The Ides of March

Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is The Ides of March.

Directed by George Clooney.

Written by George Clooney, Grant Heslov & Beau Willimon.

Based on the play "Farragut North" written by Beau Willimon

Review #144

MPAA Rating: R for pervasive language.

Runtime: 127 min

Cast

Ryan Gosling ...Stephen Myers

George Clooney ...Governor Mike Morris

Philip Seymour Hoffman ...Paul Zara

Paul Giamatti ...Tom Duffy

Evan Rachel Wood ...Molly Stearns

Marisa Tomei ...Ida Horowicz

Jeffrey Wright ...Senator Thompson

Max Minghella ...Ben Harpen

Jennifer Ehle ...Cindy Morris

Gregory Itzin ...Jack Stearns

Michael Mantell ...Senator Pullman


Politics is a very intriguing word. Here's how the dictionary defines it.

pol·i·tics 

Noun
1. The science or art of political government.
2. The practice or profession of conducting political affairs. 


After I looked it up I came across the idiom for Politics and this is actually a far better representation of what Politics actually is.


pol·i·tics 


1. To deal with people in an opportunistic, manipulative, or devious way, as for job advancement.

That description not only best defines the word and practice of politics it best summarizes the plot of this film.


 Plot
An idealistic staffer for a newbie presidential candidate gets a crash course on dirty politics during his stint on the campaign trail.


There is a lot to like about this film. Starting with the performances of the cast highlighted by two individuals. Ryan Gosling and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Gosling is Hollywood's hottie right now in pretty much every sense you can imagine. He's in a ton of flicks right now and he's good in all of them. His latest here is probably his weakest but that doesn't mean he was bad. His character was. Stephen was to put it nicely naive in the world of politics. He knew how to manage and prepare his man but to think that the game can be won cleanly is just absurd thinking. That naivety is portrayed very nicely by Gosling.


On the other side Hoffman does a fantastic job playing the stringent, play by the numbers co manager of Morris' campaign. He's fully aware of the back door tactics that are employed to secure a victory but he chooses not to act on them unless absolutely necessary or if his man is protected. There was a steely sense of loyalty to Hoffman here. It comes out in full force when he gives Stephen a spanking before giving him a very important lesson on how the game is played.


The script was well written with just 1 exception. It felt like there was something lacking. The story is very easy to follow and in some ways predictable for a film of this genre. However, at the midway point the story takes a turn that made sense overall but in doing so it shuts down the previous route the film was taking us. It's that quick u turn that felt rushed. The film was based on a stage play and I think just liberating the screenplay from that wasn't enough to pace this one along.


On the 5 star scale. The Ides of March gets 3.5 stars with a "Go See It!" recommendation.


This was a pretty good film and a fine directorial effort by Clooney. It just didn't have the power that the trailer promised.


That's a wrap for today. Up next is In time.


Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"


"D"

Real Steel

Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is Real Steel.

Directed by Shawn Levy.

Written by John Gatins.

Screen Story by Dan Gilroy & Jeremy Leven.

Partially based on the short story "Steel" Written by Richard Matheson.

Review #143

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some violence, intense action and brief language.

Runtime: 127 min

Cast

Hugh Jackman ...Charlie Kenton

Dakota Goyo ...Max Kenton

Evangeline Lilly ...Bailey Tallet

Anthony Mackie ...Finn

Kevin Durand ...Ricky

Hope Davis ...Aunt Debra

James Rebhorn ...Marvin

Marco Ruggeri ...Cliff

Karl Yune ...Tak Mashido

Olga Fonda ...Farra Lemkova

You guys remember that game Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots right? It that had the 2 plastic boxing robots that punched each other senseless until the losers head popped up? Well what if I told you that Hollywood was going to make a movie based on that game. Would you go see it?

If your answer is no then that's too bad because you missed one of the best films of 2011.

Plot


Set in the near future, where robot boxing is a top sport, a struggling promoter feels he's found a champion in a discarded robot. During his hopeful rise to the top, he discovers he has an 11-year-old son who wants to know his father. 

The film does contains many of the prototypical stereotypes. A washed up fighter looking to return to some form of prominence is suddenly hit with a string of losses and a situation he never saw coming. There is so much that sets Real Steel apart from the traditional film of this make up. It starts at the top with Hugh Jackman's character. Charlie is a 100% pure beef assh@%e. The way he reacts the second he's told that the mother of his son is dead is just appalling. He then follows his crass response with an even greater reprehensible act while in family court.

The disregard he has for Max is amplified when he interacts with him. There is a very obvious and toxic disconnect between the reunited father and son. Neither wants anything to do with the other but in the interest of self preservation they do what they can to make the best of it. And it's the sport of robot boxing that eventually creates the bond that shapes their relationship the rest of the way. Robot boxing is also what gives Real Steel it's adrenaline charged action. The robot fights are action packed and furious. They are also....

EASY TO FOLLOW!

Hey Hackeal Bay! You need to see this movie so you can witness what it's like to really SEE robots fight. As opposed to the unholy mess you gave us with those 2 horrendous Transformer films. I know there were 3 films. I only saw the first 2.

I will NEVER see the last one.

Everything about the robots was impressive. From their design to the names to their individual fighting styles. It was clear that the SFX team learned what NOT to do from the Transformer films and kept things simple with the robots. Their body designs were very streamlined and smooth. The animation was very detailed, lifelike and also smooth. Your eyes stay trained on the action instead of looping all over the place trying to get a sense of what's going on. The fight choreography was also very impressive for a movie that had mostly digital combatants. I guess when you have Sugar Ray Leonard as your boxing consultant your fights will look as authentic as they possibly can.

The fighting was of course the highlight of the movie but Real Steel has so much more to offer than kick ass combat. This film has a ton of heart. You are drawn in to the adventures that Charlie and Max have as they try to get ATOM (their sparring robot) noticed in the robot fighting game. The more ATOM wins the closer Charlie and Max get. Then the film does something that I absolutely LOVED! I won't say exactly what because it would be considered spoiler material. I'll just say that the Hollywood playbook for a movie with this kind of story arc was thrown out the window. The writers realized the kind of characters they were writing and stuck to their guns. You'll get what I mean after you've seen the movie.

I applauded the way Real Steel handled such a predictable route that films of this genre takes. It makes the film's ending just as satisfying if not more so.  It's evident that the scribes did their homework and chiseled off pieces of several classic fighting films and blended them with their original ideas.

It worked beautifully.

My only regret is never knowing how well this film would have fared during the hot summer months. Releasing this in October gives it a "play it safe" appearance. There isn't any competition to challenge Real Steel for film of the summer. The tactic can be seen 1 of 2 ways. On one hand it's a smart play because there isn't any major picture to lure the dollars away. Or it's a punk move. Touchstone and Dreamworks were too chicken to put this up against the big boys. It's too bad because Real Steel really had a "fighting" chance to win the summer.

Either way they have a hit on their hands. This was a film that lived up to it's promotional hype and then some. No question one of the best films of 2011 in the humble opinion of yours truly.

On the 5 star scale. Real Steel gets the full house 5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is The Ides of March.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

50/50

Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is 50/50.

Directed by Jonathan Levine.

Written by Will Reiser.

Review #142

MPAA Rating: R for language throughout, sexual content and some drug use.

Runtime: 99 min

Cast

Joseph Gordon-Levitt ...Adam

Seth Rogen ...Kyle

Anna Kendrick ...Katherine

Bryce Dallas Howard ...Rachael

Anjelica Huston ...Diane

Serge Houde ...Richard

Matt Frewer ...Mitch

Philip Baker Hall ...Alan

This review is dedicated to everyone I know and anyone that you know that has dealt or is currently dealing with cancer and the many forms the disease takes. God Bless each and every one of them. My thoughts and prayers are with them, all of you and your families. 

I miss you Peaches.

Cancer

It's one of the scariest words in the english language. It's also one of the scariest diseases we have ever encountered. What makes it so terrifying is that it's no longer considered an old people's disease. Anyone can get it. Cancer doesn't discriminate against age, race, sex or even health. You can be the healthiest person on the planet and you're not immune. I know this sounds very morbid but I'm not telling you anything you don't already know. My point is that cancer is a ninja disease. It will strike at the moment where you least expect it and it will turn your life and the lives of the ones you love upside down.

Trust me. I'm speaking from experience. Personal experience. VERY personal experience.

Tinseltown has made several "Cancer" movies in the past and for the most part their sole objective was to make everyone in the theater cry. That tactic actually was quite successful depending on who you ask of course. Those films however in my opinion didn't do a great job of accurately depicting what the patient actually goes through.

50/50 comes the closest.

Plot


Adam is a 27 year old writer of radio programs and is diagnosed with a rare form of spinal cancer. With the help of his best friend, his mother, and a young therapist at the cancer center, Adam learns what and who the most important things in his life are. 

This film might instantly draw comparisons to Judd Apatow's Funny People. 50/50 gets that comparison mostly because of two members of the Apatow tree. Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg. They are 2 of Apatow's creative partners who collaborated on several films together. Their film styles mirror each other to the point of plagiarism. The biggest difference between Funny People and 50/50 is simple.

50/50 is a great film.

It all starts with the fact that 50/50 is a true story. The film is based on Will Reiser's (the film's writer) real life battle with cancer. He and Rogen have been childhood friends and Rogen convinced Reiser to write a movie about his life, the disease and how he dealt with the treatment. The film also depicts Rogen's support of Reiser during his tumultuous time. This comes out masterfully by the performance of Joseph Gordon Leavitt as Adam. He's a good guy who didn't deserve to have this happen to him. You root for his recovery immediately. You just want him to get better right away and not deal with any pain whatsoever.

Of course we all know that doesn't happen

Adam goes through the pain wringer of both the physical and emotional variety and it's painful to watch. Starting with the relationship he has with his girlfriend. I don't know what it is about Bryce Dallas Howard but someone so talented and beautiful shouldn't be playing characters that are such heartless bitches. Next we have Adam's relationship with his mom. As expected his mom freaks out and does what any mother would which is drop everything and be at her son's side. Adam resists her insistence to be involved which causes very tense strain between the two of them.

Leavitt does a great job changing your emotions about him. You feel for him going through all the pain his treatment is causing him. Then you lose some of that sympathy when he rejects the support of people trying to help him. All of this comes to a head when Adam has to have surgery. The raw emotional power of that moment just washes over you and drops you to your knees. The scene with Adam and Kyle at the park then with Adam at the hospital before he goes under the knife will rip your heart out. If you don't shed a tear during those something's wrong.

My mom and I balled and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

This film touches every possible nerve and that's what gives it it's power. Though billed as a comedy, 50/50 is more of a dramedy. There are some quite funny moments but they are just there to give you a moment of pause as Adam struggles with the fight for his life. The relationships that develop are what makes 50/50 so satisfying at the end. The cast turns in strong performances. Particularly Anna Kendrick as the newbie therapist. Her growth in her profession manifests itself almost simultaneously as Adam's physical appearance declines. That dynamic creates a bond that serves them and the film very nicely.

50/50 is a film that does more than tell a story about a sick man. It reminds you to ALWAYS cherish the people you have in your life because in a snap they can be taken away from you. The movie also reminds you that sometimes life deals a shitty hand but you always have a choice. You can either beat the adversity or be beaten by it.

What will you do?

On the 5 star scale. 50/50 gets 4 stars. With a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Real Steel.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Killer Elite

Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is Killer Elite.

Directed by Gary McKendry.

Written by Matt Sherring.

Based on the book "The Feather Men" written by Ranulph Fiennes.

Review #141

MPAA Rating: R strong violence, language and some sexuality/nudity.

Runtime: 116 min

Cast

Jason Statham ...Danny

Clive Owen ...Spike

Robert De Niro ...Hunter

Dominic Purcell ...Davies

Aden Young ...Meier

Yvonne Strahovski ...Anne

Ben Mendelsohn ...Martin

Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje ...Agent

Based on a true story.

That phrase should always be met with some serious pause before seeing a movie. A film that's based on a true story can be fun, entertaining, educational, emotional, horrifying, disturbing or any other adjectives you can come up with. They can also be misleading, altered and just plain bad. Killer Elite treads very softly against being a pretty good film and a misleading, altered version of the truth.

Plot


Based on a true story, Killer Elite pits two of the worlds' most elite operatives. Danny, an ex-special ops agent and Hunter, his longtime mentor against the cunning leader of a secret military society. Covering the globe from Australia to Paris, London and the Middle East, Danny and Hunter are plunged into a highly dangerous game of cat and mouse where the predators become the prey. 

From the trailer you are led to believe that all Statham does is rescue his former mentor and friend. Kind of like a spy version of Rambo III. This plot description doesn't even scratch the surface when it comes to how convoluted the story actually is. The main story arc was actually pretty interesting. Yes Danny's friend was being held hostage but not for the reasons you might think. The main problem with Killer Elite is that it in actuality it's a Rambo movie when it tries to be a Jason Bourne movie. The main subplot is very intriguing but it gets lost in a wave of nonsense.

Killer Elite tries to be dumb and smart at the same time with it's story. Meaning it tries to balance the over the top action with a slick espionage narrative. It didn't work here. It's actually too bad because the potential was there. I think if a little fat trimming of the script was done a better film would have risen to the surface. More importantly I didn't care about any of the characters. I've said this before but especially in an action film you have to care about someone otherwise the film is just 90 minutes of bullets and booms. This was another unfortunate side effect of the unbalanced script. The people felt out of place with very little development to support their existence.

It's a shame because a very talented cast was wasted here and it didn't have to be.

On the 5 star scale. Killer Elite gets 2 stars with a "Netflix It" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is 50/50

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"

Moneyball

Welcome to another episode Lights....Camera....Popcorn!

Today's review is Moneyball.

Directed by Bennett Miller.

Written by Aaron Sorkin & Steve Zaillian.

Screen Story by Stan Chervin

Based on the book "Moneyball : The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" written by Michael Lewis.

Review #140

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for some strong language.

Runtime: 133 min

Cast

Brad Pitt ... Billy Beane

Jonah Hill ... Peter Brand

Philip Seymour Hoffman ... Art Howe

Robin Wright ... Sharon

Nick Searcy ... Matt Keough

Ken Medlock ...Grady Fuson




The Oakland A's

Chris Pratt ... Scott Hatteberg

Stephen Bishop ... David Justice

Brent Jennings ... Ron Washington

Casey Bond ... Chad Bradford

Nick Porrazzo ... Jeremy Giambi

Derrin Ebert ... Mike Magnante

Miguel Mendoza ... Ricardo Rincon

Adrian Bellani ... Carlos Peña

Art Ortiz ... Eric Chavez

Royce Clayton ... Miguel Tejada

Baseball movies. We've all seen em. Some of us LOVE em. Some of us don't. I'm not sure what it is but there's just something about Hollywood putting the national pastime on film that just inspires so much emotion on both the positive and negative side. And just like any other sports genre film, baseball movies have gone through every possible story angle. From true accounts of the game and it's players. To fictional stories. To comedy and even romance. We all have our personal favorite baseball movies but there are a select few that would be considered the "All Stars" of the genre.

Here they are in no particular order.

Bull Durham
The Natural
Eight Men Out
61*
Pride of The Yankees
Major League
The Bad News Bears (1976)
A League of Their Own
Field of Dreams

For all the success that these movies have had there have been countless failures. Some of them appealed to kids which took the magic of the game away and replaced it with careless hijinks. Little Big League and Rookie of The Year instantly come to mind. Or you would get a complete 180 and be subjected to a baseball movie with over the top drama.

Does The Fan with Wesley Snipes and Robert De Niro ring any bells?

For me, the best kind of baseball film is one that takes us inside the game and shows us parts of it that us mere mortals aren't privy to on an everyday basis. Moneyball gave the impression that we were going to see exactly that.

So did they? Yes.

Plot


Oakland A's GM Billy Beane is handicapped with the lowest salary constraint in baseball. If he ever wants to win the World Series, Billy must find a competitive advantage. Billy is about to turn baseball on its ear when he uses statistical data to analyze and place value on the players he picks for the team.

The moneyball philosophy was one of the games most controversial and revolutionary concepts since the invention of the baseball glove. For those of you not familiar with what moneyball actually is, allow me to give you a crash course.

Basically, moneyball revolves around the belief that a team with limited resources whether it be talent, finances or both can still compete against the larger market clubs using a specific statistical analysis. That analysis identifies players who don't attract attention in the major statistical categories which for most of us would be batting average, home runs and rbi's. They do however excel in a stat that was somewhat undervalued back when moneyball was new to the game.

That stat is OBP or On Base Percentage. This stat calculates the percentage of times a player gets on base via hit, walk, error, hit by pitch. You could make a case that this stat is more telling of a player's value than their batting average because it details several other ways a player can reach base. This is the basic philosophy that Beane and Brand used to build the A's. They looked at a ton of baseball castoffs that for their career made living's of just getting on base.

When you break it down in the simplest form. If your lineup is full of guys that get on base, common sense would dictate that your team will score a lot of runs. The more runs you score, the more games you will win. Sounds easy enough right? Well tell that to the rest of the league that still believed in the old way a team was constructed which was through scouting and player development.

This is where Moneyball shined the brightest. It did the best possible job of capturing the culture of the game back then when this new tactic was being ridiculed by everyone outside and inside the A's organization. Beane's new team was met with immediate and relentless resistance. From the scouting and player development department to the manager. It was very entertaining to see how Beane handled the blatant defiance to his new "way" of building a team.

This comes across excellently by the performance of Brad Pitt. He plays Billy Beane with a very stoic yet calculated madness. He knows that his new philosophy isn't the way baseball plays the game. He also knows that the mountain of scrutiny will be big enough to cripple the A's season before pitchers and catchers report for spring training. He also knew that desperate times called for desperate measures. A's ownership was not on board with following the Yankees blueprint of "buying" rings so Beane had no choice but become unconventional while balancing the checkbook. Pitt balanced Beane's real life persona with the Hollywood approach which made it much more entertaining.

The rest of the cast was equally up to the task with Pitt. Primarily Jonah Hill as Brand and Philip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe. Hill was the ying to Pitt's yang. As Beane strolled around presenting moneyball to the rest of the baseball world. Brand was the wizard behind the curtain making sure it actually worked. He was the voice of reason and the brilliant baseball mind that assured that this immensely huge gamble Beane took was going to pay off. Of course playing the villain was Howe who had other motivations to disobey Beane's new take on the team. Hoffman plays Howe with just the right amount of old school baseball man with condescending jerk. This is what made the film so much fun for me. Howe and Beane's back and forth over the lineup and use of the roster force you to see both sides of the argument.

Of course none of this is possible without the solid script penned by Zaillian and of course Mr. Sorkin. It's unclear if this was a tag team effort or if Sorkin wrote the script with a polish by Zaillian or vice versa. Regardless, both men did a fine job presenting a potentially challenging baseball subject to the screen. There were several hurdles to jump before this film could even be considered worth watching. The biggest one being the relevancy of moneyball itself. The concept was implemented close to a decade ago. By now every team employs a version of the moneyball model. So you're dealing with telling a story that most baseball fans are very familiar with. This leads to the second biggest hurdle.

The film's ending.

I won't say what happens to the A's but it doesn't take a genius to figure out how their season went in 2002. This is something that has plagued movies and will continue to do so until the end of time. How do you tell a story where EVERYONE knows the ending. There's no big "Luke I am your father!" punch in the gut twist here. Because of this issue the film suffers it's biggest "error". After close to 2 hours of a pretty good film. Moneyball doesn't know how to finish. It felt that there were too many endings which was a shame because a lot of positive momentum was created only to have it come crashing to a halt due to a lack of direction on the film's final shot. This is a byproduct of the change of director before production. Moneyball was supposed to be helmed by Steven Soderbergh but he left the project. It's funny because the film plays like he never left the chair. If he had stayed on I'm pretty sure he would have ended the film at it's most logical closing point. You'll know what it is when you see it.

The feeling of multiple endings aside, Moneyball was still a very good, fun and entertaining film that should belong in the lineup of best baseball films.

On the 5 star scale. Moneyball gets 4.5 stars with a "Worth Every Penny" recommendation.

That's a wrap for today. Up next is Killer Elite.

Until Next Episode...."I'll Save You A Seat!"

"D"