Moneyball

            Over time there have been many movies done about baseball. Whether true or fictional it always seems like there's a new one that comes out every few years and usually they're done pretty well. In the case of Moneyball, for the lack of a better pun, it's money. The movie is based on a true story and the book "Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game" by Michael Lewis. That name may sound familiar as he is also the author of "The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game;" which is obviously the book the movie "The Blind Side" was based off of. Now adapting a movie from a book can be troublesome as you must deal with people's judgements who have both read the book and seen the movie. However, with me I have not read the book yet, though I own it, therefore I'm completely impartial to judge this film with out any prejudice.
           Moneyball is the story of the Oakland Athletics baseball season in 2002. More importantly, it's the story of how General Manager Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, put together this team after losing three star players and using a budget around $40 million. While trying to figure out how to overcome these obstacles Beane meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a special assistant to the GM of the Cleveland Indians. Brand tells him about a new way to evaluate players using statistical analysis called sabermetrics. Instead of the traditional way of scouting and putting value on a player's certain skill sets, sabermetrics has you value what they do on the field instead. For example, how often they get on base and score runs is more important than how much power a player has or how strong his arm is. Intrigued by this new way of thinking Beane hires Brand. Together they work an unconventional system to put together a team that they hope can win a championship, all the while facing doubts from people outside the organization as well as inside.
          This film is enjoyable all throughout as the audience is entertained by great actors working off of a great script. Moneyball was co-written by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin. Zaillian is the Oscar winning writer behind "Schindler's List" while Sorkin is the Oscar winning writer behind "The Social Network." Together these two put together a script that while watching, feels like a fictional story, but that helps make it connect that much more with the audience when you realize it is based on a true story. (Update: This pair's great writing has earned them an Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay that would be shared with Stan Chervin as well who came up with the story)
         Acting wise everyone was on top of their game. Pitt is stellar as the young, somewhat carefree GM. He transitions back and forth seamlessly from the methodical, set in his ways side and big kid still having fun with baseball no matter what side of Beane. Though Pitt was great in this role Jonah Hill may have stolen the show. Hill's portrayal of the composite character Brand is a role many fans of his aren't used to seeing as it is a dramatic one. Hill is great as this young Harvard grad who's uncomfortable and unsure of himself as he's thrust into a job opportunity of a lifetime at such a young age. Together with Pitt their chemistry is great as the two's characters play off of each other quite well throughout the entire movie. (Update: Due to their great performances Pitt has been nominated for a Best Actor Oscar and Hill has been nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar)
         One must not forget Philip Seymour Hoffman's portrayal of A's manager Art Howe. Though small, he plays the long time manager and stubborn old style baseball guy great as he goes head to head with Beane throughout. Also, Chris Pratt (Parks and Recreation) is solid as Scott Hatteberg, the long time bench player who is one of the main guys brought in to contribute and replace Jason Giambi. Plus, there's a great shot of his WSU Cougar jersey in the background when Beane goes to his house to sign him. Can't ignore that now can we?
          Anyways, overall I thought this movie was great. Like any good sports movie should it grabs the audience with its drama and hooks you into cheering for the team on the screen. Even I, a lifelong Mariners fan found myself hoping for the A's success while I watched, even though I already knew the outcome. (Update: I'm not the only one who thought this was a great movie as it's nominated for a Best Picture Oscar)
         I give this movie 3 1/2 out of 4 stars and a thumbs up. I recommend you go see it even if you're not a baseball fan as this movie is about much more than just baseball. This movie is out in theaters now as it was just release last Friday so you have plenty of time. Enjoy! (Update: This movie is now out on DVD and Blu-Ray and is available at Redbox and OnDemand)

Editor's Note: I know I said "Last Night" would be my next review, but since Moneyball is in theaters now it gets higher priority. Lookout for Last Night next time unless the same circumstances arise again.

Revolutionary Road

            In 2009's Revolutionary Road, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet team up for the first time since they costarred with each other in Titanic back in 1997. Only this time they team up with talented director Sam Mendes who was the man behind the great American Beauty.
            Based upon the book of the same name released back in 1961 by Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road takes a very dramatic look at a couple stuck in their mundane repetitive suburban lifestyle of the 1950s.
            The film begins with Frank Wheeler (DiCaprio) meeting April (Winslet) at a party. At the time Frank is a longshoreman while April has dreams of becoming an actress. These dreams don't last long as we quickly fast forward to where they are for the rest of the movie. Married, with two kids, living in a very nice house in the Connecticut suburbs on Revolutionary Road. April is a stay at home mother (not uncommon for this time) and Frank commutes to New York City for his sales job. Seems pretty ideal from the outside looking in. But from the inside to Frank and April it is a slow hell. April can't handle the repetitiveness of her daily life, while Frank hates his job and therefore puts little effort into it whatsoever. In an effort to pull out of their tailspin the Wheelers decide to move to Paris and start anew. Of course the perfect plan ever goes off without a hitch, and the Wheeler's must not only try and deal with the obstacles put in their way, but also must fight for their marriage to survive them.
           This is not a film to watch if you're looking to watch something light. It is a heavy drama that deals with heavy subjects and complex characters. DiCaprio plays his role skillfully of a cowardly man unsure of what he wants to become in life. Winslet is great as this woman defeated of her dream and stuck in a life she does not want to be in. If it was not for her Oscar nomination in The Reader in the same year she would have most likely received one for this role.
            The great acting is not limited to just the two leads however. Kathy Bates is solid in the role of the Wheeler's friend and realtor Mrs. Givings. Michael Shannon (Boardwalk Empire) is even better though as John Givings, the mentally troubled son of Bates' character. His bluntness and lack of manners is very well timed and triggers heavy debates and arguments between him and the Wheeler's. Shannon's performance even netted him an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
           The movie does have its holes however. For a married couple with two kids, the Wheeler's sure spend a lot of time with their kids not around. It just seemed a bit too convenient, though in the end it's not a huge deal and can be easily overlooked. Some people may find this movie slow and/or boring. But the big picture to see in this film is that it's not driven by a particular plot line or the character's plans, but by the character's themselves. This movie is about two people and the depths of their emotions, personalities, and actions and how these come to affect each others' lives.
           Overall, I give this film 3 out 4 stars and a thumbs up. It wasn't as good as I had hoped but maybe I was looking for too much. The acting is very solid and is worth seeing at least once, though it's not necessarily something to watch again and again. As I mentioned above it's a bit heavy for that. You can buy this movie on DVD or Blu-Ray or rent it through Netflix. Enjoy!

Editor's Note: My next review will be on the 2011 drama Last Night starring Keira Knightley, Sam Worthington, and Eva Mendes so be on the look out for that!

Toy Story 3

            Who would have thought that 16 years ago, an up and coming animation company would be the brains behind a movie about talking toys that we would all still be talking about to this day. Well the bright people over at Disney seemed to think so and as soon as the original Toy Story hit theaters back in 1995 it became an instant classic and let the whole world know who the little animation studio Pixar was. Flash forward 16 years and we're here to discuss Toy Story 3, the obvious third film in the franchise about the lovable talking toys owned by a boy named Andy.
              In the third installment we find Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz (Tim Allen), and the rest of the toys at a bit of a crossroads. Their owner Andy is not a kid anymore. In fact, he's about to head off to college, so needless to say the toys haven't been played with for awhile. Some toys are gone, but the core group remain together but now find themselves stuck in a trunk facing being thrown in the attic or donated.
              Through a series of unfortunate circumstances the toys find themselves being donated to a local daycare, where from first look seems like a heaven for the toys. Daycare seems like an endless place of children to play with them and somewhere they can all find a place to fit in. Not everything is what it seems however, and daycare isn't any different. The toys find themselves in a situation they didn't ask for and without their fearless leader Woody, as he's determined to get back to Andy. It's soon left up to Woody to rescue his friends from the daycare and try to get back to Andy before he leaves for college.
              Toy Story 3 brings all of the hilarity and realness of its characters that we've come to love from them over the years. Pixar does not disappoint as their plot is once again sharp and clever and knows how to bring those genuine human moments to life even in animation. The idea of change and knowing it's time to grow up are moments we've all had or will face in our lives. There is no question why this movie was nominated for Best Picture at this year's Oscars, or why it won for Best Animated Feature.
              If it's not broke then don't fix it is the old saying and Pixar agrees as all of the usual people are back voicing their characters; Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack (Jessie), but their are also a few new voices. Michael Keaton voices Ken, Barbie's other half and Ned Beatty (Shooter) voices Lotso the plush bear that runs the daycare. Even Randy Newman is back to compose the soundtrack which he won an Oscar for in the Best Song category.
              I give this movie 4 stars out of 4 and a thumbs up. If you somehow have not seen this film in the last year then I highly recommend you do so now. I can safely say you will not be disappointed. The movie will make you happy, sad, laugh, and maybe even get you to cry. It even got a couple tears out of me. So go to Redbox or stream it instantly on Netflix and if you've already seen it, then hey, see it again.

The King's Speech

            I-I-I-I-I r-r-r-e-eally enjoyed this movie. Now all stammering and poor (and perhaps tasteless) attempts of humor aside, there is a reason that this movie led this year's Academy Awards with 12 nominations. It's a great freaking movie from beginning to the end. It's funny how sometimes the best movies put out there are the ones that get by all of the big shots in Hollywood and were made on relatively small budgets and are independently produced. Just look at Slumdog Milionaire a couple of years ago and Black Swan this year as well. Both were produced by 20th Century Fox's offspring for independent films, Fox Searchlight, and The King's Speech went down a similar road of independent producing.
            But sometimes I believe the best things need to be those diamonds in the rough as it gives them that extra little appeal. The King's Speech centers around the true story of King George VI (played by Colin Firth) as he goes from being the Duke of York, and second in line to the throne, to being tossed into being King despite his reservations against it, at the outbreak of WWII. Oh and did I mention that during all of this he has a terrible stammer, which is really unfortunate to have when you're a part of the English monarchy and must constantly make public speeches.
            Now the movie spans over a good decade before WWII, as King George VI tries to deal with his speech problem. The King decides, with the pushing of his wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), to see speech therapist Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) about his problem. The film follows brilliantly the ups and downs over the years of Logue and the King's work together, thanks in part to the great script written by David Seidler, who used his own experiences of having a stammer and actual journals from Logue to make the film as real and historically accurate as possible.
             As with a lot of British films the cast was stellar even down to the bit players. Michael Gambon (Dumbledore in Harry Potter) did a great job as King George V and Guy Pearce (LA Confidential) did a stand up job as King Edward VIII who forced the throne on his brother after resigning. Colin Firth is absolutely excellent in his portrayal as I can't imagine how hard it must be to act as if you have a stammer, and he won the Oscar for Best Actor quite deservingly so. Geoffrey Rush and Helena Bonham Carter each deserved the Oscar noms for supporting actors as well. David Seidler won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay and it was deserved, but I don't believe director Tom Hooper should've won the Best Director Oscar, though he definitely deserved the nomination. That's a debate for another time however.
             All in all I'm glad this movie won the Best Picture Oscar as it had my vote for it, if I had one that counted anyway. But in the end if you enjoy good acting and a good story then you should enjoy this movie. I give it a thumbs up and 4 stars out of 4! Go see this movie if you haven't already!

If you have any suggestions for my next review feel free to comment

A Single Man

           Today's review is coming in a bit late, but it's here so that's all that matters. I had the pleasure of viewing "A Single Man" the other night. I had heard plenty of good review going in, but didn't really know what it was about. Well first off, the reviews were correct because the movie is quite good. The movie stars Colin Firth (The King's Speech) as George, an English professor who is still trying to cope with the sudden death of his partner one year after it happened. Julianne Moore (The Kids Are Alright) costars as his longtime friend and neighbor, Charley, from England.
            Like I said I wasn't sure what to expect going into this movie at all and was quite surprised what the plot ended up being, but in a good way. The plot not only circled with a man losing the love of his life and him trying to deal with it, but with a situation that you rarely see addressed in those times. That is of course homosexuality. Now granted I was no where near alive in the 60s, but it's quite common knowledge that being openly gay back then was not very common or as openly accepted as it is today. Many people I believe either denied it or led secret lives. The movie deals with this aspect of the story very well as it gives the viewers, what I believe to be, a very honest look into how lives for homosexual couples back then must have been and felt like.
             The story guides you through a couple days of George's life and in doing so flashes back to various stages of George's relationship with his partner Jim, a much younger man, played by Matthew Goode (The Watchmen). The couple are in a sense are quite open about their relationship as they live in the LA suburbs in a house together. As George tries to deal with the agony of his loss, he finds himself questioning why things happen the way they do, and along the way ends up making an unlikely connection with one of his students named Kenny, played by Nicholas Hoult (About A Boy). This connection helps guide George through the troubles in his life and hopefully, in time, back to a place where he can find happiness once again.
             All around the acting in this film is quite good. Colin Firth does a superb job portraying his character George and rightfully earned himself an Oscar nomination last year for Best Actor.  I thought Julianne Moore did a good job at making herself a believable English woman, as well as a woman who is just as lost as George, in the limited screen time that she does have. Matthew Goode is excellent portraying the younger partner that seems to be more open and loose about their relationship. And Nicholas Hoult plays his character well as the somewhat odd student trying to find some of his own guidance.
             Overall, this movie was in my opinion excellent. The plot was unique, original, and very honest and real. I definitely give it a thumbs up and three and a half stars out of four. It was snubbed for a Best Picture nomination in my opinion. So go see it!

Love and Other Drugs

             Today's review is for the end of the year 2010 flick Love and Other Drugs starring Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal. The movie is a romantic comedy and takes place in the mid to late 90s. Gyllenhaal plays Jamie Randall, a guy from a well off family that gets an in into the pharmaceutical sales industry with Pfizer thanks to his brother Josh (played by Josh Gad, also seen in 21). Through the job Jamie meets Maggie (Anne Hathaway) a free spirited girl with stage 1 Parkinson's Disease and the courtship ensues from there.
             Now to begin with, I liked this movie. To me it wasn't you're typical romantic comedy. The plot was much more intricate and sophisticated than your typical rom coms, though it does have some of the typical cliches. What really puts this movie above other rom coms is its plot. It doesn't fall victim to the typical boy and girl don't realize they like each other or they hate each other crap. Now they do use the boy and girl fall for each other, but can't be together for whatever reason method but in a smart new way.
              The plot revolves around the drug sale industry that you never really see ever in movies and it dives into the launch of Viagra which gives it an interesting entertainment boost. The hardships for Hathaway's character Maggie with her disease is what drives the relationship through its ups and downs throughout the movie. It's the sense of reality and actual possibility of these situations that puts this movie above others in its genre.
               As for the acting in the film you don't think Josh Gad will be around much, but thankfully they bring him back into the mix and he provides some very nice comic relief throughout the entire film. Oliver Platt plays a nice side character with comic relief as well as Jamie's boss Bruce. Overall, the acting was good as both Gyllenhaal and Hathaway deserved their Golden Globe nominations, but it was fair for them not to receive Oscar nominations.
              All in all the movie was quite enjoyable. I believe most women would enjoy this film and its a romantic comedy that even guys can like. I would definitely recommend it for a date night as a movie both parties can like or at least something guys won't want to rip their eyes out while watching.
               So in conclusion I'd have to give this movie a thumbs up and 3 out of 4 stars.

Next up for review: A Single Man starring Colin Firth