“Interstellar,” Production design: Nathan Crowley, Set Decoration: Gary Fettis
“Into the Woods,” Production design: Dennis Gassner, Set Decoration: Anna Pinnock
“Mr. Turner,” Production design: Suzie Davies, Set Decoration: Charlotte Watts

Predicted Winner:  "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
My Choice:  "The Grand Budapest Hotel"

Music – Original Song“Everything Is Awesome” by Shawn Patterson, “The LEGO Movie”
“Glory” by Common and John Legend, “Selma”
“Grateful,” by Diana Warren, “Beyond the lights”
“I’m Not Gonna Miss You,” by Glen Campbell and Julian Raymond, “Glenn Campbell: I’ll Be Me”
“Lost Stars” by Gregg Alexander and Danielle Brisebois, “Begin Again”

Predicted Winner:  "Glory" - Selma
My Choice:  "Glory" - Selma

Music – Original ScoreAlexandre Desplat, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
Alexandre Desplat, “The Imitation Game”
Hans Zimmer, “Interstellar”
Gary Yershon, “Mr Turner”
Johann Johannsson, “The Theory of Everything”

Predicted Winner:  "The Theory of Everything"
What About...?:  "Gone Girl" -  Seriously, Academy?
My Choice:  Either of the Desplat films, but I will give Theory a chance once I watch it.

Makeup and HairstylingBill Corso and Dennis Liddiard, “Foxcatcher”
Frances Hannon and Mark Coulier, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
Elizabeth Yianni-Georgiou and David White “Guardians of the Galaxy”

Predicted Winner:  "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
My Choice:  "The Grand Budapest Hotel"

Film EditingJoel Cox and Gary Roach, “American Sniper”
Sandra Adair, “Boyhood”
Barney Pilling, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
William Goldenberg, “The Imitation Game”
Tom Cross, “Whiplash”

Predicted Winner:  "Boyhood"
What About...?:  "Birdman"
My Choice:  "Whiplash"

Costume DesignMilena Canonero, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
Mark Bridges, “Inherent Vice”
Colleen Atwood, “Into the Woods”
Anna B. Sheppard, “Maleficent”
Jacqueline Durran, “Mr. Turner”

Predicted Winner:  "The Grand Budapest Hotel"
What About...?:  "The Imitation Game"
My Choice:  "The Grand Budapest Hotel"

CinematographyEmmanuel Lubezki, “Birdman”
Robert D. Yeoman, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
Lukasz Zal and Ryszard Lynzewski, “Ida”
Dick Pope, “Mr. Turner”
Roger Deakins, “Unbroken”

Predicted Winner:  "Birdman"
My Choice:  "Birdman" - good god, does this movie look gorgeous.

Animated Feature Film“Big Hero 6”
“The Boxtrolls”
“How to Train Your Dragon 2”
“Song of the Sea”
“The Tale of the Princess Kaguya”

Predicted Winner:  "How to Train Your Dragon 2"
What About...?:  "The Lego Movie" - plenty of articles about how badly the Academy screwed this one up.
My Choice:  "How to Train Your Dragon 2"

Actress in a Supporting RolePatricia Arquette, “Boyhood”
Laura Dern, “Wild”
Emma Stone, “Birdman”
Keira Knightley, “The Imitation Game”
Meryl Streep, “Into the Woods”

Predicted Winner:  Patricia Arquette, "Boyhood"
My Choice:  Patricia Arquette, "Boyhood"

Actor in a Supporting RoleRobert Duvall, “The Judge”
Ethan Hawke, “Boyhood”
Edward Norton, “Birdman”
Mark Ruffalo, “Foxcatcher”
J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”

Predicted Winner:  J.K. Simmons, "Whiplash"
What About...?:  Zach Galifianakis, "Birdman"

Writing – Original ScreenplayAlejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo, “Birdman”
Richard Linklater, “Boyhood”
E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman, “Foxcatcher”
Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
Dan Gilroy, “Nightcrawler”

Predicted Winner:  Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris and Armando Bo, “Birdman”
What About...?:  Paul Webb, "Selma"
My Choice:  "Birdman" or "Boyhood"

Writing – Adapted ScreenplayJason Hall, “American Sniper”
Graham Moore, “The Imitation Game”
Paul Thomas Anderson, “Inherent Vice”
Anthony McCarten, “The Theory of Everything”
Damien Chazelle, “Whiplash”

Predicted Winner:  Graham Moore, "The Imitation Game"
What About...?:  Gillian Flynn, "Gone Girl"
My Choice:  Damien Chazelle, "Whiplash"

Actress in a Leading RoleMarion Cotillard, “Two Days, One Night”
Felicity Jones, “The Theory of Everything”
Julianne Moore, “Still Alice”
Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl”
Reese Witherspoon, “Wild”

Predicted Winner:  Julianne Moore, "Still Alice"
What About...?:  Amy Adams, "Big Eyes"
My Choice:  Rosamund Pike, "Gone Girl"

Actor in a Leading RoleSteve Carell, “Foxcatcher”
Bradley Cooper, “American Sniper”
Benedict Cumberbatch, “The Imitation Game”
Michael Keaton, “Birdman”
Eddie Redmayne, “The Theory of Everything”

Predicted Winner:  Michael Keaton, "Birdman"
What About...?:  Miles Teller, "Whiplash"
My Choice:  Michael Keaton, "Birdman"

DirectingAlejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, “Birdman”
Richard Linklater, “Boyhood”
Bennett Miller, “Foxcatcher”
Wes Anderson, “The Grand Budapest Hotel”
Morten Tyldum, “The Imitation Game”

Predicted Winner:  Richard Linklater, "Boyhood"
What About...?:  Damien Chazelle, "Whiplash"; David Fincher, "Gone Girl"; Ava DuVernay, "Selma" - so many better options and they chose "Foxcatcher"

Best Picture“American Sniper”
“Birdman”
“Boyhood”
“The Grand Budapest Hotel”
“The Imitation Game”
“Selma”
“The Theory of Everything”
“Whiplash”

Predicted Winner:  "Boyhood"
What About...?:  "Gone Girl"
My Choice:  "Whiplash"

Yeah, Whiplash was my favorite movie of last year.  Does that surprise anybody?  It should and shouldn't.  It was a fantastic film that had phenomenal performances by two stellar leading actors.  Damien Chazelle simply crafted a masterpiece and I guarantee it is a film that will be looked upon decades ahead for it's brilliant craftsmanship.

Birdman and Boyhood are both fantastic movies, too, though.  Although they are on par with Whiplash and are admittedly better films, I will feel a little pain when either of the two win Best Picture.  However, I do have to understand that for as much countless love I have for Chazelle's masterpiece, I should not look down on the frontrunners as fantastic films on their own rights.

Happy Oscar Season!

Sunday, January 12, 2014

Golden Globes Predictions 2014

I thought now was as good of a time as ever to evaluate my opinion on who deserves to win the Globes most, so I thought I'd do a quick editorial on who I hope vs. who will win awards tonight.  This year has lots of question marks popping up for nominations, and I want to evaluate how other critics respond to the predictions conceived by them.

I may as well get television out of the way before the goods.  Anything involving Breaking Bad simply deserves to win as it could not have ended more smoothly, and The Big Band Theory will probably take anything comedy-related.  Admittedly, I'm quite ignorant as to what people of television committees prefer, but those are my thoughts (Post on Breaking Bad may come eventually).

The first few are some which I don't really have enough to say, so I will just have my predictions listed.

Best Animated Film:  Frozen

Best Original Song:  "Let it Go" - Frozen

Best Original Score:  Hans Zimmer - 12 Years a Slave


Best Screenplay:  John Ridley - 12 Years a Slave

Best Supporting Actress:
Who should win:  Jennifer Lawrence (American Hustle)
Who will win:  Jennifer Lawrence (American Hustle)

Admittedly, I was torn between her and 12 Years nominee Lupita Nyong'o, but I feel that with her awards savyness, Jennifer Lawrence will be called up as her name is announced.  This is not to say that she doesn't deserve it, either.  Her presence was strongly felt with her glorious presence, and consistency to drive the viewer insane as she knew everything that could affect the entire operation with DiMaso, Prosser, and Rosenfeld.

Best Supporting Actor:
Who should win:  Bradley Cooper (American Hustle)
Who will win:  Jared Leto (Dallas Buyers Club)

Yes, I'm jumping on the bandwagon of saying that Leto will likely sweep any major awards ceremony present (besides the BAFTAs).  The amount of buzz makes Leto a gambling man's best bet, but Michael Fassbender should not be overlooked for his intimidating presence when faced against Patsy or Solomon. My personal pick would be Bradley Cooper as FBI agent Richie DiMaso due to his silly charisma and his hysterics when interacting with the main characters, as well as his family.  Alas, it is unlikely he may even receive a nomination for anything else for this award.

Best Actress - Comedy:
Who should win:  Amy Adams (American Hustle)
Who will win:  Amy Adams (American Hustle)

Seeing a trend, I suppose?  Now is as appropriate of a time as ever for Adams to receive her first Golden Globe.  This years was a vapid year for this category, and all of the Best Actress Oscar contenders may appear in the from the Drama category.  I due feel that Adams is deserving for Best Actress because of her having yet another strong performance in a strong performance-heavy movie.  Probably the only person that will give Adams a run for her money is Meryl Streep, but her name being synonymous with awards season, the Hollywood Foreign Press will probably give her another shot to win next year.

 Best Actress - Drama:
Who should win:  Emma Thompson (Saving Mr. Banks)
Who will win:  Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine)

Admittedly, I haven't seen Allen's new flick, but I won't turn against people's word about how well Blanchett's performance was.  This year is a tight category where honestly anybody could snatch it, but I feel that Thompson gave the best female performance of 2013 with her cynicism as the uptight P.L. Travers in Saving Mr. Banks.  Her arrogance garnered pathos from the audience when they witness what brought Travers into a depressed, lonely woman.  Still, the award will be between anybody except for Kate Winslett for who may win.

Best Actor - Comedy:
Who should win:  Bruce Dern (Nebraska)
Who will win:  Bruce Dern (Nebraska)

Yep, the one award I'm think American Hustle won't take or deserve.  Bruce Dern was simply delightful as Woody Grant in Nebraska, as his progression seems to be nonexistent.  He is a character I admire for his adamancy of wanting to achieve his dream of receiving his one million dollars, despite what others may say.  The HFP will want to reward him for a long career of hard work, and at 77, he will receive it rightfully so.

Best Actor - Drama:
Who should win:  Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years a Slave)
Who will win:  Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years a Slave)

The most riveting of any performance this year, it would be a sin to deny Ejiofor as the troubled Solomon Northup the big award.  Ejiofor was very captivating with the portrayal of the live Northup lived when captured into this society he did not belong in (of course, no one does, but the fashion of him being tricked into slavery was painful to witness), and the HFP loves seeing people from Europe using American accents in films (see Christian Bale, Daniel Day-Lewis).

Best Director:
Who should win:  Alfonso Cuarón (Gravity)
Who will win:  Alfonso Cuarón (Gravity)

Praise McQueen's 12 Years all you want, but Alfonso Cuarón simply took the audience to space and inhabited all of the uncomfortable atmospheres that we all never want to be in.  He took the viewer on an adventure with Ryan Stone, and the viewer embraced with her whatever trouble would arise as she fights to survive where the chances to are second to none.  It still is worth noting that McQueen still has the possibility to take it, and it's essentially a battle between the two, but comparing both is like apples and oranges.

Best Motion Picture - Comedy
Who should win:  The Wolf of Wall Street
Who will win:  American Hustle

There is absolutely no chance Wolf will win this award, but I'll be damned if I don't genuinely proclaim that this was the best film of 2013.  The humorous, lively world that Scorsese took us on was riveting, and DiCaprio was indefinitely memorable as the charming Jordan Belfort.  Hustle will take it upon the means that this was the only film that was wide-released and not controversial.  Her, Nebraska, and Inside Llewyn Davis are simply too small to receive major praise, also barring that they came late to a point where they will not be selected to win.  I hope the producers of American Hustle enjoy this award, and I hope to see more from David O. Russell in the years to come.

Best Motion Picture - Drama
Who should win:  12 Years a Slave
Who will win:  12 Years a Slave

Alfonso Cuarón may take Best Director, but there is no doubt that 12 Years will take this year's award for Best Drama.  This film was an adventure from beginning to end, with a strong ensemble cast, heralded by Steve McQueen and Chiwetel Ejiofor with their career bests.  True stories seem to be the favorites as of recent for major awards (see King's Speech, Argo), and this seems to run with the Hollywood Foreign Press as the frontrunner.

For all I know, I could be 100% wrong with all of these and the awards will go in a different direction.  If so, I still enjoyed sharing my opinion with everyone reading this.  Although this year was a little weak at first, it picked up in the end for another solid year of film.  Lastly, who would've thought that the nominees for Best Comedy would annihilate Drama for the amount of high-art films?

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Nolan Films: The Prestige

One of my favorite performances to watch, on screen or on stage, is magic.  It's an exciting subject that, although it isn't necessarily wizardry, is exhilarating and enticing, establishing new twists and turns with the use of modern technology.  The most recent, as many know, is the recent hit Now You See Me, a film about a con job using magic but was smothered with too much boring detective work rather than the super cool magic patrons expected.  Let's take a trip back, however, to the late 19th century, when magic was difficult to pull off, and the auditoriums were packed just for a one-hour show of wonder.

The Prestige is a film about two rival magicians, Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Christian Bale), who consistently make jabs at each other in order to destroy their careers in Europe in the late 1800s.  Borden performs the ultimate trick, the Teleporting Man, stunning Angier and leading him to the ambition of stealing the trick.  His partner Cutter (wonderfully played as usual by Michael Caine) insists that Borden is using a double and that is the only way, but Angier refuses to accept that theory and is driven to find the "real secret" because of his passion of magic.  He turns to his assistant, Olivia (Scarlett Johansson), to find the trick by working for him, but immediately switching perception of which is the better magician.  The rest is all a bunch of twists and shocks that no audience would expect the first time watching.


The film, despite earning $100 million in the box office when it was released in 2006, went under the radar and up to now is one of the least talked-about films by the great British director Christopher Nolan.  It should become relevant in discussion of films, as it makes a powerful impact on the audience and is one the better modern classics of the 21st century.  Expectations were high coming into this film, and they were exceeded by the wonders of gorgeous sets, creative makeup costumes, and smooth editing.  This film is proudly comparative to some of the best technology use Nolan has used for his films.

The film has a masterful ensemble cast, as Jackman and Bale make for one of the best rivalry pairs this side of Ledger and Bale.  The two are undoubtedly the strongest performances in the film and are Nolan's most convincing lead characters along with Leonard Shelby.  Scarlett Johansson is heartfelt as the sympathy-driven Olivia, who has one of the most captivating transformations of any character who evolves with the interactions between Angier and Borden.  Piper Perabo and Rebecca Hall, playing Angier and Borden's love interests respectively, are as complex as they are beautiful on screen, as Nolan takes time to delve into the relationships and how they impact the magicians and how they also behave as husbands, as they will go to the farthest degree to ruin the other.  Andy Serkis and David Bowie are also quite memorable as the scientists in Colorado, and are well-developed for small supporting characters.

Of course, the most moving performance out of them all is by the great Michael Caine as Cutter.  He always has the presence of respect that not many other actors his age can pull off as well as he can.  Though Caine feels reminiscent of other Caine characters in Nolan films, he is very eloquently-spoken, with a calm tone to his voice that can soothe a baby to sleep, even in a powerful scene when he raises it.  Cutter serves as the watch over what happens through Angier's ambitions and Borden's ability, and even advises him
to stop at points, but his devotion to magic is what keeps him from abandoning Angier.

The Prestige is a thought-provoking film that is too exciting to turn away from.  The film is proud of being something more than what is advertised.  It is full of substance with perfection written all over it, and is one of the best historical thrillers of all time.  And between this and Now You See Me, The Prestige definitely takes the cake.  4/4.


Sunday, August 25, 2013

Les Misérables: Pros and Cons

Undoubtedly one of the most controversial films of the holiday season (besides, of course, Django Unchained), Les Misérables is a film that has garnered lots of attention, even to this day, despite being 8 months exactly since its release into theaters.  It was a major hit at the box office, grossing $400 million as of now; sales on DVD have sold almost 1.5 million units.  Critically, however, was not as positive as it was with sales.

There were positive reviews, sure, but many were negative, and almost all others were in the middle, not being able to make heads or tails of it.  Metacritic has an average of 63%; Rotten Tomatoes 70%.  Now, here I am to give my two cents, but rather than explain in usual review form, I will analyze the film in separate Pros vs. Cons paragraphs to let you decide whether this film is in your taste 8 months later.  Please take in mind, there will be spoilers, so read at your own will.

Pro:  Scenery
Definitely one of the best aspects of the film is the scenery provided.  The immaculately large buildings that scope around the character help create some dark, emotional tones, example being when Javert (Russell Crowe) paces on the edge of one in front of a gargoyle (symbolism?).  The rugged look around the revolution, too, helps to provide an uncomfortable feeling as you witness all these revolting citizens reprise "Look Down."  The costumes and makeup also help to flesh out scenery to not only describe the character's wealth (see scenes with Valjean [Hugh Jackman] as mayor vs. the rest of the town and Fantine [Anne Hathaway]), but who they are as people.  It may be cartoony, but it only takes a split second to tell what kind of people Monsieur and Madame Thénardier (Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, respectively) are, and their looks definitely help to add to the light tone they express when on screen as well.

Con:  Close-Ups
So, you have these million dollar
, extravagant sets - why can't we see them mostly.  Indeed, I stated that they are gorgeous, but those mainly account for the transitioning shots.  When we're not at the grand scope, we see Valjean's face at the alter before he changes who he is rather than what surrounds him, and we see Cosette (Amanda Seyfried) and Marius (Eddie Redmayne) sing at a gate but with no atmosphere besides a butterfly.  Why can't we see all of the building Crowe sings "Stars" on except for the shot when the song finishes?  It would have been more absorbing to view all of the area, so we could grasp what Javert could, and that's how I felt for many other numbers throughout.

Pro:  The Music
Whether or not one likes Les Misérables, the music remains unforgettable to anybody.  There is a type of song for any person of genuine musical taste throughout the whole film.  Jackman's dramatic tenor, although sometimes strong on his vibratto, was astounding hearing him sing what felt like unique or updated versions of already memorable songs, including "Who Am I" or "Bring Him Home."  His voice is a key aspect that carries on the show and is joined by others who match or even one-up him at points.

For example, Anne Hathaway does a beautiful job of singing the famous song sung by Susan Boyle, "I Dreamed a Dream."  Done in one take, she stuns audiences with her passion and her determined energy, emotionally investing in one of the most tragic stories in all of musical theatre, lasting only 15 minutes on screen.  Samantha Barks is elegant and powerful as Éponine, also with one of the most ground-breaking solos in "On My Own."

My only fault is maybe if they included the underrated "Dog Eats Dog" by Thénardier, but I digress as it doesn't compare to the new song "Suddenly."  Although disliked by many, I found it elegant, soothing, and for some, tear-jerking.  Sure, it's just Oscar-bait, but it also does the job in letting the viewer calm down and take a breather after all of the tensity throughout the beginning with Fantine.  The music does its job at being faithful, as Schonberg and Boubil truly prove how timeless it sounds.

Con:  The Singing
Take note:  This does not apply to everyone - only a select few, but it's major enough to discuss.  Director Tom Hooper wanted to innovate by having the actos live-singing each number, and while some (Jackman, Hathaway, Barks) pulled it off as if they were on stage doing it, some...didn't.  I found too many instances where Seyfried was too aggravating to listen to and when Redmayne tried too hard to sound opera-like.  They are both fine singers, sure, but their keys were both bothersome and pain-inducing.  It truly once hit rock bottom once they hit the final note of "A Heart Full of Love."  At least Redmayne makes up for this at the revolution and towards the end with "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables."  Seyfried is unforgivable.  For the Thénardiers, my simple complaint is that they sound like they're talking through the songs, and focusing more on comedic effect, which would be great with
dialogue, but not for an opera-like musical.

Now for the big one:  Russell Crowe as Javert.  Of course he wasn't good.  Despite the key change, he sounded off and tried too hard to force a note out.  He could never be bought as a character the way Valjean or Éponine could.  It sounds nasaly and without much passion (except for "Stars," which generally is a ravishing number).  In Crowe's defense, however, he was trained in a rock style, which calls for lots of fast-paced singing with guitars as instrumentals.  Transitioning to musical style is difficult, as it requires patience and the requirement to become more grand, which Crowe cannot fit the bill on.  He hadn't done a muscial in decades, so of course he would sound flawed during filming.  Is it his fault?  Not entirely, but the part could have been recast to someone better-trained, like Neil Patrick Harris.

Pro:  The Ensemble Cast
Even with Crowe and his flaws, the rest of the cast sure make up, and this is by far the best aspect of the film.  Jackman is perfect as Valjean and does the best job at carrying the show with his unbelivable progression as one of the most difficult roles in musical theatre.  Redmayne and Seyfried are very convincing as a couple, both with separate traits that help them not to sound like chichéd versions of lovers who spend their whole time awestruck at each other, as each has their separate task to contribute to.  Barks and Hathaway, as previously stated, are gorgeous and eloquent in their words and their characters, as the two most developed female characters in the film.  Despite their singing flaws as well, Baron Cohen and Bonham Carter are playing themselves, and the parts could not have been better cast.  The viewer can tell they enjoy their parts, and they have their own humorous, villainous take to a part they established as entertaining.

Now, there is one character I have left unmentioned in this review until now:  Enjolras.  I saved putting this off until now, so I could spend a paragraph giving the credit deserved.  Played by Broadway veteran Aaron Tveit, he is the backbone of the supporting cast after Hathaway's departure.  He is played with such exhuberance, and Tveit's vitality of the character gives the viewer spine chills on every strong note.  His presence is strongly felt as he is seen at the barricade, determind to fight in a losing battle.  

Once the character is introduced at the reprise of "Look Down," the viewer sees him on a stage with Marius (who, too, is not known of yet) curious of who he may be and what he stands for.  His introduction and characterization make him a flat, static character, but his indignation ignites a spark for a truly powerful figure, despite the lack of screen time, making him, to me, the most memorable character in the film.  What stands out as the best part - not just of Enjolras, but of the film - is the final battle.  There is a trade-off between a general and Enjolras, right before the students collapse.  The final notes sung ("Is free!") was seen to me as passionately sung, more breifly than on stage mostly, creating even more chills and more suspense.  It was at that point where I found Tveit to have the best performance in the entire film.

Con:  The Battles at the Barricades
The most inexcusable part of the film is the usage of close-ups at the barricades.  Why, during the most exciting part of the film, do we not comprehend who is winning or who is firing where?  It is an opportunity to see some brutal action and intense drama, but spent zooming in on actors' faces rather than focused on the scenery that is surrounding the viewer in different worlds of moods.  Nobody had the expectations of seeing explosions or overwhelming amounts of blood, but what was wanted was a conclusion saying, "We were there; we witnessed the whole thing," rather than, "We saw chopped-up parts of people on one side - if that counts for something."  Sure, Enjolras' death was magnificent, but no other character at the barricades died of a respectable death the way he did.  Lastly, as a minor gripe, couldn't they have made the barricade a lot bigger?  They have an entire town and it looks miniscule compared to the potential and size it could have been.

Overall, I have no real final opinion.  It's all just a mixed bag.  In aspects, it's phenomenal; in others, it's embarrassing.  I guess I stand the same way the critics do, despite owning it on Blu-Ray.  For the first time, I have no real final score to give it.  It's all a matter of taste:  If you like high-budgeted musicals with great music and characters, go for it; if you want a film that can take you into its universe and follow each character as creative and well-performed with extravagant shots throughout, go for something else.  I'm sorry I'm leaving this on such an ambiguous note, but I want to leave it to you to see whether or not you have a similar or conflicting opinion to mine, be it positive or negative towards the film.  The opinion is yours, so go venturing for it.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

50/50

An underground film of 2011, 50/50 is a dark "cancer-comedy" with a B-list cast (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Anna Kendrick, Seth Rogen) that makes them look first-class.  This is a grim film that has many ups and downs as it chronicles Gordon-Levitt's spinal cancer and how he copes with it.  With lots of uncomfortable laughs and tear-jerking moments, this is an unexpected modern classic that is very well-received by the community.

Adam Lerner (Gordon-Levitt) is a moderately self-satisfied late-20s man who loses all of his happiness when he is diagnosed with cancer.  His girlfriend at the time, Rachel (Bryce Dallas Howard) promises to care for him as he struggles with the disease.  Days after the diagnosis, he meets a young, aspiring therapist, Rachel McKay (Kendrick) who is kind and eventually befriends Adam on a personal level after an encounter in her car later in the film.  Although he is calm with it at first, his sex-obsessed best friend Kyle (Rogen) uses Adam's disease in order to hook up with other girls.  There is one thing throughout the film that Adam discovers most:  What the most important factors in his life are.

The film does not try to go overboard in drama or comedy and is carefully balanced to make it a more pleasurable experience without having to drag on.  It clocks in at 100 minutes which is perfect for the film, as it seems more content and simple instead of boring and ostentatious.  Jonathan Levine definitely took this film to heart, and the viewer will easily sympathize with Gordon-Levitt's character.  Nothing presented feels unnecessary and its dialogue written by Will Reiser is absolutely top-notch.

The show-stealer in the film is the performances given by the three central lead characters.  They individually represent characteristics of humans when in a crisis such as this.  Gordon-Levitt embodies how much of a trouble it is to suffer with cancer and he tries to make the best of a bad situation day in and day out; he is the embodiment of optimism.  Kendrick embodies tender, loving care as she tries to cheer Adam up with her therapeutic methods and later comes to be close to him and look out for him; she is the embodiment of sympathy.  And Rogen embodies how a he as a best friend will always be by his side and will always be out for him no matter what; he is the embodiment of companionship.

Out of all of the performances, Rogen's is by far the most fun to watch.  His laughs are from his tomfoolery and his desire to get laid.  Kyle is a child at heart but is aware of his limits when he is with Adam.

One scene shows the manipulation of Gordon-Levitt. There is a scene about a third into the film.  When Kendrick gives Adam a list of books recommended for coping with cancer, he and Kyle set off into the bookstore and he meets a cute, blonde employee.  As Kyle shows her his shopping list, he explains that it's for his suffering best friend.  As she grows to sympathize for Adam, Kyle snags a date the following night (which I would dare not spoil what happens when the two go out).

What I find most shocking about the scene is not that Rogen used Gordon-Levitt for girls, but how cool Gordon-Levitt is with him using his cancer.  As he tells Kyle not to, he goes in for it anyways and in the end Adam doesn't look back with regret.

The film, while critically well-reviewed by critics (3.5/4 by both Roger Ebert and Rolling Stone) but didn't receive much awards attention.  Whatever the case is, the film was only nominated for two Golden Globes (Best Actor - Comedy for Gordon-Levitt and Best Picture - Comedy) and won none.  I am making a strong prediction that the film will become a late cult-classic on the levels that Se7en and the Big Lebowski became classics.

This film is simply fantastic.  It knows how to be bitter-sweet while satisfying its audience greatly with its story, acting, and directing.  It's a marvel of a film (especially for a comedy), and I have never seen any other  film like it.  It is a great rental and even worth a cheap blu-ray buy.  50/50 receives a 3.5/4.

Monday, June 4, 2012

Rain Man

Yes, another film that has won Best Picture at the Oscars, Rain Man doesn't particularly seem like a film that would have much appeal for the Academy if it weren't for its inspiration along with the film.  Rain Man is a film that gives you a bittersweet feeling at the end, with a touching sense of sympathy.  Although I never cried, it does keep your attention and doesn't ever take away.
Charlie Babbitt (Tom Cruise) is an car dealer who's selfish and struggling.  When he was young, he took his dad's car and crashed it, and when his dad died, he left three million dollars in his will to somebody else.  Frustrated, Charlie finds out that the money was left to an autistic brother he never knew of, Raymond (Dustin Hoffman).  He's got the memory of an elephant (particularly with statistics) and lives in his own world at the Walbrook Institute.  In order to swindle his brother for some of the money, Charlie takes Raymond on a cross-country trip to help Raymond have the time of his life.

This has a very interesting story, as many directors passed on the concept of the film when the idea was first conceived, thinking it was too difficult to put on the big screen.  This film does a fantastic job of analyzing two characters who barely know each other but eventually bond as brothers.  Rain Man feels very artistic and unique while feeling very modest at the same time, which I always appreciate.  Barry Levinson was definitely worthy of winning an Oscar for the fantastic direction of this film.  

Tom Cruise gives one of the best performances of his career, and his presence is unforgettable with his wit, charm, and energy.  He is always attention-catching, and he is never boring.  The consistency that Cruise gives throughout the film is one of the best Oscar-snubbed performances in the history of Oscar-winning films (along with Martin Sheen for Apocalypse Now and Joseph Fiennes for Shakespeare in Love).

Of course, most people cannot forget one of Hollywood's top method actors Dustin Hoffman as Raymond.  Throughout the film, he was always the biggest pain in the ass to watch - and to me, that's the sign of a successful performance.  As he was always a nuisance to Cruise throughout the trip made me frustrated yet sympathetic because the character is very sensitive.  For example, the reason why Charlie and Raymond go on a cross-country trip is because Ray is scared of going on planes because he knows about every plane crash in history from each flight company.  You know he doesn't need to worry, but it's the character's sensitivity that Charlie knows he must take Ray if he wants the money.

Rain Man is a very powerful, touching film that isn't perfect, but still feels like an experience.  It receives a great 3.5/4.  If it were remade today - which it shouldn't be - it would still feel as unique and as fresh as ninety percent of Hollywood's output.  Except for the new Les Mis.  Nothing will feel more fresh than that.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Shakespeare in Love

Regularly regarded as one of the worst decisions for Best Picture in the history of the Academy, Shakespeare in Love is actually not as bad of a film as people put it.  Actually, I find it rather entertaining.  Although lots of people like it, many outrage that Saving Private Ryan was more deserving of the top prize.  I agree, but is this film necessarily worth complaining about that much?

Will Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes) is known as a struggling writer, poet, and actor who has scripts sold to Phillip Henslowe (Geoffrey Rush), but currently has a writers block.  He claims to make it a comedy, called "Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate's Daughter."  Despite being a catchy title, he can't think of the material to use.  Then one day, in search of a muse, he meets Viola and all of the material comes to mind.  She is an avid theatre lover but cannot take the stage because women were not allowed to at the time.  In order to perform, she disguises herself as a male with the stage name "Thomas Kent" and auditions for Shakespeare's most recent play.  Shakespeare sees through the disguise and chases her down.  Then a love affair soon ensues, although Viola is already engaged to a man she does not want to marry.

Of course, the last sentence of the previous paragraph sounds familiar to a piece of the actual Shakespeare's work.  Eventually, he changes it to a tragedy known as Romeo and Juliet.

This is historical fiction, but it feels realistic in such a way that it sounds convincing to the audience.  It's tricky in the way everything is set up.  Shakespeare gets the name of "Mercutio" from a competitive writer; Ned Alleyn (Ben Affleck) is immediately hired for a role by his demand and receives the part of Mercutio.  When he asks Will what the play is entitled, Shakespeare lies and says, Mercutio.  Alleyn then later says it really should be called Romeo and Juliet.

That's one example of why this film is deserving of Best Original Screenplay - yes, over Pvt. Ryan.  The whole scenario is just a bit of the whole irony in relation to his script versus real life.  It gets unique almost to the point where it becomes hysterical to watch, and this film is listed as a comedy.

I have always been a fan of films about historical figures, exaggerated or not.  While writing this review, I have noticed that it looks a lot like Peter Shaffer's Amadeus.  It looks familiar in terms of art direction, makeup, and I always found Fiennes to be familiar of Tom Hulce, who played the title character in Amadeus.  And yes, that is a very positive thing.

This is a very cute, romantic film, and I feel that the reason it beat out Spielberg's classic is because it's more of a film that appeals to the Academy.  Of course some may disagree, but how come The King's Speech outdid The Social Network?  Or even for some that deserved it, like Lawrence of Arabia or The Bridge on the River Kwai.  The Academy has always been biased towards historical films.  Still, this film is very good, and receives a 3/4.

The Producers

The film that won Mel Brooks his Oscar, the Producers is one of the most hysterical films ever put on the silver screen.  It has got a fantastic cast of so many original characters, and it still feels fresh today.  It's one of the most creative films of all time, and it is definitely worth watching.

It's the late 60s.  Broadway producer Max Bialystock (Zero Mostel) is down on his luck and going broke.  In an attempt to make money again, he hires a hyperactive yet timid accountant, Leo Bloom (Gene Wilder, who garnered an Oscar nomination as well for his performance).  The plan is simple:  swindle a bunch of old ladies to earn lots of money to produce a Broadway flop, so he can keep the remainder of the profits after it fails.  To make this happen, though, Bloom and Bialystock need to find the worst script possible.  Script after script, they finally discover it:  Springtime for Hitler.

First, I find it necessary to say that after Jules and Vincent in Pulp Fiction, this film has the best chemistry between two characters I have ever seen.  It is definitely implied that both characters are Jewish, but it's never clearly said and never analyzed anyways.  Still, the performances by Mostel and Wilder are two of the best I have ever seen in a comedy.  They are charming, sympathetic, and unforgettable.

Mel Brooks did a fantastic job on this screenplay.  The concept is such a gem compared to other comedies then and now, and it's deserving of being looked over time after time.  Brooks simply knows how to make a classic and make it memorable, and that's why he's regularly looked over in terms of making comedies.

If I were to write more, I would just be repeating myself.  Mel Brooks has left a lasting legacy in cinema, and has received appreciation from the American Film Institute.  In the "100 years...series," he has three of his films listed in the top fifteen.  I can definitely envision what people would say as the best comedies of all time in 50 or even 100 years.  I would say:  the Graduate, Dr. Strangelove, the Marx Brothers' work, Airplane...and Mel Brooks - definitely.  4/4.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Netflix Helps...Sometimes: Killer Klowns from Outer Space

Arguably the worst film of all time, Killer Klowns from Outer Space (yes, with a "k") is one of the most hilarious movies as well.  The characters are terrible, underdeveloped, and cliché, but add to the atrociousness this film possesses.  It is at points irrelevant and weak, but delivers in terms of entertainment.  This is a film to see on a late Friday or Saturday night, and is accessible through Netflix.

Basic B horror film plot:  Clowns similar to aliens arrive from an unusual space ship and terrorize a small town.  The film's protagonists are Dave (John Allen Nelson), a cop determined to kill these clowns; Mike (Grant Cramer), a Tom Brady lookalike who first notices the landing and tries his best to stop them as well; and Debbie (Suzanne Snyder), a person who has been involved in a love triangle between Mike and Dave.  There are several supporting character like two twins who are characterized as "lame" and sell ice cream with a truck with a clown's head as either irony or a symbol.

This film is terrible.  Completely terrible.  But it has some charming qualities that make this film very fun.  For example, though the clowns are terrible choreographed, they are just a joy to watch.  The special effects are so embarrassingly bad but cannot stop making me laugh.  No one can tell whether the director wanted to make a film this bad or not, but it sure makes for a fun ride.

Despite the characters being painfully bland, the clowns truly steal the show.  They are so much fun to watch and the filmmakers actually were very creative with how the clowns function.  They have a super ability to jump and can kill people with little ray guns.  There are moments that are laugh-out-loud hilarious and much more than a chuckle.

I wish I could say more about this film, but I cannot think of much.  It has the quality of a high school project for Film Studies made on Photoshop effects and terrible costumes and makeup.  It is hysterical but stupid.  Is it worth your time?  Yes.  Is it worth giving a "so bad it's good" score, however.  Absolutely not.  Killer Klowns from Outer Space receives a 1/4.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Top 5 Movies That Come to Mind When I Think of Citizen Kane

This is a complete waste of time, but I figured I'd make something somewhat interesting based on one of my favorite movies of all time.  Whether it has to do with the characters, the story, or the title, these are the first five movies that come to mind when I hear the movie title, Citizen Kane.  This is an activity you can do, too, where you clear your mind and think of five movies after this movie.

5. Gone with the Wind
Always argued as the greatest epic in the history of films, Gone with the Wind is a film that any movie buff has to see to consider themselves that.  The film has great cinematography, is well-edited, and has a fantastic premise, and is still revered as one of the greatest films of all time, much like Kane


4. Saving Private Ryan
I already wrote about War Horse today, so it figures this movie would come up.  So, what does this film have to do with Kane?  I actually don't know.  It's a film that came to mind, but they both have creative scripts, a fantastic lead (Orson Welles and Tom Hanks for each film respectively), and are both worth watching.

3. Cool Hand Luke
Easily one of my favorite movies, this is classic in its own right, and what I consider the first of an unofficial "prison trilogy" including this film, One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest, and the Shawshank Redemption.  Both this and Citizen Kane both have well-developed leads and are very unique in the crowd of "regular" people; they start a revolution for their respective environment.

2. Monsters, Inc.
I don't know how this relates to Citizen Kane, this is just what comes to mind.  No, I am not writing this as a joke.  I guess if I can compare the two films you can say how Kane is usually said to be the greatest film of all time, and Monsters, Inc. is my favorite Pixar film of all time, so that relates.  Or maybe this is very random.  I agree with the ladder part.

1. The Big Lebowski
I love this movie.  I love Citizen Kane.  They are both fantastic for their time periods and make huge impacts to filmmakers today.  They both have original stories, each have a lead that is very unique in terms of characterization, and each have are loved but by different types of movie fans.  These movies are awesome and that is why the Big Lebowski is the number one movie that comes to mind when I think of Citizen Kane. You human paraquats.

Wait, why did I make this again?  To waste time?  I guess I did that pretty well.  This was actually very fun and I might do this again.  But this would never be on the front page of the website, though.

AMC Best Picture Showcase: War Horse

Coming out on Christmas Day of last year, Steven Spielberg impressed audiences yet again with War Horse, a story of cheerfulness through all of its sad, harsh tones.  John Williams returns for some of his most striking work of composition of the 21st century, and surely holds the story up.  This is a film not to miss despite flaws.

Set in Europe during World War I, a teenager, Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) convinces his family to adopt a horse from an auction which he names Joey (and has different names throughout the film as he meets new people, but I'll be calling him Joey for the sake of this review) and promises to raise it.  However, once the war calls out for whatever is best, the general takes Joey and Albert puts on him his dad's ribbon as a way of remembering him and we follow the horse's experience from there.  Whether he be on the Allies or the Central Powers, you're just rooting for the horse and making sure he's alive.

This film is technically beautiful.  The art-direction and the cinematography can draw in any viewer easily and can make a 4th grader even sit through a two-and-a-half hour film.  The sound, too, put me in a trance of fear and excitement at the same time, and I also believe was snubbed at the Oscars.  It is a spectacle to watch this film, and is worth the excitement.

What steals the show, though, is John Williams' score.  It's hard not to appreciate him by now.  He's won five Oscars, been nominated for 40, and is still the best guy to get right now.  His music is astounding, even in this film.  It truly helps add to the feeling of every character Joey encounters (of course, not deliberately), and adds a little touch for the striking war scenes or the tear-jerking happy scenes.  At the end, it will be because of John Williams that you will be smiling as you leave the theater.

Spielberg's touch on any film is magic.  Sure, he produces close to every film nowadays, but when he directs, he has a truly distinct style.  He puts the magic touch on any film, whether it be blockbuster (Jaws, E.T., Indiana Jones) or serious-mode (more recent like Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Catch Me if You Can), he always finds a way to impress audiences.  What I feel is the best shot is a little past the beginning when Albert is training Joey, seeing him ride the horse in a distanced shot feels so marvelous with all of the beautiful scenery in the sunset, feels like the most moving scene Spielberg directed since the first act of Saving Private Ryan.

This is not a film about a horse in a war.  WWI is the secondary of the plot.  The film is about a horse's encounters with many people and the relationships the people have with him.  As I stated, he doesn't mean to - everybody else does.  Spielberg treats Joey as a horse and that's all he is.  He doesn't speak or cry when there's an emotional scene, he just responds to whatever he is commanded, and this is a huge plus to the film.

War Horse is a technical masterpiece and is such a well-made film.  Of course, it is not one of Spielberg's best, but that's just like saying how Eyes Wide Shut isn't one of Kubrick's best films.  Compared to movies today versus the director's other filmography, this film is terrific.  It is definitely worth buying on Blu-Ray, and receives a 3/4.

Thursday, February 23, 2012

AMC Best Picture Showcase: Moneyball

On Saturday, I went to the AMC Theatre's Best Picture Showcase for half of the films nominated for Best Picture this year.  The films were War Horse, Moneyball, the Tree of Life, and the Descendents.  I had such a great time going.  Even though War Horse was first, I felt I would enjoy writing about Moneyball first.

Moneyball is a very interesting film based on a true story that captivates you from the beginning.  Starring Brad Pitt as the main role, he portrays Billy Beane, a bust player in Major League Baseball who went on to be the General Manager for the Oakland Athletics.  The story is not as much about baseball as it is a character study on one of the biggest underdogs of the beginning of the millennium.  It delivers in terms of expectations, and is sure to captivate you.

Desperate to win on what seems to be the equivalent of a shoe-string budget, Billy Beane hires Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a recent Stanford graduate with a degree in economics, and a huge love for baseball.  He tells Beane to sign players based on statistics most teams overlooked, where players worth three million dollars are available for three hundred thousand.  And the team only has slightly less than 40 million dollars.

As you can see from the story, this is an underdog film.  It seems as though 2011 was the year to inspire, including Moneyball, a dolphin that lived with half a tail, and Rocky in the future.  Is this necessarily a bad thing?  No.  In fact, Real Steel is a good, underrated movie; however, Moneyball is a great movie.  It has superlative acting, especially from Brad Pitt, who gives his best performance since Benjamin Button.

Jonah Hill, too, is worthy of being mentioned for his performance.  Despite being nominated for an Oscar, he knows he won't win.  Though it is not to forget, because Hill was terrific as the quirky, nerdy character.  It could be considered a flaw since the second you see him, you can tell he's the nerdy personality, but I feel it helps the movie feel more fleshed out and, frankly, more interesting.

Truly what steals the film, though, is the script.  Adapted by Oscar-winners and masterminds Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian, they are geniuses with some of the purest humor and most intelligent of conversations.  It is always easy to identify when you see who wrote what.  You say to yourself, "Yeah, that's a Sorkin moment," and you just smile and love it.

Overall, this film is such a joy.  It is definitely worth multiple viewings, and can capture attention so well without overly throwing it into your face.  Moneyball is something any regular moviegoer should go and rent at a local Blockbuster, as this film receives a 3.5/4.