The 1919 World Series. "Black Sox" scandal. "Shoeless" Joe Jackson banned from baseball. Any hardcore baseball fan knows this story well, and Eight Men Out is a fascinating retelling of this dark moment in baseball history. Myself being a ridiculously huge baseball fan, the odds that I would love this movie were pretty high, and any baseball fan will love it. I think that even if you aren't a big baseball fan, you can still appreciate the impressive snapshot of early 20th century American history, and an interesting portrayal of culture during the time period. Also impressive is how well Eight Men Out has aged, a period piece with impressive costume and set design that holds up 24 years later. As far as sports movies go, Eight Men Out is up there with the best.
1919 was a different era. There was no NFL, no fantasy sports, no round the clock ESPN coverage of every piece of sports minutiae painfully scrutinized ad nauseum. In 1919, there was big league baseball. This film starts as the Chicago White Sox are finishing up their American League Pennant victory, preparing to meet the Cincinnati Reds in the World Series. The White Sox are one of the greatest teams ever assembled, led by Buck Weaver (John Cusack), 'Shoeless' Joe Jackson (D.B. Sweeney), Hap Felsch (Charlie Sheen), ace hurler Eddie Cicotte (David Strathairn) and managed by the great 'Kid' Gleason (John Mahoney). But Sox players become increasingly frustrated with their cheapskate owner, Commie Comiskey (Clifton James), who pays them well below what they are worth and doesn't live up to his promises. He promises Cicotte a $10,000 bonus for winning 30 games, and benches him for 3 weeks in August. As frustrations begin to boil over, the gambling community finds a way to exploit this, paying the players their due wage in exchange for throwing the Series. The men are conflicted, but several give in, and as the Series starts, the White Sox are ready to lose to get rich.
Not all players approached give in to the scheme. Buck Weaver and Joe Jackson just want to play. They love the game, and even though they feel cheated by their owner, they can't stand to lose. Weaver is played as the hero in the film, the guy that despite the temptation of money, just wants to win a World Series. He develops a relationship with a couple of Chicago neighborhood kids who adore him. These scenes are very cute, and a great dichotomy of how things get complicated from childhood to adulthood. When you're a kid, there's just fun and baseball. When you're an adult, it gets a little bit more muddled. Joe Jackson is one of the tragic players in baseball history. A great ball player but not the brightest bulb in the box, Jackson is walked upon by others who are smarter than him. He just wants to play the game, but the harsh reality of the world won't let him.
If I had a time machine, one of the first places I would visit would be a Major League Baseball ball park in the early 20th century. The era fascinates me. The game was so much different back then. Fans packed the stadiums in suits and hats, scrutinizing every detail of the game. Every child wanted to grow up to be a baseball player. The players were of the rough and tumble type, the kind that fought when it was (un)necessary and threw back the whiskey after games. Spitballs and all other types of illegal pitches of today were legal and prevalently used. One interesting quirk that is highlighted in the film is that the players of opposing sides would actually share their gloves. At the end of an inning, the fielders would leave their glove at their position for the other team to use. The game that is played today, while at it's purest is still the same, is so dissimilar to the early days.
I loved how the movie showed the internal conflict of the players trying to throw the game. Losing on purpose is a harder thing than it would seem. One of the beauties of baseball is that once you're on the field, nothing else but the game matters. The guys who are on the take know what they must do, but most of them don't want to. By the end most are ready to quit the rouse, but once you've made a deal with the devil, you can't go back. The team is so tense, as most of the guys know who is on the take and who isn't. Manager Kid Gleason doesn't want to believe his boys would throw the game. Could you imagine looking a teammate in the eye after you purposefully make an error in the field in the World Series?
The movie follows the events of the 9-game World Series, and the aftermath that led to the eight men involved being banned for life from the game. The set pieces, the costumes, and especially the ragtime musical score wonderfully immerse you in the era. Like I said, it's hard for me to be unbiased because I love this era and subject matter so much. But the story is a great portrayal of the struggle between getting rich and the love of the game. Could you imagine if something like this happened in 2012? What if it was discovered that Nelson Cruz was on the take and his woeful attempt at David Freese's game tying triple in the 9th in Game 6 of last years World Series was purposeful? It would be national scandal that would bring baseball to its knees. This is similar to the "Black Sox" scandal, except imagine that today's MLB was by FAR the country's most popular sport. What a big deal it was to the country is an interesting facet to this story to me.
Even though the NFL might be the most popular sports league of today, our nation was founded on baseball. Eight Men Out is a great film about one of the low points in American sports history. Great sports movies are hard to come by, and any fan of the genre should give this movie a look. Baseball nerds like me will especially adore it.
4/5
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Rounders (1998)
Did you know that this movie existed? Granted I'm only 23 years old, but a movie starring Matt Damon, Edward Norton (one of my favorites) and John Malkovich shouldn't just slip by me. Needless to say when Rounders popped up on the "recommended for you" section of Netflix, I was excited to give it a shot. The movie gets bogged down a little towards the end, but the performances are great, and it is an overall great ride.
Mike McDermott (Matt Damon) is a law student by day, and a "rounder" by night. "Rounders" make their way around New York City playing underground poker games, Texas Hold 'Em being the game of choice. Mike is an especially good player, knowing exactly how to play the man across the table and not his cards. In an effort to make it big, Mike bets it all on a game against Teddy KGB (John Malkovich), only to wind up being reduced to nothing. After swearing off cards forever, Mike's best pal from high school Worm (Edward Norton), fresh out of prison, convinces Mike to get back in the game. Mike loves poker, but he has things he can't lose: a steady girlfriend, a job, and law school. But the allure of playing the game he loves coupled with Worm's serious gambling debts bring Mike back into the fray.
When Rounders is great, it's for the same reason that makes Ocean's Eleven great. When executed properly, it's a blast to watch the main characters outsmart everyone in the room. You're never quite sure the intricacies of what is going on, but you are sure that the hero is more cunning, more sly, and knows way more than anyone else in the movie. Damon and Norton hustling card games is a treat to watch. Part of all of us just wishes that we were that skilled at one thing that we could walk into any room and feel unbeatable. In my lifetime, I have only come close to that skilled in one thing, playing R.B.I. Baseball on the original Nintendo, but even then my Dad was always better than me. The "rounders" make it look easy, pulling stunts that have names you've never heard of with such style. The problem is that this gimmick is relied on a little too much. A lot of time in the film is spent playing cards, and it starts to bore.
Matt Damon is the king of boyish charm, at least in the 90's. Just like in his other early films like Good Will Hunting and The Rainmaker, Damon has the wit and charm that make you cheer for him without him really doing anything. Damon plays the hero with such ease, oozing charisma from every pore. Edward Norton is exceptional as well, playing Damon's loser best friend. Worm is smooth and desperate, a combination that Norton pulls off. He and Mike bond over poker; it drives them, they love every part of it. Worm aspires for nothing more than to pay his debts and get a rush, while Mike has goals of true poker immortality: playing in Las Vegas at the World Series of Poker.
Replace Norton and Damon and this movie is extremely run of the mill. The poker scenes get bogged down and the ending can be seen coming from a mile away. As a law student, I smiled more than a few times when there was any mention of law school. Clerkships, moot court, caveat emptor, all things mentioned in the film that I felt like I was "in" on because I am in law school. Malkovich does his usual loud performance as the villain, a Russian with a hilarious accent. I could have used a little more insight into Mike and especially Worm, who seems to be strictly one note.
Rounders is saved from being run of the mill by its extremely talented cast. Fans of Damon or Norton should at least give it a shot.
3/5
Mike McDermott (Matt Damon) is a law student by day, and a "rounder" by night. "Rounders" make their way around New York City playing underground poker games, Texas Hold 'Em being the game of choice. Mike is an especially good player, knowing exactly how to play the man across the table and not his cards. In an effort to make it big, Mike bets it all on a game against Teddy KGB (John Malkovich), only to wind up being reduced to nothing. After swearing off cards forever, Mike's best pal from high school Worm (Edward Norton), fresh out of prison, convinces Mike to get back in the game. Mike loves poker, but he has things he can't lose: a steady girlfriend, a job, and law school. But the allure of playing the game he loves coupled with Worm's serious gambling debts bring Mike back into the fray.
When Rounders is great, it's for the same reason that makes Ocean's Eleven great. When executed properly, it's a blast to watch the main characters outsmart everyone in the room. You're never quite sure the intricacies of what is going on, but you are sure that the hero is more cunning, more sly, and knows way more than anyone else in the movie. Damon and Norton hustling card games is a treat to watch. Part of all of us just wishes that we were that skilled at one thing that we could walk into any room and feel unbeatable. In my lifetime, I have only come close to that skilled in one thing, playing R.B.I. Baseball on the original Nintendo, but even then my Dad was always better than me. The "rounders" make it look easy, pulling stunts that have names you've never heard of with such style. The problem is that this gimmick is relied on a little too much. A lot of time in the film is spent playing cards, and it starts to bore.
Matt Damon is the king of boyish charm, at least in the 90's. Just like in his other early films like Good Will Hunting and The Rainmaker, Damon has the wit and charm that make you cheer for him without him really doing anything. Damon plays the hero with such ease, oozing charisma from every pore. Edward Norton is exceptional as well, playing Damon's loser best friend. Worm is smooth and desperate, a combination that Norton pulls off. He and Mike bond over poker; it drives them, they love every part of it. Worm aspires for nothing more than to pay his debts and get a rush, while Mike has goals of true poker immortality: playing in Las Vegas at the World Series of Poker.
Replace Norton and Damon and this movie is extremely run of the mill. The poker scenes get bogged down and the ending can be seen coming from a mile away. As a law student, I smiled more than a few times when there was any mention of law school. Clerkships, moot court, caveat emptor, all things mentioned in the film that I felt like I was "in" on because I am in law school. Malkovich does his usual loud performance as the villain, a Russian with a hilarious accent. I could have used a little more insight into Mike and especially Worm, who seems to be strictly one note.
Rounders is saved from being run of the mill by its extremely talented cast. Fans of Damon or Norton should at least give it a shot.
3/5
Monday, September 17, 2012
Why I am not going to see Paul Thomas Anderson's "The Master"
The Master, released in limited theaters last weekend, is being hailed as a heavy Oscar contender. Early reviews are glowing, and it sits at 88% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes. Its director Paul Thomas Anderson has been lauded for his unique style of directing and writing, and has been nominated for 5 Academy Awards. It stars Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix, two powerhouse leading men that have 5 Academy Award nominations and one win between them. Joaquin's performance as Commodus in Gladiator is one of my favorite performances of all time. So with all of that on the table, why in the world would I not go see The Master? Because it is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson- master of movie boredom.
Before I go any further I must confess that I am not fully versed in the ways of Anderson. I've only seen two of his films; There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love. I've managed to steer clear of Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Hard Eight. But the two I have seen have been so painfully boring and weird, I couldn't imagine having to suffer through any more.
There Will Be Blood, released in 2007, had all the hype in the world. A critically acclaimed director, Hollywood acting great Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead, and the promise of an engrossing tale of oil prospecting at the turn of the century. Needless to say I was very excited to see this movie in the theater. The opening scene was extremely promising. Daniel Day-Lewis, struggling in an oil well, in an amazing one man scene with no dialogue. After that is when things started to turn south. For what seemed like the next 9 hours (in reality it was only two and a half), absolutely NOTHING happened. Seriously, there is nothing that happens. I understand that not all movies are moved along by a traditional plot, and that there are other types of films. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a good example of a film that is a character study. We see Benjamin from his birth to his death. But in between there is growth, action, and love. In There Will Be Blood, there is none of that. Day-Lewis' character is an evil curmudgeon in the last scene, the exact same as he is in the first. There's no plot to speak of, just some events, and then it ends. Was I supposed to be invested in any of the characters? Was I supposed to care when anything happened?
About halfway through the movie I started to realize that my expectations had gone horribly wrong. After the movie my friends and I all had sheepish looks, none of us daring to be the first to say they hated it. Someone finally piped up with a "that was kind of boring" comment, finally giving the rest of us the ability to tell of how bored we all were during the movie. A group behind me in the theater loudly exclaimed, "this is boring crap!" and actually left the theater with an hour left. True story. I wish I had been as bold as them. It most certainly was boring crap. It was almost as if I could hear Anderson behind me in the theater screaming, "THIS IS ART! YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THIS!" I understand that I'm supposed to, the problem is that I don't, not even in the slightest. Maybe I was confusing that with Day-Lewis horribly overacted performance. It was as if Anderson told him,"OK, if you yell and strain your face, it conveys emotion! Do this EVERY time!" Yelling is not great acting, and that is the gist of Day-Lewis' performance. He overacts like Calculon from Futurama.
Round 2 with P.T. Anderson came completely by accident. Had I known that he was the director of Punch Drunk Love I would have never rented it. But I gave it a try, after reading some good things about it on the internet, and several great things about the performance of Adam Sandler. After watching it, it was clear to me that everything I had heard had been wrong. Again, I kept patiently waiting for ANYTHING to happen. Except that it doesn't. Nothing happens, there's some weirdness thrown in for the sake of being weird, and that's it. It's the slowest 95 minute movie you'll ever watch. I was so angry at myself after finding out who the director was, and that I didn't do my research first. I guess if anything, it was a good lesson in the dangers of renting a movie. It could end up being directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. There might be other movies out there as brutally dull as There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love, but I seriously doubt it.
I've had many friends tell me that they love one or both of these. This blows my mind, but hey, maybe I just didn't "get it". But wait a minute. These are MOVIES we are talking about. They are about entertainment. There's only one way to "get" that. Either you enjoy your time watching it or you don't. Understandably, there are films out there that the content and subject matter you may not fully understand, yet you can still be entertained by them. I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, but I don't really understand much of it's themes and undertones if I'm being honest. I just know that the world Scott created and the story presented are engrossing, and my time seems well spent. I couldn't care less about the "art" of the film if it bores me to tears. What was the point of me watching it if I felt like I was sitting through a reading of a Chemistry textbook, as read by Ben Stein? Obviously craft and technique matter, but all for the purpose of making the movie more engaging to watch, not less.
I'm probably being close minded about The Master, but after two nightmarish experiences with this director, can you blame me? I almost got suckered in by it too- the reviews, the actors, the hype. Ultimately I think I've finally learned one of the most valuable lessons any movie-goer can learn: unless you are suffering from crippling insomnia, stay away from Paul Thomas Anderson.
Before I go any further I must confess that I am not fully versed in the ways of Anderson. I've only seen two of his films; There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love. I've managed to steer clear of Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Hard Eight. But the two I have seen have been so painfully boring and weird, I couldn't imagine having to suffer through any more.
There Will Be Blood, released in 2007, had all the hype in the world. A critically acclaimed director, Hollywood acting great Daniel Day-Lewis as the lead, and the promise of an engrossing tale of oil prospecting at the turn of the century. Needless to say I was very excited to see this movie in the theater. The opening scene was extremely promising. Daniel Day-Lewis, struggling in an oil well, in an amazing one man scene with no dialogue. After that is when things started to turn south. For what seemed like the next 9 hours (in reality it was only two and a half), absolutely NOTHING happened. Seriously, there is nothing that happens. I understand that not all movies are moved along by a traditional plot, and that there are other types of films. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a good example of a film that is a character study. We see Benjamin from his birth to his death. But in between there is growth, action, and love. In There Will Be Blood, there is none of that. Day-Lewis' character is an evil curmudgeon in the last scene, the exact same as he is in the first. There's no plot to speak of, just some events, and then it ends. Was I supposed to be invested in any of the characters? Was I supposed to care when anything happened?
About halfway through the movie I started to realize that my expectations had gone horribly wrong. After the movie my friends and I all had sheepish looks, none of us daring to be the first to say they hated it. Someone finally piped up with a "that was kind of boring" comment, finally giving the rest of us the ability to tell of how bored we all were during the movie. A group behind me in the theater loudly exclaimed, "this is boring crap!" and actually left the theater with an hour left. True story. I wish I had been as bold as them. It most certainly was boring crap. It was almost as if I could hear Anderson behind me in the theater screaming, "THIS IS ART! YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THIS!" I understand that I'm supposed to, the problem is that I don't, not even in the slightest. Maybe I was confusing that with Day-Lewis horribly overacted performance. It was as if Anderson told him,"OK, if you yell and strain your face, it conveys emotion! Do this EVERY time!" Yelling is not great acting, and that is the gist of Day-Lewis' performance. He overacts like Calculon from Futurama.
Round 2 with P.T. Anderson came completely by accident. Had I known that he was the director of Punch Drunk Love I would have never rented it. But I gave it a try, after reading some good things about it on the internet, and several great things about the performance of Adam Sandler. After watching it, it was clear to me that everything I had heard had been wrong. Again, I kept patiently waiting for ANYTHING to happen. Except that it doesn't. Nothing happens, there's some weirdness thrown in for the sake of being weird, and that's it. It's the slowest 95 minute movie you'll ever watch. I was so angry at myself after finding out who the director was, and that I didn't do my research first. I guess if anything, it was a good lesson in the dangers of renting a movie. It could end up being directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. There might be other movies out there as brutally dull as There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love, but I seriously doubt it.
I've had many friends tell me that they love one or both of these. This blows my mind, but hey, maybe I just didn't "get it". But wait a minute. These are MOVIES we are talking about. They are about entertainment. There's only one way to "get" that. Either you enjoy your time watching it or you don't. Understandably, there are films out there that the content and subject matter you may not fully understand, yet you can still be entertained by them. I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, but I don't really understand much of it's themes and undertones if I'm being honest. I just know that the world Scott created and the story presented are engrossing, and my time seems well spent. I couldn't care less about the "art" of the film if it bores me to tears. What was the point of me watching it if I felt like I was sitting through a reading of a Chemistry textbook, as read by Ben Stein? Obviously craft and technique matter, but all for the purpose of making the movie more engaging to watch, not less.
I'm probably being close minded about The Master, but after two nightmarish experiences with this director, can you blame me? I almost got suckered in by it too- the reviews, the actors, the hype. Ultimately I think I've finally learned one of the most valuable lessons any movie-goer can learn: unless you are suffering from crippling insomnia, stay away from Paul Thomas Anderson.
Friday, September 14, 2012
Best Movie Each Year of Your Life
I've done this before, and it's kind of a fun thing to do. The point is to name the best movie from each year of your life, starting with the year of your birth. It definitely creates some close calls, and some of my top 10 movies won't make this list because of a solid year in film. 1999 brings the tough choice between Fight Club and The Matrix. 2002 has Minority Report and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. 1994 has Pulp Fiction and Dumb and Dumber. 2006 gave me the agonizing decision of Casino Royale and The Departed. Also, looking back, there are several very thin years for movies. 2005 is a super weak year, and 2004 is not much better. 2011 is a year with a bunch of good movies, and very few great ones. I challenge you to do this as well, it's a fun list to make!
1989: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
1990: Goodfellas
1991: Terminator 2: Judgment Day
1992: Reservoir Dogs
1993: Rudy
1994: Dumb and Dumber
1995: Se7en
1996: Sling Blade
1997: L.A. Confidential
1998: The Truman Show
1999: The Matrix
2000:Gladiator
2001: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2004: Collateral
2005: Batman Begins
2006: The Departed
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: The Dark Knight
2009: District 9
2010: Inception
2011: The Muppets
2012: The Dark Knight Rises
1989: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
1990: Goodfellas
1991: Terminator 2: Judgment Day
1992: Reservoir Dogs
1993: Rudy
1994: Dumb and Dumber
1995: Se7en
1996: Sling Blade
1997: L.A. Confidential
1998: The Truman Show
1999: The Matrix
2000:Gladiator
2001: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
2002: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
2004: Collateral
2005: Batman Begins
2006: The Departed
2007: No Country for Old Men
2008: The Dark Knight
2009: District 9
2010: Inception
2011: The Muppets
2012: The Dark Knight Rises
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Midnight in Paris
Midnight in Paris is a wonderfully acted, wonderfully written film. I'm not very familiar with Woody Allen's work, but from what I have heard, this movie is extremely "Woody-esque". Owen Wilson plays a guy who feels like he is stuck in the wrong era- that he was born 90 years too late. Nostalgia and remembering the past is a wonderful thing, but is the past really as great as we imagine?
Gil (Wilson) and his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) come to Paris with Inez's family on vacation. Gil is a Hollywood screenwriter, but longs to write a novel in the vein of his idol's: Hemmingway, Elliot, and Fitzgerald. Inez is caught up in the material lifestyle; fame, wealth, and a perfect life with Gil in Malibu. Gil is overtaken by Paris and wants to move there and live the simple life, much to the dismay of Inez. He wants to take walks in the rain and experience the beauty of Paris; she wants to eat at the fancy restaurants, go dancing, and do it all while wearing the best clothes and jewelry. To get away from it all, Gil takes a midnight walk through the streets, where he encounters something very strange. A 1920's type vehicle transports him to a place in the past where he meets his favorite artists, authors, and musicians, giving him a chance to experience the era he believes to be the "golden age". His midnight walks take him further into the culture he loves, and further away from Inez.
Nostalgia is a funny thing. I think back on simple memories from my past and they seem so great: walking home from school in 7th grade, playing in high school football games on Friday nights, traveling to play in competitive baseball tournaments, staying out at my cousin's house in the country, and so many more. All of these memories are so vivid and give me a feeling of warmth and comfort; as if only I could just relive these moments again, it would be better than anything I am experiencing today. Gil certainly feels this way in the1920's. When he gets to experience this era he feels like it is a dream come true. His writing becomes inspired, he fits in, and sacrifices his time in the present to engross himself in the past.
But is the past really better than the present? Our memories cloud our judgments. We have emotions tied to them and they play tricks on us. Was playing in high school football games an amazing experience? Absolutely. Would I want to go back and be in high school again? That answer is a definite no. It's so important to appreciate your memories but it's also important to appreciate them for what they are. I see this all the time with my friends and how they view children's cartoons. "Our cartoons were so much better! Cartoons today are terrible!" These statements might be true, but it is way more likely that these cartoons are associated with youth, and a time of simplicity, which gives off a warm and fuzzy feeling. My seven year old brother in 15 years will be saying the exact same things; that the shows that were on when HE was a kid were way better than the new ones. The point being is that Midnight in Paris does a wonderful job of addressing the theme of memories and feelings from the past.
Gil and Inez are so different, and it makes you wonder how they even got together in the first place. This seems to happen a lot in romance stories; the main character is in a relationship that seems so opposite of their personality, and are miserable until they meet a fiery new man or woman. At first I thought that this was just a movie cliche, but as I get older I realize that there are people who are in relationships where they are nothing like their partner, making you wonder what attracted them to each other in the first place. Instantly I was against Gil and Inez staying together.
The dialogue is very witty and enjoyable, especially between Gil and the people he meets in the past. One of my few complaints is that Inez's character comes off as too simple. She seems to have a one track mind of wealth and status, and as I previously stated, it's hard to believe that her and Gil ever fit together. Some hilarious scenes are with Inez's pseudo-intellectual friend Paul (Michael Sheen), a know-it-all that you'd like to give a nice punch in the face.
Midnight in Paris is a relatively clean, fun and romantic film. Paris provides beautiful scenery, and Allen accentuates it with pretty shots and a lovely musical score. Owen Wilson is fantastic as Gil, and Allen's writing really shines. His Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay is well deserved, and I highly recommend seeing this film.
4/5
Gil (Wilson) and his fiancee Inez (Rachel McAdams) come to Paris with Inez's family on vacation. Gil is a Hollywood screenwriter, but longs to write a novel in the vein of his idol's: Hemmingway, Elliot, and Fitzgerald. Inez is caught up in the material lifestyle; fame, wealth, and a perfect life with Gil in Malibu. Gil is overtaken by Paris and wants to move there and live the simple life, much to the dismay of Inez. He wants to take walks in the rain and experience the beauty of Paris; she wants to eat at the fancy restaurants, go dancing, and do it all while wearing the best clothes and jewelry. To get away from it all, Gil takes a midnight walk through the streets, where he encounters something very strange. A 1920's type vehicle transports him to a place in the past where he meets his favorite artists, authors, and musicians, giving him a chance to experience the era he believes to be the "golden age". His midnight walks take him further into the culture he loves, and further away from Inez.
Nostalgia is a funny thing. I think back on simple memories from my past and they seem so great: walking home from school in 7th grade, playing in high school football games on Friday nights, traveling to play in competitive baseball tournaments, staying out at my cousin's house in the country, and so many more. All of these memories are so vivid and give me a feeling of warmth and comfort; as if only I could just relive these moments again, it would be better than anything I am experiencing today. Gil certainly feels this way in the1920's. When he gets to experience this era he feels like it is a dream come true. His writing becomes inspired, he fits in, and sacrifices his time in the present to engross himself in the past.
But is the past really better than the present? Our memories cloud our judgments. We have emotions tied to them and they play tricks on us. Was playing in high school football games an amazing experience? Absolutely. Would I want to go back and be in high school again? That answer is a definite no. It's so important to appreciate your memories but it's also important to appreciate them for what they are. I see this all the time with my friends and how they view children's cartoons. "Our cartoons were so much better! Cartoons today are terrible!" These statements might be true, but it is way more likely that these cartoons are associated with youth, and a time of simplicity, which gives off a warm and fuzzy feeling. My seven year old brother in 15 years will be saying the exact same things; that the shows that were on when HE was a kid were way better than the new ones. The point being is that Midnight in Paris does a wonderful job of addressing the theme of memories and feelings from the past.
Gil and Inez are so different, and it makes you wonder how they even got together in the first place. This seems to happen a lot in romance stories; the main character is in a relationship that seems so opposite of their personality, and are miserable until they meet a fiery new man or woman. At first I thought that this was just a movie cliche, but as I get older I realize that there are people who are in relationships where they are nothing like their partner, making you wonder what attracted them to each other in the first place. Instantly I was against Gil and Inez staying together.
The dialogue is very witty and enjoyable, especially between Gil and the people he meets in the past. One of my few complaints is that Inez's character comes off as too simple. She seems to have a one track mind of wealth and status, and as I previously stated, it's hard to believe that her and Gil ever fit together. Some hilarious scenes are with Inez's pseudo-intellectual friend Paul (Michael Sheen), a know-it-all that you'd like to give a nice punch in the face.
Midnight in Paris is a relatively clean, fun and romantic film. Paris provides beautiful scenery, and Allen accentuates it with pretty shots and a lovely musical score. Owen Wilson is fantastic as Gil, and Allen's writing really shines. His Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay is well deserved, and I highly recommend seeing this film.
4/5
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Gone Baby Gone
Gone Baby Gone is director Ben Affleck's big screen directorial debut, and it is an impressive one. This film is somewhat of a spiritual predecessor to Affleck's better known The Town. Both are set in the dirty neighborhoods of Boston, and both do an excellent job portraying the culture. My guess is that Affleck has some experience with these neighborhoods, as he has either directed or acted in several films set there (Good Will Hunting being another example). Gone Baby Gone is essentially about a phrase we hear all the time: how do you choose between the "lesser of two evils"?
Ben's brother Casey plays private investigator Patrick, who along with his partner/girlfriend Angie (Michelle Monaghan) are hired to find a missing little girl, Amanda McCready. The girl's mother is a strung out, coked up piece of work named Helene (Amy Ryan), who makes it clear that she is much more interested in herself than her daughter. Helene's brother Lionel (Titus Welliver) and his wife Bea (Amy Madigan) are the ones that hire Patrick and Angie, and seem to be the ones who actually care about Amanda. Patrick and Angie are helped by two Boston cops, Remy (Ed Harris) and Nick (John Ashton), as well as their superior, Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman). Patrick and Angie become set on finding Amanda at all costs.
To give away much more of the plot would give too much away. The film plays as a mystery, guiding the viewer along its twists and turns. It is very much comparable to L.A. Confidential and Mystic River (the author of Gone Baby Gone having also written the latter). Several of the twists I saw coming from a mile away, but there were several others that were genuinely surprising. Affleck gives the viewer just enough to go on to make guesses about what is to happen next, and I was impressed with how this film moved so well from scene to scene. A great mystery leaves you with pieces of the puzzle and leaves you to put them together, and for the most part, this movie does just that.
Not only is there a genuinely engrossing thriller, but the movie presents a bevy of moral questions that very few of us want to answer. At what point does doing the right thing become the wrong thing? How do you choose when you are faced with picking the "lesser of two evils"? What do you do when both options faced before you have morally reprehensible consequences? Example: Do you give money to the homeless man on the street as a stopgap fix? Or will that money only be a crutch and leave him back where he started? Surely he will be better off with the money in hand, if only for a little while. The impoverished need to be helped from those that have it better off. But what if that money is abused and serves no real higher purpose for the man? Would it have been better if you had not given it at all? Gone Baby Gone slaps you in the face with this type of dilemma, and trust me, you won't like your options. After viewing it, I still don't know which side I land on for some of these questions. The film will really make you question your moral leanings, and it serves as a huge emotional punch.
The acting is very good from most every character. Everyone speaks with heavy Boston accents, most of which I bought. The best performance of the film comes from Amanda's mother Helene, played by Amy Ryan (probably better known for her TV roles such as "The Wire" and "The Office"). Ryan has the task of playing a selfish woman that you want to hate. She does drugs, she leaves her daughter alone, and is just downright filthy. You would never want a child you care about to be cared for by her. Ryan is very believable in her role, making it tough on the viewer to root for Patrick and Angie to even find Amanda. If she's found, she goes back to the hellhole that is Helene's life. Ryan plays the character with just enough humanity to show that even the most degenerate humans still care for their child at their very core. I found myself hating her and feeling sorry for her at the same time.
I found Gone Baby Gone at a video resale store for $3.95 on Blu ray. After taking a chance on it, I am very pleased with my meager investment. Ben Affleck proves that he has real talent to direct, and gets some great performances out of his cast. Gone Baby Gone is an engaging thriller that will leave you thinking well past its ending.
4/5
Ben's brother Casey plays private investigator Patrick, who along with his partner/girlfriend Angie (Michelle Monaghan) are hired to find a missing little girl, Amanda McCready. The girl's mother is a strung out, coked up piece of work named Helene (Amy Ryan), who makes it clear that she is much more interested in herself than her daughter. Helene's brother Lionel (Titus Welliver) and his wife Bea (Amy Madigan) are the ones that hire Patrick and Angie, and seem to be the ones who actually care about Amanda. Patrick and Angie are helped by two Boston cops, Remy (Ed Harris) and Nick (John Ashton), as well as their superior, Jack Doyle (Morgan Freeman). Patrick and Angie become set on finding Amanda at all costs.
To give away much more of the plot would give too much away. The film plays as a mystery, guiding the viewer along its twists and turns. It is very much comparable to L.A. Confidential and Mystic River (the author of Gone Baby Gone having also written the latter). Several of the twists I saw coming from a mile away, but there were several others that were genuinely surprising. Affleck gives the viewer just enough to go on to make guesses about what is to happen next, and I was impressed with how this film moved so well from scene to scene. A great mystery leaves you with pieces of the puzzle and leaves you to put them together, and for the most part, this movie does just that.
Not only is there a genuinely engrossing thriller, but the movie presents a bevy of moral questions that very few of us want to answer. At what point does doing the right thing become the wrong thing? How do you choose when you are faced with picking the "lesser of two evils"? What do you do when both options faced before you have morally reprehensible consequences? Example: Do you give money to the homeless man on the street as a stopgap fix? Or will that money only be a crutch and leave him back where he started? Surely he will be better off with the money in hand, if only for a little while. The impoverished need to be helped from those that have it better off. But what if that money is abused and serves no real higher purpose for the man? Would it have been better if you had not given it at all? Gone Baby Gone slaps you in the face with this type of dilemma, and trust me, you won't like your options. After viewing it, I still don't know which side I land on for some of these questions. The film will really make you question your moral leanings, and it serves as a huge emotional punch.
The acting is very good from most every character. Everyone speaks with heavy Boston accents, most of which I bought. The best performance of the film comes from Amanda's mother Helene, played by Amy Ryan (probably better known for her TV roles such as "The Wire" and "The Office"). Ryan has the task of playing a selfish woman that you want to hate. She does drugs, she leaves her daughter alone, and is just downright filthy. You would never want a child you care about to be cared for by her. Ryan is very believable in her role, making it tough on the viewer to root for Patrick and Angie to even find Amanda. If she's found, she goes back to the hellhole that is Helene's life. Ryan plays the character with just enough humanity to show that even the most degenerate humans still care for their child at their very core. I found myself hating her and feeling sorry for her at the same time.
I found Gone Baby Gone at a video resale store for $3.95 on Blu ray. After taking a chance on it, I am very pleased with my meager investment. Ben Affleck proves that he has real talent to direct, and gets some great performances out of his cast. Gone Baby Gone is an engaging thriller that will leave you thinking well past its ending.
4/5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)