Corndog Chats

Born to Die (2012) by Lana Del Rey

2012-02-23T22:41:00.001-05:00

Lana Del Rey is proof of my general ignorance of pop music in this day and age. As a 23 year old male, my tastes in music are very anti-stereotypical of my demographic. Most of the music I listen to has been made at least ten years ago and in many instances 40+ years ago, but I love hearing new things and do occasionally catch the latest pop sensation on the radio. Well Del Rey is less a pop queen and more of a pop oddity. She rose to minor fame without having released an album yet, and even appeared on Saturday Night Live before her album released. After a poor performance there, which was generally panned, that was pretty much when I first heard about her, and when a friend claimed, in an obvious attempt at provocation, Born to Die was better than Springsteen's Born to Run, I decided the check the out the album, which was receiving mostly positive reviews.

Her rise was certainly unorthodox so it should not be surprising that her approach to music is also unorthodox. Born to Die is very much an album that grows on you slowly but surely. When I first popped it into the stereo in my car I was struck by what sounded like a lazy voice, much to my displeasure. I am not a fan of Rihanna for very much the same reason, because I feel like she wastes a great voice by not being able to express any emotion in her voice. But where Rihanna fails in my ears, Lana Del Rey manages to succeed because she also writes some extremely catchy melodies that fit her lax style. The strongest points of the album are definitely the first few tracks, which get the set list going.

The style is not very accessible, but once given a chance it seeps into the psyche of the listener. This is an album I should 100% hate, but I somehow don't. Del Rey somehow pushes my tolerance to the edge just to save it with a hooky chorus. That is honestly what is so frustrating about this album for me. And while my reaction is mostly positive, there are a few tracks which fail to impress in any way, like "National Anthem", which grates as Del Rey almost tries to be too cool. But even that track has its glimpses of pop genius. "Off to the Races" though pretty much exemplifies the album in a nutshell, being annoying in parts and brilliant in others. To its credit, the album is fairly consistent and very much unique, at least to my ears. Never have I listened to a more frustrating album.

***

Track Picks: "Born to Die","Blue Jeans","Dark Paradise"

Pina (2011)

2012-02-21T10:35:00.003-05:00

Directed by Wim Wenders

Who is Pina Bausch? I don't know Pina Bausch, and I expect that the very vast majority of the population of the world and certainly of America probably do not know who Pina Bausch is. The simple answer is that she was a German choreographer, but this is not a simple film nor is it a simple perspective on who she was. Wim Wenders is a famed German filmmaker with such films as Paris, Texas and Wings of Desire under his belt, not to mention another Academy Award nominated documentary, Buena Vista Social Club. What do I care about dance though? How good and entertaining could this film really be if it is about something and someone I know nothing about and have very little interest in? Well, Wenders makes it so I don't have to care about dance to be fully engulfed in it anyway.

This is not your typical documentary, not because it is about dance but because of the structure of the film. It is a film about Pina Bausch, but really it is not. And what I mean is that it is not a biographical documentary where the story of Pina is told by those who knew her best. Rather it is the story of Pina where the story is performed in her dances by those who knew her best: the very impressive and professional dancers which were part of her company for years. The film is made up predominately of dance sequences both on the stage and out in the world in some of the strangest places, or so it seems. Only a small amount of time is spent with the dancers expressing their memories of Pina, and again in a strange way with voice overs with the dancers sitting there staring at the camera. But it works its magic nonetheless.

Everything about the film felt majestic and in ways I didn't think were possible. It is of course shot and presented in 3D, which is a format I have dreaded since it came out with plenty of examples of it being a distraction and a gimmick. But I have to admit that here it really really works and adds to the depth of the film. And even that I don't think does the film justice. If the film could have been a 3D scratch-n-sniff film then maybe it would have fully captured the magic that was going on, but as is it is still one of the most beautifully shot films of the year. The performances both on stage and out in the open are startling for their scope and dramatics. Each and every dancer gives a spectacular performance in the film and it really has made me appreciate movement and dance that much more.

And I think that was ultimately the objective of Wim Wenders was to bring to light the beauty of dance and his immense appreciation for one of its true geniuses. This is not really a film about Pina in that I walk away from the film not really knowing anything more about the woman than when I first walked into the theater. It is instead a moving tribute to the woman and her work. But as such, I feel like I did learn a great deal about Pina from the dances I witnessed and the brief words of remembrance spoken by her dancers. But my favorite part of the film had to be the performances which took place outside of the theater in these seemingly random locations.

I probably am too ignorant to really comprehend the significance of any of the places, and maybe they are just random places, but to me they signified the beauty of dance more effectively than anything else in the film. They take place in these great wide open places with the sky high above them because dance is such an open movement with plenty of room for interpretation and plenty of room to leave yourself completely unguarded to fully express yourself. My mind, and body, does not work in the way it takes to be a dancer, but even less so in what it takes to be a choreographer. I can't imagine the thought process to compose some of these wildy strange, but tremendously beautiful dance sequences. But I have no problem being a witness to it, and as a performance film, this is one of my favorites and one that I would recommend to loads of people, even those who think they don't care about dance because that was me going in to the film. I am a convert.

****

ESPN 30 for 30: Unguarded (2011)

2012-02-20T22:42:00.001-05:00

Directed by Jonathan Hock

An interesting inclusion in the series, Unguarded seems like a tailor made story for such a series, and yet it is directed by Jonathan Hock, who is also the director of the film The Best That Never Was, which is yet to come in the marathon. As the only two time director in the series, Hock, an otherwise unknown to me, seems to have a certain amount of credit given to him by executive producer Bill Simmons and ESPN. A friend of mine, without knowing who directed what and probably ignorant to the theory of auteur (sorry Daniel, but I dare you to tell me what that means), told me that Hock's two films were among the best he had seen of the series. There must be something to it, and everybody does seem to love the classic story of a man with the world in his hands who throws it all away.

Chris Herren was a high school basketball sensation in Massachusetts, setting the Durfee High School record for points scored and leading his team to the state championship. He was a special athlete who went to Boston College and quickly became a problem off the court, becoming hooked on cocaine and continuously testing positive. He was kicked off the team and subsequently was given a chance across the country by a coach who was starting over as well, Jerry Tarkanian and Fresno State. Herren continued his problems, but also continued his success on the court. He was drafted, but he kept slipping in and out of sobriety, lacking any great support network and always going behind the back of his loving and caring wife Heather. Now he is sober. Now he tells his story to those who need it.

It is not an easy story to swallow and the entire film is a rough go of it for many reasons but mostly just for the pure and simple reason that you say to yourself over and over again "why?" Why is Chris Herren continually throwing away his opportunities and his talent? Why is no one stepping in to help guard him from the evil which are stealing his life away from him? What makes the film succeed to the extent that it does is the pure heart and emotion of Herren. The film follows the chronological story as it happened, but instead of Hock bringing in the experts and family members to retell it, he lets Herren himself retell it as he gives his speeches to the various people he now talks to. We see him in a high school gym, speaking to inmates, and even back at the rehabilitation center where he became sober. This personal connection which is formed with Herren makes his story that much more tough to swallow.

It would be so easy to look at Herren and his story and say what a waste. What a waste of a talent and what a waste of a life. It would have been easy to give up on Herren early on in his struggles, and I am sure there were those that did, but it was the ones who didn't that make his story and ultimately this film as good as they are. There is never a point in anyone's life where anyone should give up, and Chris Herren had his wife Heather to be there and help him through it. It was a hard road, but the redemption and rehabilitation are proof of the human spirit of love and endurance through the toughest times. She could have easily left and had been quite justified to do so, but she loved him and helped him through the hardships, which shows of strength, integrity and love.

Quitting should not be an option, even when talent has already been wasted. Hock paces the film quite impressively, allowing plenty of time for the story to sink in and for reflection. With every tragedy there seems to be triumph, which makes the subsequent, and inevitable, tragedy that much more devastating. Chris Herren is walking proof that love exists. He is proof that determination and fate are closely related. I am very interested to see where Hock goes with the other film in the series because this was an impressive debut. While still not on the level perhaps of the great documentaries, his craft does allow an already great story to unfold in a very organic, compelling, and moving fashion.

*** (but a really strong ***)

2012 Oscar Predictions

2012-02-19T15:42:00.006-05:00

The Academy Awards are soon to be awarded for the year in film of 2011. Each year the prognosticators sit down and spout out their tremendous knowledge on the subject of movies and how wrong the Oscars are each year. I have some film friends who disregard the ceremony altogether. While I agree they are not the end all be all of film recognition, I sit down each year to watch the ceremony because it does celebrate the movies, even if it does always leave out a few of my favorites. It is fun to watch, just don't always take them as seriously as they sometimes take themselves. That being said, I am not going to give you a "will win/should win" and I will not be giving you my biggest "snubs" from the year. These are my thoughts, but I am not arrogant enough to not call them my guesses, and all I can do is say who I will be pulling for, and the films/celebrities I wish further recognition upon.

Best Picture
The Artist
The Descendants
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
The Help
Hugo
Midnight in Paris
Moneyball
The Tree of Life
War Horse
My Guess: The Artist
Who I will be rooting For: The Tree of Life
If I could nominate one more: Drive

Actor in a Leading Role

George Clooney - The Descendants

Jean Dujardin - The Artist

Gary Oldman - Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

Brad Pitt - Moneyball

My Guess: Jean Dujardin

Who I will be rooting for: George Clooney

If I could nominate one more: Michael Fassbender - Shame

Actress in a Leading Role

Glenn Close - Albert Nobbs

Viola Davis - The Help

Rooney Mara - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Meryl Streep - The Iron Lady

Michelle Williams - My Week with Marilyn

My Guess: Viola Davis

Who I will be rooting for: Michelle Williams

If I could nominate one more: Charlize Theron - Young Adult

Actor in a Supporting Role

Kenneth Branagh - My Week with Marilyn

Jonah Hill - Moneyball

Nick Nolte - Warrior

Christopher Plummer - Beginners

Max von Sydow - Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

My Guess: Christopher Plummer

Who I will be rooting for: Kenneth Branagh

If I could nominate one more: Patton Oswalt - Young Adult

Actress in a Supporting Role

Jessica Chastain - The Help

Melissa McCarthy - Bridesmaids

Janet McTeer - Albert Nobbs

Octavia Spencer - The Help

My Guess: Octavia Spencer

Who I will be rooting for: Jessica Chastain

If I could nominate one more: Shailene Woodley - The Descendants

Directing

Michael Hazanavicius - The Artist

Alexander Payne - The Descendants

Martin Scorsese - Hugo

Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris

Terrence Malick - The Tree of Life

My Guess: Michael Hazanavicius

Who I will be rooting for: Terrence Malick

If I could nominate one more: Nicolas Winding Refn - Drive

Writing - Adapted Screenplay

The Descendants

Hugo

The Ides of March

Moneyball

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy

My Guess: Moneyball

Who I will be rooting for: The Descendants

If I could nominate one more: War Horse

Writing - Original Screenplay

The Artist

Bridesmaids

Margin Call

Midnight in Paris

A Separation

My Guess: The Artist

Who I will be rooting for: Midnight in Paris

If I could nominate one more: The Tree of Life

For all the other categories I will just post my three:

Foreign Language Film

Guess: A Separation

Rooting: In Darkness (to be different since I haven't seen any)

One More: The Skin I Live In (shame Spain didn't even enter it)

Documentary Feature

Guess: Pina

Rooting: Pina

One More: The Interrupters

Animated Feature

Guess: Rango

Rooting: Rango

One More: Winnie the Pooh

Cinematography

Guess: Hugo

Rooting: The Tree of Life

One More: Martha Marcy May Marlene

Music - Original Score

Guess: The Artist

Rooting: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

One More: Hanna

No real expertise (which is also assuming I had any before which isn't exactly true):

Art Direction

Guess: Hugo

Rooting: War Horse

Costume Design

Guess: Jane Eyre

Rooting: Jane Eyre

Film Editing

Guess: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

Rooting: Moneyball

Makeup

Guess: Albert Nobbs

Rooting: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Music - Original Song

Guess: "Man or Muppet"

Rooting: "Man or Muppet"

Sound Editing

Guess: Drive

Rooting: Drive

Sound Mixing

Guess: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Rooting: War Horse

Visual Effects

Guess: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Rooting: Rise of Planet of the Apes

Absolutely No idea:

Documentary Short

Guess: Incident in New Baghdad

Short Film - Animated

Guess: A Morning Stroll

Short Film - Live Action

Guess: Raju

21 Jump Street (2012)

2012-02-19T12:11:00.001-05:00

Directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller
Written by Michael Bacall

The beauty of the advance screening is that you don't have to pay the ridiculous box office prices to be able to see a movie you may or may not have otherwise spent the money to see. For 21 Jump Street, I was in such a situation having had fixed feelings about the film based on the personnel and trailer, which made it seem like a fairly idiotic and immature film. Jonah Hill has been a favorite of mine since Superbad, though I understand he isn't everybody's. Channing Tatum on the other hand is the one that really had me dreading the possibilities of this film. As was voiced in my review of an earlier 2012 film, The Vow, he is just so wooden and emotionless as an actor. And also, how are they taking a Johnny Depp television program from the late 80s and making it into a comedy buddy movie?

Jenko (Tatum) and Schmidt (Hill) couldn't be further from each other in high school. Jenko was the popular jock and Schmidt was the invisible nerd type with braces and a strange obsession with rapper Eminem. So when their paths cross at the Police Academy, they strike up an unlikely friendship, Jenko benefiting from Schmidt's smarts and Schmidt benefiting from Jenko's physical prowess. But when they bumble their way through their first arrest, they are relegated to the 21 Jump Street program, where they must infiltrate a high school, posing as students, to bring down the supplier of a new synthetic drug which has already claimed one kids life. But when they return to high school, they find things have changed in terms of what is popular.

From the very start I must say that I was surprised by the life and humor that came out of Channing Tatum. If you read through my thoughts on The Vow I expressed my dislike of Tatum as an actor, but wanted to say I have nothing against the man, some people just aren't cut out to be actors, but this go around he seems to fill the role almost naturally. Now before going overboard I don't want to build up the performance more than it needs to be, just that I was pleasantly surprised by it. I think the greatest compliment for a comedic role is that it looks like they are having fun in the film, and that can be said of both Tatum and Hill, which really makes for a fun ride.

The film really makes its laughs by playing against the stereotype. The popular kids are no longer the block headed jocks like Jenko was, but instead the smart, environmentally conscious, PC kids who are shoe-ins to Berkeley, the star of the drama club, and the openly gay African American. As Jenko puts it, the Glee influence ruined all that he knew of the high school hierarchy. But what makes the film work by using these characters is when Jenko mistakenly swaps the identities of he and Schmidt's undercover names, setting him off to be the smart one taking AP Chemistry and Schmidt being the dumber jock type. The set-up is not groundbreaking, but it does allow for some really funny situations.

I can't remember the last time I laughed this hard in movie theater, though I am sure it was not as long ago as memory serves. And maybe it wouldn't hold up a second time, but the supporting roles brilliantly filled by the likes of Ellie Kemper, Jake Johnson, Nick Offerman, Ice Cube and even Dave Franco (younger brother of James) and Brie Larson, who play the other high school students. Any good comedy seems to always be bolstered by a strong supporting cast. It is also very much of its kind, and what I mean by that is that it is idiotic and immature, but I am the demographic for that type of comedy being a 23 year old male. It does its thing fairly well, but I'm not sure it would ever be enough to convert those who despise this style of comedy. I just hope more people enter with an open mind to enjoy a pretty darn funny movie.

***

ESPN 30 for 30: Four Days in October (2010)

2012-02-17T22:34:00.001-05:00

Directed by Gary Waksman

While doing some research on the series before I kicked off this ESPN 30 for 30 marathon, I found that the episodes produced by the production arms of the sports organizations, such as MLB Productions which helped produce this particular film, I found that these installments were not very well received by most. From that bit of information I can probably see where they're coming from without even having to see the films. Of course they are going to champion and dramatize any events which happened within their sport, it only makes sense, but what about when that event is truly historically significant? There are few moments in baseball in the past 20 years as remarkable and dramatically important as the subject of this film.

After the 1919 season, the Boston Red Sox sold pitcher Babe Ruth to the New York Yankees. Yes, that Babe Ruth who then became a hitter and proceeded to become the best hitter in the game, the home run king until Hank Aaron was able to break his record, and perhaps the most famous baseball player of all time. The Curse of the Bambino was placed in the Red Sox, who after the sale had never won the World Series. They seemed to run so close and every time they fell short, often at the hands of their heated rival New York Yankees. In 2004 the Red Sox went down 0-3 in the AL Championship Series. No team had ever come back to win even two games down 0-3. The Red Sox came back and won four in a row to win the series, ultimately reversing the curse and going on to sweep the St. Louis Cardinals in four games for the World Series title.

That was one of the craziest playoff series I have ever seen in my short life. And it happened in high school for me so sadly I was often forced to go to bed before the end of these games, but there are moments throughout these games which will live forever in baseball history, Red Sox fan or not. And I'm not, in fact I loathe the Red Sox and the Yankees and most especially the media attention they receive for their rivalry, but the fact of the matter is that they have played some of the best, most heated games in baseball. The Yankees blew out the Red Sox in game 3 and no one gave them a chance, except themselves, led by a misfit among misfits, Kevin Millar and their famous "Cowboy Up" mentality. They were a unique bunch with the likes of Pedro Martinez, David Ortiz and Manny Ramirez, but they were just the right combination to get the job done.

The film is fairly basic creatively, using mostly archive footage to tell the story of those four days in October of 2004 in chronological order. And honestly, like June 17, 1994 before it, this film would have been marvelous with all archive footage because it was such a crazy, remarkable series of events. But as it stands the short interviews with players were nice enough. The only real problem is the conversation between Bill Simmons and Lenny Clark at a local bar. I do not need the commentary of these two schmucks to help me understand what it meant to the players or fans. Let it breath.

But of course that is a minor part of the film and I would embrace the opportunity to relive these moments time and again. That stolen base by Dave Roberts in Game 4, when the entire world knew he was stealing, the walk off home run that followed innings later by David Ortiz, the bloody sock Game 6 by Curt Schilling, who went out and gave one of the gutsiest performances in years, and of course the ridiculous swat by Alex Rodriguez seen above. These are moments that are impossible to forget. Heck, I will never remember how the Red Sox just started to blow out the Yankees in Game 7, proving the curse was no more. The World Series becomes an afterthought when thinking about the 2004 postseason. All focus is on this series, and with good reason. There was little this film could have done to ruin a story like this. It does its job and nothing more.

***

ESPN 30 for 30: Into the Wind (2010)

2012-02-15T09:39:00.001-05:00

Directed by Steve Nash & Ezra Holland

The ESPN 30 for 30 series prided itself on acclaimed filmmakers bringing to life stories from the world of sports from the past 30 years to commemorate their 30th anniversary. I have mentioned this before, but sometimes these filmmakers seemed more acclaimed than others, but there is none more of an oddity than this film and its directors. Now Ezra Holland I don't know anything about, but the other director, Steve Nash, I do know quite a bit about, but for reasons other than his film resume. Steve Nash lead a #15 seeded Santa Clara team to beat a #2 seed in the NCAA basketball tournament. He also has played in the NBA since 1996, mostly with the Phoenix Suns, winning 2 MVP awards while he was at it. As someone outside the film world, how did Nash fare? I'd say pretty well.

When the film started, I began to wonder why this film? Why this story for Nash? It is not a basketball story. It is the story of Terry Fox, and one I had not heard before. Fox was a young man from Canada who had lost his leg to cancer at a young age. After his leg was amputated to save his life from the cancer, Fox set out to run across Canada in the name of cancer fundraising. He would run the equivalent of a marathon a day on his one leg, stopping at night to give speeches and raise money. After a slow start, the marathon picked up steam and the attention began to raise lots of money, and it also began to weigh on Terry Fox himself.

I don't mean to place all the attention on Nash because he did have a collaborator, but his is an interesting inclusion. I can only imagine he was affected by both the inspiring story of fellow Canadian Terry Fox and the sad reality of cancer, as so many others have been affected. And those are both the aspects which make it such a great, human story. Nash and Holland carefully construct the narrative to show the trying times as well as the inspiring and it is those trying times that seem to make the whole concept, the entire journey all that more compelling and impressive. He struggled to find support in the beginning and then soon found he almost had too much.

Terry Fox's time was being stolen from him by cancer in two ways. In one he was directly affected by the disease, losing his leg and the ability to function like everybody else. But once he started his journey across Canada, his time was stolen by the call of cancer research fundraising. It was the purpose of the marathon, but he never envisioned it would affect the race as much as it did, taking time out of his day which was to be spent running and instead obligating him to this or to that every day and every night of the week as he slept in a travel van, awaking at 4AM every morning in order to get on the road at 5. He struggled with it as anyone would, but it is this vocal displeasure which makes him real and human, which makes the story more than a fairytale.

This is not the best film in the series, but it is a solid film, especially considering it comes from an NBA basketball star and not a famed director. In many ways it is the very underdog story it is about. There has only been one other 51 minute installment where I really felt it could have been longer, but I feel this one could have benefited with more time, a little more detail spent with Fox and his family and friends. It is a good film as is, but it felt it could have been even better with some more time. That being said, one of the best scenes in the film was when the 10 year old kid followed him for a day. Like Fox himself said, that little kid was amazingly inspiring. Everyone is affected by cancer one way or another, and that does give the film an in to everyone's heart, but it is nicely put together as well.

***

ESPN 30 for 30: The House of Steinbrenner (2010)

2012-02-14T21:56:00.001-05:00

Directed by Barbara Kopple

I was born, raised and currently reside in the city of Columbus, Ohio. This is a significant piece of information when it comes to my viewpoint and personal experience of a documentary chronicling "The Boss", George Steinbrenner, who was the long time owner of the New York Yankees baseball club before passing that title on to his son and soon thereafter passing from this earth. For as big as the sport is, and as big as the Yankees themselves are, I wonder how many people knew that the Columbus Clippers were the Yankees AAA team from 1979-2006, which means I am familiar with the franchise. I can even boast the story that my dad once ran into Steinbrenner himself while at an Ohio State basketball game. No, seriously, he ran into him, like physically.

Steinbrenner took control of the Yankees in 1973, bringing the storied franchise World Series victories in 1977 and 1978, but after that the Steinbrenner years became a struggle of control between Steinbrenner and himself really, as he went through managers like most people go through toothbrushes (well, those with agreeable hygiene anyway). The team slumped through the 80s and even early 90s until, after a short ban on Steinbrenner, the Yankees and their famed boss came back to win the Series in 1996, followed by a three peat from 1998-2000. He carried the franchise like no other owner in the history of the game and became perhaps the most visible owner in sports. But new controversy was spawned after the Yankees moved from the "House that Ruth Built", Yankee Stadium (b. 1923) an historical monument if there ever was one, to the new Yankee Stadium in 2009. They quickly christened the new stadium with a new championship, but high ticket prices and the demolition of original Yankee Stadium kept some fans complaining anyway.

Before beginning the series, this was one of the ones that caught my eye for a few reasons. The first was simply the fact that it comes from the same filmmaker that made one of the best documentaries I've ever seen, Harlan County U.S.A., which was directed by Barbara Kopple. It was also intriguing for being about not only baseball, but the Yankees. For one, I hate the Yankees, but that is simply because I despise their success, but I am not blind enough to be able to tell that they are perhaps the best franchise in any sport ever. 27 World Series championships speak for themselves, but the legends abound from Ruth and Gehrig to DiMaggio and Mantle and even today with Derek Jeter. So how can all that culminate in such a pedestrian film?

I think most of the problem comes from the clear lack of focus in the film. Harlan County, U.S.A. was a film captured in the moment. Kopple did it masterfully, but here she seems to be waiting for something that never really comes. There is something built into the story of the closing of something as storied as Yankee Stadium which evokes emotions, especially for someone like me who is essentially in love with the game. But Kopple tries to cover too many things in too little of detail to make a meaningful investigation into the tenure of George Steinbrenner. It takes twists and turns like it has no idea which way it is, or should be, going.

Steinbrenner is a great character, and was a great ambassador of the game as troubled and controversial as he was. I can't say I like the fact that he spent as much as he did on the players and teams which brought him and the Yankees championships and pennants. I think Moneyball, and the real team the film was based on the Oakland Athletics, proves that there is a difference between teams that seems unfair. As for Yankee Stadium, I am completely fine with the fact that they built a new one. Baseball is a business and there is money and convenience to be had in new state of the art facilities. But at the same time I do not agree with the original Yankee Stadium being demolished. It is just s significant as any other historical building which is protected by the government. And as a history guy, I can at the very least appreciate all of the history which happened in that venue. I just wish a better film could have come together to honor it.

**

Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)

2012-02-14T18:22:00.001-05:00

Written & Directed by George Lucas

The Star Wars series is easily one of the most storied franchises in the history of cinema. The original trilogy from 1977-1983 revolutionized filmmaking for its use of special effects and the shear ambition of its ability to create a world which has lived on for generation after generation to consume and to lose themselves. However, it is also a series which has seen plenty of criticism. Some have criticized the original trilogy, though they are mostly drowned out by those who hold it in such high regard. The prequel series however, which came out 1999-2005, is quite the opposite, receiving quite harsh remarks from most all parties with the vast minority being those who like the films. Some say Lucas ruined the series entirely with the new installments, but I for one am one of the minority who feel there is much to be happy about in the newer films.

It is not too often you see a series come back with sequels which are in fact prequels, though the origin story has become very popular recently. When Lucas returned to the Star Wars universe he decided to start with Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), the father of the original protagonist, Luke. We have the hindsight with the original series to know that this gifted kid turns out to be the evil Darth Vader, so the question is not who, but rather how. We don't get the answer to that question here, but we do get a fun journey back to Tatooine to discover where he came from. We also get to meet a young Obi-Wan Knobi (Ewan McGregor), learning the tricks of the Jedi from Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) as they work to protect the young Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman) of Naboo protect her people from the evil Trade Organization.

I will readily admit up front that this is a flawed film and one that is far from perfect. I still don't agree with all the detractors though because there is a lot of magic here. Yes, Jar Jar Binks is one of the worst realizations ever put to film, but honestly I think he is a good character. They just should not have had him delivered in the manner in which he is because that is just annoying instead. Yes, Jake Lloyd is quite awful in the pivotal role as Anakin, but you will have that with child actors. Sometimes you hit, sometimes you miss. This time they missed and bless little Jake's heart because it isn't for a lack of trying, I really think Lucas did fumble the ball with his direction here. Too often there are those awkward moments, to steal a meme, when the camera captures strange asides which seem very staged and jarring when set to the rest of the film. It comes off as childish at many times.

But the good news is that we are back in the Star Wars universe. That is the major draw of the series to begin with, that magical universe in a world a long time ago, and in a galaxy far far away. Any time spent in that universe is time well spent and Lucas does manage to capture that magic once again both on Naboo and in the airy nature of outer space. The special effects here are again top notch, and no, I am not distracted by the advance in technology in an earlier time than the originals. It just doesn't bother me. And speaking of advancement in technology, the 3D did absolutely nothing to this film. I hardly even knew I was watching it in 3D, in a bad way. It wasn't so much a bother as much as it really added no new dimension to the universe other than more money in the pocket of Lucas, which I can accept only for the fact that I get to see these films on the big screen again.

The overall story of the film is fantastic, and it affords for some great classic moments in Star Wars history. For instance, the podrace is extremely well done and very memorable. The same can be said of the epic lightsaber battle between Darth Maul, a character who is quite good if not a little underused, and the Jedi Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi. And speaking of those two, how awesome is it that Liam Neeson and Ewan McGregor are in this? And in my opinion they are quite good. Another great bit of casting, to offset the horrid Lloyd, is Natalie Portman as the young queen. She rocks it in this role. Honestly, there is just way too much fun to be had here to call it a bad film. I think what we have here is an amazing concept and a great story coupled with some really lackluster execution, which yes is a real shame because it could have been an all-time great, but at the end of the day it is still a good, fun film, and one which I will still cherish and watch with my little nieces and nephews when that day comes. And my children will get a kick out of it too I'm sure, every generation does.

***

ESPN 30 for 30: Unmatched (2010)

2012-02-14T14:49:00.001-05:00

Directed by Lisa Lax & Nancy Stern

As a 24 year old young man, the world of women's sports may seem like something I might scoff at, but I would vehemently deny that as I am just simply a great sports fan. And perhaps my favorite female sport is tennis, featuring the likes of the Williams' sisters when I was growing up and Caroline Wozniacki and Maria Sharapova now. But this bit of information does mean that I never knew of the great rivalry between Chris Evert and Martina Navratilova from the 70s and 80s, I wasn't born yet. For me, they were legends of the game, prime past and glory days gone, sitting in the broadcast booth covering the new legends of the game. At the same time, for me, Navratilova always seemed to be the more dominate one, having never seen the two play. She had a more special aura about her which seemed much more mystic than Evert's seemingly more natural, kind of aw-shucks mood in the booth.

But before they were in the booth, they both were really dominate players, setting records which stand to this day in terms of matches won in a row, major victories, etc. etc. They played each other an amazing 80 times in their careers, 14 of which were in Grand Slam finals matches, which is incredible. From the sounds of it, they were the only two players in their era with a shot at the title, and like any great rivalry, there were ups and downs, which each player spending time as the #1 in the world, with a leg up on the other. Evert dominated the early goings, but eventually succumbed to a 14 match winning streak by Navratilova. But she showed her resiliency by bouncing back and ultimately extending her career. But the real story here, or rather the focus of the film, is how, despite the "bitter" rivalry between the two, they became and remain the best of friends.

What is perhaps the most remarkable fact about this entry in the series is that it is the first dealing with women in sports. It is a shame that it took this deep into the series for ESPN to tackle a women's sports story, of which there are plenty, but at the same time the final product is very feminine. Boasting from the very beginning the touches of a sappy romance, the film features the Natalie Merchant song "Kind & Generous" quite prominently throughout. But even more so, we get the intimate strolls on the beach and cozy couch conversations of these two strong women. The style is really fitting given the fact that it is the first of only two women's sports topics in the series, but at the same time it is grating and does not really suit the actual story being told.

As far as documentaries go, the film is far from groundbreaking in its approach, and actually quite lazy. All we get really is a few moments of reminiscence from two friends who are spending the weekend together at some beach home. They talk of what it was like forming their bond and dominating their sport, but really any stories that made the final cut are far too broad to become any intimate reveal of their lasting friendship. They tell their origin stories, like superheroes brought together to fight the rest of the tennis world. They speak briefly of whatever epic matches or moments from their careers, but their retrospectives seem slight for the grandness of their legend.

I do not applaud Lax and Stern for their work on the film because honestly all it became was a 50 minute special conversation between Evert and Navratilova instead of any meaningful documentary film. But these two stars should be remembered for what they did for women's tennis and women's sports, for their tremendous prowess on the court, for their exemplary friendship. At the same time, I can definitely say that Navratilova is far more impressive than the loud-mouthed, though sweet, Evert. The film even comes to the conclusion that Navratilova was the more impressive player, and I must say I was impressed by her sentiment, subtlety and skill. Theirs is a story worth telling, and a nice little entry into the series, which was lacking a woman's presence, but the film suffers from a lack of idea and direction.

**

The Vow (2012)

2012-02-10T09:15:00.001-05:00

Directed by Michael Sucsy
Written by Abby Kohn, Marc Silverstein & Michael Sucsy

As we find ourselves nearing the end of awards season with the Oscars on tap for later this month, a whole slew of mediocre films seem to be released every January and February, but every now and then there is a gem out there, though not very often. For the most part it is just a dumping ground for studios to release their leftovers which still have a faithful audience who will make it out to the theater to see them. I made a new year's resolution to go to fewer films this year, to be more selective with my choices, so I would not have normally gone to see this film if it wasn't for the fact that I had a free advanced screening pass. But this viewing also proves that nothing compares to the theater experience and how films can be just about anything.

Too often, and especially so during awards season, I can take movies way too seriously, criticizing the Academy for omitting the great arthouse films in favor of more mainstream and lighter fare, but this lighter fare has its place just like any other. Sometimes it works just to go to a film and see a favorite actor or a cheesy romance and have a nice 2 hours where we can just take it in instead of having to reach any deeper than our eye sockets. This is one such straight forward film, featuring the tale of a husband (Channing Tatum) and a wife (Rachel McAdams) and the remarkable struggle they had in reconnecting after the wife lost her memory in an auto accident, leaving her husband as a mere stranger who needs to woo her once more to find the love they shared before.

Before I start to sound too positive, let me dish out the negative because I do not want to give the impression that this was an inherently good film, but rather just passable entertainment that would please most date nights. The problem with the film is that it is far too general in its display of the love of the couple. It opens with a quick recap of their romance, highlighting the more specific cute moments that they shared together, but without any convincing display of affection between the two. The cute parts are just that, cute, and it is one of the better parts of the film, but it becomes almost a burden upon the film to be filled with these ideas by the screenwriters, or moments between the actors which feign a convincing reality.

One of the bigger problems with the film is probably Channing Tatum, which is a statement that many women would disagree with me about due to his great looks, but the fact of the matter is that he is a terrible actor. I don't hate the guy, I am sure he is a nice guy off screen, but he is the least emotional actor working today it seems. His face is as expressionless as the old couch in my basement, maybe less. Some people are just not that full of expression, it's fine, but those people should also stay out of acting. Heck, I just saw him on Ellen and he seemed to display more excitement and emotion there, in real life, than he did in the film. The other actors here are perfectly adequate, though there is one scene by 2-time Oscar winner Jessica Lange which left me cringing.

Perfectly adequate seems to be the perfect way to describe the film really. It doesn't do anything really all that well, but it stays within the romance genre and stays formulaic, but does not really do any thing all that bad. I guess my biggest qualm, or the biggest blocker I had was the fact that none of the characters are all that likable in my opinion. Tatum's character does some stupid things and the conflict she has with her family is constructed so that no one is a winner. Though I guess the real winner here is Rachel McAdams, whose smile and radiance is so infectious that she is probably the best part of the film. She is not the best actress out there, but she knows what she is good at and sticks to it, and she is great in these romance films. In many ways it was worth it just to see her in the film. Other than that I would probably give the film more of a failing grade, but there is a certain amount of charm and a certain amount of escape and simplicity that the film provides which makes it watchable.

**1/2

ESPN 30 for 30: One Night in Vegas (2010)

2012-02-05T22:43:00.001-05:00

Directed by Reggie "Rock" Bythewood

Sports and music have seen a marriage over the years which only seems natural. Heck, even one of the earlier films in this series, Straight Outta L.A., chronicled the influence of football on west coast gangster rap and vice versa. So the fact that the sport of boxing, more specifically Mike Tyson, is closely associated with one of the most well known and celebrated rap artists of all time, Tupac Shakur, should not be surprising. But for me, having been just 6 years old when Shakur was tragically gunned down, I had no idea the two were linked, especially not in the manner which this film explores.

In 1994 Mike Tyson was set to fight for the heavyweight championship of the world, a title he had held previous to his prison sentence. The fight took place in September in Las Vegas and one of Tyson's good friends, Tupac, was in attendance. The two had come together, inspired by each others work, bonding over their trials and tribulations, which included prison time for both, and great fame for impressive feats in their respective fields. But after Tyson won the title, Shakur was gunned down in the traffic which flowed out of the MGM Grand onto the streets of Las Vegas. He died 6 days later.

I have an immense appreciation for 2Pac and his music. I have an immense appreciation for Mike Tyson and his ability to dominate the sport of boxing during his prime. I have an immense appreciation for sports and music and how they go together, but I do not have an immense appreciation for this film due to the simple fact that it just was not very interesting. In many ways the film was not even about Mike Tyson and boxing, and much more a love song for Tupac Shakur. The problem with that not being that it was a love song for Tupac, because Tupac is a great and very interesting figure. The problem is that it does it in such an uninteresting and uninspired manner.

There seems to be a serious lack of context for everything going on. It goes through the typical 'this is how they are connected and why it matters' routine, but I was never convinced and having not really lived through it I can't say I came out of the film knowing anything more than perhaps when and where Tupac Shakur died, which I didn't know before. It is very basic in its narrative, but the problem is bigger than it just being basic. One of the bigger problems with the film is too many interviewees with not enough to say, for example Mickey Rourke. Rourke was a mutual friend of both and may have had some insight into their humanity and relationship which could have been beneficial, but instead Bythewood uses his experience for just a story which adds no real flavor.

I can say this, the film tried. It wasn't completely dry, at least attempting to become inspired by some performers doing spoken word, one of which dressed with the famous 2Pac bandanna on his head. But that part of the film did not work for me either, probably because of the comic book theme that went with it, and which was sprinkled throughout the film. There is no grounding for this stylized choice other than to be different. Is Bythewood trying to comment on the fact that the event seemed unreal, as in a comic book? That the lives of Tupac and at the same time that of Tyson are cartoonish or in some way contain elements of superheroes facing off with their archenemies? Because if so I think that is reaching too high, something that I would actually say this film does way too little of.

**

ESPN 30 for 30: Little Big Men (2010)

2012-02-01T00:13:00.001-05:00

Directed by Al Szymanski

Every year in August I make an effort to sit down and spend time with the kids who play the kids game, baseball. The best of the little leagues around the world converge on a small town in Pennsylvania called Williamsport for some reason. I have always wanted to go just to experience the purity of the game on a level not often seen on television or when you go to your big league ballpark. These kids have nothing to lose. They are there, sometimes missing the first few days of school to meet and play against kids from different places across the country and share culture with those from across the world. Baseball is a romantic enough sport to begin with, but have an event like the Little League World Series, and the romance flows like a river teeming with fish swimming in the purest of waters.

Corny analogy aside, each year at the LLWS features an American team pitted against the international champion for the title, and almost every year features a kid who plays like a man, leading his team to great victory. One year that kid was Cody, who played for the Kirkland, Washington little league all stars. Not only that, but the victory came against the all powerful Taiwanese team, who had been a powerhouse at the series the last decade. The star pitcher, Cody struck out the final batter for a dramatic victory which included a "tape measure" home run earlier in the game. It also meant that he was the center of attention after his team won the game, which is a difficult thing for a 12 year old kid from Kirkland, Washington.

I love the LLWS just as much as the next guy, perhaps more. The time spent getting to know these kids over the week or two it is on is always a joy. I am sure director Al Szymanski thought the same thing when he came up with the idea for the film and his vision for the story he wanted to tell. I guess my only question after having seen the film, other than did this guy have some kind of personal connection with the Kirkland team specifically, is so what? I guess I would have liked to have known whether there was a connection there, and maybe with an answer I may have been able to take the film in from a different perspective and appreciate it a bit more, but it really comes across as a proud dad telling the story of how his son did this great thing years ago.

It is a great story for any kid to have this kind of experience and accomplishment, but I say "so what" because what is so special about this specific team? A little league team wins the world series every year. America has won 34 titles since the event's inception. Taiwan has not won since 1996, so maybe my perspective on this particular feat is cloudy, but at the same time those were both stats that I had to look up. And Szymanski never makes an effort to fully establish that this particular team or this particular championship was exemplary and more significant than any other year. I guess Szymanski tries to shoehorn in a sad tale about how Cody was picked on after the event for being fat or for being the boy wonder who peaked as a kid, but again, there is nothing which makes this situation unique.

I sympathize with Cody, I really do. I think it is awful that he had to face any ridicule, but most kids go through some sort of teasing, and the fact that his came as the result of being the best player on the best little league team in the world does not make me any more sympathetic. Szymanski's film really seems misguided in terms of making a lasting impact on its viewers. For me personally, I pretty much forgot the entire thing the minute I turned it off. It is a great story, and the Little League World Series is a wonderful event, the only problem seems to be that it happens every year, which makes the Kirkland team just one of many. Would a documentary about the 1995 Atlanta Braves who won the World Series be an especially interesting documentary. Probably not on the surface, maybe if you found some unique perspective or back story, but Szymanski tries neither with the film. There was Kirkland, there was Cody, there was the World Series, there was victory. End of story.

*1/2

ESPN 30 for 30: Jordan Rides the Bus (2010)

2012-01-31T15:14:00.001-05:00

Directed by Ron Shelton

Baseball is the most wonderful game ever invented and there is more joy, for me personally, to be had from the game than any other sport. It has been widely accepted, though not universally so, that the hardest feat in sports is to hit a baseball. I tend to agree, though I know there are some who think "squaring" up a round ball on a round bat is not so hard. To play any sport at a professional level is an amazing accomplishment. To win championships and MVPs is downright incredible. Michael Jordan is considered the best basketball player ever to play by most people in the world. He won 6 championships in his career and 5 MVP awards. But at the peak of his career, Jordan retired from basketball to try his hand at baseball.

In 1993, James Jordan, father to Michael Jordan, was murdered in North Carolina. After winning his third championship in a row, Michael Jordan decided to retire to follow his childhood dream of becoming a baseball player. As a child his father shared this dream, and in a way his attempt to join the sport was spurred on by a void left when his father died. Certainly there were other mediating factors, and it was not am impossible feat considering the two-sport success of athletes like Bo Jackson and Deion Sanders. As Jordan entered spring training with the Chicago White Sox, however, as a laughing stock, with reporters claiming it was a publicity stunt for the White Sox and a pipe dream for Jordan.

This has to be one of the most unique sports stories included in the series for the pure and simple fact that it took the greatest player in his sport and supplanted him into a foreign land, the land of a different sport where he was just another deadbeat trying to make it to the majors. Director Ron Shelton seems to focus a lot on the fact that Jordan went from first class, cream of the crop treatment in the NBA to having to ride the bus in stay in motel rooms just like the next guy in minor league baseball. Too much is made of it because he still had his money from endorsements and basketball. In fact Bulls/White Sox owener Jerry Reinsdorf still honored his basketball contract in 1994, the year Jordan played baseball. I doubt Jordan was really in tough times with the money he had playing a game he loved and chasing the dream of his father. If anything, the media was the rough part.

But for such a great story, Shelton really does seem to have a lack of focus. There are certain sequences which seem completely unnecessary to telling the story. The best example that comes to mind is the Birmingham Baron's realtor and her story about Jordan's Porsche and the "basketball goal" he requested, playing with the neighborhood kids. Having Phil Jackson and Terry Francona there to give their professional opinions however was a nice touch, especially with Francona, Jordan's manager in the minors. Jordan hit .205 that year, with only 3 home runs. But it must be remembered that this was AA ball and Jordan hadn't played baseball in 10 years. Honestly I find his accomplishments, which include 30 stolen bases, to be impressive. He even raised his average 50 points when he played in the Arizona Fall League against the leagues top prospects. I dare you to go out there and even hit .100.

In the end, the experiment will be deemed a failure for having lasted just one year and netting him a slim .205 average, but as his manager and other coaches mention, if it weren't for the players strike of 1994 and the appeal of winning more championships in the NBA, Jordan very well have made it to the major leagues. He had an incredible drive and work ethic and showed vast improvement over the duration of the season. His teammates found him to be a great teammate, never shying away from giving everyone else the credit they deserved. Ron Shelton, who also played minor league baseball, may not give the story its due time and detail to truly do it justice, but the Jordan era of minor league baseball will remain one of the more interesting episodes of the 90s in sports. I wonder how much those Michael Jordan baseball cards my brothers and I have are worth?

**1/2

ESPN 30 for 30: The Birth of Big Air (2010)

2012-01-31T09:39:00.002-05:00

Directed by Jeff Tremaine

In the mid 90s ESPN introduced the X Games on the world. So how fitting that on the final night of the Winter X Games, where Shaun White posted a perfect score of 100 on his final run in the Snowboarding Half Pipe competition, I sat down to watch The Birth of Big Air. This is not an X Games documentary, but rather the story of one of its biggest stars, BMX Biker Mat Hoffman, whose pioneering insanity in the sport helped develop it to the point it is today with massive air and even bigger risks. Hoffman was just a kid from Oklahoma, but it quickly became apparent that he was going to revolutionize the sport when it won an amateur competition, turned pro, and won the pro competition at the same event.

Extreme sports is something which has interested me since I was a kid watching the first few X Games ever held. There was something unique about what was going on that was scary, new, and entertaining. I couldn't get enough of the awesome, near impossible, tricks these guys were landing on bikes and skateboards. I couldn't get enough of how high they were flying through the air like some sort of superhero. The culture is completely different from who I am as a person, and I never picked up a bike or skateboard to try these things, but man did I admire these guys for how "stupid" they were/are. I think with the popularity of the "Flying Tomato", Shaun White, in the last Olympic games, more and more people are being swept up by the coolest sport in the world, extreme sports.

As one of the leading pioneers of the sport, Mat Hoffman did things that no human should have subjected himself to. He built ramps taller and bigger than anyone had ever tried, pushing the limits of the sport to the point that he doubled the sizes of ramps overnight. But with every big result came big injury. Over the years Mat has suffered injury to nearly ever part of his body, including too many concussions to count and even a near death experience when his spleen exploded on a fall. His body has taken more punishment than arguably any other 40 year old, and yet he pushes on. The larger than life aspect of Mat Hoffman and his story is what makes the film entertaining.

But what makes the film come out as just average is the coverage of his story, which more often than not comes across as merely slight, scratching the surface coverage. Director Jeff Tremaine gives us a nice chronological retrospective on Mat's career, but never dares delve any deeper into any of the real important questions, at least in my mind. we meet Mat's father and learn that they encouraged him at a young age, but why did they encourage him? What was their thought process as parents letting him do these things, especially when he got hurt? And maybe more importantly, how did he get into the sport at all in the first place?

I also felt as though Tremaine could have gone deeper with Jaci Hoffman, Mat's wife, and what it was/is like being his wife instead of more specifically on a single event when he had to be rushed to the hospital. How did/does Mat feel with his line of work being a father and a husband? What makes him soldier on despite these things and what are his priorities? To some extent these questions are answered, but I always felt like there was more to the story, something deeper that I wanted to know. Despite that I enjoyed the film, but that had a lot to do with both the respect I have for these guys and the amount of enjoyment I get out of extreme sports. Not everyone is like that, and I know that. I also know that this film is not going to convert the people who think that what they do is just dumb, and nothing else. Heck, the film more than anything probably would just solidify that opinion.

I wonder what Spike Jonze could have done with this film instead.

**1/2

ESPN 30 for 30:The Two Escobars (2010)

2012-01-29T22:48:00.003-05:00

Directed by Jeff & Michael Zimbalist

The beauty of sports is that they are just games. For the most fortunate of those who play sports as youths, that game becomes a career in which there is money to be had. This year the big sports movie was Moneyball, and one of my favorite lines from that film was that "we are all told at some point that we can no longer play the child's game." Moneyball is about baseball and doesn't have much to do with this film, I can admit that, but The Two Escobars seems to perfectly encapsulate the opposite of that sentiment. Soccer is a child's game to you and me and most people in the world. But the most popular sport in the world also has its dark side, especially for those playing under circumstances which the players of the 1994 Colombian national team faced.

Pablo Escobar is a very famous Colombian native. Perhaps you have heard of him and perhaps you have not, but during the late 80s, early 90s Pablo Escobar made more money than anyone in the entire country of Colombia...as the kingpin to a rather large and extensive drug network. He was one of the most wanted men in the United States for his contribution to the "War against Drugs", but Escobar smartly influenced the Colombian government to do away with extradition. He also smartly used soccer to help legitimize his billion dollar drug business by laundering the money under cash ticket sales, etc. With drug money supporting it, Colombian soccer rose to worldwide prominence, that is until the 1994 World Cup when, coming in as favorites, they lost, in part thanks to an own goal disgracefully, and mistakenly, committed by its star player, Andres Escobar.

Never has the competition of sports seemed to matter more or have more on the line than the Colombian soccer team under the checkbook of Pablo Escobar. There was an instance when Escobar had a referee murdered for his performance on the pitch. There was tons of money to be won and lost on the pitch for big time betters and drug lords, so when the Colombians lost in the World Cup, they lost more than just a soccer game. What the Zimbalist's do so well, which most of the other films in the collection don't have the time or in some cases the ambition to do, is to show us the complete picture. We get a fully fleshed out story about Pablo Escobar, about Andres Escobar, about the drug cartels in Colombia, and about the effect of the marriage of drugs and sports.

Entering the marathon, this was the only one I had seen. I watched it roughly a year ago and my reception was very favorable then. Nothing has changed in my eyes, though halfway through the series now, I don't think I would call it my favorite of the films so far, but it is definitely a heck of a story, a heck of a film, and should be seen by any sports fan, or fan of real life drama. In America soccer is not nearly as big as the rest of the world, so I can see why some would be uninterested in this film, especially since it is about Colombian soccer and not American soccer, but the story told is a human one more so than a sports story. The fact that is also a sports story is just icing on the cake for me.

***1/2

ESPN 30 for 30: June 17, 1994 (2010)

2012-01-25T23:07:00.002-05:00

Directed by Brett Morgen

For my generation the event in history which everyone knows where they were is 9/11. I was in 8th grade math class when we found out that the Twin Towers had been struck by an airplane. Every generation seems to have that one moment, some larger than others, and some people have had multiple experiences with that. The JFK assassination was a big one in 1963. One of the earlier films in the marathon makes the case that the death of Len Bias the day after he was taken as a first pick in the NBA Draft was one such event. June 17, 1994 is also one of those days in which everyone remembers where they were, even if that date does not mean anything to them. As a 5 year old, a week away from my 6th birthday, my memory might not serve me correctly, but I certainly do seem to remember being at a UNO Pizzeria watching a white Ford Bronco race down a California highway.

Yes, I am talking about the day when the whole country was captivated by the O.J. Simpson saga. To be perfectly honest, when it was happening I did not even know that he was a legendary Hall of Fame running back who had played football for USC, and the Buffalo Bills in the pros. I thought he was just some guy who supposedly had killed his wife and was running from the cops. If anything, this film has reminded me of the whole story and more than just the image of Simpson racing away down the highway. But let me throw this at you as well. June 17, 1994 was the day the New York Rangers had their celebration parade after winning the Stanley Cup for the first time in over 50 years. It was the day when Arnold Palmer played his last round of U.S. Open golf. It was the day when the New York Knicks faced off against the Houston Rockets in Game 5 of the NBA Finals. It was the same day when Ken Griffey Jr. belted his 30th home run, tying Babe Ruth for most before June 30th. It was also the same day the FIFA World Cup opened in Chicago.

These other events are largely overshadowed by the O.J. Simpson saga which lasted all day from when the authorities expected him to surrender himself to when they announced they didn't know where he was, to when the chase occurred on the highway with the white Bronco. Director Brett Morgen, who has been nominated for an Academy Award (On the Ropes), utilizes the massive amounts of archive footage captured from the day in both sports and news, and does it masterfully. There has been much ado about the documentary film Senna from this year and its use entirely of archive footage to tell its story, and I applauded the film for doing it too. What a unique, and effective, way to present a story, and I do recommend to check out that film, but Morgen's film does exactly the same thing, and you know what? I think he does it better.

Morgen's film is probably aided by the fact that it is only 51 minutes in length, but there is also less set up used to set the platform for the film that with Senna. And I do want to move on from the comparison. June 17, 1994 is a masterclass in editing as well, meshing news story with sports broadcast and back and forth in a chronological timeline of events from the day which creates as fast paced a film as this series has seen. The style is definitely what sets it apart from the other films in the series to this point, but it is also set apart in its subject matter which is some serious stuff and more connected than probably anyone knew that fateful day.

It was the end of a great career for Arnold Palmer, perhaps the greatest to play the game of golf. It was the end of the drought and a great season for the New York Rangers. It was the end for O.J. Simpson and his run as a famous, much beloved celebrity. And I do think that is what I will take most from the film apart from it being a dynamite great film: people loved Simpson and they were in such a state of disbelief at the situation, pleading their hearts to trust he was not guilty, even when such an act as this all but indicated he was guilty of murder. The film contains itself within the day of June 17, 1994, passing no judgment on how things went down later on in the case. It captures more than any other film the dramatics of sports, as well as the natural dramatics of life, which even the greatest screenwriter in Hollywood couldn't pen. As Tom Brokaw said that day, "A modern tragedy and drama of Shakespearian proportion being played out live on television." And the film lives up to it.

****

ESPN 30 for 30: Straight Outta L.A. (2010)

2012-01-25T22:24:00.001-05:00

Directed by Ice Cube

I think the first reaction to this film came before I even had the opportunity to put the DVD into my player and sit down to watch it. At first glance through the list of films my mind went to the directors of these films. Admittedly I noticed names like Steve James, Barbara Kopple and Barry Levinson first, but my eyes were then quickly drawn to the curiosity on the list, Ice Cube. Ice Cube is known as a hip hop/rap pioneer as a founding member of the rap group NWA, who was one of the first iterations of gangster/west coast rap. He has since gone on to an acting career, true, being featured in such films as Anaconda, Boyz N the Hood, and Three Kings. So what does he have to offer a series of documentaries on sports? He has directed before, The Players Club, a film I have never heard of and which holds a low score on IMDb.

Well, the fact remains that Ice Cube is a hip hop/rap pioneer and as such has a great knowledge and level of experience to present in a film that focuses on the connection between the rise of west coast/gangster rap with the success of the Raiders football team which had moved from Oakland to Los Angeles after the Rams moved out of town to Anaheim. Al Davis was the iconic owner of the franchise committed to excellence and the silver and black soon became synonymous with the harsh LA rap scene and the success of the team, who brought a championship to the city. Theirs was a unique marriage which brought prosperity and fame for a period of time. But like all good things, they must end and the Raiders began losing consistently and moved back to Oakland, but the legacy built between the two was a cultural phenomenon and is an important part of both NFL and hip hop history.

The story is there, of that I am fairly confident, and in fact it is small enough that it should fit nicely into a 50 minute installment of the series. The problem is that it doesn't. For whatever reason Ice Cube really does seem like the problem here. He is credited as the director, but I really question what direction he really wanted the film to go in. There seems to be a number of different focus areas, and when I use the word focus, I use it very loosely. The topics are slight and it feels like we are barely scratching the surface with any given event or storyline. We see Ice Cube conducting these interviews with important subjects and seemingly getting nothing of good use out of any of them, especially perhaps the most important of them, Al Davis.

The strangest part of the film is how Ice Cube seems to insert his own personal narrative into the larger picture of the impact of the marriage between hip hop and the Raiders brand. We get a brief history of the formation of NWA as well as one or two other asides which are jarringly featured with some animation. The film is just way too Ice Cube driven to be able to answer the questions it sets out to answer and to cover the subjects it sets out to cover in any depth. The film starts and ends with awkward statements from the director and there is even an informal meeting between Ice Cube and fellow west coast rapper Snoop Dogg at the Los Angeles Coliseum, where the Raiders played their games. Ice Cube and his buddies are more focused on a trip down memory lane than actually doing anything meaningful with the film.

It is a shame because there seems to be an interesting story in there somewhere, but this isn't it. I am fascinated with the development of gangster rap, and if you can believe it, I actually enjoy listening to it from time to time, even though I have not heard an extensive amount. I would also be interested in learning more about what it arguably the most highly visible and singularly unique franchises in professional football, the Raiders. Al Davis is a great personality, but he hardly features here. They touch on so many little things that seem like they could lead to great segments, but never do, and I can't get over how detrimental the presentation of the film is to the subject matter. I think Ice Cube should stick with the music business.

**

ESPN 30 for 30: The 16th Man (2010)

2012-01-25T15:47:00.001-05:00

Directed by Cliff Bestall

In 2009 Clint Eastwood released the film entitled Invictus, which netted Morgan Freeman an Academy Award nomination for his portrayal of Nelson Mandela, a seemingly natural role for such a huge figure as Freeman. He stepped into the shoes of Mandela with grace and ease. The film was well received, though was not up for any bigger awards like Best Picture, and perhaps that was because it was a sports movie, and even more so, a movie about the sport of rugby, which is not exactly the biggest sport going in the world. Mandela is a real character, the former president of South Africa who helped unite his native land after the hardships of apartheid, the gruesome rule by whites over the majority black population.

The 16th Man, as well as Invictus, is the story of how Nelson Mandela defied possibility and united his people under the banner of the national rugby team, Springbok, during the 1995 Rugby World Cup, which was held in underdog South Africa. What is important to note about this ploy to bring the nation together is that rugby, and in fact the Springbok, had long been symbols of white supremacy during apartheid. Mandela, who had served the previous 20+ years in prison on Robben Island, was able to perform a miracle which was only mirrored by the rugby team, who ran through upset after upset on its way to defeating the world's greatest team, the New Zealand All Blacks, for the World Cup title.

There is no way I could have wrote this review without having mentioned Eastwood's film Invictus, which is a finely crafted film in its own right. I had a difficult time separating the two films as I watched The 16th Man, simply because they are telling the exact same story. But what sets this film apart as a little bit different is that it is non-fiction, featuring the real people, with real footage. Where Invictus was an interpretation of the events with actors, this was the events, as told by the people who were there, who were a part of it. It bears a little extra weight on top of an already great, compelling, inspiring tale with these circumstances.

As a 23 year old young man I was not there to fully experience the wonderful spirit that Mandela seems to have been and still is to this day, out of office. The idea of apartheid, the practice of it, the reality of it is as disturbing and unsettling as the Jim Crow days in America. The oppression of a single people is one of those things which is difficult to fathom, even as the phenomenon still happens today in certain parts of the world for certain groups of people. But when faced with such an atrocity, Mandela seems to embody the ability of pioneers such as Gandhi before him. The non-violent approach seems to work best, even if he was landed in jail originally for fighting for his beliefs with violence. When he was released he knew what needed to be done and his accepting approach, his ability to bridge the gap between the whites and blacks by using the Springbok club and their quest for a championship under national unity is inspiring to say the least.

There is nothing about the filmmaking which stands out as spectacular or innovative or bringing this story to new light or a new twist on it, but with a story such as this, there really is not much need to. The story is inspiring and interesting enough as it is. There has been a common theme among these 30 for 30 films which has been that they take a very traditional, undaring approach to these stories, failing to ever really inject any flair or style to the films. But I do not mean to demean the process because to this point the series has impressed and is certainly in the middle of a very nice streak of films with important, entertaining sports stories. The 16th Man had me at Mandela and while I have seen the story before in the form of Invictus, I was not any less moved by the power of the human spirit and the accomplishment of the impossible.

***

Hell and Back Again (2011)

2012-01-25T10:49:00.002-05:00

Directed by Danfung Dennis

The objective of a documentary film is to document reality. This often comes in many different forms with many different styles but the core principle is the capture of truth, as slanted, biased or shadowed as that truth may be. So what happens when the subject of said documentary seems shrouded in a ghostly nightmare which is a mirror of the truth? Soldiers come home from war every day, and for that we are very thankful, but they are often never the same again after performing their thankless work overseas. So what happens when a wounded man returns home to his wife in America, battling demons from a world foreign to those without an M-4? What happens when he is constantly on pain medication and has a cowboy mentality?

There is no originality in the idea of a film featuring a soldier returning home and coping with assimilation back into civilian society. The Best Picture winner from 2009, The Hurt Locker, featured a few scenes of maladjustment for its lead character. For the lead character here, Nathan Harris, the struggle is both physical and mental. On the last leg of his tour in Afghanistan, Harris was shut through his hip and leg, rendering his right leg useless until the time comes that it should finally heal with the help of a metal rod. Now back home, even the simplest of discussions can turn into arguments and even the simplest of sounds or minute problems can explode to cause great stress.

The style the film takes does a great service to the horrors Harris is going through in his recovery not only from the injury, but from war as well. Inter cut with his encounters at home is footage of his unit on the ground in Afghanistan, fighting what seems to be a ghost. Certainly the camera team could have missed some of the more graphic shots of the firefights, leaving out any evidence of the enemy whom was being pursued, but it appears to the audience as though they are chasing something that doesn't exist, and firing back at the air in hopes of defending themselves and this country's freedom. The fight scenes are as stirring as those in Restrepo from a year or so ago, and the homefront scenes as heartbreaking as anything else.

I think the simplicity of war is what makes the complexity of every day life difficult to live with. In war, there is so much structure and straightforward orders handed down by the chain of command which is never question, but when it comes to democratic life back in the States with his family and friends it becomes difficult to bear. One of the things which accents this disconnect so well is the stunning cinematography which is captured here. It seems like the best war photographers, like James Nachtwey (who had a documentary made on his brilliant career worth checking out, War Photographer), were on hand to shoot this film with such breathtaking and horrific beauty. This may be the best shot documentary I have ever seen.

War documentaries seem like an easy choice for the Academy when it comes to Documentary Feature nominees, but in the case of Hell and Back Again, director Danfung Dennis has crafted a unique perspective on the psychological hell of war, and the equally grueling part of returning home from it, and having to live with what you have experienced in war. The personality of Nathan Harris is perfectly suited for this film because of his attitude towards war. We see him playing Call of Duty, and I sit there wondering what it means for a real soldier to play a simulation of war. He shows his wife how to operate the handgun, and I sit in deep tension as he handles the gun because I know of his unstable mental state because of the trauma he has gone through. It is not always an easy film to digest, but I'll be damned if it is not one of the most gripping, interesting, and stylistically impressive documentaries I've seen this year.

***1/2

ESPN 30 for 30: Run Ricky Run (2010)

2012-01-24T23:02:00.002-05:00

Directed by Sean Pamphilon & Royce Toni

The symptom of the celebrity is often fleeting and forgotten. Such is the case of Ricky Williams. Say his name today and some will recall a time when he was running over defenses either at Texas where he won the Heisman Trophy, college football's highest honor, or in the NFL where he won the rushing title with the Dolphins. Others still will recall the loss of talent to the evil of extracurricular interests. I have two questions to pose before entering fully into my review of the subject of Ricky Williams. The first is do people even know that Williams still plays in the NFL? It seems as though he has been quickly forgotten. The second question would be do you believe in fate or free will? Destiny or you pave your own path?

I ask this question because there was much controversy surrounding Ricky Williams when he decided to retire early from the NFL. Barry Sanders and Jim Brown also did this and each of the three received their critics, but "when is the right time to quit football?" asked Williams. I guess the fact that he dropped off the face of the earth, moving to rural California to smoke pot, practice Yoga and learn the ways of Holistic medicine may have also alienated those who felt walking away from millions of dollars was insane. But I ask of you, what is the difference between Williams walking away and another famous football player who walked away from a multi-million dollar contract in the NFL, Pat Tillman? I would say the only difference is perspective.

And on the point of perspective, the film I think bears with it some basic bias based on the fact that one of the filmmakers was/is a friend of Williams. But what is also refreshing given that fact is the approach of the film, which stems from Williams' own personal philosophy, which is a presentation of warts and all. Pat Tillman went off to fight for his country, Williams went off to fight for himself. I think there is nothing more admirable than standing up for what you believe in, especially in the face of tremendous media pressure. Who are we to call him the villain when it is us, the fans, who pay him money to go out there and punish his body alongside 21 other players?

The issue with Williams is that we are never sure whether he is insane, or in fact the sanest person we know, as friend/journalist Dan LeBetard put it. Why did he give up everything? We never really know. He proclaims his love of the game, even in the absence of it. But when a man takes an entirely incentives based contract when he didn't have to, simply so he could "earn his money", his sanity comes into question. But why? Doesn't that make sense? Isn't that how most of us make our money, based off of performance? Money is not important to this man, just his joy and pleasure, so why knock him for that?

The film is as much a spiritual journey taken with Williams as it is a story about him. For me, I had a great time contemplating the societal conundrums Ricky was living under his alternative life path chosen by his heart instead of his bank account or PR man. It is refreshing to see somebody pursue their passions and follow their heart when faced with the criticism he experienced. Is Ricky Williams the perfect example to follow, absolutely not. He made mistakes and his choices may not have always been that wholesome or All-American, but we should not be pressured by society to live a life other than the one we want to live. Is this review a little over inquisitive and biased towards my own personal feelings? Absolutely, but honesty pays.

***

ESPN 30 for 30: The Fab Five (2011)

2012-01-24T18:18:00.002-05:00

Directed by Jason Hehir

Every sport has their heroes, their pioneers, and their legendary teams. For college basketball I honestly cannot think of another single team that meant more for the sport or was more recognizable than the Fab Five from the University of Michigan in the early 1990s. There are players that immeddiately pop into mind when thinking about the legends of the game, but when it comes to entire teams, there is none bigger than the group of freshman that changed the game and "shocked the world." Any fan of basketball should easily recognize the names of Chris Webber, Jalen Rose and Juwan Howard, but the five were rounded out by Ray Jackson and Jimmy King, each of which were also blue chip recruits coming out of high school.

The only one of the five who declined to be interviewed for the film is the most controversial of the bunch, Chris Webber. Webber was indicted for lying to a grand jury about improper benefits received from U of M Booster. As a result, the university was stripped of its two Final Four appearances under the team and they were forced to vacate all the wins recorded while Webber was there. Before seeing the film, I had only heard of the legend of the team and knew of the victories and Final Fours they were forced to say never happened. Director Jaason Hehir does a great job of presenting the story and backstory of these players and their impact on the image of college basketball.

The film follows a traditional chronological narrative, which is comfortable, yes, but also necessary for an historical perspective on an influential group of people. I think what shocked me the most about the team was the revolution they put the game through, something I had not quite realized as a younger fan of the game. I grew up and currently live in an era of basketball where high school players used to be able to go straight to the NBA (Kobe Bryant, Kevin Garnett, LeBron James, and a number of unfortunate flops). I live in the era of the "one and done," college freshman who feature prominently on their teams just to leave after one year for the NBA thanks to the new rule prohibiting high school players to make the jump. It is also not uncommon to see baggy shorts and outspoken, arrogant players. It is the world I live in.

So knowing that it was the Fab Five which pioneered these things, I can easily put their significance into perspective, which is exactly what this film does quite well. It meshes the archive footage with interviews creating a reminiscing effect which is very becoming of the men involved. They were just college kids when they made history so hearing from them as grown men with time on their side for perspective I think creates an interesting forum to hear their side of the story. Is their perspective biased? Yes. Is the film biased? To a a degree but in reality it can only be as biased as the viewer allows. There comes a time when you must realize where the information is coming from and put that into the context of what the people are saying and from that glean the truth.

I don't know if the fallout from the Chris Webber thing was justified, though I do tend to trust journalist Mitch Albom who proclaimed that the Webber family and Chris himself lived quite modestly and did not gloat any monetary gain while he was in college, so it is difficult to imagine that he was receiving thousands of dollars, but the fact remains that the Webber issue brings up a popular question in collegiate athletics: Do players deserve to be paid? My stance has always been that their payment is the college education, taking the stand that they do not have to pay the thousands of dollars the other students of the university do to get their college education. But it is true that these players bring in big dollars to their institutions, and to many more people, and hardly see a dime of it relatively speaking. The Fab Five are important because they helped pioneer and create the current climate in college athletics. That and they were massively entertaining, one presumes.

***

Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011)

2012-01-22T19:44:00.002-05:00

Directed by Stephen Daldry
Written by Eric Roth

When it comes to sappy movies, for whatever reason there seems to be some taboo subject matters that are often called manipulative, or Oscar bait even. For the longest time the Holocaust was the front runner in this category, even with great films like Schindler's List. With this film a new subject has arisen as manipulative Oscar bait: 9/11. There was certain buzz surrounding the film, and with my limited radar I may be naive in thinking it extends further than with just my movie crazed internet friends. But that buzz was mostly negative with regard to the film potentially using the subject of 9/11 as a manipulating factor to steal audiences and Oscar votes. I was always in staunch opposition to this theory and in fact was looking forward to further work from the director who brought us The Reader and the screenwriter who brought us Forrest Gump.

Based on the novel of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer, the film is about a young boy named Oskar Schell (Thomas Horn), the son of a jeweler (Tom Hanks). Oskar is a his father's son, loving to pick his brain and participate in the little games he has devised for his son, like reconnaissance expedition. But one day, the "worst day", Thomas Schell perished in the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11. Oskar struggles to accept why such a terrible thing should happen to his father. His mother (Sandra Bullock) attempts to explain to the young boy that sometimes in life things just don't make sense, but this only angers Oskar more as he always has an explanation. So he sets out to find the secret behind a key he finds in his father's closet, seeking the closure and explanation he so deeply needs.

When I heard the film was coming out, I was definitely intrigued by the story. I had heard from a friend that the book was quite good and yet the trailer seemed to mask just about all the mystery that is held within. With the cast involved and the magical mind of Eric Roth (who also wrote The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) behind the screenplay, there was certain to be high reaching themes and there certainly are. There is no denying that the story behind the film is the type I would typically fall in love with, which makes the final product that much more frustrating. I had so many mixed feelings exiting the theater as there was so much I liked about the film, but much more which I wanted to like but couldn't because of one major problem right in the middle of the picture: Thomas Horn.

Every time there is a kid as the central actor in a film I am weary because while there are plenty of examples where the kid knocks it out of the park, there seem to be infinitely more examples of the crash and burn variety. I think Horn is more the latter here than the former, though part of that just has to do with his character. Oskar seems to be a spoiled little kid who likes to whine, and certainly that is a little too critical from my perspective, the kid lost his dad in 9/11. But at the same time I have no problem saying that the character and the performance were both annoying. I was never brought in to care for Oskar because of the way he was reacting to the circumstance of the story, which is a shame because the rest of the cast is pretty great all the way through.

The film features some great technical aspects, first and foremost the cinematography, which seems to emote the beauty of the story better than Horn is capable of. As I said, the themes running through this film are right up my ally. Things like everybody has a story and life doesn't always make sense. I get it, and I like it, but it was the way in which it was presented, quite rambling and unfocused to be honest, which was a turn off for me. I think this is also an instance of the visual medium being detrimental to the story. The imagination is a wonderful thing, and I can imagine that the experience of reading the book would be much more rewarding for me personally than this adaptation. The story is about disappointment, and it does it so well that the film itself becomes a disappointment, though I don't think it was intended that way.

**1/2

Shame (2011)

2012-01-21T15:10:00.001-05:00

Directed by Steve McQueen
Written by Steve McQueen & Abi Morgan

As I approached the box office I made sure to have my ID ready. When I handed it to the cashier, he politely thanked me for having it out, and suggested I keep it out as I would need to show it twice more before entering the theater for my movie. So with ID in hand, I had my ticket stub torn as I was told the way to my theater and reminded once again to have my ID out. When I got to the movie house, there was an AMC employee sitting there on a chair, ready to check my ID for the third time. I now understand why the NC-17 rating is considered death to a movie. But as I left the theater afterward, not having to show my ID at all to return to my car, I also understood it is a shame (haha) that people, but more importantly theaters, will be deterred by the rating of the film, and miss out on its brilliance.

I can't say I disagree with the rating, it is a film complete with lots of sexual content and plenty of nudity, so none should tred lightly into this film. Brandon (Michael Fassbender) is a successful man in New York City. He lives in a nice apartment, is handsome, and is a sex addict. We see him as he comes and goes with multiple partners, paying for the service sometimes and watching pornography. Addiction is a light word for Brandon's problem, as it runs much deeper than that, which is evident when his sister, Sissy (Carey Mulligan), shows up. A vagabond with issues of her own, Sissy throws a wrench into Brandon's addiction by making him consider emotion in his life where it has been absent for so long.

But I do disagree with the stigma that comes with the rating. This is a movie about sex, true, and it does tell it quiet graphically at times, but the experiences and encounters are just as important as anything else in terms of telling the heartbreaking story of Brandon Sullivan, and for that reason it is not gratuitous. The miracle of this film is its main character and its lead actor, Michael Fassbender. Brandon is the main character, true, but in many ways he is the villain in the story. Somehow Fassbender and writer/director Steve McQueen, manage to paint him as a very sympathetic villain. We hate Brandon for using women and always standing at a distance far removed from any emotional connection. He is smooth, handsome and successful, yet he still pays prostitutes for their services. I hate this man.

The problem is he is an addict, not a criminal. And his crime is the lack of a heart capable of letting attachment and love enter, and what can be more sympathetic than that when it becomes so evident that when his sister re-enters his life that he is really trying to let her in and move past just sex with one particular apple of his eye. The performance by Fassbender is really a revelation in what has already been a magnificent career which has spanned just a short time but promises to be long and successful. The film seems perfectly paced and shot in director Steve McQueen's sophomore effort complete with startling cinematography. The score of the film seems so intruding, just as Sissy intrudes on Brandon and his troubled lifestyle.

Sissy is not perfect either, and makes plenty of mistakes throughout the film which seems to compound on the mistakes of the past. But he entrance into the life of Brandon showed a glimmer of hope. It was evident there was love in his heart, but as the story progresses, we continue to see Brandon struggle to come out of his addiction, or even do anything about it. It is not a heartwarming or romantic story, but rather one which challenges the viewers stomach for sexual content and their constitution for depression and addiction. If you open up your mind to the film and your heart to the characters, the film will be a rewarding experience. For me, it was one of the bravest films of the year because of its ability to tell the story it wanted to tell without watering any of it down. Heck, I'd say it was one of the years best films. Period.

****

The Artist (2011)

2012-01-14T23:43:00.002-05:00

Written & Directed by Michel Hazanavicius

I had first heard of the film The Artist way back in the springtime when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival, receiving pretty good buzz. What really attracted me was the fact that it is a black and white film, a style which is criminally underused in this day and age. The medium is just not used in cinematography anymore, which doesn't always make sense when the profession of photojournalism seems to have no problem using black and white and being applauded for it. What peeves me more is the fact that some films do look and play better in black and white. For the film The Last Picture Show, director Peter Bogdanovich took a recommendation from friend Orson Welles to film it in black and white. A stroke of genius. Oh, and did I also mention that the film is silent!?

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a famous silent movie star in late 1920s. The star of a major film studio, he has the world at his fingertips: a huge mansion, a personal chauffeur and even a distant wife who likes to draw strange glasses and eyes on his photo in the newspaper. After one of his successful premiers, Valentin bumps into a young, aspiring actress Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo). Soon enough she captivates both George and movie goers alike. But in 1929, with the advent of the talking picture, George finds his place in the annals of fame no longer available while Peppy quickly becomes the most successful and sought after big time star. Valentin, who was once the toast of the town, finds himself down in the boondocks, seeking the fame for which he craves so very much.

The silent is film is 100% dead in the modern era. There are films which still use images rather than words as the main communicator of the story, and I think the French animated film The Illusionist would be the greatest example of this, but that this film, a black and white silent film, should be released today and garner the massive attention which it has is no less than astounding. And performing in a silent film is very much so different than in a talking film, expression must be made with facial and bodily movements instead of with words. Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo seem to have the method down to a T. They both shine in their roles, with Dujardin seemingly mastering the art of physical humor which is seldom seen in the day and age of the R-rated, potty mouth comedy.

The story was, however, only mildly captivating. At the very least the story is derivative of a number of films, which I suppose at this point, what isn't? But it was to the point that I couldn't not think about A Star is Born, which my mother was nice enough to point out, and similar stories, and also one of my very favorite films of all time, Singin' in the Rain. The story is a good one, I recognize that as well as the film's ability to tell it well, which director Michel Hazanavicius does with his camera and pacing. The cinematography is a great strength of the film and there are some genuinely brilliant ideas thrown into the film. An easy example would be how funny the films within the film were.

From the technical side, the film was a massive success, especially in its use of sound, oddly enough. That, I suppose, is one of the many advantages of producing a silent film in an era where special effects and sound have been mastered. It is easy to get lost in the style of the film however. How often is a big film silent? or in black and white? It is a great style and I freely admit that, but I couldn't help but feel like many have responded to this nostalgic play on old time Hollywood as a means of upgrading what is a very good film into the stratosphere of greatness, marking it the current frontrunner in the race for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I am sure there are loads of people who will disagree with me on that, but the self-centered ego of Valentin, which is carried throughout the film, was not overly impressive to me, even while Dujardin was. We do need more black and white films and silent films should not be a lost art, I agree, but that simple fact does not necessarily elevate this particular film.

***

Carnage (2011)

2012-01-14T10:56:00.002-05:00

Directed by Roman Polanski
Written by Yasmina Reza & Roman Polanski

Stage plays are great to witness. Regrettably I have not been to many in my life, especially outside the school productions I was nearly obligated to attend at times. But I think their effectiveness comes from the often close quarters under which they are held. There is something about the short amount of time in which they unfold that always make them feel more explosive and more natural. Roman Polanski's new film, Carnage, is such a stage play. Based on Yasmina Reza's play Gods of Carnage, Polanski brings together a great cast of actors to tell this story. The stage comedy is not something I have seen much of, at least I struggle to come up with a couple examples off hand which were adapted to the big screen. As for dramas, Glengarry Glen Ross and 12 Angry Men are two that immediately come to mind which feature great actors in confined spaces. on the big screen.

In this tale, Penelope (Jodie Foster) and Michael (John C. Reilly) are hosting the Cowan's, Nancy (Kate Winslet) and Alan (Christoph Waltz), at their apartment. The reason for the meeting is that the Cowan's son struck the Longstreet's with a stick in Brooklyn Bridge Park, resulting in the loss of two teeth and potential nerve damage. This information makes the formality and politeness of the meeting all the more surprising. But soon enough the couples begin to stand their ground even more on the issue at hand, fighting for their kids and standing up for them. This causes the proceedings to move from formal and polite to a riotous affair.

As a comedy, none of it ever insists upon itself in terms of being overly dramatic and socially important, which may alienate some when dealing with the subject of children's violence, but when taken for face value as the bickering between two sets of parents in the day and age when political correctness rules the day, it is a very funny film, and one which showcases the talent of everyone involved. The cast is complete with 4 Oscars among them, and each actor has been nominated for the award. Their chemistry on screen is a beauty to behold and the way in which they seem to play off of each other is wonderful. The ladies of the film have each been nominated for Golden Globes for their performances, but I don't think I would hold any of the four performances above the others. They just worked well as a team.

And part of that team was the director Roman Polanski, whose staging of the film was equally brilliant to the performances he got from his cast. I love films like this which unfold in confined space in a short, natural amount of time. The whole film feels like one really long take, even though it isn't, simply because there is never any time jump. The way Polanski positions the actors about the small New York apartment and the way he moves them about like chess pieces aides the comedic and dramatic tension of the film and helps make the comedy all the more effective.

The screenplay is wonderful too, creating some great "big" moments which make the relationships between each of the characters that much more strained, which again, helps with how funny the film can become. I am not sure, however, that the film reaches for anything deeper than perhaps utilizing this type of situation for comedic enjoyment. Perhaps Polanski is commenting on the ridiculousness of political correctness is certain situations like where one son is harmed by another, where parents act "fake" and put up a facade for the benefit of being polite when in reality honesty can be the best dose of medicine. Just some food for thought, but for me the film succeeded for the simple fact that it was funny, and it was funny because of what the cast did with their talent and with the material, and more especially because they did it in the pressure cooker of a small apartment.

***1/2

ESPN 30 for 30: Silly Little Game (2010)

2012-01-13T12:36:00.003-05:00

Directed by Lucas Jansen & Adam Kurland

I am a big time lover of sports, which is why I so wanted to embark on this marathon of sports documentaries from ESPN. At the same time, baseball is, was and always will be my favorite sport and even now in the dead of winter with snow gently falling onto the frozen ground I long for the boys of summer who are men playing a child's game. I long for the smell of freshly mown, perfectly manicured green grass and the hot sun beating down me as I sweat like a pig up in the nosebleeds, longing for just a glimpse of greatness from one of my favorite players. My love of baseball knows no end so I can definitely say that my view of this particular episode of the series will be slightly biased.

For those that don't know, the film is about the development of the wonder of fantasy sports. Back then it was exclusive to the sport of baseball having been developed by one baseball nut in a French restaurant. Dan Okrent, whom I had only known before as a commentator in Ken Burns' great documentary series simply titled Baseball, thought up an idea where you could own your own team and compete against your friends to prove your baseball knowledge. They called it Rotisserie League Baseball and created a phenomenon when their publishing connections broke the story to America. But slowly their obsession grew and left them behind, developing into a multi-billion dollar industry, but they saw none of that money.

The film works for me on a number of levels based solely on my nuttiness for the sport and my ability to connect with the equally, if not even more, nerdy baseball fanatics who are chronicled in the film. These guys, and the token one girl, are crazy and were obsessed with the game, spending countless hours out of their day to concentrate on making trades and following the stats of their teams. But what makes this all so special is the fact that they enjoyed what they were doing. They enjoyed the long hours of research. Dan Okrent at one point says that he started compiling stats on a daily basis instead of weakly, saying that it was awful. He quickly follows with the statement, "No, it wasn't awful, I loved it."

The film is simple and told in a very straightforward, history style with no extra fireworks apart from the dramatizations of the past. These dramatizations were outrageous but in the best way possible. They are completely overblown and depict the participants of this league as crazed sports fanatics, but that is probably because they were. They created something very special with millions of Americans obsess over every year. But it is remarkable to think they were working in an era before the internet. They had to have their drafts in person and compile their stats by themselves. Now the internet has become a major contributor to the success and prominence of the "sport".

These men, and the token girl who was included, should be recognized for their contribution to the sport of baseball but also to all the sports that are now included under the fantasy umbrella. ESPN fantasy expert Matthew Berry makes a comment near the end of the film which really surprised me at first, but when he explained, it made more sense than anything else to me. He said that these people deserve to be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. I was shocked at first, but when you think about it, they have contributed more to the consumption of the game, more to the knowledge of the average fan, than just about any player, manager, or executive over the last 30 years. It may not be an obvious choice, but who among you can say that you have not partaken in fantasy sports, and becomes even a little more knowledgeable about the sports you love?

***

We Bought a Zoo (2011)

2012-01-10T16:08:00.002-05:00

Directed by Cameron Crowe
Written by Aline McKenna & Cameron Crowe

"The purpose of life is to live, not to exist" author Jack London once said, and I tend to agree with him. But I would also say that the purpose of life is the pursuit of joy, pleasure and happiness, a sentiment Thomas Jefferson once famously also shared (although he meant more specifically slavery when he said happiness, but it has been embraced nonetheless). With that in mind I present to you the Merriam-Webster definition of the word inertia, and please bear with me, I am going somewhere with this. Inertia: A property of matter by which it remains at rest or in uniform motion in the same straight line unless acted upon by some external force. All humans suffer from it, the unfortunate part being the external force, which is ultimately unavoidable. The external force is that which seeks to alter your perfect life, a way of testing your resolve and adaptability. The external force is what makes life's pursuit of joy, pleasure and happiness such an adventure. Cameron Crowe's new film We Bought a Zoo is about inertia and that external force.

Based on the memoir of Benjamin Mee, an adventure seeker and former journalist. When Benjamin (Matt Damon) and his son Dylan (Colin Ford) and daughter (Maggie Elizabeth Jones) experience the loss of wife and mother Katherine, they struggle to land back on their feet. Seeking a new beginning at the behest of his brother Duncan (Thomas Haden Church), Benjamin moves the family from the city to the countryside, where the property they have just bought is in fact a zoo. Teaming with the young zookeeper Kelly (Scarlett Johansson), the Mees work to restore the zoo and save the animals for whom it provides care. But with the recent past weighing on Benjamin, the question becomes whether or not he will be able to get off the ground for his, and the zoo's, new start.

The plot of the film, while not completely unimportant, is fairly pedestrian and the cliches are easily noticed. There is no doubt where the film will end up, but to quote another great adventurer, the late photographer Dan Eldon, "the journey is the destination" for this film. The cast of characters is too strong and sympathetic to resist for me personally. Benjamin is a man who had everything with his beautiful wife Katherine and a job that allowed him to experience his adventures. But with her death, he has been adjusted from his uniform motion and left without a direction. Matt Damon portrays him with a certain subtle tenderness that is irresistible, especially when coupled with the adorable Maggie Elizabeth Jones. Colin Ford also impresses as the son of his father Dylan Mee, wrestling with the demons of what it means to cope, love, and be loved.

But while the performances are all good, with perhaps the exception of John Michael Higgins as the USDA inspector, it is Crowe's direction and screenwriting which strike the right chords. Crowe is a favorite of mine for his ability to tell great stories, using an abundance of genuine heart, and incorporating great music to fit with the tone. His music selection, while still top notch, is less noticeable here (there is no Tom Cruise belting "Free Fallin'" [Jerry Maguire] or a broken band re-bonding over a rendition of "Tiny Dancer" [Almost Famous]). But what Crowe did manage to do is make me vulnerable to the story and characters, which is not always an easy thing to do. And when I saw "make vulnerable" I mean I connected and sympathized in such a way as I broke out in tears, and when the waterworks came, they easily continued their flow with each passing touch of passion, tenderness, and vulnerability depicted on screen. There was a certain specificity towards memory and connection with people that struck a chord inside me and made me think of all the people I hold dear in my life. It may sound a bit manipulative, but in reality it was all sentiment, and done really well.

Mee experiences hardship, but it is his passion and pursuit of joy and pleasure which pushes him forward. Kelly, the zookeeper is shown with an equal amount of passion for what she does. It is their bond and the bond of everyone in the film which propels the story forward and makes the film soar like it does. I have heard reviews that say Damon elevates the material, which I disagree with. Crowe elevates the material above the cliche and expected and crafts another emotional, sentimental gem which utilizes its great cast to bring to life a love story, a story of sorrow, a story of passion, and a story of joy. There are a lot of thematic elements in the film which cause most people to flock to the words cheesy or corny, which may be accurate, but there is also a reason they are called cheesy and corny, and when they are done really well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with them. Most of the time when I sit down to write a review I am trying to communicate an answer to the question why should you see the film. This time I have a simple response: why not?

***1/2

ESPN 30 for 30: The Dotted Line (2011)

2012-01-10T00:24:00.002-05:00

Directed by Morgan Spurlock

Sports are games at their very core. They are something almost every boy and girl grows up participating or at the very least watching in some form. Baseball has been the national pastime since the late 1880s, and many would argue that the pastime is now more football, but whichever way you swing it, sports are a major part of American society. And while they may ultimately be children's games, they are also a business with loads of money to made. Each teams must run its organization to make the most money. At the end of the day winning championships usually brings in quite a bit of money, but only one team can win, the others have to keep their head above water and make a buck. Then there are the players who have to make theirs, and for that purpose we have the sports agent.

As the documentary points out, the sports agent has been parodied as being a slimy, greedy, detrimental figure in the sports world. But there are also films like Jerry Maguire, which paint the hopeful outlook of the diamond in the rough agent who is there to make a difference in the players livelihood instead of just make millions of dollars. Morgan Spurlock (Super Size Me, The Greatest Movie Ever Sold) takes a 50 minute journey into the sports agent world in an attempt to answer some important questions as to the relevancy, purpose and morality of the sports agent. To do so is an ambitious task, but one which is done succinctly enough to make a good introduction into these people behind the scenes.

One of the major strengths of the film is the gambit of examples which are provided. Spurlock spends time with an NFL, NBA, and MLB agent, giving each his equal due in explaining their significance and role in shaping the business and their clients. This variety is something the series to this point has overall not succeeded at in my opinion. And within these three leagues, Spurlock also delves into the role of the agent in effecting the lives of his (and yes it is his as there are no female agents in the film, and the role of gender is never discussed). In the case of the NBA, we see Michael Jordan's agent retelling the story where he stood up against his own company for his client, and how he nearly single-handedly branded Air Jordan and brought millions of dollars into the pocket of Jordan from advertising deals. Peter Greenberg, the MLB agent is shown giving Venezuelan kids a chance to play in the big leagues and provide for their otherwise poor families.

The one exception might be the NFL agent, Eugene Lee, who is a young man who is recruiting players to represent in the upcoming NFL draft. He comes off as much more of a commodities broker with the single intent of making himself money. No offense to Lee, but his ability to woo the clients into signing deals was not fun to watch, especially when he told each one the same thing. At the end of the film he had only signed two guys, one who went undrafted and one who ended up leaving Lee's company after being drafted by the New York Giants. Like any business I would assume there are those who do the job because they love it and really do have their clients best interests at heart, and for that reason the sports agent is important in keeping these players being treated like property. At the same time I believe there are those who are in it for the wrong reasons as well, but the important thing is Spurlock presents those sides for the viewer to see and decide.

The last bit of discussion in the film is about rules breakers in the game of sports agents, particularly in relation the NCAA. I could easily write a book about this topic, but basically all Spurlock does is call into question the system set up by the NCAA and the agreement they have with the agents, who sometimes feel as though the rules were not made for them. One even makes the comment that he believed it was possible the succeed in the business being clean, but that it was very unlikely. As with the other topics discussed, Spurlock could have made an entire feature length documentary about the subject of NCAA rules violations, but that was not his purpose. Spurlock seems to make it clear that this is a piece to introduce the pros and cons and the issues and have the viewer decide where they stand on the issues. To that purpose, the film succeeds brilliantly, even if it could easily expand on everything it covers, which is quite a bit considering the quick runtime.

***

The Real Rocky (2011)

2012-01-08T15:32:00.002-05:00

Directed by Jeff Feuerzeig

One of the most unattractive personality traits in my opinion is selfishness, and somehow this film sets out to simply get under my skin because of it, and not because director Jeff Feuerzeig sets out to do so, but because that is how the story of the life of Chuck Wepner, who it is claimed is the "real Rocky", plays out. The film Rocky is without a doubt a cultural phenomenon, perhaps not as big as other things, but a franchise with six installments and an Oscar for Best Picture for the original make it one of the most successful and popular franchises of the last 40 years. So I guess the question here becomes what was Sylvester Stallone's inspiration for this great character, and where does/should Chuck Wepner fit in?

Wepner was an underdog heavyweight fighter his entire career. After winning the Golden Gloves in New York (Wepner is from New Jersey), Wepner started his professional career and was a decent heavyweight. At one time he rose into the top 10 in the world rankings and he was given a title shot against Muhammad Ali, knocking him down en route to an impressive, 15 round loss against the Greatest of All Time. There is little debate about the fact that Apollo Creed was modeled after Ali, and there is little doubt that this fight was at least some inspiration to Stallone for the climax of the Oscar winner, but does that mean Stallone owes something to Wepner?

It is an interesting question and one the documentary tries to answer, albeit in a round about way. Artistic license is something that is a bit open for interpretation. Using the logic of Wepner, who sued and ultimately settled with Stallone, the families of fallen soldiers of World War II or should sue the likes of Steven Spielberg or Oliver Stone for drawing inspiration from their loved ones experiences in war. That is a generalization, but where does the line stop? Rocky is a work of fiction and in my own opinion Stallone does not owe anything to Wepner, and if he did, why isn't Muhammad Ali equally offended by Stallone's use of his likeness as Apollo Creed in the film? I think the answer comes in the picture Feuerzeig paints of Wepner's life.

And that is where the selfishness comes into play. Wepner is a strange character to pin down exactly, and one that is so foreign to me that I can't imagine personally knowing someone like him. He entered the Marines to chase girls for the heck of it, service to his country not used in his reasoning. And then when life handed him the chance to use his size and physicality as a bouncer, and then ultimately a heavyweight boxer, he took it. There never seemed to be any passion for where his life led him, which is fine, but when it comes to suing Stallone it all seems so desperate. Wepner seems to revel in his 15 minutes of fame of knocking Ali down, and why shouldn't he? But do we really need to see Wepner running up a flight of steps, wearing a gray hoodie and black cap, reimagining the famous sequence that caps off the training montage in Rocky?

I don't feel sorry for Wepner at all in terms of his story being used in Rocky and him not getting compensated. Stallone described it as him wanting to tell his own story, but using Wepner's circumstance as a more mainstream vehicle to communicate that story to the masses, and he succeeded brilliantly. That was his right as an artist and I respect him for being able to construct a great film like Rocky. But it is too hard for me to respect Wepner for taking more credit than he deserves for the story, and for trying to sue Stallone for $15 million, and for agreeing to meet Andre the Giant in a cross-genre fighting match. I struggle to respect him as a rabbit-punching boxer. And ultimately I struggle to respect the film itself for its gimmick round table discussion and poorly imagined narrative.

**

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

2012-01-07T14:55:00.002-05:00

Directed by Tomas Alfredson
Written by Bridget O'Connor & Peter Straughan

Generally there are two types of spy films. The first is the most popular and that is the action film. Great examples of these types of films would be the James Bond series or the Jason Bourne series; films which are chock full of action and intrigue and leave you on the edge of your seat throughout the fast paced runtime. Then there is the second kind, the much lesser known, less popular variety of spy thriller: the action-less spy film. To be honest I find it difficult to even come up with any really good examples of this type of film, though I am sure I have seen one or two, but Tomas Alfredson, who burst onto the international cinema scene with his film Let the Right One In, masterfully constructs just such a film with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

The "Circus" is the group of international spies who work for the British government out of London. Their head, Control (John Hurt), has suspicions that one of the operatives working within the Circus is a double agent for communist Russia. He keeps his suspicions secret, dispatching one agent (Mark Strong) to find more information. Later Control dies and along with him his suspicions until the Minister suspects the same thing and he appoints former Circus member Smiley (Gary Oldman) to find the mole with the help of his associate Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch). Colin Firth, Ciaran Hinds, Toby Jones and David Dencik play the suspect spies, but which one is feeding the Russians their information?

I have heard the film described as a couple of things before I had the chance to see it for myself: a slow burn, boring. After having seen it I can completely understand both the adjectives when applied to the film. Tomas Alfredson is impressive in his handling of the material, which is based on the book of the same name by John le Carre, which I have not personally read. The attention to detail and his use of the camera make for a tense and singular mood throughout the film. The cinematography is one of the many strengths of the film and seems to observe everything it is meant to and sort of float about the proceedings, adding to the quietly tense mood which surrounds the proceedings. In that regard, it is certainly a slow burn.

However, I can see the boring side of it as well. Because of the attention to detail, and because of the minimalist approach by Alfredson, revealing only the bear minimum of information at any given time, great attention must also be paid by the viewer in return for the same attention paid by the filmmaker. This focus which is required by the viewer can either create a rewarding experience, or a boring one depending on perspective. It is a slow burn, no doubt, but the burn never seems to lead to the powder keg many may expect of such a spy thriller, but that is only a detriment to those who see it as such. Personally it worked for me because it was able to maintain the mood of the film from start to finish.

What really aides Alfredson in the approach he chooses to use for the film is the amazing cast with which he has surrounded himself. It all starts in the middle with Gary Oldman, but trickles down throughout the many British bit players who are convincing in all their roles. Any film which features Colin Firth in a smaller role, or John Hurt, or Tom Hardy or pretty much anybody in the film has strength in its numbers when it comes to an ensemble cast, of which this film may trump any from 2011. The actors understanding of the understated, subtle mood of the film bolsters that mood with the moxie of its veteran cast. I think I ultimately fall somewhere in the middle of the slow burn, boring crowd. I have immense respect for the craft of the film and Alfredson is definitely a director to watch now after his last two films, but I can't help but admit that I would have liked there to a be a powder keg somewhere.

***

ESPN 30 for 30: No Crossover: The Trial of Allen Iverson (2010)

2012-01-06T10:48:00.003-05:00

Directed by Steve James

The ESPN 30 for 30 series was advertised as featuring 30 films by acclaimed filmmakers to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the television station. I was always stuck by that curious word "acclaimed" which was used to describe the filmmakers. Don't get me wrong, thus far I have enjoyed the series a great deal, but a quick glance at the series and I can tell you that I only recognize the names of a handful of the directors attached to the installments. Steve James was one of those names and that alone made me excited to see this particular film, even if the subject of Allen Iverson didn't hold any special place in my heart. James directed my favorite film from 2011, The Interrupters, as well as one of the great sports documentaries of all time, 1994's Hoop Dreams.

Interestingly enough, James was in Chicago filming Hoop Dreams at the same time his hometown of Hampton, Virginia was experiencing a controversy surrounding one of its many star high school athletes, Allen Iverson. In the early 90s, after a successful run to the state title in football for Bethel High School, Allen Iverson was involved in a bowling alley altercation which was sparked by a racial slur uttered by a white man toward Iverson's group of friends. A brawl ensued and an innocent girl was knocked in the head by a flying chair. It took the newspapers a week to report the incident, but once they did, the story, in connection with Iverson caught everybody's attention. Meanwhile, Iverson led his basketball team to the state title as well.

For some reason this is the type of story that I figure I would have heard by now, especially based on Iverson's somewhat cavalier attitude on the basketball court. He was always portrayed as a little bit of a punk and while I may not have liked him very much, I had no defense for liking his massive arsenal of talent on the basketball court. Yet this was the first I had heard of this incident. Maybe I just have been under a rock or just too young to have heard about it or remembered it, and James does not dwell on its obscurity, so I must assume that I just didn't know about it. That being said, the style of the film paints Iverson as a flawed human being, and one who is capable of bad things, but also capable of remorse and charity.

Every athlete it seems like is charitable, but Iverson seemed much more sincere than many often do and that had to do with his origins. He was actually convicted and sentenced to up to 5 years in prison for his role in the brawl, which to this day remains basically unknown. There was shoddy home video footage of the brawl, but no one seems to know the truth about who threw the chair that hit the innocent girl in the head. I think James does a good job at asking the sources all the right questions. The failing of the documentary is that the truth is lost somewhere within, which sets the reputation and past experience of "The Answer" as something which comes off as very sincere. You can see it in his face he is not 100% happy with how his life played out, but who ever is really? This imperfection and signs of remorse is what makes it a human story and one that ultimately works.

I am curious to know whether James received an extra 30 minutes from ESPN to lengthen his episode to 80 instead of the standard 50, or if it was always planned that way because the film definitely gains from the extra time. James is able to paint a much fuller picture from start to finish to help put the incident in perspective. It is not a great film, and that I think comes from the approach of James, which is that of a hometown kid looking for the truth. It may have been a better film had James been there himself when it happened. But alas, he was not. The conspiracy theories of tampering from rival Hampton High School, and nearby Hampton University to get Iverson's sentence to be shortened, which ultimately was, are entertaining even if they don't add much to the overall story other than atmosphere. I don't think there was much James could do with this film to make it a great sports documentary, especially considering Iverson refused an invitation to be interviewed for it, but it is at least a decent one.

**1/2

2012 Film Outlook

2012-01-02T21:18:00.001-05:00

As with every year there are a number of films set to be released which are promising in the composition. Not knowing how they will eventually turn out, one can only go on basic information like the director, the actors, and the simple plot of the film. From that, I have been able to compile a rather extensive list of films to which I am eagerly anticipating. Instead of doing a ranked list, which would be far too limiting, not to mention difficult, I will present these films in tiers.

The Hunger Games

Will See Eventually

-The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (John Madden) - Judi Dench, Bill Nighy, Maggie Smith

-Crazy Horse (Frederick Wiseman) - Documentary

-The Five-Year Engagement (Nicholas Stoller) - Jason Segal, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt

-Frankenweenie (Tim Burton) - Claymation

-The Hunger Games (Gary Ross) - Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth

-The Odd Life of Timothy Green (Peter Hedges) - Jennifer Garner, Joel Edgerton, Cameron Adams

-Savages (Oliver Stone) - Aaron Johnson, Taylor Kitsch, Blake Lively

-Undefeated (Daniel Lindsay & T.J. Martin) - Documentary

-Wanderlust (David Wain) - Jennifer Aniston, Paul Rudd, Malin Ackerman

-We Need to Talk About Kevin (Lynne Ramsay) - Tilda Swinton, John C. Reilly

The Great Gatsby

Will See in the Theaters

-Argo (Ben Affleck) - Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman

-Beauty and the Beast, Titanic & Finding Nemo - These films get a 3D release, I will instead just take the opportunity to see them on the big screen in 2D

-The Bourne Legacy (Tony Gilroy) - Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, Edward Norton

-Casa de mi Madre (Mat Piedmont) - Will Ferrell, Gael Garcia Bernal, Diego Luna

-The Great Gatsby (Baz Luhrmann) - Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton

-Haywire (Steven Soderbergh) - Gina Carano, Ewan McGregor, Michael Fassbender

-Jeff Who Lives at Home (Jay & Mark Duplass) - Jason Segal, Ed Helms, Judy Greer

-John Carter (Andrew Stanton) - Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Willem Dafoe

-Kill Bin Laden (Katheryn Bigelow) - Rooney Mara, Tom Hardy, Idris Elba

-Life of Pi (Ang Lee) - Tobey Maguire, Irrfan Khan, Tabu

-Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson) - Jared Gilman, Kara Hayward, Bruce Willis

-Neighborhood Watch (Akiva Schaffer) - Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Jonah Hill

-Nero Fiddled (Woody Allen) - Woody Allen, Ellen Page, Jesse Eisenberg

-The Pirates! Band of Misfits (Peter Lord & Jeff Newitt) - Claymation

-Rush (Ron Howard) - Olivia Wilde, Chris Hemsworth, Russell Crowe

-World War Z (Marc Forster) - Brad Pitt, Eric West, Matthew Fox

-Wreck-It Ralph (Rich Moore) - Animated

Gangster Squad

Will See Opening Weekend

-The Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb) - Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans

-Anna Karenina (Joe Wright) - Jude Law, Keira Knightley, Emily Watson

-The Avengers (Joss Whedon) - Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson

-Cogan's Trade (Andrew Dominik) - Brad Pitt, Scoot McNairy, Ben Mendelsohn

-The Gangster Squad (Ruben Fleischer) - Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone

-The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Peter Jackson) - Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage

- Les Miserables (Tom Hooper) - Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway

-Looper (Rian Johnson) - Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt

-The Secret World of Arrietty (Hiromasa Yonebayashi) - Studio Ghibli

-This is 40 (Judd Apatow) - Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Jason Segal

-Untitled Ramin Bahrani Film (Ramin Bahrani) - Zac Efron, Heather Graham, Dennis Quaid

Untitled Terrence Malick Film

Would See Right Now If I Could

-Brave (Mark Andrews & Brenda Chapman) - Animated

-The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan) - Christian Bale, Tom Hardy, Michael Caine

-Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino) -Jamie Foxx, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Leonardo DiCaprio

-Gravity (Alfonso Cuaron) - Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

-Lincoln (Steven Spielberg) - Daniel Day-Lewis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jared Harris

-Prometheus (Ridley Scott) - Noomi Rapace, Charlize Theron, Patrick Wilson

-Skyfall (Sam Mendes) - Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes

-Untitled Terrence Malick Film (Terrence Malick) - Rachel McAdams, Ben Affleck, Rachel Weisz

Favorite 25 Films of 2011

2012-01-01T19:10:00.002-05:00

25. My Week with Marilyn (Simon Curtis) - Michelle Williams is amazing. My frontrunner for the Oscar.
24. In a Better World (Susanne Bier) - The Oscar winner for last year's Foreign Language film.
23. Moneyball (Bennett Miller) - Not the best baseball movie ever made, but a baseball movie nonetheless.
22. Another Earth (Mike Cahill) - I liked this a lot better when I first saw it, but Brit Marling is still a revelation.
21. Martha Marcy May Marlene (Sean Durkin) - An amazing debut by director Durkin and star Olsen. Sometimes too ambiguous, but always beautiful cinematography.

20. Contagion (Steven Soderbergh) - Didn't seem to get the buzz I felt it deserved. Scary, but extremely well done.
19. Jane Eyre (Cary Fukunaga) - Never read the book, but Mia Wasikowska and Michael Fassbender are marvelous in this classic adaptation.
18. Win Win (Tom McCarthy) - Another solid performance from Paul Giamatti and a nice family/sports film.
17. Take Shelter (Jeff Nichols) - Astounding performances from Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain lift this to a great movie.
16. Senna (Asif Kapadia) - A very good documentary not just about a race car driver, but about a man. Perfectly paced, as it were.
15. The Skin I Live In (Pedro Almodovar) - Completely cold and pretty unrelatable, but massively entertaining and twisted.
14. The Muppets (James Bobin) - Simple, and simply bliss for any fan of the Muppets or nostalgia.
13. Winnie the Pooh (Stephen J. Anderson & Don Hall) - Same goes for Winnie and the gang. Such love and heart in this film.
12. Warrior (Gavin O'Connor) - The best surprise of the year filled with great performances and genuine edge of your seat drama.
11. Another Year (Mike Leigh) - How a film about everything foreign to me (love/marriage) can be this good is a testament to Mike Leigh and his wonderful players.

10. Alamar (Pedro Gonzalez-Rubio)

A wonderful film about a father and his son. Is it a documentary or is it fiction? I don't know, but it's good.

9. Hanna (Joe Wright)

Joe Wright proves he is more than just a prestige director in this great action film featuring a slick score by The Chemical Brothers.

8. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (Brad Bird)

There is not a whole lot of substance nor is there much of a villain, but the action is top notch and goes from start to finish.

7. Midnight in Paris (Woody Allen)

Woody delivers yet again with a simple, fun film about nostalgia.

6. War Horse (Steven Spielberg)

Spielberg is the master of blockbuster cinema and manages to hit all the right notes once again. I would call it a series of vignettes rather than episodic.

5. Super 8 (J.J. Abrams)

A throwback to the Spielberg of the 70s/80s. A great kid adventure highlighted by the young cast and their exciting journey.

4. The Descendants (Alexander Payne)

With great, Oscar-worthy performances from George Clooney and Shailene Woodley, the film feels very natural in its deconstruction of paradise.

3. The Tree of Life (Terrence Malick)

My most anticipated film of the year delivered with its unorthodox storytelling and beautiful cinematography. Definitely not for everyone though.

2. Drive (Nicolas Winding Refn)

Definitely style over substance here, but the style is so amazing that it makes it not only one of the coolest films of the year, but one of the best.

1. The Interrupters (Steve James)

I never would have figured my favorite film of the year would ever be a documentary, but when a film is as real and powerful and wonderfully observed and constructed, there is no way this isn't my favorite film of the year.

Notable films I did not/have not seen: The Artist, Melancholia, Young Adult, A Dangerous Method, Shame, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Carnage, We Bought a Zoo, Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

ESPN 30 for 30: Guru of Go (2010)

2011-12-23T23:29:00.001-05:00

Directed by Bill Couturie

I have started to realize something about this series. Well, for one it has captivated me from the start, whether it has always been good or even mediocre to bland. But there have been some great episodes in there with great stories told in very compelling ways. Early on I complimented the series in its variety in terms of the sports which it had covered. However, I have started to notice that it has become loaded with football and basketball stories, which is fine because they are great, but if I had one major beef with the series thus far it would be for the lack of baseball on the menu, and it doesn't look to be much more promising in the future when I look at the schedule. Like I said, I can't complain, these are great stories, but it'd still be nice to encounter my favorite sport in this series.

Back to basketball, director Bill Couturie delves into the interesting and innovative life of basketball coach Paul Westhead. Westhead is significant to the game of basketball for a couple of reasons, including being the only coach to have won championships in both the NBA and the WNBA, with the Lakers and Mercury respectively. But his influence over the style of play in the game is greater, having been the principle implementer of the run and gun style of offense. He conditioned his players to pressure the ball and run it down the floor, taking as many shots as possible. The offense was explosive, but when he encountered the equally explosive player Hank Gathers while coaching at Loyola Marymount, a tragedy seemed to mar the success of the style and the legacy of the team.

Marymount was a serious title contender in 1990 with the potent play of Philadelphia phenoms Bo Kimble and Hank Gathers. But Gathers had a heart condition, which resulted in him collapsing on the court during one of the games. Just days later however, he returned to the court, only to collapse one more time, but this time for good. He died and it was the style of offense that Westhead ran, which was quickly to blame. It is an extremely emotion story and when it culminates in the moment that changed Westhead, Kimble and many people, there are definitely tears. It is an emotion which is unavoidable. I guess what is a shame is that the rest of the film is not as good, and that other than it being a real event, the moment is not earned.

Couturie struggles to find a focus in his film. The title of the film, and as the narrative begins, there seems to be a focus on Paul Westhead the coach and his style in the game of basketball. The title is after all 'Guru of Go', but it slowly evolves also into the story of the tragedy of Hank Gathers. It feels like two separate stories forced together simply because they were connected, not because they naturally flowed together. Westhead is an interesting figure, but I am not sure there is enough there to investigate for an entire film. The same goes for the Gathers tragedy. It seems like Couturie felt he could get away with just forcing them together, when in reality it didn't work.

The film played out very similar to 'Without Bias' from earlier in the series. It was bloated in order to fill the full 51 minutes because there was not enough in there to really fill the time efficiently. In addition the story is told so straightforward that it seemed bland and overly simple. Style is not a necessity, but when you try a style and it fails, like with the stupid Shakespeare quotes and whatever that letter thing was Westhead read from, it becomes a problem. Gathers was an incredible player, as was Kimble, and the moments they shared on the court, even , and probably especially, the one made most famous after Gathers had passed are special. They are special moments to witness and to share in, and it is near impossible to not be effected by them, but the film does not rise to that level sadly.

ESPN 30 for 30: Winning Time: Reggie Miller vs. The New York Knicks (2010)

2011-12-22T01:41:00.001-05:00

Directed by Dan Klores

Basketball is not my number one favorite sport, but it is one that is great nonetheless. That being said, I am definitely one of these who feel like the college game is better at because of the passion and emotion that those kids play with. Obviously the talent level in the NBA is far and away better, and I am even starting to get a little more into the pro game that I have been the last few years. But it was not always like that and I can say that during the 90s I loved watching the NBA and especially the playoffs. Michael Jordan ruled the day, but there were plenty of other major stars in the game. When Jordan decided to retire early it was guys like Patrick Ewing and Reggie Miller who carried the weight of the league, and they excelled at it.

Every sport has its rivalries and in the NBA in the 90s there was a nice little one between the New York Knicks and the Indiana Pacers. The instigator, even if he may be a little hesitant to admit it, was Reggie Miller who might have been the best trash talker in the league. Miller was always second best growing up in a family where his older sister was Cheryl Miller, perhaps the greatest female basketball player of all time and when the Pacers drafted the UCLA product over homegrown star Steve Alford, Miller had that much more to prove. Looking back on his career now he was a superstar, and he lead the Pacers team to a number of great seasons, even if none of them ended with a championship. But the few seconds which have come to sort of define his career came in Game 1 of the 1994 NBA playoffs.

Miller scored 8 points in 9 seconds in that game, but the film is more about the rivalry with the Knicks and being able to put that event into the right context for the viewer to further experience its greatness, and Dan Klores does a marvelous job of doing just that. First and foremost I was really taken by the tone of the film, which, for a film about rivalry, was surprising light and funny. Much of everything discussed was done so with a bit of jovial nostalgia about the times when they hated each other. This is such a strength when we are dealing with something like the sport of basketball because in the end it is a game and too often we see people taking it too seriously. You could tell that they really hated each other then, but you can also tell that hate has transformed into just a dislike with the silver lining that they helped create some great moments and memories.

At the same time the film captures why sports are so dramatic and what sells me as a fan. The pressure of the clock and the pressure of having the ball in your hands for a final shot are hard to match. The moment is so spontaneous and over so quick that if you blink you will most assuredly miss it, which would be a shame because sports create memories that last a lifetime. Reggie Miller had that edge during "winning time" and that is what made him a special player. Klores focuses just the right amount on Miller and all the events which surrounded the rivalry between the Knicks and Pacers.

At a little over an hour, which is slightly longer than the standard length in this series (51 minutes), the film uses its time wisely and efficiently, painting a perfect contextual tale to compliment the main event. That is what is important about these documentaries in this series. Sure, the filmmaker can pinpoint a momentous, naturally dramatic event, but it is what they do with it which sets the film apart, and Klores excels greatly in Winning Time. It is the stories with Spike Lee, and with Cheryl Miller, which turn this from a great sports story to a great film. And again I would like to compliment Klores on his style and by making the film as light and fun as it was because sports are supposed to be fun, even when some of the most dramatic events occur during them.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

2011-12-20T00:02:00.001-05:00

Directed by David Fincher
Written by Steven Zaillian

A couple years ago the "Millennium Trilogy" made waves around the globe as a set of best selling novels by Swedish writer Stieg Larsson. I sadly never got around to reading any of them. However, I did get a chance to see the trilogy of film adaptations which followed. This statement may seen normal to some, but I fear for most Americans that it comes of as much more surprising that the trilogy has already been translated, so to speak, onto the silver screen. Noomi Rapace played the lead as the girl with the dragon tattoo and I greatly enjoyed the first film, whereas the next two in the series saw diminishing returns. Remakes are a touchy subject because a lot of people are against them, while others probably don't realize certain films are remakes. This one is an interesting situation however with acclaimed director David Fincher (Fight Club, The Social Network) at the helm.

Journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig) is coming off of an unfortunate legal problem where he was convicted of libel. Looking for something different to take the heat off his magazine, Millennium, Blomkvist accepts an offer from businessman Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer), who wants him to utilize his keen investigative mind to solve a 40 year old mystery: the disappearance and assumed murder of his niece, Harriet. When Blomkvist arrives on the family island in Northern Sweden he finds a cold reception from the Vanger family. But with the help of the very different and troubled Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), who is also a phenomenal researcher, Blomkvist begins to uncover the mystery that will either save his livelihood, or end it.

The title of the film is "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", which suggests she may very well be the main character, but her's is not the main storyline, which is why when Fincher and company try as hard as they do to make her mytserious, it doesn't quite come off right. There are moments, not even scenes, which are intermittently inserted which feature Salander, but it began to be a bit distracting, especially when you weren't quite sure why she was important to the story for much of the first half of the film. The editing, apart from how it handled Lisbeth, was good and aided the thriller aspect of the film. In addition the film's cinematography is very good. DoP Jeff Cronenweth creates a nice mood, especially with the rich colors used in the flashbacks as opposed the the seemingly dull and morose shots of Sweden in the wintertime, which in and of itself is quite beautiful. Also, the score by Ross and Reznor is subtle and ambient in most places, which suits the tense thriller aspect of the film, but it does not do anything spectacular. The best part may have been their rendition of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song", which was used during the bizarre title sequence a la the Bond series. It was a great sequence, but I call it bizarre because it didn't seem to fit into the film naturally. It felt forced.

Overall the acting was pretty good, but there were some exceptions. Skarsgaard, for example, seemed disinterested and I did not buy him as Martin. Craig was solid as a rock, which is how I have always viewed him as an actor. He emotes more than anyone else on screen except maybe Plummer, whose character, while important, does not get a whole lot of screen time. Craig also seems to be the only one to hit on the small comedic asides, which for the most part felt slightly out of place within the film. Rooney Mara was good as well, though she began to feel very one note in her performance. Going back to Fincher trying too hard to make Lisbeth mysterious in his editing, he is not aided by Mara's attempts to make her even more mysterious. That being said, I think this was a great career choice and big break for Mara's career. I don't see her as this type of actress, but I am hoping that the visibility and attention that comes from this film will get her in more films because I do think she is a promising performer.

Ultimately, I am a sucker for the research film, and the editing suits the film and the story, making it a tense investigation. But for such a tense thriller it did seem a bit over long with a slow beginning and an ending which dragged. There seemed to be an overload of information and events which were used to supposedly humanize the characters, but they failed to really connect in that manner, instead leaving the film at least 30 minutes longer and perhaps Zaillian and Fincher were too faithful to the book when they should have taken the greatness of the general story and made it their own (disclaimer: I have not read Stieg Larsson's book). It wasn't to the point that I felt a remake was warranted, and I would even say the original exceeds Fincher's version, though not by a whole lot. It does pain me that while exiting the theater I heard the comment, "Well, at least I didn't have to read subtitles." It still remains that Larsson imagined a spectacular story and that alone carries the film. Apart from that there is nothing much that stands above it just being a solid, polished film.

Senna (2011)

2011-12-17T13:48:00.001-05:00

Directed by Asif Kapadia

Formula One is to racing what boxing is to fighting, and yes, that is an entirely personal opinion. There is more of an art and a class to Formula One in my mind. In boxing it is the same thing whereas UFC is more of a violent brutality. It doesn't really matter a whole lot really though. At the end of the day racing is racing and fighting is fighting, but it is the personalities which make the sport interesting and entertaining. For me Formula One equates to Michael Schumacher, who is a 7 time champion, but before my time there was Ayrton Senna, a driver in the 80s who made a run at a few titles and along the way made some friends, and some enemies.

Senna was an underdog story from the country of Brasil, a large South American country which is described as being a cross between a paradise and a purgatory, with widespread poverty and as a result, violence. At an early age Ayrton was behind the wheel, racing go carts, and soon he made his way to the big leagues, Formula One. Once there he had to fight his way up the pecking order, driving the hell out of his cars which were less impressive than those he raced against. He rose to prominence on Team McLaren, but his teammate Alain Prost created friction between the two as Senna claimed he was being slighted by politics, and Prost claimed Senna was too selfish and too much of a wildcard on the track.

Not everyone is a racing fan, not everyone is a sports fan, but when a film is good enough, when a story is good enough, you don't have to be. The only thing required is that you are a fan of people because while this film is about a man who made a career out of driving cars, when you get down right to it, it is still just a film about a man. And the way in which director Asif Kapadia presents this man is what makes it a good documentary. I was surprised and at the same time endlessly impressed by the fact that the entire film is comprised of achieve footage, which gives it a certain feel which seems to really compliment the story itself.

I have always thought that in documentaries, interview footage seems a bit clunky other than to perhaps capture the emotion. Of course there are exceptions to that where interviews are brilliant, but I think the style Kapadia chooses suits the film well. Senna was an inspiration to a great number of people, especially in his native Brasil. Knowing nothing about the man going into the film, I was treated with some great sequences within the timeline of his career. It is this collection of moments which helps to build the character of Senna and create a certain mood of tension and heartbreak. Not to spoil the film, but to see the end in sight from early on in the film is not hard, nor is it a detriment to the film.

Senna was a flawed person, as we all are, but he was brave and he lived his passion by racing. The documentary shows him as being scared of his profession, and with good reason. It shows him as taking safety on the track very seriously and being well respected by the other drivers. I am sure the whole picture is not here. I am sure there are some less flattering episodes in his life, but with Senna it seems the best is remembered, as it always is with people we love who die. Kapadia shows a sensibility with the material that makes it one of the most engaging views all year.

The Skin I Live In (2011)

2011-12-16T10:59:00.001-05:00

Directed by Pedro Almodovar
Written by Pedro & Agustin Almodovar

My experience with the acclaimed Spanish director Pedro Almodovar is limited. Having seen only two of his classic films I at least get the gist of his style and what to expect when it comes to a film like this. My first Almodovar film was one that was, in a way, forced upon me. I viewed Bad Education as part of a little game called Movie Dictator Club wherein someone else tells you a movie you have to watch and vice versa. Given the circumstances it was a unique experience which I couldn't entirely comprehend at the time. It was strange, bizarre and a little sick to be honest, but the more I learned about Almodovar, the more I learned that his style was thus. So when I headed to the theater to see his new film, The Skin I Live In, I was a little more prepared this time, and so should you be if you decide to venture in to this film.

Robert Ledgard (Antonio Banderas) is a top notch surgeon who has just specialized a new type of skin which is thick enough, and different enough, to repel malaria mosquitoes, while also being extremely soft and beautiful. The scientific community is under the impression that his test subjects were mice, but the reality is that he has been testing his new biotechnology on a woman named Vera (Elena Anaya). It is soon learned that Vera has been a type of prisoner under Robert, who is slowly falling in love with her. Robert has been in a troubled state ever since his wife was badly burned in a car accident and his daughter was raped and psychologically broken at a friend's wedding. His way of coping appears to be this twisted experiment.

This was not an easy film to take in, but at the same time that is what makes it a great film. After just seeing three of his films, I can confidently say that Almodovar is one of the boldest and most daring filmmakers I have seen, but he is spectacular because he manages to make it work and pull it off where others may insert the twisted just for a jump scare or the shock factor. The strongest aspect of the film is in the writing, and the casually paced story. Almodovar takes his time revealing the ins and outs of the film and is not worried about raising questions and not hurrying to answer them. During the film I was sitting there continually asking myself things like "but why?" and "so what?" But when the film ended, all my questions were answered and looking back, they were answered at all the right times for the film to have the right effect.

It is a sick and twisted story, there is no getting around that, and the implications behind the film are all a little disturbing and for that reason I can say that it will probably not rank among my favorite films of the year, but that is just my own personal reaction. I am more of a happy-go-lucky type of guy, but that is not to say I can't appreciate the filmmaking, because I appreciate the hell out of this film. Almodovar and his team craft a wonderful film with great camera work and a script and pacing that is just astounding. Some people I am sure love Almodovar and think he is the best director working today, and they have every justification for their choice. Some styles are better suited for different people.

The whole film just comes off as extremely polished, and I do mean that in the best of ways. The acting is great from Banderas and Anaya. I was amazed at Anaya's beauty in the film as well, which is obviously extremely natural, but also aided by some great make-up work as well. She pulls you in and seduces you, just as she does with Robert, before you can realize what is going on. It is probably not a film that I could sit down and watch many times, and I get that general vibe from Almodovar in general, but the filmmaking is undeniably great and I definitely look forward to getting into some more of his films in the future.

The Thin Red Line (1998)

2011-12-15T18:34:00.002-05:00

Written & Directed by Terrence Malick

Leading up to the release of The Tree of Life, Terrence Malick's new film, I sat down to watch his previous 4 films, which span from the early 70s all the way to the 2000s. However, I stopped after the first two, not because I was turned off, but I just failed to find the time with so many other things to watch. I have made it known previously that Terrence Malick is my favorite director of all time, so it stands that this is a film which I have seen more than once and one which I have a certain affinity towards. I can just imagine in the mid 90s when Malick started approaching people about a new project how everyone just jumped at the opportunity to work with him after a hiatus of so long. How else could he have gotten the huge, star studded cast which populates the film?

The setting is the Pacific theater in the times of World War II, more specifically the invasion of the island of Guadalcanal. I always find it strange when people claim they can't tell which war the film is set in. Well for one, it is spelled out clearly in my mind when they say Guadalcanal and that they are fighting the "Japs", but then again my degree is in History. The second point about which war it is supposed to be is that I think it is intentionally ambiguous other than the couple context clues which, like I said, do make it fairly obvious in my mind. More on that later. The narrative of the film is fairly secondary in terms of making it overly personal when it comes to the characters. I do applaud Malick for using the lesser known actors (Jim Caviezel [at the time], Dash Mihok, Ben Chaplin) in the meatier roles and the more famous ones (George Clooney, Woody Harrelson, John Travolta, John Cusack) in bit parts. Nick Nolte and Sean Penn would be the exceptions.

The film follows Charlie Company throughout the assault on Guadalcanal and as a war movie is different than anything else I've ever seen and the reason for that is its pace, which some would call is slow, while I would simply call it reflective, which is a word which could be used to describe all of Malick's films. He has such a curiosity about humanity and faith which comes through in the mood expressed in his films and the voiceovers he is so famous for. The war itself is the backdrop, the instigator of these thoughts. It has its fair share of battle sequence, and quite graphic sometimes, but that just serves to illustrate the contemplative characters' thoughts.

I would have to say that every war movie I have seen is basically anti-war just based on the depiction of the gruesomeness of the circumstances, but I might call this one the most anti-war film. War is a necessary evil in many cases. While I cannot condone aggressive attacks like the Japanese and Nazi Germans in the 30s and 40s, I can condone the defense of freedom and fighting against these evils on a basis of expelling evil from the world. I don't think anyone would argue with me when I say getting rid of Hitler was absolutely necessary. That being said, the condition of war is unique and a disgusting existence. Malick seems to use the horrors of war as a way of expressing his curiosity as the nature of humanity and his many eccentricities, which includes evil. The film is painstakingly beautiful, and I use that adjective because while war is not pretty, the cinematography is.

I will say that the last two times I have seen the film I have experienced a certain loss of focus somewhere along the way, which says something to the languid pace of the film. At nearly 3 hours it is not for everyone, nor for every situation. The very abstract approach Malick takes can be seen in the editing, but the fact remains that it is a master work of art which makes me think and reflect on the world around me. The best art does that and saying that this is not a personal film would be a disservice. And on a final note I do want to mention the marvelous score composed by Hans Zimmer. It really is the heartbeat of the film which makes it tick and is one of the best I've heard. This film will always seem to be overshadowed by Saving Private Ryan, which was released the same year. It is hard to rank his films because they are all so specifically unique and great, but The Thin Red Line is certainly among them.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (2011)

2011-12-15T12:26:00.001-05:00

Directed by Brad Bird
Written by Josh Appelbaum & Andre Nemec

The Mission: Impossible series, based on an older television series I have never seen, has had a strange history. When it started in the mid-90s it started with a bang and the first installment was great fun. But the releases after that first one have been sporadic in their timing as well as their quality. But I was still excited to learn that a new one was in the works and long time animation director Brad Bird (The Iron Giant, The Incredibles, Ratatouille) was set to handle the affair. The cast was also an attraction for the film, featuring the booming stardom of Jeremy Renner, the comic relief of Simon Pegg, the undeniable beauty of Paula Patton, and of course the movie star Tom Cruise back as Ethan Hunt.

The film begins with Hunt (Cruise) in prison in Russia, but the IMF are working to get him out because there is trouble brewing on the outside. It is learned that a baddie by the name of Cobalt (Michael Nyqvist) is working to secure launch codes and a launching device for a nuclear missile. His plan is to incite global war between America and Russia, and it is the job of Hunt's team to stop his sinister plan. But there is a hitch in the plan when the Kremlin explodes during the IMF's mission to recover information concerning Cobalt. The explosion is pinned on the team and the entire IMF is disavowed, which means the team must work independently and under no circumstances can they get caught, or fail.

To start I need to address Tom Cruise. He is a wacko, I agree mostly on that one, but I feel like his presence on screen and his movie stardom is pretty much undeniable. He has a way about him and I will probably never lose my interest in seeing his movies. He is just an awesome actor, especially in these types of blockbuster action movies. He is definitely one of the strengths here as is the rest of the cast which fill in around him quite nicely and make for a great ride altogether. And it is an action packed film. So action packed in fact that I am surprised it was not released as a summer blockbusting popcorn flick. A December release just seems strange for a film like this, but I do welcome it.

The action was from start to finish and I was impressed with Brad Bird's handling of it all. There are some truly amazing sequences and the film drips cool off the screen between the stunts and gadgets. For that reason it really reminded me of the Bond series which I know and love so much. The plot is rather shallow, generic and thin with the main villain and his henchmen barely getting enough screentime or attention to be able to even remember them very much. Another weakness of the film was the strange tone that wavered throughout. It was not enough to detract from my enjoyment at the end of the day, but was something I noticed. The comedic relief was welcomed, but its placement most of the time felt a bit off. One minute the situation is dire and extremely tense and then the next they are cracking jokes.

I definitely appreciated the style of the film, and even the couple call backs to previous films in the series, even when they were unnecessary. But what fuels this film is the action and the actors alone. There is not much substance to grab hold of here and that might be a product of it being the screenwriters first script on the big screen. Brad Bird and company do a good job of bringing it all together in a very entertaining manner. And on a final note, I did see this in IMAX and it was truly amazing. IMAX is definitely the way to go whenever given the opportunity, and knowing that parts of the film were done specifically with IMAX in mind, it is obvious they did a bang up job. The sound and picture are spectacular, even if some of the fighting sound effects are a bit obvious in the picture. My final word is simply that the film is a lot of action fun, not much more than that, but in some cases it doesn't ever need to be more than that.

ESPN 30 for 30: The U (2009)

2011-12-14T23:23:00.001-05:00

Directed by Billy Corben

When I learned that one of the documentaries in the series was going to be "The U", my response was a simple "ugh". I detest that university and its football team for any number of reasons. When my Ohio State Buckeyes beat them in the National Championship game in January 2003, after Miami's head coach Larry Coker had said in a pre-game interview that given the chance he would run up the score, I was the happiest camper in the woods. They have always been so cocky and arrogant and annoying. Since that title game their prominence has dropped, especially after a near fatal scandal this past year, but after watching this documentary, I have a certain confidence that they will return at some point, and when that time comes I will have a new found respect for the program.

The University of Miami is located in the beautiful Miami neighborhood of Coral Gables and their football program had been a joke. They would lose games ugly to the point that the program was considered to be cancelled at one point. Then in 1979 the university hired a new head coach, Howard Schnellenberger, who came from the pedigree of Alabama's Bear Bryant and the Miami Dolphins of the NFL. He pledged to win a national championship by the time the new recruiting class graduated. He took a program that was down in the dumps and he made good on his promise in 1983. But soon the USFL came calling for Schnellenberger, but under coaches Jimmy Johnson and Dennis Erickson the team kept winning, and championships. But it came at the cost of the swagger they created and the players from tough neighborhoods they recruited. The Miami Hurricanes were the team of the 1980s.

I never knew half of what I do now about the program at the University of Miami, and that is after entering the film thinking I knew a fair bit. The job that Howard Schnellenberger did to create everything from nothing is astonishing. He went in with a plan, and that was to recruit the talented players he needed from the high school football hot bed of southern Florida. It sounds like an easy plan, and an obvious one at that, but not everyone wanted the players from troubled neighborhoods. Miami was in turmoil in the early 80s with racial conflict and drug problems. With the help of Schnellenberger some of that was trouble was alleviated. Certainly he didn't do enough to do away with the problems, but he gave some kids the opportunity to get out of that trouble.

And about the swagger that I hate and I know a lot of other people hate, when you sit down to Billy Corben's film you can't help but side with the Miami players who went out there and had fun playing a game. As many times as people say things like "act like you've been there before" or "grow up", I'm sorry but those people are wrong, especially after you watch this film. These guys were college kids playing a kids game and they were great at, and had fun at it. Their creation of this swagger, and the team's ability to follow through on it is admirable, even if the number of detractors is still understandable. And the program was not perfect. It had its fair share of kids who committed crimes and were unlikable guys.

Corben does a good job of matching the fun and swagger of the team with his filmmaking as well. Easily one of the most stylistically different films of the series and coincidentally the other one that wavers the most from the formula is also my other favorite of the series, Muhammad and Larry. Yes, that is right, you just heard me call this one of my favorites so far because while it tells me an interesting story about something I didn't know about, it does it in such a way that I cared and had a great time while watching, something that cannot be said about a few of the other entries in the series. I wonder how much that has to do with this film's extended runtime, but I definitely recommend this film for those that are fans of football.

ESPN FIlms: Roll Tide/War Eagle (2011)

2011-12-12T20:18:00.001-05:00

Directed by Martin Khodabakhshian

The world of sports is ripe with big time rivalries between teams. Some of them are friendly and some of them are quite harsh. As a sports fan myself I have been involved in a number of rivalries as both an athlete and as a fan. My high school baseball team had rivals, but the real rivalries I want to talk about are my college teams. I attended the University of Cincinnati, who has a heated rivalry in basketball against nearby Xavier University. The recent brawl which broke out between the teams I think is perfect evidence of the intensity of the sports rivalry. Everyone who has a passion for a sports team has a passion against another team. In Alabama those two teams are Alabama and Auburn. Your choice is a game breaker.

The two universities are separated by just 160 miles and with no professional teams in the state every resident is fully involved in the bitter rivalry. Alabama has been the dominate team in the series, but the last two years have brought new meaning to the rivalry. In 2009, Alabama won another National Championship behind the strong, Heisman Trophy winning season of running back Mark Ingram, whose Heisman win was surprisingly the schools first in their storied history. But last year Auburn turned the tables on them and won a National Title of their own. In addition their star quarterback, Cam Newton, also won the highest honors in the sport, the Heisman Trophy.

In addition to my connection with the Cincinnati/Xavier rivalry, I have been much closer to an even greater rivalry in football, that of Ohio State and Michigan. I grew up in Columbus and live here now and every year the season as an Ohio State fan is based on the performance in the final game of the season against that state up north. I know what it is like to hate another team, even if I am not nearly as radical as some fans. But to live among the enemy as in the Alabama/Auburn rivalry is something with which I am unfamiliar. Director Martin Khodabakhshian does a good job of examining both sides and telling the tale of this unique rivalry. He interviews the stars and important figures from both sides as well as some of the split married couples.

Every fan believes that the rivalry they are involved in is the greatest in sports. I know I have always made that claim about OSU/UM, but the truth of the matter is that there is no such thing as the greatest in sports. Rather the best rivalry in sports is simply the one that means the most to you. For the Northeast it is predominately the Red Sox/Yankees, then there is the Cubs/Cardinals, Army/Navy, and any number of big time match-ups. Roll Tide/War Eagle is one of those rivalries that is unique in the hatred and the bizarre mutual respect. Not every fan is as radical as the Bama fan who poisoned the trees on Auburn's campus, and actually there is a heart in all of them, which shone brightest when tragedy struck the campus of Alabama last year as a tornado ripped through Tuscaloosa.

Last spring I actually went to Alabama for the first time of my life for a spring break trip on the Gulf. My friends and I decided it would be fun to say "Roll Tide" to everyone we saw. It was a fun practice, but we soon learned the other side of the coin in "War Eagle", which is the Auburn catch phrase which stems from an eagle flying over the stadium way way long ago. The amount of enthusiasm for their teams is admirable and I have a deep respect for what football means to the state of Alabama. Khodabakhshian does a great job of putting that on screen and even fitting it into the short amount of time he has. This is the type of rivalry that I am sure the Auburn fans are mad at ESPN for putting Roll Tide first in the title ahead of War Eagle, but let's face it, Roll Tide is a better catch phrase.

The Sitter (2011)

2011-12-12T15:49:00.001-05:00

Directed by David Gordon Green
Written by Brian Gatewood & Alessandro Tanaka

In all my years I have never held the occupation of babysitter. I was always the youngest in my family and never had to stay home to watch younger siblings or cousins or neighbors, so my experiences are not in relation to the protagonist in this film. However, the manner in which he is portrayed does hit home a little bit and that is of the "nice guy" and that of the young adult stuck living at home. My circumstances are a little different in that I was not a college dropout, I have a degree, but yet I still live at home. Directed by David Gordon Green, I went into this film looking for DGG to bounce back after a very poor performances behind the camera for Your Highness, which came out earlier this year.

Noah (Jonah Hill) is the babysitter in question, but he is not experienced in the profession either. He sits at home doing nothing, brainwashing himself into thinking he is in an actual relationship with Marisa (Ari Graynor). But when his single mom is excited about the opportunity of meeting a surgeon their neighbor set her up with, Noah must step up to the plate and babysit the neighbor's kids. However, Noah struggles to balance his desire to further his relationship with Marisa and the eclectic group of kids he has to look after. As a result they all embark on a night filled with crazy, including the unorthodox drug dealer Karl (Sam Rockwell). So I guess the question becomes, what will it take for these kids, Noah included, to come through?

After the disappointment of Your Highness, which I had in my Top 10 most anticipated at the beginning of the year, I was not overly excited about this film, especially given the complete lack of buzz for it. I had low expectations and was looking for nothing other than a good time, and that was all that I got. This film, and I hate comparing, is definitely better than Your Highness, and it does it with less talent on screen. It is a quick romp through a ridiculous and unlikely night, but it manages to entertain and provide its fair share of laughs if one does not take the film too seriously.

There are plenty of times when the jokes don't work perfectly or the plot does things that need not happen, or are unlikely to have happened, but what makes the film work on any level is the cast of characters. Noah is the nice guy protagonist, but the children around are good too. Max Records has had a nice little childhood career which continues here in his portrayal of Slater. Blithe is a nice character too and between the two, screenwriters Gatewood and Tanaka make an interesting point in pop culture and the state of childhood influence. They paint with broad strokes and often fall into stereotypes, which is not surprising given it is their first screenplay, but they also bring up some interesting character arcs.

The film is far from perfect and will not please all, and probably will not bring David Gordon Green back to prominence, especially among cinephiles, but I had a good time with it. There was a sense of humor about it reminiscent of the successful DGG outing Pineapple Express. With the inappropriate, immature humor mixed with some depth. The film is not overly dramatic or deep, but there are hints of the indie darling DGG was before hitting the mainstream comedy circuit. With this film I am hopeful that he is headed back in the right direction, but it is hard to tell. I would love to see him return to his indie ways, a la Gus Van Sant or Steven Soderbergh, but as it stands I still think he has enough talent to make a great movie. So while I may not rush out to his next film, I will still give him the chance to make a full return to form.

ESPN 30 for 30: The Legend of Jimmy the Greek (2009)

2011-12-12T12:24:00.001-05:00

Directed by Fritz Mitchell

My knowledge of betting and gambling is very limited. I have never been in a casino or the Las Vegas, but when I was about 14 I did make it out to the local race track with the family. Through my parents I was able to place a little bet and lucky me, I won! It was a great thrill and I can see where people would becomes addicted to it, but I have used extreme caution and not bet since. Well, unless friendly poker games and football pools count. See? Even the people that claim they are not gamblers, are. I am a perfect example of this, and as such it can be assumed that America is a country of varying degrees of gamblers. And during his reign on top, Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder was perhaps the most successful gambler in the country.

Born in Steubenville, Ohio, Snyder grew up in a town where vice was overlooked and almost accepted. Soon he found that by asking the train conductors to bring the newspapers from every city they had been in, that he could use that local information to gain an edge in wagering. He made lots of money quickly and soon moved to Las Vegas where he continued his success by opening a business, but his real success came when CBS hired him for their Sunday morning football program The NFL Today. By hiring The Greek, CBS had legitimized his profession. And Jimmy was the perfect personality for television. The network was coy about their use of Jimmy, avoiding betting terminology and betting lines on the show. But soon, Snyder made racial comments that got him in hot water which he could not get out of.

I was not very surprised to learn that Jimmy the Greek was from Steubenville, Ohio. I'm not sure how many people are familiar with the little Eastern Ohio town, but being from Ohio myself I have heard my fair share of stories about mob fronts and mob connections. So for a famed gambler to come from that town was none too surprising. The life of Jimmy the Greek was also definitely an interesting path for such a man to take. He was massively successful, both financially and int he public eye once he gained his job on CBS. He was chastised for making the Colts 17 point favorites in the Super Bowl Joe Namath's Jets upset them, but little did they know his job was to set the line for equal betting on both sides. His street smarts is what made him great, but his street sense may have also been what brought him down.

The film takes a fairly straightforward approach to telling the story, much like in the previous installment Without Bias. I am beginning to see what the goal and direction of this series is going to be. After six episodes I have only been overly impressed by two of them, but with the experience of these six I have been educated about certain events that I did not know about before. The series is simple and with hour long episodes it is hard for it not to be. But for what it sets out to do, it is accomplishing its goals. For that it should be applauded, but from a filmmaking perspective there is nothing very impressive about the series. So from this point on I know what I can expect, and I don't want to confuse anyone, I am still having a good time with the series.

One of the main strengths of the film was how it dealt with the fall of Jimmy. While I cannot say that the film intentionally did this, or even touched on it with the interviews, but it certainly gave me something to think about when it comes to forgiveness in this society. Jimmy Snyder made a mistake and made some unfortunate comments. They were racial and uncalled for, but I would not call them racist, as they were actually saying that black athletes were superior to their white counterparts. The inability of America to forgive him for his words is sad and the result was Snyder looking dirty, living in Las Vegas, and asking his former producer for money. He went from the top straight to the bottom with no chance at redemption. I can't help but think that society picks and chooses who to forgive for their wrong doings. What will the documentary on Tiger Woods look like in 10-15 years?

ESPN 30 for 30: Without Bias (2009)

2011-12-09T16:53:00.001-05:00

Directed by Kirk Fraser

I was first introduced to the person of Len Bias in High School health class. The class was very lazily taught by the head basketball coach at the time and as such I never really learned anything that has stuck with me. In fact, the instance of Len Bias is only memorable for Dick Vitale, as we watched a clip of a speech he gave at a basketball clinic. In the speech Vitale spoke very fondly of the person and talent of Len Bias. He spoke of it all being taken away to the careless use of the "Big C", cocaine. He spoke with great passion and emotion. I would have never have done drugs anyway, but a video of someone speaking 10 years ago is the only thing I ever took from that Health class, and even then I didn't really learn who Len Bias was.

Bias was a basketball superstar to be. He was a local treasure in Maryland and attended the University of Maryland for four years where he brought his coach Lefty Driesell an ACC championship. He was described as a raw talent who over his college years developed into a potential NBA all star. He played alongside North Carolina's Michael Jordan and was even compared to the greatness of the greatest basketball player ever, arguably. But soon after being drafted #2 overall to the reigning NBA champion Boston Celtics, Bias died. The report was that his death was caused by intoxication from cocaine.

The problem with the documentary is that I'm not too sure I know very much more now than I did going into the film. Director Kirk Fraser presents a very straight forward approach to the story of Len Bias, opening with an examination of Bias as a phenomenal player, calling in all the current ESPN guys to prove his point. Then he goes on to the chronological timeline of events that lead to his tragic demise. He graduates, gets drafted, dies, ripple effect in the world of sports and beyond. But as an hour long documentary every thing seems truncated and glossed over. Len Bias was a sensational player and his story is so huge that I cannot imagine this being a testament to that story or that person.

For such a heartbreaking tragedy, there seems to be little in the way of emotion, even from the Bias parents, but that has to be from the presentation and interview methods taken by Fraser because I know it was startling, especially after they lost their second son Jay to a murder just four years later. But again, that story seems added on and bears no effect on the film. Fraser just fails to add anything to an already great story. He has every opportunity to make a great film here given the material, but instead chooses to give us a bland and ineffective film.

The series to this point has done a nice job of mixing stories, sports and styles and for that I applaud the ambition of ESPN Films. However, it has stumbled on a couple of occasions and both times it seems to have come from a lack of passion and just downright laziness by the filmmakers. That is a bold statement and one that assumes more than I can possibly know. Ad quite frankly it is probably not fair to the filmmakers to say that, but I also can't help but think under more steady hands something more could have come of this material. The Bias story is great, but what lead to what happened to him? What came of it? And I don't just mean a couple minutes on some vague law against cocaine possession. But all of this should not detract to the reality of the story and just how tragic those few days were.

War Horse (2011)

2011-12-09T12:24:00.001-05:00

Directed by Steven Spielberg
Written by Lee Hall & Richard Curtis

When I learned that one of my favorite directors, Steven Spielberg, was releasing two films this year I got really giddy. What a joy for the master to return to the film world with not one, but two films! Of the two films, War Horse and The Adventures of TinTin, I was admittedly much more enthused for the latter, having slight apprehensions about how good War Horse could be. I was still excited because it had a great cast and it was Spielberg. I was also excited that it focused on World War I, the world war that gets far too little coverage in media these days, but it still seemed like it might be too soft. Boy was I wrong, and now I can only hope that The Adventures of TinTin is as spectacular as this film was.

Albert (Jeremy Irvine) is the son of a poor farmer (Peter Mullan) and his wife (Emily Watson) living in the English countryside. When his father spends too much on a pretty horse (Joey) instead of a strong plow horse, the farm is in jeopardy from the landlord (David Thewlis). But Albert and his determined attitude befriends the horse and the two overcome the impossible only to have the world break out in war and cavalry officer Nicholls (Tom Hiddleston) to buy the horse from the farmer. Albert vows to one day find the horse. During the war, Joey, the horse, goes through many hands and never ceases to amaze or make a deep connection to its "owner". But during the turmoil of war, is it possible for Joey to survive, and for Albert to ever be reunited with his friend?

I think the films greatest strength is in its pacing. For a film that is nearly two and a half hours long it never feels a minute long. The beginning of the film might drag a slight bit, but it is necessary to set up the wonderful story to follow. How Spielberg is able to accomplish this feat is the great screenplay adapted by Lee Hall and Richard Curtis. They chose to tell the tale in a series of vignettes essentially, following the horse as he travels through the hands of the men fighting the war. It works beautifully and is amazing because the horse is the main character and never the human. There is never a dull moment and in fact the film has its fair share of completely marvelous scenes.

The team of human actors is great to watch as well, with many vaguely familiar faces and no big time stars. Everyone turns out a good performance, except maybe Peter Mullan who seemed to be trying a little too hard, but his part is small enough to not concern me too much. And what I really liked about the film was that the British were played by British actors, and the Germans by Germans and the French by French. There is a certain level of authenticity that rings true through the performances for this reason. I fear it would have been more difficult to watch had Spielberg and his team used American actors using accents. I loved seeing Eddie Marsan and the return of young German actor David Kross, who impressed me a few years ago in The Reader.

As with any Spielberg film, the images seem to soar across the screen and are filled with a surprising amount of emotional impact. I have seen it time and again and still it surprises me. This soaring effect is of course aided by one of Spielberg's closest collaborators composer John Williams, whose scores over the years have become as iconic as Spielberg's films and this score is just as impressive. The cinematography is interesting in a different kind of way. I have always noted the wonderful use of light in Spielberg films and there is some great shots captured here, but there is a weird color scheme and a few fake looking shots that, while not detracting from the rest of the film, were a little weird. But this film just has everything to please the audience with great heart and emotion. But what I most liked about the film was how brave it was in its depiction of WWI. There wasn't really any graphic violence, with everything pretty much suggested, but it is about time every one learn how uniquely horrific World War I was.

Favorite 25 Directors: #5-1

2011-12-09T10:53:00.001-05:00

Joel & Ethan Coen

Favorite Films: No Country for Old Men, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Fargo

For the past 20 years the brothers Coen have transformed the film world with their crazy films, crazy good that is. Their talent for developing amazing projects and attracting great casts to star in their twisted original films is astounding and I look forward to the rest of their careers with great interest.

Most Anticipated: Blood Simple.

Steven Spielberg

Favorite Films: Raiders of the Lost Ark, Saving Private Ryan, Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Spielberg is incredible and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. His ability to make the blockbuster work as well as it does comes from some secret talent that I wish every director had: heart. His films are oftentimes heartwarming, and when you have heart you have magic, which is what makes the marriage between the types of films he directs, and the fact that they are films (which require magic almost always), brilliant.

Most Anticipated: Lincoln

Ingmar Bergman

Favorite Films: The Seventh Seal, Wild Strawberries, Scenes From a Marriage

The highest ranked foreign director on my list, Bergman to this day remains my favorite hidden secret from all my non-movie crazy friends. His style is not mainstream like someone like Spielberg, so I can't share him with everyone, but for those that appreciate the depth and emotion and faith he places in his films I can celebrate. His films are those that just seem like they were made especially for me.

Most Anticipated: Fanny and Alexander

Alfred Hitchcock

Favorite Films: Psycho, Rear Window, Vertigo

Hitchcock is not a British treasure, he is not an American treasure, he is a world treasure for which everyone should be thankful for he mastered something no one before him and arguably no one after him has been able to master. His suspense is unmatched and somehow is able to pace and frame every film he ever made just about perfectly. If you get the chance to ever see his films on the big screen, jump at the opportunity because his body of work is truly remarkable.

Most Anticipated: Rope

Terrence Malick

Favorite Films: The New World, Days of Heaven, The Thin Red Line

Alright, I lied about Christopher Nolan, I have also seen every film Malick has made, but that is because he has only directed five films since the early 70s. He takes his time with his projects and the result is a unique, singular vision unlike anything else you have seen. His films are not for everyone with their slow, reflective style, but they are most certainly for me.

Most Anticipated: Anything (He somehow has 4 projects in development right now)

ESPN 30 for 30: Muhammad and Larry (2009)

2011-12-08T19:17:00.001-05:00

Directed by Albert Maysles & Bradley Kaplan

Muhammad Ali is the self proclaimed GOAT, the greatest of all time, and boy would I have liked to be alive during his prime to witness not only his antics, but also his athletic prowess. I don't really like violent sports, but for some reason boxing has always been attractive to me, something in the aura it puts off as a "sweet science" and a chess game. I really can't explain it because it is brutally violent and has affected so many of its athletes, most notably Muhammad Ali himself, who now is a shell of himself, a strong, intimidating man limited by his disabilities as a result of his career in the ring. However, I never knew about the limelight of his career.

In this documentary, famed director Albert Maysles follows Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes before their 1980 Heavyweight Championship bout which ultimately ended Ali's career. Using this footage, Maysles, and partner Bradley Kaplan return to those closest to the fight and create a sort of retrospective on the events that led up to and included the fight itself. Unfortunately Ali does not make an appearance other than in the old footage, but his persona lives up to his legend and it actually becomes a heartbreaking elegy to his career. The story of Larry Holmes and his relationship to Ali is also explored and the difference in styles makes for a compelling documentary.

When I had heard that Albert Maysles was part of the ESPN 30 for 30 series, I was excited and impressed, even without having seen any of his legendary documentary work. Bradley Kaplan, however, I am unfamiliar with, but their collaboration works wonderfully here. The greatest strength of the film, not surprisingly, is the footage from 1980. The previous episodes in this series have not quite utilized that archive footage but here Maysles and Kaplan use it as the mainstay. They are able to tell the story with that footage and supplement with the new stuff. Everything else to this point has been the other way around.

So after discussing the wonderful filmmaking, let me speak to the actual story which was awesome. My interest in boxing certainly factors in to the equation, but Ali was also a cultural icon. I wish lived during his reign as king because I am sure it was a sight to see, even if he was an arrogant annoyance to some. His career was amazing, a four time champion, but for his career to end basically in this tragic fight was in fact tragic to witness. The footage of the fight was brutal to watch, and the comments of everybody now and then are right on. It was a shame that the fight went as far as it did. It is hard to point directly to this fight to blame for a lot of what happened to Ali afterward, but it is also hard not to say it was a major player in his decline as a boxer and as a functioning person.

And on the other side of the coin is Larry Holmes, who got criminally overlooked during his career simply because he was not as outlandish as someone like Ali when he was a strong champion in his own right. The spirit of Ali and the relationship of the two makes the circumstances of their bout very sad indeed. Watching the footage of Ali train was difficult to see as he was clearly slower and more overweight than before, and it was clear he was not going to compete. So to learn that he was taking pills that actually made him weaker just adds to the horror of the situation. If I had one gripe about the film it's that I wish it had been longer than an hour because I wanted to spend more time with and learn more about these two. Easily the best of the series so far.

Favorite 25 Directors: #10-6

2011-12-08T17:15:00.002-05:00

#10

Frank Capra

Favorite Films: It's a Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, It Happened One Night

Capra is one of those directors that just clicks with me. The type of story he tells and how he tells it is just right up my alley so I can totally understand why some people would not be as crazy about him as director. But it does also help that he got to work with the amazing Jimmy Stewart.

Most Anticipated: Arsenic and Old Lace

Stanley Kubrick

Favorite Films: Paths of Glory, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove

Maybe this one is slightly surprising, but there is no denying the vision and prowess of Stanley Kubrick, he is just a giant of cinema and cannot and will not be ignored. The opposite of Capra, sometimes his films can be the type that aren't normally my favorite, but his craft is just so amazing.

Most Anticipated: Barry Lyndon

Paul Thomas Anderson

Favorite Films: There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love

Many people call PTA the modern day Stanley Kubrick, which makes this pick interesting for a few reasons. One is that he immediately follows Kubrick on my list and the other is that he is a sparse director with some monster films under his belt. I have not seen everything by PTA, but everything I have seen has been awesome.

Most Anticipated: The Master

Woody Allen

Favorite Films: Annie Hall, Manhattan, Midnight in Paris

Woody Allen is fairly unanimously celebrated as one of the greatest directors at least of our time and I would have to completely agree. While some may not enjoy what he has done in his personal life, his professional work is remarkable. Allen is famously prolific and the quality of his work has not dropped off.

Most Anticipated: The Purple Rose of Cairo

Christopher Nolan

Favorite Films: Inception, Batman Begins, Insomnia

Nolan is a modern director with a unique vision and a knack for making great films. The only director on this list so far that I have seen all of his released films, Nolan does not have a weak one among them. I eagerly await the release, and conclusion, of the Batman series. I am glad Nolan is moving on from the series to continue to expand his creative mind in other projects.

Most Anticipated: The Dark Knight Rises

----------->#5-1

Daguerreotypes (1976)

2011-12-07T16:54:00.001-05:00

Directed by Agnes Varda

One of the crazy ideas that I had while I was in college was for a year long writing project which could be translated into a blog or a series of articles in the campus newspaper or some other outlet. That project was essentially going around to random people and striking up a conversation and learning more about them, what their story is. I love learning about new people and believe that nobody is without an interesting story. Some people may be more interesting than others and have more unique, entertaining experiences but everyone comes from somewhere, everyone has some sort of story to tell. That appears to be a sentiment shared by famous French filmmaker Agnes Varda, whose approach is very similar here.

Varda lived on Rue Daguerre in Paris France, a street named after Louis Daguerre, who was the first to develop a photographic process in the 1800s which was subsequently used for many of the portrait pictures of the time. This is amazing, and I don't understand how Varda could be so lucky to fall into this wonderful interconnected title/idea for a film. She lives on Rue Daguerre, living with fellow daguerreotypes, with a curious, filmmaking mind who wants to paint their portrait. And that is what she does, by capturing the everyday lives of the typical person on a basic street in Paris. She asks the basic questions and observes the typical interactions of these small business owners.

Varda is a filmmaker I just discovered last year and my appreciation has grown by leaps and bounds simply due to this woman's endless capacity to explore and learn new things about pretty much anything. She has a curiosity which reminds me only of German filmmaker Werner Herzog, and my experience with both is similar. I have only seen their documentary work, but am eager to delve into their fiction films as well. Varda should be applauded for making this film and having the ambition to approach a project like this. At the end of the day I fully believe that she made precisely the film which she wanted to make.

However, I couldn't help but feel like the project did not pan out quite the way I had imagined it might. Varda does what she sets out to do, but with most any documentary the final product is directly related to how fascinating its subject matter is. In this case I didn't find any of the people being observed and interviewed all that noteworthy. I will say this that Varda allowed the people to breath and simply exist on screen. Her camera seems to wander at all the right times to all the right things.

I can't really give the film my backing. In fact I found the film to be somewhat boring overall. But what I did take from the film is a greater appreciation for Varda for at least trying to make this work. She clearly has an insatiable curiosity which is perhaps the strongest attribute for a great filmmaker. And her methods here suit that, so while I did not enjoy this film, I am confident that there are many Varda films out there that I will enjoy. So this film gave me confidence that I love Agnes Varda, even if I do not love this film.

Favorite 25 Directors: #15-11

2011-12-06T17:38:00.002-05:00

#15

Ridley Scott

Favorite Films: Alien, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down

Ridley Scott is a director who is not perfect and he has some lesser films under his belt, but a lot of really good to great ones too. Actually I still need to see some of his lesser known films, so maybe after I will drop him off the list, but what I have seen I have enjoyed a great deal and his highs are high enough to merit inclusion on my list.

Most Anticipated: Prometheus

#14

Steven Soderbergh

Favorite Films: Erin Brockovich, Traffic, Ocean's Eleven

I think I am really attracted to the type of director who can go from small, independent films to mainstream ones and back effortlessly. Soderbergh is one of those directors and what makes him even more impressive is I don't know which version I prefer. He is also a very prolific filmmaker, and to maintain the amount of quality and genuinely interesting approaches is also impressive.

Most Anticipated: Sex, Lies and Videotape

#13

Gus Van Sant

Favorite Films: Elephant, Good Will Hunting, Milk

If Soderbergh is impressive in his ability to move effortlessly from independent to mainstream, then Gus Van Sant his his one-upper. So it is very appropriate that he should fall one place above Soderbergh. Van Sant just has a special way of capturing a story on the screen and telling it in a great way. He gets great performances from his actors, even the ones that aren't even really actors.

Most Anticipated: Last Days

#12

Francis Ford Coppola

Favorite Films: The Godfather, The Godfather Part II, Apocalypse Now

Coppola has not been the giant he was in the 70s for many many years. Heck, I didn't even know he was still making movies until a few years ago. The Godfather Part III was sort of a disaster, but the highs are undeniable and so huge that I can pretty much ignore any of his lows.

Most Anticipated: The Conversation

#11

Billy Wilder

Favorite Films: Sunset Blvd., The Apartment, Double Indemnity

Oh Billy Wilder. I can see Wilder being on of those directors that I get more and more excited about with each additional film from him I see. I have started with the notable films by him, and still have a few to go, and I have seen exactly why his reputation is what it is.

Most Anticipated: The Lost Weekend

-----------> #10-6

ESPN 30 for 30: Small Potatoes: Who Killed the USFL? (2009)

2011-12-05T17:35:00.002-05:00

Directed by Michael Tollin

To a youngster like me the USFL, or United States Football League, was a gimmick league, sort of like the XFL was, a completely manufactured entertainment business which had no promise to ever sustain the league or compete in any market. They had second rate players and coaches and lasted only a few years because it was destined to fail. I cannot really say how I had come to that conclusion, having never really been informed on the league, but that was how I felt before sitting down to this installment of ESPN's 30 for 30. I probably thought the way I did because it did fail to compete with the NFL and it did fold after only a few years, but apparently not for the reasons I had in my mind.

In 1983, a small group of businessmen formed the United States Football League, a professional football league which would hold its season in the spring/summer to give fans of the sport something to cheer about outside the fall/winter schedule of the National Football League. To help their start-up, Heisman Trophy Winner Herschel Walker was signed out of college to the USFL instead of the NFL. They had their star player and even struck a television deal with ABC. The first few years were deemed successful, with the attendance and ratings goals being met. However, some of the owners were still somewhat broke. Enter Donald Trump as the owner of the New Jersey team. Trump convinced the poorer owners to file a monopoly suit against the NFL and attempt to move the USFL to the fall. They won their lawsuit and were set to open a fall season in 1986, but then the league folded.

This was an entirely enlightening documentary film and a perfect example of the joy of sports, film, and this series in general. But before I pile the praises upon the filmmaker Michael Tollin, let me just say that the story being told was most certainly romanticized. I was not around to experience the USFL, so I don't have anything to really go on but my gut, however I found it a bit biased that a former USFL employee, who admittedly had a wonderful time while working with the league, should be the one to construct the documentary and single out Trump as the one who brought the fun to an end. He interviews those who look back fondly and remember all the good, which really works in painting the picture of the positives of the organization, but not so much the negatives.

And I have to imagine there were plenty of negatives, otherwise some of the owners would not have followed Trump down the wrong road, and the league would not have had to fold the way it did. I was definitely impressed with how the league was presented, however. All the players and coaches they talked to seemed to think very highly of their experiences and their times there. I was surprised to find out who these people were, some big names to be sure. Steve Young, Jim Kelley and Herschel Walker played for these teams. Lee Corso, Jim Mora and Steve Spurrier coached these teams. Recognizable names and faces which, in my mind, definitely now give the league credence in my estimation.

It was a fun time when the NFL stood for the "No Fun League", which some would argue it still stands for. I now know, at least partially, what the USFL was all about and to bring the XFL up in the same conversation with the USFL is unwarranted, other than bringing up the XFL is fun to do anytime football is involved. Tollin certainly set out to vilify Trump from the get go, before he even sat down to talk to the man, but I also think the film is aptly named. The USFL and Tollin and his crews were "Small Potatoes" to the billionaire. He manipulated the league for greed and that is what brought them down. After seeing this, I think the USFL could have made it, and it was nicely presented, even if it was biased and romanticized.

Favorite 25 Directors: #20-16

2011-12-05T15:17:00.002-05:00

#20

Joe Wright

Favorite Films: Atonement, Pride & Prejudice, Hanna

Joe Wright is a fantastic visual filmmaker and I think that is what most attracts me to his style. Having seen all of his work I can confidently place him on this list and say that every film he has directed I have had great affection for. Even just this year he broke away from the prestige pictures to swap genres and as he did so he delivered a great action film, Hanna.

Most Anticipated: Anna Karenina

#19

Charles Chaplin

Favorite Films: The Great Dictator, City Lights, Modern Times

For the longest time Chaplin went unseen by me, but alas a legend like Charlie could only go so long without me getting to enjoy his wonderful slapstick comedy legacy. I have still only experienced the tip of the iceberg when it comes to his great films, but I can already see why so many hold him up as a comedic genius and a silent era staple.

Most Anticipated: The Kid

#18

James Cameron

Favorite Films: Terminator 2, Aliens, Titanic

Cameron sometimes gets a cold reception by some cinephiles, but I don't really get it. Just because he has mastered the blockbuster and his use of special effects in order to please large numbers of people, heck, I'd call that pretty darn impressive. And some of his films are truly some of the best entertainment Hollywood has produced.

Most Anticipated: Aliens of the Deep

#17

Sergio Leone

Favorite Films: The Good The Bad & the Ugly, Once Upon a Time in the West, For a Few Dollars More

Leone is a legend, as are most of the directors on this list. He made the Spaghetti Western prominent and attracted the attention of Hollywood stars and influenced countless other filmmakers with his style. I have to admit, his portrayals of the west are incredible, but placing him here is also to mention his composer Ennio Morricone.

Most Anticipated: Once Upon a Time in America

#16

Danny Boyle

Favorite Films: Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours, Sunshine

I have to admit that there are a few of his films I have seen that I wasn't particularly crazy about, but his recent impact on cinema is what puts him this position on my list. His most recent three films are the three best by him in my opinion and there is no reason to think he will slow down anytime soon with composer AR Rahman by his side and his unique, cool, frenetic style.

Most Anticipated: Trance

-------------->#15-11

Submarine (2011)

2011-12-05T11:46:00.002-05:00

Written & Directed by Richard Ayoade

We have all been there. We have all been 15, unless you are not 15 yet, in which case I have underestimated my reading audience (or is that overestimate?). Whatever the case may be, we have all been there I'm pretty sure. That stage in life where being cool in school and having a boyfriend/girlfriend is paramount to popularity. Even if some of us, me included, decided it would be cooler to pass up this stage and scoff at the situation of others; we still yearned for it in some manner. So I'll tell you what, why don't we sit down and write a movie about this and set it in Wales and add as much quirk and indie cliche as we can and we'll have a charmer of a movie. We shall call it Submarine, or better, Richard Ayoade will call it that.

Oliver Tate (Craig Roberts) is the 15 year old boy in question, and he has gained a bit of a liking for his classmate Jordana Bevan (Yasmin Paige). The two form a bond over some good schoolyard bullying after Jordana uses him to upset an ex-boyfriend. After the incident Oliver stands up for Jordana's honor in front of the whole class, which earns him the sought after girlfriend. But soon Oliver finds himself trying to keep his parents together as well when one of his mother's old flames, the mystic Graham (Paddy Considine) moves in next door. He is forced to choose between the two, not having enough time and energy in the day to keep his parents together and comfort Jordana over the declining condition of her cancer riddled mother.

I knew I would be in for it when the film opened with a note from it's protagonist, written directly to the audience. This break of the fourth wall, which was never again used unless you count Oliver's narration, seems completely unnecessary and the letter only serves to introduce the wealth of quirk to come. The story continues on with a wave of circumstances that are only glimpses of truth, drowned in the comedic bliss of its writer/director, who thinks these "unique" situations are funny and endearing. I was never really fully involved with the story, and part of that is the cliche ridden script, but it mostly had to do with the fairly bland story being told which was not aided by the strange touches put to it.

For instance, the very serious situation of Jordana's mother having a brain tumor is completely underplayed, which really felt off, even if we are talking about maladjusted teenagers who don't know how to deal with the situation anyway. Also, having Mrs. Tate's old temptation being some bizarre mystic seems too over the top for the story. The style of editing also peeved me a bit because of the cinematography, which is actually quite good. The way the film as cut however, many of those beautiful images were criminally underplayed in favor of a few moments of reflection which come up vacant of any emotion. I feel like I am ripping this movie apart, but it is not my intention to hate on it as much as I maybe already have.

I was disappointed and bored with the film, that is true, but it certainly has some redeeming qualities as well. Craig Roberts and Yasmin Paige seemed perfectly suited to play these characters and their performances are fun to watch. It has some nice heart and charm about it as well which stems from the indie quirk I've already talked about. Look, I like indie quirk, heck I might even love it, but when it gets heaped on like in this one it does become grating. But there are certainly moments that are funny, moments that are dramatic, and moments that are endearingly charming, like the final scene of the film. For people who do not like the indie touch, certainly avoid this film at all costs, otherwise it might be worth a rental and nothing more for those who are not turned off by it. Heck, I would even wager that some people would even love this film, and I wouldn't hate them for it.

Favorite 25 Directors: #25-21

2011-12-04T16:37:00.005-05:00

It has become tradition at the Filmspotting Forum to make lists for everything that has to do with movies. As such, the art's top directors has become the list of the month and everyone is submitting lists of their Top 50 Favorite Directors. I still feel a little sheepish about the whole thing, still sort of in the education stage of my film experience. There are so many great names out there that I have either never seen or not seen enough of, even after taking last year's list and attempting to catch up on all the great names on that list. I think my opinion has become more confident than it was last year, but it still remains that mine is not a definitive list. I didn't even fill out the Top 50 list, opting for a list of 25 instead. This is that list. Enjoy!

#25

David Gordon Green

Favorite Films: Snow Angles, Pineapple Express, All the Real Girls

Despite the fact that his latest film, Your Highness, was a major disappointment, I have generally loved all his other films. He has certainly gone from poignant indie to raunchy comedy, but I did enjoy Pineapple Express a great deal. I hope he goes back to some more dramatic work, but I still look forward to whatever he has to offer.

Most Anticipated: Undertow

#24

David Fincher

Favorite Films: The Social Network, Zodiac, Seven

Fincher gets a lot of attention today as perhaps one of the greatest working directors, and rightfully so. His film The Social Network was marvelous and he has strung together some great films. He has a few which I would call middling (Alien 3, The Game, Panic Room), but his highs are awfully high. I definitely look forward to anything else Fincher has to offer.

Most Anticipated: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo

#23

Robert Zemeckis

Favorite Films: Forrest Gump, Back to the Future, Cast Away

I have not seen all of Zemeckis' films, and some of them his more notable ones like Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Romancing the Stone, but he has proven time and again that he has a great imagination and the ability to tell moving and often very fun films. Plus he kind of gets an automatic entry as the director of my favorite film of all time.

Most Anticipated: Romancing the Stone

#22

Rian Johnson

Favorite Films: Brick, The Brothers Bloom

Johnson is a bit of an interesting pick in that he has only directed two films. Therefore I have only seen two films, but yet still include him on the list based on the strength of both those films, which are really fun movies. Johnson is also a bit of a Filmspotting darling, and to be honest if it weren't for them I may have never discovered the genius that is Rian Johnson.

Most Anticipated: Looper

#21

Werner Herzog

Favorite Films: Grizzly Man, Cave of Forgotten Dreams, Rescue Dawn

Herzog is a pretty bog name in the amount of films he has directed and the variety. He is a renowned documentary filmmaker, which is how I know him best. However, he has also directed a number of great regular films as well, using the actor Klaus Kinski as his go to man. His curiosity is enough to make him a favorite of mine, and I really need to see some of his older stuff.

Most Anticipated: Aguirre: The Wrath of God

----------> #20-16

ESPN 30 for 30: The Band That Wouldn't Die (2009)

2011-12-02T22:28:00.001-05:00

Directed by Barry Levinson

Having been born and raised in Ohio, I know how much football can mean to people. Ohio is one of the fertile grounds for football recruits and my experience living in Ohio State Buckeye crazy (me included) Columbus has shown me how attached people can get. Living in Ohio I also saw the public outcry when Art Modell moved the Cleveland Browns to Baltimore. Living in Columbus I never had allegiance to Cleveland or Cincinnati. Actually I sway the Pittsburgh Steelers way, but most certainly I was unaware of just how impactful a move of an NFL franchise to Baltimore could be to everyone involved.

The Baltimore Colts were a beloved team, and a fairly successful one. But in 1984 the team moved from Baltimore to Indianapolis, where they are found now. The only thing I knew about the Baltimore Colts before watching this film was that they had Johnny Unitas and they snuck away in the dark of night and the light of snow in a bunch of Mayflower moving trucks, but I never knew why, or anything else about the organization. I certainly did not know that they had a band, the Baltimore Colts band. And even if I did I would have never have guessed that they still existed.

Barry Levinson (The Natural, Good Morning Vietnam and Rain Man) directs and brings together some of the members of the band in a few round table trips down memory lane. It comes off as staged some times, like when the old members are presumably forced to watch the Mayflower trucks leaving the old Baltimore Colts facility, but more often than not these interviews are conducted with a great touch, with the subjects dispelling their true emotions from sadness, passion and joy. Levinson, who has some documentary experience, handles the film like a pro, using effective editing to keep the pace and evolve the story naturally.

It definitely helps the documentary that the Baltimore Colts Band is as passionate and determined as it is. Each member remembers fondly what it was like to play for the Colts in Baltimore, and they also remember how every time they see the Colts on television now they have to turn it off, otherwise the memories will be too much. The determination for the Band to get a team back to Baltimore was incredible to witness. They remained for 12 years without a team; a marching band without a team. They traveled to other cities to do halftime shows, including to Art Modell's Cleveland team. They played the Hall of Fame game in Canton, OH. They waited and held steadfast in their passion as a band and as a city to get another NFL franchise to play for and to cheer for.

It is a strange sensation because, as I said before, I am a Steelers fan. Anyone familiar with the NFL these days knows how much the Steelers and Baltimore Ravens hate each other, so it was almost difficult to see something so positive and inspiring from the enemy, but I can't help but cheer for this band and this team while watching the film. I have a new found respect for the franchise. It wasn't the perfect documentary, as I still am not sure why the team left Baltimore in the first place, but for an entry into a series like this, for an hour long feature, Levinson provides an emotionally connected and triumphant film.

Happy Feet Two (2011)

2011-12-02T19:08:00.001-05:00

Directed by George Miller
Written by George Miller, Gary Eck, Warren Coleman & Paul Livingston

A few years ago the film Happy Feet came out and really didn't make too many waves. It was not a failure and it was not a bad film, but my reaction to the film is that it was very forgettable. Apart from the vague plot description of a penguin who doesn't fit into a singing community finds his standing by dancing. It was charming if I recall and completely passable family entertainment, but not something that I would necessarily consider for a sequel. So I begin to wonder as I head to the theater what could possibly be in store. Where could they go with this story since the conclusion of the previous installment?

Well now the dancing penguin Mumble (Elijah Wood) is a father with the beautiful Gloria (P!nk). His little boy Erik, actually voiced by the little girl Ava Acres, like his father, is struggling to find his place in the community of singers and dancers. Another strange penguin, Ramon (Robin Williams), leaves the penguins but is followed by the young Erik. They encounter another community of penguins under the arm of Sven (Hank Azaria), who is actually a puffin. But upon their return, they find the penguins trapped by a huge iceberg that drifted among the melting ice caps. So they team up with unlikely friends to save them from grand peril.

The strength of the first film, the charm of the musical numbers, is also one of the strengths of its sequel. The producers choose more hip hop, albeit very segmented, to entertain the current audience, but in reality it feels strange and out of place when so segmented. If you are going to use these songs, let them play out. But really that is a minor complaint when the music is pretty great. The film is a little sow moving in the beginning. There is some entertaining musical numbers but I found it hard to see the film moving in any productive way, introducing characters aplenty.

However, two of these characters, Will and Bill the Krill (Brad Pitt & Matt Damon), were my two favorite in the film, even if they only served a peripheral purpose. I think a lot of it had to do with them being voiced by Brad Pitt and Matt Damon, but their interaction was funny every time as Will struggled to break free from the swarm of Krill and do things his own way. Theirs certainly reflects the general theme of the film, which is to dream big and work had to find your strength and contribute in a meaningful way to the world. They also prove the strength of friendship and family.

The heart and moral of the film makes it passable entertainment. It doesn't have any higher ambitions than to provide simple entertainment for young and old and a nice little message for the little ones, which is not anything to shake your head at when it comes to animation. I mean that is what it is there for. Sure, there are some films that rise above the genre to become special films, but the same could be said of every genre. I definitely do not mean to demean the animation genre because it is one of my favorite. I figure by the time the end of the year comes, which is soon, and when I look back on the films I have seen this year, I will forget most of what I saw, much like the first, but I am glad to have spent the time here for the laughs, musical numbers and the heart.

ESPN 30 for 30: Kings Ransom (2009)

2011-12-02T10:30:00.001-05:00

Directed by Peter Berg

I was born in June of 1988. I never knew of Wayne Gretzky as an Edmonton Oiler. In fact, my brother always loved Gretzky and he had a poster in our room of "The Great One" wearing a Los Angeles Kings sweater. I was always too young, and never interested enough in hockey to understand the greatness of Wayne Gretzky, but now that the Columbus Blue Jackets are in town, and I am a little bit older, my interests in hockey have risen. I live in the age of Alex Ovechkin and Sidney Crosby, but it is always important, especially if you are new to a sport, to go back and learn who the greats of the game were, and how their career effected the game of hockey.

In August of 1988, a little over a month after I was born, the greatest player in the game of hockey, Wayne Gretzky was traded from the greatest hockey team in the league, the Edmonton Oilers, to the second worst in the league, the Los Angeles Kings. Edmonton fans were devastated and failed to see how this deal would ever make sense, but Kings owner Bruce McNall and Oilers owner Peter Pocklington seemed to think it made sense. Peter Berg is a film director who has done some interesting projects, but none more so than the sports drama Friday Night Lights. However, with this effort, he seems somewhat unfit as a documentary filmmaker.

The story is an interesting one and the film was informative, telling the story behind perhaps the biggest trade in the history of the game of hockey, but it only ever comes off as a glorified news story and not an overly compelling documentary. I was sitting there thinking about the great television news show 60 Minutes.I don't know about you, but I love that show and think it does a great job of providing interesting, and entertaining, news stories every week. The sad thing is I kept thinking to myself that this was only posing, only trying to be as good as a 60 Minutes news story, and never quite reaching that quality. There wasn't enough behind the story to justify an hour long documentary. It really could have fit into a half hour news special or something like that.

Berg just seemed to stretch it out to fit the time slot, featuring some awkward voiceover from Gretzky himself while he revisits the Edmonton Forum years after he had won numerous Stanley Cups in the same building; oh, and it was mostly in slow motion. The other thing is the interview itself with Gretzky, which seems like an all too casual conversation on the driving range with Berg asking, but never prying to get some real answers from "The Great One". Berg explores the different actors in this story, but never really gives any of them enough depth. The achieve footage, particularly of the press conference following the trade, were used effectively, even if the editing throughout the film tried way too hard.

But like I said it was informative, as I learned about the background of the trade. Before this film I would have said that under no circumstances is it ever a good idea to trade the greatest player in a game in his prime, but now I understand where Peter Pocklington was coming from, and so too, admittedly, does Gretzky himself. It was a business decision and with Gretzky's contract coming up, and unwilling to negotiate early, Pocklington's hand was forced by Gretzky himself. he couldn't afford a new contract with him, so he sold him to Los Angeles and got plenty in return. And the game of hockey benefited from the game's greatest player going to a major American city and piquing the interest in the sport of hockey. This is not a very good documentary film, but I still have confidence that I will enjoy this series.

My Week with Marilyn (2011)

2011-11-30T20:49:00.001-05:00

Directed by Simon Curtis
Written by Adrian Hodges

Marilyn Monroe is an icon. Her fame is undeniable and it goes beyond just being a movie star, she is a cultural phenomenon. If you ask even teenagers today, most of them would know and recognize her, even though she died so many years ago. What is more remarkable is that those same people would struggle to name one of her movies. That is because she was bigger than the movies. She was a star, a sex symbol, and a broken spirit. Any man would consider himself lucky to spend just a week in her presence and to fall in love. But alas, not everybody can be as fortunate as Colin Clark.

Colin Clark (Eddie Redmayne) is a impressionable, naive young man who dreams of producing movies after taking in Hitchcock and Olivier in his local theater. Through the connections that his wealthy family affords him, the determined Colin finds work on Sir Laurence Olivier's (Kenneth Branagh) new film, a comedy featuring the famous American actress Marilyn Monroe (Michelle Williams). Upon her arrival she strikes up a strong relationship with Colin, finding solace in his comfort in the face of the overbearing Olivier, who is just trying to make a film despite Marilyn's ups and downs on and off the set. However, the film must end sometime, both Olivier's and this one, and as such the fairytale story for Colin must end too, but it will remain a moment of bliss for the rest of his life.

Every moment Michelle Williams is on screen feels like another moment I am without breath and left entirely in love. I wish I could watch this film on repeat for the rest of my life just to behold Williams. The only problem is I might die early for lack of breath. The only thing that might be better than Williams' Monroe is Marilyn herself, and even then I'm not to sure. She is pure joy on screen here, and at other times pure heartbreak. Her characterization of Monroe is magnetic. Williams is one of the most spectacular actresses working today, delivering astounding performance after another, with this being perhaps the best yet. Let's not forget she was married to Heath Ledger, who was a famous actor who died too young. If anyone knows what that is like, it is Michelle and she exudes the troubled nature of Marilyn in this film.

As much attention as Williams has gotten from everyone, including and perhaps most especially from myself, the rest of the cast should not go unnoticed. This is an actor's film and anything that is there to be brought, is. I can think of no one better to portray the thespian Sir Laurence Olivier than Kenneth Branagh, and he is magnificent. But right in step is Eddie Redmayne, whose naive, go-getter, passionate Colin is a remarkable figure to see, especially when matched with Norma Jeane. But we also shouldn't forget the wonderful Dominic Cooper, Toby Jones or Judi Dench. Even Emma Watson is good even if she is barely in the film.

The film is not without its flaws however, which stem mostly from its director Simon Curtis. Curtis does a marvelous job at capturing wonderful performances from his actors, but too often it appears as though he is just trying to be too artsy. Sometimes it works, and mostly thanks to the great costumes, art direction and make-up which help recreate 1950s England, but sometimes it does not work, but too often it is noticeable. It didn't ever really diminish my appreciation of the film, but I can't help but feel like it would have benefited from simpler direction, and just letting these great performers just exist on screen and breath. These characters are written and acted well enough, let them be. But like I said, it is a minor quibble in what otherwise is a wonderful experience.

The Descendants (2011)

2011-11-29T16:57:00.001-05:00

Directed by Alexander Payne
Written by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash

Death is unavoidable, it's sort of what makes us human. Well, other things die, so perhaps it is not the only thing that sets us apart. But how we handle death, and the emotions that run with it does make us human. I have been fortunate enough to not have to go to many funerals in my lifetime, but there have been a few people close to me that have died, and I went through the grieving process just like anyone else. It is not an easy thing to lose somebody. At the same time, humans are imperfect creatures with flaws to overcome, accept and forgive. In death, it is important to remember all of the good things about a person, which helps put their bad times and imperfections into context. This is a film about imperfections and about flaws, and about what it means to be a family.

The film is set in Hawaii, but its narrator, Matt King (George Clooney), makes it abundantly clear that he does not live in paradise, despite what everyone from the mainland thinks it is like to live in Hawaii. King is a real estate lawyer and happens to be in charge of his family's estate, whose trust ends in 7 years so he and his cousins must find a suitable buyer. However, everything is put into perspective when Matt's wife Elizabeth is thrown into a coma after a boating accident. Matt and his two daughters Scottie (Amara Miller) and Alex (Shailene Woodley) must go around to family and friends and explain what will happen with Liz, but they soon learn that she had been unfaithful to Matt, which complicates the grieving process.

One very important piece of information which is inserted in the narrative is that their great great great grandmother, one of the last remaining members of Hawaiian royalty, was set to marry her cousin, but fell in love with a banker named King. Life is not planned out and therefore is wildly unpredictable, especially whenever love is involved in the equation. The three core family members, and even the addition of the strange Sid (Nick Krause), come together and realize what is important in their lives: each other. And they are able to connect through the love they have for each other, despite the bad thing they have done, and in some cases to each other. Although they sometimes come across as dicks (Sid, I'm looking at you), they are good people, with good hearts and good intentions.

George Clooney gets top billing in the film and he should get top billing in my review because his performance is one of the best I have seen from what has already been a fantastic career. It is subtle at times and ultimately very human. I was seemingly experiencing the pressures and emotions right along side Matt which is a testament both to the performance as well as director Alexander Payne, whose work to this point I had not seen. There were so many instances where the film just connected with me in a sort of way where it played out almost exactly as I had hoped it would. Shailene Woodley should also get tons of credit because she is spectacular as the 17 year old daughter Alex. But balance is also struck, despite the many emotions running through. Comedy is also infused and makes it easier to swallow, which is not an easy thing to do,

Although it comes across as a very sad, depressing film (and it is), it is also a very happy, heartwarming film when taken from a different perspective. The strength, humanity, and most importantly the love of this family unit is strong enough to overcome the flaws and shortcomings it faces, the trials and tribulations, those moments in life when you need that person next to you to love you, and for you to love them. All of this builds and builds to the simplest ending of a movie you can imagine, and yet it is more emotionally effective than just about anything else put to film this year. It slowly evolves over time as we get to know the characters and for that reason I think it would be a great film to revisit. But as for now, on first viewing, I have to say that it is one of the more emotionally powerful films I have seen this year.

Hugo (2011)

2011-11-28T22:30:00.005-05:00

Directed by Martin Scorsese
Written by John Logan

I am not a fan of the 3D medium, finding it to be massively ineffective and ultimately a gimmick to make a dull film flashier and sell more tickets. I hope beyond hope that it goes to a lonely place and dies, yet I fear the worst for that dream. However, I have heard great things about the 3D in this film, but alas, AMC dared not offer an a.m. showtime for the 3D, so in a money saving maneuver, I instead saw the 2D version. I must make it clear that I acted alone in my action, there were no accomplices, and most assuredly not the idea that I detest 3D. And speaking of dreams, this new film has something to do with dreaming and dreamers. Martin Scorsese's latest, surprisingly, is a family film filled with joy, wonderment and adventure, or so it sets out to be.

Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfiled) is an orphaned young boy who lives in the walls of a Paris train station, spending his time winding the many clocks about the establishment and in his spare time stealing things from the various businesses inside. His father (Jude Law) perished in an unfortunate museum fire and all that Hugo has to remember him by is a small mechanical man who is slightly broken. Hugo steals from one particular business, that of George (Ben Kingsley), technical parts to help fix the robot. But he must avoid the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) and team with George's young Goddaughter Isabelle (Chloe Moretz) to solve the mystery of the broken metal man.

I have to take the chance to applaud Scorsese for stepping out of his so-called comfort zone and directing a family film that is about magic and imagination amongst other things. I have to do this now because the rest of the review will be middling to poor in order to reflect my thoughts on the film itself. The film tries so hard to be a winner that it is kind of embarrassing really. It is fun to watch it try, and sometimes it works, but more often than not I was sitting in my seat wondering why the film was as boring and mediocre as it was. It attempts to insert the French whimsy, but only goes part way. It attempts to insert the nice underdog orphan story, but I was never sold by Butterfield or the film itself that solving the mystery of this robot thing would bring closure and meaning to him.

It even attempts to insert the manic pixie dream girl in the form of Isabelle, and honestly fails where it really shouldn't have. Isabelle is a great idea on paper, an adventurous, cute girl who happens to bump into the protagonist, yet Chloe Moretz, whom I have liked in the past, and maybe even the way the character is written, really fall flat to me and become overly cliche. They even try to shake the MPD girl moniker by having her ask her own purpose, which ultimately goes unanswered other than to be there to serve the needs of the protagonist, classic MPD girl status. Heck, they even try to make an elaborate mystery out of the whole story, but honestly, and to quote Isabelle herself, "enigmatic doesn't suit you."

If it sounds horrible at this point, don't believe it because it's not. In fact it is perfectly passable entertainment, but that is also the problem: its own mediocrity. Sacha Baron Cohen is fun to watch, even if his relationship with Emily Mortimer (who goes underused), as well as that of Richard Griffiths and Frances de la Tour, is a bit too much to include, and all the while so skimmed over that it comes across as unnecessary frosting on a cake that already has plenty. There are even some nice rhetorical questions and thematic issues brought up, but ultimately they become unfocused and inserted for some petty fleeting thought. It all amounts to a story about preserving film and showing appreciation for a filmmaker who thought he was all but forgotten, which is nice, except nostalgia about films like La voyage dans la lune does not inherently make this particular film good. In fact it makes me recognize the magic and imagination that was lacking in it instead.

I love Georges Melies, not this film, and it is important to denote the differece. Also, Michael Stulbarg.

The Muppets (2011)

2011-11-27T20:38:00.001-05:00

Directed by James Bobin
Written by Jason Segal & Nicholas Stoller

Many people have loved the Muppets for ever and ever and they have been a huge part of their childhood and imagination even as adults. However, they have been missing from action for some time now, though they have had a couple straight to video films. I for one, am not one of those crazy Muppet people, though I do have a certain appreciation for them. My history is not completely without them, as I can recall watching their show as a youngster (it must have been re runs). I even had a Fozzie Bear stuffed animal, but my memory was still fuzzy when I entered the theater today to see the new film.

The plot of the film is pretty basic really. What we have is Gary (Jason Segal) and Walter (voiced by Peter Linz), who is himself a puppet. The two are brothers, somehow, and upon discovering the Muppets, Walter naturally becomes a huge fan, finding solace in characters that are like him. They live in Smalltown, USA, literally, and they are both getting older, with Gary having a serious relationship with Mary (Amy Adams). It is their 10th anniversary and have decided to travel to Los Angeles, with Walter. While there they visit the run down Muppet Studios and Muppet Theater. Walter overhears millionaire Tex Richman's (Chris Cooper) plan to tear them down when the Muppets default on their contract. Walter and Gary must rally the Muppets, headed by the famous Kermit, to raise $10 million dollars to save the theater and the name of the Muppets forever.

Like I said, the plot is simple. The down and out Muppets must rally together for a one off show to save their livelihood. That is not the main attraction of the film. The main attraction of the film is definitely the Muppets themselves. Kermit and Miss Piggy are the big names, but honestly they have never really been my favorite and they don't shine here either, though Kermit's musical number is fun. I cannot even really say which is the best here because they are all so fun to watch. I will say the Swedish Chef was criminally underused. I take that back, Walter is the best Muppet on display here. The new guy to the party really brings the whole thing together nicely in a character that is very easy to relate to for me. You can't help but pull for him.

The human aspect of the film is charming too. Amy Adams is a charmer and I could watch her do just about anything and love it. But Jason Segal is excellent too. He co-wrote the film with Nicholas Stoller, who also collaborated on such projects as Yes Man, Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Get Him to the Greek. His, and Segal's brand of comedy is not for everyone, featuring some rather raunchy moments. Despite that reputation, the two deliver a wonderfully childish, humorous and heartwarming film. There are great musical numbers, complete with dances, which bring joy and laughter to the audience. That is what makes the film work.

The film is a unique experience to say the least and one of the best I have in the theater all year. It was one of those films that made me grin ear to ear almost the whole way through. And yet, I struggle to call the film truly great as I have so many other films. It is overly simple. Yet the charm of all the characters, and caricature of the villain, is enough to create a really good film, and one worth enjoying with as many family and friends as possible. I'm not sure where it will rank when the year is over, and I am sure there will be plenty of films above it, but The Muppets is a great film, and a joy to behold. It hearkens back to when the Muppets where much more popular and delivers nice commentary on what is considered entertainment nowadays. But I will say this, as long as there are humans with hearts on this earth, there will be a market for joy, laughter, and happiness. That is what the Muppets are.

A Brighter Summer Day (1991)

2011-11-22T23:09:00.001-05:00

Directed by Edward Yang
Written by Hung Hung, Mingtang Lai, Alex Yang & Edward Yang

When a film has a great reputation I stow it away on my Netflix queue for eventual viewing, knowing that somewhere down the line, when my mood is right, or my motives are right, I will venture into the new film with ambition and curiosity. Then there is A Brighter Summer Day. It is a Taiwanese film, which doesn't necessarily make it obscure, especially considering the Criterion Collection has released another of the director's works. But upon searching for it on Netflix it was nowhere to be found. Then I checked the Cincinnati Public library system. Not there either. I checked the University of Cincinnati library catalogue. Surely they would have it. Nope. I checked the Columbus Public library just for the heck of it, and not surprisingly it was absent from their lists. How can a film that has such a reputation be impossible to find!?

This is usually where I attempt to succinctly summarize the story, but I find the words difficult to come by, which is an additional surprise considering the film is a sprawling epic at nearly four hours long. The best that I can come up with is that rival street gangs in 1960s Taiwan clash. There are two more important characters running here as well. One is Sir, a young boy who is in night school, but his parents are fighting to place him in day school to be more successful. The other is a girl, Ming, who seems to be connected to the wrong people, especially considering she comes off as a sweet, pretty girl. Sir and Ming start to hit it off, but at the conflict of the two gangs, the 217s and the Little Park Gang.

I am sure I missed something between the language barrier and the length of the film, and let me take this first opportunity to say I need to see the film again, a theme which will weave its way throughout this review. I had the time to sit down with the film, which reminds me I guess I should explain how I did finally come about it. Let's just say I have been prouder of my movie gathering methods in the past, but when there are no other sources, I am left with little choice as a movie lover. Which therein brings me to my next point: I need to see the film again, and more importantly it needs a legitimate release in the English speaking world (wink wink, nod nod to you Criterion). And the reason there is because this is an amazing film for its vision and its scope. It is a very nicely shot film, but the quality found in the picture is sub par, as is just about everything about the actual copy of the film, which like I said is a shame for such a big, obviously great film.

What amazed me most about the film was definitely the length, which I split into two separate viewings over the course of a day. Essentially I watched two, two hour long movies to consume the entire four hours, but to be honest with you it never felt that long. It seemed to just go by without time really passing, which is a compliment. It is not an action packed film, and is actually slow in its development, yet it never felt long. It actually felt like just a two hour movie but I think that is probably because of the craft and care with which Yang constructs the film. There is a fairly large cast of characters, but I enjoyed spending time with all of them. Heck, I almost even feel like I could have spent more time getting to know some of them. I was never really bored, which is crazy for a four hour movie. I need to see it again.

I have only ever seen one of Edward Yang's films, Yi Yi, a similarly long film, and yet I can definitely feel the style of the director. He takes his time to set these characters up with context and feeling, which is something many people put on the back burner in favor of sex, violence, or just general pizzazz. Yang crafts really solid, slow gestating films which are vastly interesting. There is that word. Interesting. I am going to call myself on that because far too many times I use it, and it is way too general of a description, but honestly that is the best way to describe my experience here because it was general, I can't really put my finger on what it was or why it was, but the film seemed much shorter than it should have been, and was much more engaging and enveloping that it should have been. If I knew more of the time period in Taiwan, or the culture of the place, I would have loved it even more I think. I need to see this movie again.

Buck (2011)

2011-11-22T16:52:00.001-05:00

Directed by Cindy Meehl

Not many people have heard of Buck Brannaman outside of the horse world. It is not a name, or in fact a personality, which calls attention to itself. But ask most people within the horsing world who Buck is and they will tell you. But perhaps you already know Buck. Have you ever seen the 1998 Robert Redford film The Horse Whisperer? If you have not, I am sure a lot of people have at least heard of it. Well, Buck Brannaman is that man. The film was not originally based on Buck, but once Redford contacted him while conducting research, the character in the film was slowly influenced by the unassuming, easy going, almost mythical personality of Buck Brannaman.

Brannaman is more than just your typical cowboy, however. He was a child celebrity, along with his brother. The duo, known as Smokie and Buckshot, were rope masters from an early age, taught by their father. By the age of 4 Buck was certified by the rodeo association, the youngest to ever receive certification. But while his father was his teacher, he was also his abuser after his loving mother passed away. Buck eventually was taken in by foster parents who are a big part of his life to this day. Now Buck spends 9 months out of the year on the road teaching 4 day clinics on how to train your horse. His style is much more consensual than traditional methods, which earned him the moniker "Horse Whisper", but his past plays a larger part than maybe you or I know.

More often than not documentaries are only as good as their subjects are interesting. Sometimes you get the film which excels for what it is able to catch on film while the cameras happen to be rolling, and what wonderful documentaries those are, but the truth is that cannot be planned out by the filmmaker. So when a film comes along that is a profile of a single man, you better make sure he has a great story and a great personality. Lucky for us, Buck Brannaman is that subject. If Brannaman was just a gentle soul with a knack for training horses and communicating with people it would be a good film, but he is more than that, and his story goes deeper than that.

Bill Cunningham New York is another documentary released earlier this year which chronicles fashion photographer Bill Cunningham and his is a great personality to get to know and spend time with, and that is a film I greatly enjoyed. The two films are similar, but what Buck manages is to bring more of an "overcome adversary" story with Brannaman's past, and in some ways even his present. I can't say Cindy Meehl does anything as a filmmaker to push the film past its material, but she does piece it together in a nice way. It does a good job of exploring what makes Buck Buck, and how it has influenced his way of life and profession.

For Buck to recover as well as he did from an abusive childhood is a testament to his courage and the love his foster parents gave him. As a cowboy, a profession which is often portrayed as tough and hard nosed, Buck is much more shy and gentle, though he is not afraid to speak his mind. His connection with the horses shows the beauty of the human spirit and the ability to redeem and learn from mistakes and experiences. It is worth the 90 minutes to sit down and get to know Buck a little bit more, even the spontaneous dramatic scene never truly arises, Buck Brannaman is a man worth knowing and learning from.

First Blood (1982)

2011-11-21T21:32:00.001-05:00

Directed by Ted Kotcheff
Written by Michael Kozoll & William Sackheim and Sylvester Stallone

The legend of John Rambo is lasting and proven with multiple sequels to the original, First Blood, the latest of which was released in 2008. I have always seem bits and pieces of the original on television, and I am sure I have seen all the parts but whether or not they were ever at the same time I am unsure. So I decided to sit down with the first in the series at least, as I have not seen any of the subsequent sequels either, and revisit what many people call a great action film. And I believed that statement because while I had seen only fleeting moments throughout the years, they were still memorable.

John Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is an ex-Green Beret who was one of two soldiers from his unit to survive Vietnam. Now back in the states, Rambo has traveled as a vagabond to a small northwestern town to find the other survivor, Del Mar. But upon his arrival he learns that he dies last year of Cancer caused by the conditions in 'Nam. Rambo is the lone survivor. So when the local sheriff (Brian Dennehy) turns aggressive in his attempt to dispel this vagrant from his quaint, idyllic town, Rambo is set off, escaping into the nearby hills. The local police and volunteer National Guard are called in to bring Rambo in, but Rambo is more dangerous than all of them combined.

The strength of this film is in its simplicity. Rambo enters town, Rambo is forced out of town, Rambo enters town, Rambo is arrested, Rambo escapes, Rambo kicks ass. End of story, end of film. Simple brilliance really. There is no need for any deeper plot twists or character development than what is delivered. The film sets out to be an action film and entertain the audience and that is just what I got from the film. The setting is perfect for the film as well. The motives of both parties is obvious and then they escape into the picturesque forest of the northwest complete with a huge gorge and an abandoned mine. Where else in America would so suit the Vietnam skills of John Rambo?

I'm quite sure than the sequels are probably more of the same, but what makes this a classic action film is the cast. Sly Stallone as Rambo is an iconic character and his performance suits him. Even when the film culminates in a pseudo-emotional breakdown and Stallone crashes and burns, it is still entertaining and fun to watch. That scene is so bad that it is good. Seriously. How can you not just eat it up? But I would like to applaud Brian Dennehy, or better the casting director who cast Brian Dennehy because he fills the role perfectly as well. And of course there is also Richard Crenna as Rambo's former commanding officer.

This is certainly not a perfect movie, it is certainly not an all time great in film history, but it is a simple 90 minute ction romp with plenty to entertain from start to finish, which is all one can ask for sometimes. I wish I could say there is some deeper undercurrent running beneath the violent and relentless Rambo, and maybe there is if you think about it a little bit more, but there doesn't need to be. The sheriff overreacts when something strange comes into his boring life and he takes it unto himself to do something about it. For people that don't at least get some fun out of it, I just don't quite get it, because there is plenty of entertainment in this film.