Before I dive into the titular film of this post, let me briefly comment on a lesser film that I stumbled across recently. Some 5 years ago, probably while I was an early undergrad, I used to watch all the trailers on iTunes, to keep abreast of what was coming out. I watched a trailer for an indie picture called The Blue Tooth Virgin. And I would always see it on my list, unobtrusive, especially because I no longer even remembered the trailer. I spent years trying, on occasion to understand the title. Only 24 hours after finally seeing it do I understand it has nothing to do with Bluetooth technology.
I do not suggest it. I can say its hanging just now between 3 and 4 stars, a moot point while my Netflix account remains closed. But it does bring up interesting questions about friends who read each other's work. This may have been the opposite of the film's point (I still don't really know), but I learned always to shoot straight, if only to avoid the complications of backtracking over your previous words.
Now let me move on my main feature, A Beautiful Mind. I chose this now because I remembered enjoying it, but didn't have a rating for it. This film is definitely one of the greats, finding itself in the rather elite category of Best Picture Oscar winners. I realize this accolade can, at times, be dubious, but in this case, it is undoubtedly deserved. I'm going to begin with wit. For wit, I gave it a 9.75. I know this means it's nearly perfect, but let me state my case. To begin, the script is nearly flawless. A Beautiful Mind's singular genius seems to come from its collaborative nature. The perfection of the script is due as much to Russell Crowe's improvisation and Ron Howard suggestion as to Akiva Goldsman's masterful screenwriting. A lot of my perspective on this film comes from a detailed viewing of the special features. A deleted scene that I believe should have made it reveals to me a single serious flaw, which goes more to wisdom than wit, that of focusing on the physical aspects of John and Alicia's relationship.
One of its best aspects is that the pacing maintains tension all the way through. For me, on this second viewing, a lot of the tension is released. I'm about to reveal the main conceit of the film so stop if you haven't seen it.-----------------------------SPOILER ALERT-------------------------------------------------
As a rewatcher, I obviously know that John Nash was schizophrenic and I even knew ahead of time which people that he sees were delusional, but I maintained my interest for two big reasons. The acting is spectacular and the descent into madness is particularly interesting to me. First, on the acting, I believe this is the best performance, so far, in the careers of Russell, Jennifer Connelly, and Ed Harris. This isn't an insult to any of them. All are fine performers, but this is there highest point to my mind.
Russell's portrayal of the descent into madness has a careful subtlety that astounds me. He begins with a sort of quirkiness, an idiosyncrasy that is all too familiar to me and follows it fast and hard to a highly conspicuous mental breakdown. This portrayal frightens me.
Jennifer's arc is similarly fascinating and as well played as anyone could havce done it. She begins with the sort of alluring/alarming direct stare that made me think of "glaukopis Athene." Her eyes are a gift from God, but her use of them is captivating. And she uses them as well to be frightening, terrified, and pitiable as she does to be charming.
Ed plays exasperated and domineering with charisma and chutzpah, but with just enough insanity to reveal hints of his delusional nature. Paul Bettany does something very similar with the wily and carefree roommate. The whole cast works together in beautiful concert.
Now let me turn to the question of wisdom so that I may gush about my own fear of mental illness. I am terribly afraid of slipping into complete and total insanity on a number of levels. I am afraid of my compulsions and the way they sometimes force me to read, watch and do things I later think I probably didn't need to do. I am afraid of my imagination and the likelihood that it could lead to some very involved delusions. I am afraid of my distance, practically and emotionally, from people that makes me feel like a sociopath and that I will spend too much of my life alone. I am afraid of my mind on nearly every level. I can't say this movie makes me feel better, but it does make me scared and yet not alone. Scared and not unique are two of the most productive states for me to be in. Scared is helpful, because I need nothing more than motivation on almost any day. Not unique is essential, because I have a tendency to make my problems and my world out to be one of a kind when I am assured by far wiser individuals that "there is nothing new under the sun."
For its portrayal of something important to me in an honest fashion, with insight, I immediately gave it a high score for wisdom, but one little choice made me bring it down to a 9.5. Ron admitted on the commentary to adding a line about taking newer medications near the end of the movie, despite the fact that John Nash never went on meds again. I am very unsure about the use of medication in the treatment of a wide variety of mental and emotional disorders, but whatever one thinks, it seems dishonest to use the story of a man who chose to live without medication and lived a more fulfilled life because of it as a springboard to promote the opposite approach to mental health. That seems dishonest. I don't mean to impugn the integrity of Ron or Brian Grazer, but this moment felt like a lapse in judgment to me.
Nonetheless, the movie dealt well with mental illness and focused heavily on the healing power of strong, non-emotionally based love to transform human lives. And that is to be applauded.
--------------------------------------------SPOILER ENDED---------------------------------------------
A couple other ideas worth commenting on are Nash's relentless pursuit of what he called his "original idea," which I would restate as the pursuit of greatness. Pursuit of recognition and reward drive a large portion of our society, but the drive that some have or choose to foster in themselves to do something new, something great and innovative is what moves us forward and what changes the world for the better.
One last note should be on Nash's own bargaining theory, with which I am only familiar through the film and for which he won the Nobel Prize in economics. This reevaluation of Adam Smith's theories on the value of competition is unique in my experience as one that draws on it and neither wholly accepts it nor rejects it, but builds something new from it (a rather Aristotelean or maybe Hegelian move). It builds a theory that accepts the self-interest principles but argues that self-interested cooperation is more effective. This idea has a lot to say to me in terms of a bridge between ethics and economics. Now on to wonder.
For wonder, I chose to give this film a very high 9.75. There are a myriad of reasons for this. First, the music is glorious, but much more importantly it is apt. Music is never a distraction from storytelling. This brings me back to Joyeux Noel and the way I praised its music for never pushing the performance, but all being organic. A Beautiful Mind does it completely different, allowing the music to lift simple moments to the height of grandeur. James Horner is a pretty fantastic composer, to my mind, but his decisions here are some of his best. His use of Charlotte Church, who sings beautifully in a way I'm not sure I've heard before, is genius. He chose to use her voice more like an instrument than the way that voices are normally used (I am paraphrasing him here and claim no detailed or impressive knowledge of music).
Second, I feel Ron outdid himself as the director. His use of the flashes of light to signify a breakthrough or making all delusional characters repeatedly appear aurally before being seen are beautiful little decisions that enhance the movie. He managed to use the color palette and tones in such a way to brilliantly create opposing forces attacking Nash's life and maintains that motif consistently and yet creatively. I mentioned before that I feel this film contains the best performances ever from more than one actor and I think that can't be a coincidence. Ron seems to have brought out the best in his cast, both individually and as an ensemble.
Lastly, I'd love to compliment the visual effects people, both in terms of makeup and the complex process of aging the actors minutely through the film and the little visual tweaks that make the film more seamless and perfect than would have otherwise been possible. The makeup department went from making Russell look younger than he was to multi-layered facial prosthetics that genuinely look and move like real skin. More than once I marveled at how young he was back then and at his oral prosthetic that gave him an overbite, never knowing what the behind-the-scenes work was doing. The effects department also gave us some beautiful shots that helped to explain Nash's major bargaining theory, mentioned above.
So, if you haven't seen this masterpiece or just never realized its outstanding worth, sit down with it soon. Or if you just want to sympathize with someone who's having a hard time, enjoy this film. Go in peace!
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Monday, December 30, 2013
On the Third Day of Christmas(Wink): Joyeux Noel (2005) 9.25, 10, 9.5, 28.75
Before I begin to discuss the film at hand, I should briefly mention that I saw Elysium this week when my brother got it from Redbox. I don't mean to lay the blame at his feet. I wanted to see it, but didn't want to watch it now, busy with Christmas movies and all. I can only say that I was disappointed at its naivete and transparency. It is a paper-thin allegory for universal healthcare.
Its primary problem is it sets up a very different kind of world from the one we live in. In this world, all healthcare is cheap, simple, and easy with no need for trained professionals or really anything, but machines so plentiful that the rich merely have these magical panacea machines in their homes, lying empty most of the time. If only those evil billionaires would allow the helpless working poor to use their magic machines. Its tacky in a world where healthcare is not a problem of class warfare or rampant injustice, but a real world problem with causes that amount to more than greed and politics, but include wealth and logistics. I'll say no more, but it gets 3 stars. Matt Damon can still do shock and awe.
Now on to the main event, Joyeux Noel. First off, I'd like to discuss how much more painstaking this process has become. In my determination to be more careful with my reviews, I have to take every .25 I've given before with a grain of salt, as I compare this film to others I've reviewed. It takes longer to make these decisions. I compared JN to nearly every film I've ever rated in wonder to make sure I got it right. I'm still not sure.
To wit. I gave this film a 9.25. Here's my reasoning. First, the opening nearly brought me to tears. It opens on three children from the three represented countries of the Western Front; Britain, France, and Germany; reciting very real poems about genocidal hatred for their enemy. It reminds us of the propaganda propagated by all sides in this conflict that created the animosity necessary to justify this world war.
This film is overall marked not by great lines, but by great incidents. Whether it's the excited Scots announcing the beginning of war to an older priest who knows enough to be wary or the German soldier interrupting an opera to give a message from the Kaiser or German and French officers exchanging stories from the same street in Paris, this film has some of the best scenes I've ever seen marked by no particularly memorable dialogue.
In fact, the overall evenness of tone and charisma in this film is one of its most remarkable features. There are moments of high piety and moments of simple hilarity, but the film is never low or vulgar and never sentimental. In moments that could have been sappy, like a French officer telling his own father that he is a grandfather, they manage to keep the film on track and on message. Men tear up, but the film doesn't cheapen it with a musical deathblow. This is most notable, because the film has great music, but they never use it for emotional momentum.
As far as wisdom goes, this is where they shine. They make there point beautifully, but the point itself is a beautiful one. Instances of goosebumps abound.
First, this film is obviously a critique of World War I and all the conflict did and meant. I agree who his wholeheartedly but it is not an original point. The greater point is a critique of the propaganda and misanthropy that accompanies war in general. It helps that the story is true. If this story had not happened, it might be naive or childish to invent it. But here we find a story of humanity triumphing over the enforced power of institutional hate.
Over and over, the point is made how much these sides distrust each other. They insist well into the story that the other side is trying to trick them, lull them to sleep to slit their throats. But genuine fellowship between people breeds a simple love. Intimate knowledge and humor break down walls and the recognition of each others humanity destroys the ability to wage war.
The most important part of this for me is the scathing critique of pro-war religion. The insistence of those people who simplify conflict that is often more complicated and the genocidal aspect is laid bare and allowed to speak and sicken for itself. This message could hardly be more important now.
The most important aspect of this for me is the frightful circumspection of the film in general. It is never one-sided or simplistic. It first ignores any tendency to imagine WWI as a righteous cause for either side, but continues to acknowledge the various sides of war itself. It recognizes that genuine knowledge of the demonized other creates a kind of kinship and also recognizes that the inhumanity of war can destroy our ability to empathize at all. It sees hope in a group of soldiers laying down arms over Christmas and recognizes that one game of football or mass won't end war and that nothing about war is simple. I can't remember a moment when it insists on a point without recognizing the complications and nuances involved.
For wonder, it received a 9.5 as well. This film is exceptional for its music, for one primary reason. As mentioned earlier, it does not abuse the power. Music is never used here to pump up an otherwise dull scene. It is almost noticeably absent in key moments. But music is used to great effect as the means of initiating the movement of two disparate groups to each other. The Scottish happened and the German opera singers and the French wind instrumentalists combine to perform fantastic music, organic to the story, that sets the tone for this film. An overall theme for this film is the restraint shown by the filmmakers in using powerful tools with skill and precision.
I am always one for the classics and this film will have hard battle to do to beat out It's a Wonderful Life or Miracle on 34th St., by this film might someday be my very favorite Christmas movie.
Be well and happy Nativity!
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Interlude VI: The Badspel of Flight and Other News
There are certain moments that make you feel like you need to share them. Christians are, whether they like it or not, made evangelists by the idea that there is a bit of good news not everyone is privy to that they have to share. Beyond that, I am an evangelist for Netflix and Google. Any chance I get, I extol the praises of these brands, because I believe that they will make our collective lives better. Almost as often, I find myself bashing every Apple product I've ever owned for almost the same reason. I have had a negative experience and I want to keep others, those I care about from that pain and loss. Rarely do movies do that to me. But Flight has done just that. This film is so poorly put together that I feel the need to share.
Flight's biggest problem is its plot. This thing is full of absurd coincidence, but more importantly weak characters paired with extraordinary ability and luck. The story follows Denzel Washington, playing a very non-descript alcoholic pilot who wakes up one morning to pilot a passenger plane drunk, evened with cocaine, and then proceeds to drink himself into a stupor after takeoff too. Did I mention that he flies the plane better than most humans can, despite his condition. No spoiler that the plane goes down and he saves almost everyone's life and then has to face the consequences.
I wasn't excited, but I was willing to let the movie roll on, despite the gross overuse of music and the absurd volume of it.
But the last half of the film could've been pulled from an Alcoholics Anonymous pamphlet. The powerless alcoholic that makes good in the end. It was utterly predictable and loathsomely simplifying. There is no nuance, not in the writing, and not in Denzel's eyes. And whoever wrote the scene with the Christian co-pilot in the hospital should know that it was almost a good scene, except for the creepy, emotionless, Jesus-screaming wife behind him. Just in case the Oscar nod or any other parts of this movie made you want to see it, don't. If you value your time, avoid it.
Now let me tell you about some of the other things I've been watching recently. Another movie that was frighteningly bad is Gravity. I heard a lot of things, positive and negative, but I'll break it down for you. The problem was writing again. There are no characters and no story. That's not literally accurate. There are three characters that appear on screen. The first is killed off early. He is a cheap throwaway for effect. Then we have George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. It would be inaccurate to say that they play characters. George is an uninteresting cliche whose fate, which I'll not divulge here, was obvious from the first minute of the film. Sandra's character was so uninteresting and hopeless that I did not even want her to survive.
The most potent messages were all falsehoods, in my humble opinion. Lesson #1: All religions are more or less the same. Lesson #2: Human survival is meaningful in itself. One note, this is the best use of 3D I've ever seen in a movie. Caveat: I've only seen three movies in 3D and one of them was Avatar, but this was much better. Just don't expect a movie. Imagine you're going to the IMAX in 1998 and you don't care what you see.
Two other movies that didn't get 5 stars, but I feel like telling you a bit about. First, Thor: The Dark World was in most ways a good movie. If it hadn't been for the annoying and blindingly unnecessary part played by Kat Dennings, who reprises her role from that crappy sitcom on CBS, this would have been 5 stars, like its predecessor. It was not as good as Iron Man 3, but I was happy for it. Caveat: I am a comic book nerd and I'm just happy to see these great characters on the screen without wanting to gouge my eyes out.
I just got around to seeing Brave last week and it's not five stars, because I found the main thread of the plot unconvincing, but it was another good outing for Pixar overall.
I've been watching a good deal of TV on DVD recently and I would like to recommend the FX show
Justified, which I finished the first season of. It is witty and the characters are well thought out and complex. Overall, I'm excited for more. For another high compliment, it reminds me of Longmire.
I also watched the first seasons of Dollhouse by Joss Whedon and Human Target. I can't say I recommend either, which is a big disappointment for on the former, because I've been such a big fan of Joss Whedon recently.
Lastly, I watched a couple of comedy specials recently and I cannot recommend Aziz Ansari's second special, Buried Alive, which was boring and unoriginal compared to his first. But I can recommend Rob Delaney: Live at the Bowery Ballroom with the proviso that it is pretty filthy. His delivery is funnier than most people's best jokes.
I will finally bid you ado, my good friends. Hopefully soon I will finally finish my review of 12 Years a Slave.
Flight's biggest problem is its plot. This thing is full of absurd coincidence, but more importantly weak characters paired with extraordinary ability and luck. The story follows Denzel Washington, playing a very non-descript alcoholic pilot who wakes up one morning to pilot a passenger plane drunk, evened with cocaine, and then proceeds to drink himself into a stupor after takeoff too. Did I mention that he flies the plane better than most humans can, despite his condition. No spoiler that the plane goes down and he saves almost everyone's life and then has to face the consequences.
I wasn't excited, but I was willing to let the movie roll on, despite the gross overuse of music and the absurd volume of it.
But the last half of the film could've been pulled from an Alcoholics Anonymous pamphlet. The powerless alcoholic that makes good in the end. It was utterly predictable and loathsomely simplifying. There is no nuance, not in the writing, and not in Denzel's eyes. And whoever wrote the scene with the Christian co-pilot in the hospital should know that it was almost a good scene, except for the creepy, emotionless, Jesus-screaming wife behind him. Just in case the Oscar nod or any other parts of this movie made you want to see it, don't. If you value your time, avoid it.
Now let me tell you about some of the other things I've been watching recently. Another movie that was frighteningly bad is Gravity. I heard a lot of things, positive and negative, but I'll break it down for you. The problem was writing again. There are no characters and no story. That's not literally accurate. There are three characters that appear on screen. The first is killed off early. He is a cheap throwaway for effect. Then we have George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. It would be inaccurate to say that they play characters. George is an uninteresting cliche whose fate, which I'll not divulge here, was obvious from the first minute of the film. Sandra's character was so uninteresting and hopeless that I did not even want her to survive.
The most potent messages were all falsehoods, in my humble opinion. Lesson #1: All religions are more or less the same. Lesson #2: Human survival is meaningful in itself. One note, this is the best use of 3D I've ever seen in a movie. Caveat: I've only seen three movies in 3D and one of them was Avatar, but this was much better. Just don't expect a movie. Imagine you're going to the IMAX in 1998 and you don't care what you see.
Two other movies that didn't get 5 stars, but I feel like telling you a bit about. First, Thor: The Dark World was in most ways a good movie. If it hadn't been for the annoying and blindingly unnecessary part played by Kat Dennings, who reprises her role from that crappy sitcom on CBS, this would have been 5 stars, like its predecessor. It was not as good as Iron Man 3, but I was happy for it. Caveat: I am a comic book nerd and I'm just happy to see these great characters on the screen without wanting to gouge my eyes out.
I just got around to seeing Brave last week and it's not five stars, because I found the main thread of the plot unconvincing, but it was another good outing for Pixar overall.
I've been watching a good deal of TV on DVD recently and I would like to recommend the FX show
Justified, which I finished the first season of. It is witty and the characters are well thought out and complex. Overall, I'm excited for more. For another high compliment, it reminds me of Longmire.
I also watched the first seasons of Dollhouse by Joss Whedon and Human Target. I can't say I recommend either, which is a big disappointment for on the former, because I've been such a big fan of Joss Whedon recently.
Lastly, I watched a couple of comedy specials recently and I cannot recommend Aziz Ansari's second special, Buried Alive, which was boring and unoriginal compared to his first. But I can recommend Rob Delaney: Live at the Bowery Ballroom with the proviso that it is pretty filthy. His delivery is funnier than most people's best jokes.
I will finally bid you ado, my good friends. Hopefully soon I will finally finish my review of 12 Years a Slave.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Moneyball** (2011) 9.5, 10, 9, 27
Every once in a while, a story is chosen by God to hit you where you live and help you understand something with which you struggle. For me, Moneyball, though this was my second time watching it, hit a spot that I didn't know was sore and ready for hitting. I'll expound on that as I jump straight into wisdom. I gave this one a 10 for wisdom, which I feel the need to assure you is not common. I'll have to dig briefly into my own philosophy to explain. For quite a while, I have believed that God is intimately involved in the workings of the world. He plans things down to the minutiae. To my mind, he gives us two essential things. Using some language borrowed from a fake religion invented for fiction by Kurt Vonnegut, he gives us wampeters and korasses. A wampeter is some sort of goal or end which we are tasked to achieve and a korass is a group of people with whom we identify. God brings us into korasses to achieve the matter of his wampeters and gives us wampeters to pull together korasses. This philosophy plays out in a very interesting way in Moneyball.
Brad Pitt plays a very real general manager from Major League Baseball named Billy Beane. Beane begins the film as the GM of the Oakland A's. His goal is to take the A's to a World Series championship. At the very beginning he has already come very close, but is limited by his budget. He simply cannot afford to pay the big names as much as it would require to win, or so it seems. He meets a young baseball exec with a degree from Yale in economics named Peter Brand, played expertly by Jonah Hill. Brand has an unpopular theory about how a team might take advantage of the rest of the league's consistent undervaluing of good players. Here we see a simple korass formed to go with the wampeter they both already have.
I would like to point out that if you haven't seen this, I'm going to tell almost all of it to illustrate my point so skip ahead or just watch it and come back
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ALERT!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
But not everyone is in. They have to deal with the world around them not in their select korass, but nonetheless tasked with them, like the owner and the manager and the fans. But they follow the things they have reason to believe in, as well as reevalutate their old ways of doing things and it begins to turn out right. Simultaneously and from early on, we are also made aware of Billy's young daughter. In the end, Billy is very successful but not ultimately successful. He is given a bigger and better chance to accomplish his goal of really changing the game of baseball and he has to choose between the clearest path for his wampeter and the clearest path for the advancement of his korasses, particularly his family and he chooses the korasses.
A lot of people like me, romantics and idealists tend to push for the accomplishment of goals over the relationships that make up our life. We will sacrifice our closeness with the people we've grown close to for the pursuance of a dream. We are taught to, as a part of our idealism. In the musical, Les Miserables, I can remember the line that makes me cringe, the line that drives forward revolutions and movements all throughout history, "Our little lives don't count at all."
But Lewis makes the perfect counterpoint in his sermon, The Weight of Glory, “There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors." The point here is that we are given missions and we are given friends and I believe truly that the highest mission will always be our friends. For me, this means that all of my dreams, goals, passions, and "missions from God" must stop short of the point where they seem to insist that I sacrifice others on their altars. Whether I must simply leave them behind or kill them or snub them or exploit them, no end is worth using another person as the means.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ENDED!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
That is it for wisdom, but I also gave it a 9.5 for wit. Here I'd like to begin by spinning a bit of prose praise for Aaron Sorkin. He's not solely responsible for this story or this screenplay but anyone who's seen The Social Network ought to be able to feel the similarities in style. The conversation is not dominated by big lines but feels free and witty without seeming produced. I can best compare him to Shakespeare, not the same caliber, but a very similar talent.
I am always effusive about Brad Pitt, but he truly hits it right on the head here. His character can be extremely big and flamboyant, but when he's listening to his daughter sing, he melts in the sort of way that would make you melt even if the girl singing wasn't any good (but she is). There are few movie stars like Brad Pitt, that are able to allow a movie to hang around them effortlessly. Most actors who lead a cast look like the weight of the story is on their shoulders, but while this film is very squarely centered on Billy Beane, you almost forget he's there whenever he steps off-screen.
This is the best Jonah Hill has ever been and I only hope we aren't still saying that in five years. It truly revealed actual acting ability under the comedy guise. He has chops not just the ability to make us laugh. By way of a quick hurrah for Philip Seymour Hoffmann (surprise, surprise), he's really good. He really makes me feel for him. Three others worth mentioning are the cameo by Spike Jonze, one of the funniest things I've seen recently, Kerris Dorsey as Beane's daughter, who both sings hauntingly and acts with depth for one so young, and Chris Pratt, who excites me and makes me laugh.
As far as wonder, I also opted for a 9.5. The music was good. I've let my opinion of that out. Beyond that I can think of nothing but the solid and lovely nature of the film as a whole. The director, Bennett Miller, who also directed Capote, does a subtle but impressive job of bringing it all together.
Well, I'm about to get kicked out of the library. I hope you all enjoy this film if you haven't already and maybe even get something from my rambling philosophy. Enjoyez!
Brad Pitt plays a very real general manager from Major League Baseball named Billy Beane. Beane begins the film as the GM of the Oakland A's. His goal is to take the A's to a World Series championship. At the very beginning he has already come very close, but is limited by his budget. He simply cannot afford to pay the big names as much as it would require to win, or so it seems. He meets a young baseball exec with a degree from Yale in economics named Peter Brand, played expertly by Jonah Hill. Brand has an unpopular theory about how a team might take advantage of the rest of the league's consistent undervaluing of good players. Here we see a simple korass formed to go with the wampeter they both already have.
I would like to point out that if you haven't seen this, I'm going to tell almost all of it to illustrate my point so skip ahead or just watch it and come back
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ALERT!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
But not everyone is in. They have to deal with the world around them not in their select korass, but nonetheless tasked with them, like the owner and the manager and the fans. But they follow the things they have reason to believe in, as well as reevalutate their old ways of doing things and it begins to turn out right. Simultaneously and from early on, we are also made aware of Billy's young daughter. In the end, Billy is very successful but not ultimately successful. He is given a bigger and better chance to accomplish his goal of really changing the game of baseball and he has to choose between the clearest path for his wampeter and the clearest path for the advancement of his korasses, particularly his family and he chooses the korasses.
A lot of people like me, romantics and idealists tend to push for the accomplishment of goals over the relationships that make up our life. We will sacrifice our closeness with the people we've grown close to for the pursuance of a dream. We are taught to, as a part of our idealism. In the musical, Les Miserables, I can remember the line that makes me cringe, the line that drives forward revolutions and movements all throughout history, "Our little lives don't count at all."
But Lewis makes the perfect counterpoint in his sermon, The Weight of Glory, “There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors." The point here is that we are given missions and we are given friends and I believe truly that the highest mission will always be our friends. For me, this means that all of my dreams, goals, passions, and "missions from God" must stop short of the point where they seem to insist that I sacrifice others on their altars. Whether I must simply leave them behind or kill them or snub them or exploit them, no end is worth using another person as the means.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ENDED!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
That is it for wisdom, but I also gave it a 9.5 for wit. Here I'd like to begin by spinning a bit of prose praise for Aaron Sorkin. He's not solely responsible for this story or this screenplay but anyone who's seen The Social Network ought to be able to feel the similarities in style. The conversation is not dominated by big lines but feels free and witty without seeming produced. I can best compare him to Shakespeare, not the same caliber, but a very similar talent.
I am always effusive about Brad Pitt, but he truly hits it right on the head here. His character can be extremely big and flamboyant, but when he's listening to his daughter sing, he melts in the sort of way that would make you melt even if the girl singing wasn't any good (but she is). There are few movie stars like Brad Pitt, that are able to allow a movie to hang around them effortlessly. Most actors who lead a cast look like the weight of the story is on their shoulders, but while this film is very squarely centered on Billy Beane, you almost forget he's there whenever he steps off-screen.
This is the best Jonah Hill has ever been and I only hope we aren't still saying that in five years. It truly revealed actual acting ability under the comedy guise. He has chops not just the ability to make us laugh. By way of a quick hurrah for Philip Seymour Hoffmann (surprise, surprise), he's really good. He really makes me feel for him. Three others worth mentioning are the cameo by Spike Jonze, one of the funniest things I've seen recently, Kerris Dorsey as Beane's daughter, who both sings hauntingly and acts with depth for one so young, and Chris Pratt, who excites me and makes me laugh.
As far as wonder, I also opted for a 9.5. The music was good. I've let my opinion of that out. Beyond that I can think of nothing but the solid and lovely nature of the film as a whole. The director, Bennett Miller, who also directed Capote, does a subtle but impressive job of bringing it all together.
Well, I'm about to get kicked out of the library. I hope you all enjoy this film if you haven't already and maybe even get something from my rambling philosophy. Enjoyez!
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Interlude V: The Interlude
I'd like to take a break here and talk a little about some of the things I've watched recently that haven't made it on here yet. For fall TV, I've got a couple outright winners so far and some on the cusp. The obvious, "everybody's-already-watching-these" shows for me are Modern Family and Parks and Rec. The best two new shows I've seen are Brooklyn Nine Nine and The Goldbergs.
The former is the first cop comedy in recent memory. This is a show starring cop characters that is first and foremost a comedy. And it is funny. Andy Samberg is automatic comedy gold. If you didn't already know this, then you must have missed some of my favorite SNL ever. My next favorite is somewhat less known, but Chelsea Peretti is one of the funniest people out there. The whole thing is great and I wholeheartedly endorse it.
The latter is a solid period (80's) family comedy that has a solid chance. Jeff Garlin is the dad, of which I wholly approve. Patton Oswalt is the narrator as well. It is definitely something I'll be watching.
I also wholly endorse Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. This won't surprise many, but I'm really happy with the pilot. It absolutely reminds me of Firefly, which I finally watched recently. I didn't finish it, but I will. Joss Whedon continues to impress.
I still haven't finished Breaking Bad, in case you're wondering, but I'm more excited still for the last season of Mad Men.
I just started the third season of Eastbound and Down recently and I can't help but think it's one of the funniest shows out there and with a surprising amount of heart. It's got a lot of completely superfluous cursing, which I couldn't care less about, but I appreciate many who do. It can also be a little crude, but very often in the service of something higher.
There are two Hulu exclusives that I'd like to comment on. The first and better is Moone Boy. This period (also 80's) family comedy is set in Ireland about a young boy with an imaginary friend, played by the hilarious Chris O'Dowd. It is probably my favorite TV format comedy of the year until Community comes back.
Quick Draw is trying too hard to be Arrested Development in the Old West, but it kind of works. I've only seen the one episode, but I'm kind of excited.
I've watched a number of movies recently that have fallen short or have left me unsure what to do with them. The first is Safety Not Guaranteed. This film has a lot going for it. First, the premise: "WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED." Then you add Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass and I'm pretty excited. Aubrey has been the light and joy of one of the funniest shows on TV now, Parks and Recreation. Mark Duplass is impressive wherever, though I got tired of his character on The League. The script is good, but there is something confusing towards the end that put me off. If anything I've said makes you excited, watch it. I probably will again, but not just yet.
One movie I do not recommend is The Dictator. I'm probably behind on this but Sasha Baron Cohen just isn't that funny. I think a lot of the reason I loved Borat, which I really did, is the people who are unaware that there is a joke going on. Without that base level of trickery, there's not much going on.
I think that's all for now. I promise to pick something good for the 50th post. Thank you to all who read this.
The former is the first cop comedy in recent memory. This is a show starring cop characters that is first and foremost a comedy. And it is funny. Andy Samberg is automatic comedy gold. If you didn't already know this, then you must have missed some of my favorite SNL ever. My next favorite is somewhat less known, but Chelsea Peretti is one of the funniest people out there. The whole thing is great and I wholeheartedly endorse it.
The latter is a solid period (80's) family comedy that has a solid chance. Jeff Garlin is the dad, of which I wholly approve. Patton Oswalt is the narrator as well. It is definitely something I'll be watching.
I also wholly endorse Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. This won't surprise many, but I'm really happy with the pilot. It absolutely reminds me of Firefly, which I finally watched recently. I didn't finish it, but I will. Joss Whedon continues to impress.
I still haven't finished Breaking Bad, in case you're wondering, but I'm more excited still for the last season of Mad Men.
I just started the third season of Eastbound and Down recently and I can't help but think it's one of the funniest shows out there and with a surprising amount of heart. It's got a lot of completely superfluous cursing, which I couldn't care less about, but I appreciate many who do. It can also be a little crude, but very often in the service of something higher.
There are two Hulu exclusives that I'd like to comment on. The first and better is Moone Boy. This period (also 80's) family comedy is set in Ireland about a young boy with an imaginary friend, played by the hilarious Chris O'Dowd. It is probably my favorite TV format comedy of the year until Community comes back.
Quick Draw is trying too hard to be Arrested Development in the Old West, but it kind of works. I've only seen the one episode, but I'm kind of excited.
I've watched a number of movies recently that have fallen short or have left me unsure what to do with them. The first is Safety Not Guaranteed. This film has a lot going for it. First, the premise: "WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED." Then you add Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass and I'm pretty excited. Aubrey has been the light and joy of one of the funniest shows on TV now, Parks and Recreation. Mark Duplass is impressive wherever, though I got tired of his character on The League. The script is good, but there is something confusing towards the end that put me off. If anything I've said makes you excited, watch it. I probably will again, but not just yet.
One movie I do not recommend is The Dictator. I'm probably behind on this but Sasha Baron Cohen just isn't that funny. I think a lot of the reason I loved Borat, which I really did, is the people who are unaware that there is a joke going on. Without that base level of trickery, there's not much going on.
I think that's all for now. I promise to pick something good for the 50th post. Thank you to all who read this.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The Wolverine* (2013) 9, 9.5, 9.5, 28
I have been excited about this film since I first heard about it. I am a great fan of comic books and Wolverine is one of my favorite characters ever and he's never been anything but a joke in the movie franchise so far. This rating could be high, because I had very little reason to believe this time out would be different, but I was happy with it. With that preface, I would like to break it down for you.
I chose to give this one a 9 for wit. This to me is an out and out win. It's been a lot worse. I never rated X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but if I had to guess, I'd bet I would have given it about a 5. I compared it to Winter's Bone and Zero Dark Thirty and it wasn't close, but compared to more modest fare like Watchmen and Valkyrie, it thrilled. The former two were 9.5's and the latter were 9's. The dialogue rarely felt forced or over-expository. It genuinely felt on par with some of its source material. The ultra-purists will scoff, but all the relationships were dealt with deftly and the actors made it all feel real.
Hugh Jackman and Famke Janssen reprised major roles. Hugh finally felt at home in the character in a way he'd failed to previously. Famke played solely in dreamy sequences and spent most of her time playing out Logan's demons, which she did, without seeming too out of place. It's not easy to ride the line between, clearly not real and dream-believable.
Newcomer Tao Okamoto made a splash in my mind as well. I will definitely look forward to her next appearance. She managed to play strength and weakness in equal measures, to have confidence and yet vulnerability. I was truly impressed. The rest of the actors were more or less forgettable, but filled their place well. The writers both have made a number of solid, if not remarkable films, but this seems like a step up to me.
For wisdom, I felt the movie had a lot in common with True Grit (2010). Some basic questions about revenge and justice came up, but this one avoided a lot of that by putting Wolverine in a different place than he often is. Don't get me wrong; he kills a bunch of dudes and that can't simply be overlooked. But he only kills criminals in the pursuit of murder, kidnapping, etc. The bigger questions are about his obligation to be a hero and to step in when he sees injustice. This kind of stuff gets me going. He realizes the essential truth that hiding from the world is not an option. One has to take action in the face of evil.
There is also a subplot about the possibility of healing and peace, even for those who have seen and done hard and harsh things for the right reasons and people who have experienced great loss. They come down squarely on the more optimistic side, which I approve of. Overall, the film is close to perfect in this regard. I only have a few reservations about its characterization of love. Specifically the whole, "I love you but I have to leave you" schtick. I don't buy it. So 9.5.
For wonder, I choose to give a 9.5. A couple of points push this. One is the realism of, that is the lack of distraction from, his claws. They really looked real, metal, and menacing. Other than that it looked great and sounded great. And surely the director isn't a complete bozo. Some of the stuff was weird and I don't know how it will be dealt with, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Go see this movie. Or rent it. And please, pray that Disney and Fox can come into some sort of agreement to bring the X-Men and other Fox properties together with the Avengers, where they belong.
I chose to give this one a 9 for wit. This to me is an out and out win. It's been a lot worse. I never rated X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but if I had to guess, I'd bet I would have given it about a 5. I compared it to Winter's Bone and Zero Dark Thirty and it wasn't close, but compared to more modest fare like Watchmen and Valkyrie, it thrilled. The former two were 9.5's and the latter were 9's. The dialogue rarely felt forced or over-expository. It genuinely felt on par with some of its source material. The ultra-purists will scoff, but all the relationships were dealt with deftly and the actors made it all feel real.
Hugh Jackman and Famke Janssen reprised major roles. Hugh finally felt at home in the character in a way he'd failed to previously. Famke played solely in dreamy sequences and spent most of her time playing out Logan's demons, which she did, without seeming too out of place. It's not easy to ride the line between, clearly not real and dream-believable.
Newcomer Tao Okamoto made a splash in my mind as well. I will definitely look forward to her next appearance. She managed to play strength and weakness in equal measures, to have confidence and yet vulnerability. I was truly impressed. The rest of the actors were more or less forgettable, but filled their place well. The writers both have made a number of solid, if not remarkable films, but this seems like a step up to me.
For wisdom, I felt the movie had a lot in common with True Grit (2010). Some basic questions about revenge and justice came up, but this one avoided a lot of that by putting Wolverine in a different place than he often is. Don't get me wrong; he kills a bunch of dudes and that can't simply be overlooked. But he only kills criminals in the pursuit of murder, kidnapping, etc. The bigger questions are about his obligation to be a hero and to step in when he sees injustice. This kind of stuff gets me going. He realizes the essential truth that hiding from the world is not an option. One has to take action in the face of evil.
There is also a subplot about the possibility of healing and peace, even for those who have seen and done hard and harsh things for the right reasons and people who have experienced great loss. They come down squarely on the more optimistic side, which I approve of. Overall, the film is close to perfect in this regard. I only have a few reservations about its characterization of love. Specifically the whole, "I love you but I have to leave you" schtick. I don't buy it. So 9.5.
For wonder, I choose to give a 9.5. A couple of points push this. One is the realism of, that is the lack of distraction from, his claws. They really looked real, metal, and menacing. Other than that it looked great and sounded great. And surely the director isn't a complete bozo. Some of the stuff was weird and I don't know how it will be dealt with, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Go see this movie. Or rent it. And please, pray that Disney and Fox can come into some sort of agreement to bring the X-Men and other Fox properties together with the Avengers, where they belong.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
True Grit** (2010) 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 28.5
This is only my third post since I got home and my first of the month, so I thought I'd celebrate some milestones. I have passed a hundred views from Russia and Germany. Whoever you are, thanks. My most popular post, the one on Flame and Citron is at 91 views and would be my first to 100. I am nearly to my 50th post and I thank you all for reading.
Now I'm sure you've all seen this movie, but I have to admit this was one of those watch-whatever's-lying-around choices. Obviously, from the score I gave, I like this film, so this is no insult, but I feel like this isn't going to blow anyone's mind. You probably all have your opinions, but I know I've never gotten mine well-formulated before so I thought I'd put it here for your perusing pleasure. Let's break it down.
For wit, I chose to award it a 9.5. It was only barely off a 10. This film is nearly perfectly scripted, deftly handled dialogue to match any Coen brothers' outing, and superbly acted. The easy comparison for writing alone was Slumdog Millionaire. They both have a funny way of sounding like a story you've always known. The main players deserve special attention.
Jeff Bridges reinvents a part played to near perfection by the Duke himself. There is no sign of John Wayne here, but in his place is a completely new performance that opens up nuances that are missing in Mr. Wayne's performance. I know I like to pretend at the first name basis with my actors, but this is just anyone. Jeff brings in a level of indolence and carelessness to the role, while maintaining an air of nobility.
Matt Damon doesn't fail to impress either. I've never thought of Matt Damon as an actor with a lot of different speeds. He does well in particular parts, but the only two surprises he ever gave me were in this and The Informant! In this, he achieves an unbelievably silly earnestness that warms my heart and pisses me off. He's obnoxious to his compatriots without being obnoxious to the audience.
Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper both manage to simultaneously blend in and stick out. Neither one gives you any reason to remember that they have ever played another part before. They genuinely seem to start from scratch in creating their characters, not easy, because I have really liked both of them before. They stand out by being interesting characters and disappearing into them.
Hailee Steinfeld deserves a mention, if only for being more of stoic canvas for the story than Kim Darby. She was amazingly worth watching in scenes filled with more-seasoned actors. And when she played without Jeff and Matt, as when she bargained for horses or fell in a snake pit, you couldn't take your eyes off of her.
Now to the tricky matter of the wisdom. I've debated this a good deal in my head and can't come to any decision, so I'll lay it out here. The pluses can be summed up with this quote, "You must pay for everything in this world, one way and another. There is nothing free except the grace of God." There is a very deeply ingrained part of me, backed up by mountains of Scripture and a good deal of reading and learning which tells me that this is one of the wisest statements in history. But I am also aware that it ignores grace and mercy and a slew of Christian virtues. Well, not ignores, but seems to pay little more than lip service to. This lip service, especially as it is far more than that, for the character, if not the writers, seems enough to get this one to a 9.5. Rooster kills a lot of men and never bats an eye, but never any but confessed violent criminals. He has a moral code that beats that of most and he sticks to it. I don't know if I convince myself, but maybe I convinced somebody.
As far as wonder goes, I have compared it favorably to Uncertainty, which garnered a 9. It has a quality feel, but not much setting it apart within its period domain. The reason I gave it a 9.5 is about the matter of dialect. I don't know where I heard it before, but I remember the stickling for period speech really makes a big difference. One can clearly feel the difference when Josh talks. His minimum of contractions gives a very different feel to his character. This is a big point for the directors in my book.
I hope I said something worthwhile and a little new about something for someone. If you haven't already seen it, get on it. If you have, maybe you can watch it different this time. Enjoyez!
Now I'm sure you've all seen this movie, but I have to admit this was one of those watch-whatever's-lying-around choices. Obviously, from the score I gave, I like this film, so this is no insult, but I feel like this isn't going to blow anyone's mind. You probably all have your opinions, but I know I've never gotten mine well-formulated before so I thought I'd put it here for your perusing pleasure. Let's break it down.
For wit, I chose to award it a 9.5. It was only barely off a 10. This film is nearly perfectly scripted, deftly handled dialogue to match any Coen brothers' outing, and superbly acted. The easy comparison for writing alone was Slumdog Millionaire. They both have a funny way of sounding like a story you've always known. The main players deserve special attention.
Jeff Bridges reinvents a part played to near perfection by the Duke himself. There is no sign of John Wayne here, but in his place is a completely new performance that opens up nuances that are missing in Mr. Wayne's performance. I know I like to pretend at the first name basis with my actors, but this is just anyone. Jeff brings in a level of indolence and carelessness to the role, while maintaining an air of nobility.
Matt Damon doesn't fail to impress either. I've never thought of Matt Damon as an actor with a lot of different speeds. He does well in particular parts, but the only two surprises he ever gave me were in this and The Informant! In this, he achieves an unbelievably silly earnestness that warms my heart and pisses me off. He's obnoxious to his compatriots without being obnoxious to the audience.
Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper both manage to simultaneously blend in and stick out. Neither one gives you any reason to remember that they have ever played another part before. They genuinely seem to start from scratch in creating their characters, not easy, because I have really liked both of them before. They stand out by being interesting characters and disappearing into them.
Hailee Steinfeld deserves a mention, if only for being more of stoic canvas for the story than Kim Darby. She was amazingly worth watching in scenes filled with more-seasoned actors. And when she played without Jeff and Matt, as when she bargained for horses or fell in a snake pit, you couldn't take your eyes off of her.
Now to the tricky matter of the wisdom. I've debated this a good deal in my head and can't come to any decision, so I'll lay it out here. The pluses can be summed up with this quote, "You must pay for everything in this world, one way and another. There is nothing free except the grace of God." There is a very deeply ingrained part of me, backed up by mountains of Scripture and a good deal of reading and learning which tells me that this is one of the wisest statements in history. But I am also aware that it ignores grace and mercy and a slew of Christian virtues. Well, not ignores, but seems to pay little more than lip service to. This lip service, especially as it is far more than that, for the character, if not the writers, seems enough to get this one to a 9.5. Rooster kills a lot of men and never bats an eye, but never any but confessed violent criminals. He has a moral code that beats that of most and he sticks to it. I don't know if I convince myself, but maybe I convinced somebody.
As far as wonder goes, I have compared it favorably to Uncertainty, which garnered a 9. It has a quality feel, but not much setting it apart within its period domain. The reason I gave it a 9.5 is about the matter of dialect. I don't know where I heard it before, but I remember the stickling for period speech really makes a big difference. One can clearly feel the difference when Josh talks. His minimum of contractions gives a very different feel to his character. This is a big point for the directors in my book.
I hope I said something worthwhile and a little new about something for someone. If you haven't already seen it, get on it. If you have, maybe you can watch it different this time. Enjoyez!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)