Abduction Review

Abduction Review

Nathan is your average teenage boy, he parties, he drinks, he rides a motorcycle, and...oh wait no average teenage boy does these things. From the beginning you have to put aside logic and reason if you want to enjoy Abduction. If you are capable of this then you will likely enjoy your time, if you can't then you won't be pleased in the least.

At first glance at the promotion for this film you see nothing but Taylor Lautner, but look closer and you find all kinds of wasted talent.  Director John Singleton does a great job of putting his star into the best possible company. Great actors like Alfred Molina and Sigourney Weaver, and up and coming talents like Jason Issacs, Michael Nyqvist, and Maria Bello all try to make the best of what they are given. If you haven't heard of these people I am not surprised; but if you have, you understand why I said that Abduction is a waste of talent.

The real problem with the movie is the story and the script. Besides lacking in believability the script has more loose ends than a frayed knot. Every single character has a subplot designed for them that goes absolutely nowhere, slowly. The subplots slow down the movie and force the audience to listen to protracted dialog about character motives. The writer of this movie needs a lesson in "Show me-don't tell me" cinema. And while It's clever for a movie to have paranoia be a driving plot factor, and it is also great to have several suspects, you can't tell the audience to trust someone, then not trust them, only to trust them again all within the same five minute chase scene. It's frustrating, and eventually the audience stops caring.

I don't think Abduction is a terrible movie, I enjoyed a great deal of it because I could shut off my brain, and just go with it. I suppose the best way to describe Abduction is that it's a candy bar. It tastes good, but has no nutritional value. It is just a simple action film designed in an attempt to cash in on Lautner's Twilight Saga popularity. And while financially it really is a no brainer, if Lautner really desires to continue his acting career, he better not alienate "Team Jacob" with mediocre cash grabs like this.

Moneyball Review

Moneyball Review

I am a huge fan of the Oakland A's. I am also a huge fan of Aaron Sorkin. So it would reason that, like peanut butter and chocolate (two great tastes, that taste great together) a movie about my favorite team coupled with a writer that I am also fond of would be nothing short of brilliant. Unfortunately, Moneyball falls short of brilliance and while it is a good movie it is not as entertaining or as factual as I would have liked.

In plain and simple terms, the success of last year's The Social Network

allowed this movie to be made. For those of you who are unfamiliar The Social Network was the "Facebook" movie. While partially about the creation of Facebook, the movie is really about one man's ego and search for power and the people he hurts along the way.

Moneyball is essentially the same film but replaces Facebook with baseball. Specifically it deals with behind the scenes baseball politics. It is a movie less about baseball and more about how owners put together a product. Some baseball teams are wealthy and put together fantastic teams with all star players. Some baseball teams put together modest clubs for modest funds. And then there is everyone else who put together teams with the leftovers. Moneyball is the system Beane created to get the most bang for his buck.

Whether you believe in the system or not doesn't matter to the movie, all you need to know is that he did it and this movie is about his struggles to get it accepted by those who refused to let go of the old ways. Personally I feel like Moneyball was a fabrication of the "steroid era." That most of his successful teams were juiced beyond compare, and that Beane was a "genius" at finding players who were desperate enough to cheat. But you don't read my blog to read about sports, so let's discuss the movie.

The movie is in a word uneven. It is smart, well written and clever. It is also dull and lifeless. The performances are really the only reason to see the movie. Every actor in their role is brilliant, each member of the cast does really become that character. Director Bennet Miller gets one of Brad Pitts most mature and interesting performances as Beane. He also does a brilliant job of coaxing a unique performance out of Jonah Hill. Hill was in danger of being typecast as the slacker character, and hopefully this opens new doors to him.

Basically, Moneyball is a movie about baseball that has absolutely nothing to do with baseball. What the movie really is about is the ego and "genius" of Billy Beane, the man who claims to have changed baseball. The movie is a good drama, with lots of brilliant performances by top notch actors like Brad Pitt and Philip Seymour Hoffman. However, just like the Social Network these performances lift an otherwise lifeless story with not much happening.

Drive Review

This review marks the 40th film this year that I have reviewed. I find it fitting that it is also one of the most unique movie going experiences I have had in a long time, and that is saying something. I say unique because it is hard to pin down exactly what kind of movie Drive is. It isn't exactly exploitative action, nor is it your standard drama and while I did laugh a few times I certainly would't classify it as a comedy. The best way, and the only way I can think of to describe Drive is to say that it is a throwback to late 70s and early 80s anti-hero films. Not only does it thematically fit those films but director Nicolas Winding Refn has made deliberate stylistic choices that echo that cinematic time period as well. From the neon titles, to the music, to even the shot selection, everything about this film oozes the slime and dirt of the 1980s.

I have always thought of Ryan Gosling as a bit of a pansy. That's not to say that I don't think of him as a great actor, I do, but I have never considered any of his performances to be particularly tough. There was of course his breakout role in "The Believer" but since then most of his roles have been of the soft variety. This film certainly changed my mind. Ryan Gosling is silent, violent and brooding in this film. He has very few lines and yet he has the ability to say more with a stare and a gesture than most actors do with Shakespeare.

Gosling's character spends his days as a stunt car driver for the movies, and his nights as a wheelman for various hold ups and robberies. He avoids personal entanglements and has contact with only one man, a broken old mechanic named Shannon (played with just the right amount of desperation by Bryan Cranston). When he meets his neighbor Irene (played by Carey Mulligan) and her son he becomes changed, as if they bring out the best in him. He appreciates the relationship they have and develops a bond with the two that allows him to act normal.

Just as their relationship is developing, Irene's husband, Standard, is released from prison. Despite being an ex con Standard isn't a bad guy, he just made bad choices. Now that he is out he is determined to keep his nose clean and get his act together. That would have been easy except he accepted protection from a group expecting payment upon his release. They want too much, so he offers his services in a robbery.

It is during the robbery that the tone of the film changes. It literally turns up the intensity to eleven. The tension and the suspense are heightened. It is also during the robbery gone wrong that the brutality starts to take center stage. The movie is very violent, not graphically so, although there is plenty of blood spilled, much of it on Gosling's scorpion jacket. The best way to describe the violence in the movie is visceral. The movie makes you feel the violence rather than showing it to you, and as a result you are more affected by it.

All of the acting in the film is superb, each actor becoming lost in their perspective roles almost completely. Gosling is amazing in his role displaying an intensity that has rarely been seen on film. But the real surprise is Albert Brooks. His performance completely blew my mind. I have seen a good chunk of his work, and while everything I have seen suggests his talent, none of it suggests his ability to display this kind of menace in a role. His character is just as brutal as Goslings, but with far more to say. I would be surprised to not see him on the ballot come Oscar time.

Nicolas Winding Refn has directed only a handful of films and is most recently known for directing the equally as brutal film "Bronson." Quick history lesson: "Bronson"is the film that most American directors discovered Tom Hardy in. His performance led to being cast in many of the films you are seeing him in now including "Inception," "Warrior," and "The Dark Knight Rises." Like "Bronson." "Drive" is an intense, brutal and beautiful film.

Overall the film is a well crafted, a well acted and a superbly paced action film that because of it's violence may not appeal to everyone. Despite its violence it is a film that should not be missed or dismissed. It is truly a masterwork of filmmaking.

Contagion Review

It truly is refreshing when a film not only expects it's audience to be smart, it requires it. It would be nice however if the movie was as entertaining as it is informative. Contagion, the new film about the rise and fall of a global pandemic, does an expert job of informing us about the true natural horrors of disease in the modern world. Not only does it do a good job of informing us about the disease, it does so without talking down to the audience. While it doesn't expect you to be an expert epidemiologist, if you pay attention you will likely learn many common CDC phrases like R0 (pronounced R-naught), Index Patient, not to mention finding out what an MRE really is.

Contagion is a rare movie in that it decidedly revels in its own realism. It encourages us to fear what exists. Germs surround us. They co-exist peacefully, and invisibly around us. If you didn't already know how germs and viruses are spread this movie will definitely inform you, and you will undoubtedly be vigilant in your avoidance of door knobs, handrails and of course touching your face for a few days post viewing. It wants to instill a panic in people so that if this incident ever actually occurred, or rather actually occurred again, we will be prepared for it. The best way to think of this movie is to think of it as a PSA headlined by A-list actors that wants to give you nothing other than its message to deliver. Sure there are entertaining moments, moments that give you a laugh or disturb you, but all these moments are in service to the message.

Similar to Soderbergh's much better message film Traffic, Contagion follows a group of individuals affected personally, professionally and emotionally by a pandemic of unknown type and origin. Each character is well acted, well written and for the most part fully formed. Despite most of these characters being very interesting, once these characters serve the realistic purpose for which they are intended they literally disappear from the film never to be heard or seen from again. That is frustrating because so many of these people would make a fine film in their own right, but because they are a part of the larger scale picture they get lost in the shuffle.

The movie had significant issues most of which I felt were due to over editing. Something tells me there is a four hour film that was forcibly chopped to just a bit over two. While I could be wrong, expect a longer directors cut to appear at some point in the near future. I do encourage you to see the movie, I think we should all see most movies, but I know time is valuable and so is your hard earned money. Because of that I have included the video below. This short film will allow you to have the same experience in less than five minutes, and is just as informative and enjoyable as the full film.

Contagion Viral Video : How A Virus Changes The World - Watch the best video clips here

Warrior Review

Warrior Review

Sports movies are by far the most generic cliche genre of film because no matter what you know that the underdog is going to come out a winner, and that he or she will face an unbeatable opponent and/or insurmountable odds. Bad sports movies remind us constantly that this inevitability is going to happen. Bad sports films don't leave us on the edge of our seat wondering if our protagonist will win or not. On the other hand, great sports movies transcend these cliches, they ignore or rise above them. They make the movie about something else, and then, even though we know the hero is going to win, we still sit on the edge of our seat, and we still cheer for them in the end. Warrior is one of the great ones.

One of the strengths of the movie is that it has a two pronged approach. Warrior is a unique movie going experience because we have two heroes, two underdog characters who must overcome adversity to achieve success. Tommy (played with burning ferocity by Tom Hardy) is a war hero, he served in Iraq where he saw heavy combat. He has returned home and is beginning to put his life back in order. Brendan (played by Joel Edgerton) is a teacher and family man. His day to day struggles are how to put food on the table, and keep the foreclosure notice off his door. Tommy and Brendan are also brothers, estranged and separated by their choices. Both men are fighting for different reasons, both men have nothing to loose, and both men are fighting the demons of their past.

The demon of their past is of course their father Paddy (played but Nick Nolte). Paddy was a violent and vicious alcoholic who now in recovery is trying desperately to rebuild the broken relationships with his sons. Nolte is spectacular as the somewhat pathetic Paddy. His performance is deep and nuanced, and while we never feel he deserves to be forgiven, you do hope that he and his sons reconnect in some way. I would not be surprised if Nolte isn't recognized this awards season for his portrait of a broken man struggling to put right the sins of his past.

Also of note is the performance of Tom Hardy. Hardy is quickly becoming known for his physique as much as his talent, and here he shows off both. Hardy plays Tommy as a man burning on the inside, full of rage and hate. Outside of the arena Tommy struggles with his relationships, not knowing who to trust. Inside the arena Tommy instantly overwhelms his opponents with unbelievable power. Hardy spends much of the movie looking like an angry bulldog, ready to brutalize anyone or anything that comes near him. 

Through varying twists of fate both men find themselves in SPARTA, a Mixed Martial Arts competition that is much hyped because of its five million dollar payout. I don't know much about MMA, but the film does a great job of teaching us about it. You certainly don't need to be experts or super fans to appreciate or understand the film. Each fight that occurs on their journey is suspenseful and exciting despite the fact that we know the two brothers eventually make the finals (if you think that is a spoiler don't watch the trailer). The two brothers with their contentious past must face off in the most brutal and violent sport that has ever been. Despite being built up It is here, where the two must face off that the movie lost me. It didn't lose me completely, but the last twenty or so minutes seem incredibly anti climactic. We as an audience are asked to root for both characters for so long through out the movie, that when we have to pick a side it is nearly impossible. Who do you root for, the man who fights to regain his honor, or the man who fights to support his family. Compound that with the fact that both men are brothers and personally I would have rather seen them hug it out rather than slug it out.

Overall the movie is a real and honest look at the relationships between brothers of blood, brothers of fraternity, fathers and sons, and of course combatants. The movie takes a brutal and violent sport and humanizes it, making us see the warriors in the ring as men instead of just gladiators.

The Debt Review

Movies have become dumber. Do not try and deny it they have. No matter how much we want to say we are more sophisticated as an audience we are still slaves to big explosions, dumb dialog, and special effects. As a consequence we have killed the political thriller genre. Despite its faults, I give The Debt a massive pat on the back for even being made. Think back to the great political thrillers of the past and ask yourself if they would be made today. Movies like 3 Days of the Condor, All The President's Men, or the Manchurian Candidate (1966) are perfect examples of political films that made statements, and made us think while simultaneously keeping us on the edge of our seat. I don't think that The Debt is quite on par with those classic films, but I do think that it is a noble effort to bring back a dying genre to american audiences.

The story revolves around three former Mossad agents who are now entering their golden years. The three agents (Helen Mirren, Tom Wilkinson, and Cirian Hinds) have gained notoriety for their part in a 1966 mission in which the three tracked down and eventually killed the "Surgeon of Birkenau." Their story has since become legend and as a great man once said: "...when the legend becomes fact, print the legend." The movie then immediately flashes back to the events of the mission. The three agents (now played by Jessica Chastain, Martin Csokas, and Sam Worthington) have discovered the "Surgeon of Birkenau" working as a gynecologist in East Berlin. They work up a plan to extract him from East Berlin and deliver him up to a war crimes tribunal in Israel. Things go wrong, mistakes are made, and sacrifices are inevitable.

The Debt is essentially two movies placed into one story. The initial and closing segments could have easily been expanded to work on an independent level, but are over condensed to bookend the flashback. While the flashback is the focus of the movie I still would have liked to have seen these bookend sections given a bit more time to create a better story for the great older actors that inhabit these portions.

The flashback section is a remarkably well made kidnapping thriller. Jessica Chastain is really having one heck of a summer. Between The Tree of Life, The Help and now the Debt, she has really established herself as a quality actress. Her scenes in the gynecologist office are really tense and uncomfortable and they are because she makes you feel her discomfort. Also of note is the amazingly despicable performance by Jesper Christensen. Christensen portrayal as the "Surgeon of Birkenau" is nothing short of exceptional, and you can see he delights in his manipulation of his captors.

It's nice to know that despite the continuing trend of loud and stupid filmmaking, that there is a segment of people dedicated to creating intelligent and thoughtful dramas. Even if they are imperfect.

Our Idiot Brother Review

Our Idiot Brother Review

There are two ways to look at the world around you. You can accept the notion that people are inherently evil and as a result untrustworthy. If you believe in this notion then you likely distrust people, and when they are evil you are prepared for it, unsurprised, and not disappointed. This may sound like a jaded, and skeptical philosophy, but it is a safe philosophy that will likely leave you undamaged. Then there is the opposite notion, the concept that people are inherently good inside. Those who subscribe to this philosophy believe that if you give people the benefit of the doubt, and trust that they will live up to it and try to be the best that they can be. Ned, played by Paul Rudd, believes in the latter.

His belief in the goodness in people is labeled as idiocy by those around him, and while I do believe that Ned lacking in common sense (his actions throughout the movie show this), his good nature and innocence are hardly idiotic. Ned simply believes the best in people, even when they are not. Ned is perceived by those around him as a slacker. Recently been paroled from prison for selling marajuana to a uniformed officer, Ned is struggling to get back on his feet. His girlfriend has replaced him, forced him off her farm, and even taken sole custody of his dog, Willie Nelson. Despite all these set backs Ned is upbeat and positive. He relies on the kindness of his three sisters (Emily Mortimer, Elizabeth Banks, and Zooey Deschanel) to help him with a place to live and the occasional odd job.

In his various encounters living with his sisters he begins to foul up their lives. He doesn't intentionally interfere, nor does he want to cause them harm, he is simply just honest. Whether is is to his benefit or not his one moral code is to be pure and honest with everyone. His belief may cause problematic relationships with those around him who do not also believe this, but to be nothing but open and honest with people is noble, and Ned is certainly a character of great moral nobility.

The movie is charming and witty and may be so because it was blessed with acting far superior than it's writing deserved. All of the supporting players do an excellent job and play their characters wonderfully. The real stand out actor of the film however is Paul Rudd. He treads a fine line between innocent and idiot constantly. He must be naive enough to believe that naked interviews in documentaries about ballerinas is commonplace, but astute enough to know when he is being manipulated. In several instances he has to play the part as childlike and mature simultaneously.

Christ figures are common if not over used in film. Ned, while not a Christ figure could easily be described as a Buddha figure. Buddha saw that each human being had the capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding. The truth is Ned is far from an idiot, he is not a buffoon, or a dummy; he is in fact wise beyond his knowledge.