Tag: John Goodman

Finally, it is February, which means theaters are allowed to show good new movies again! Both The Monuments Men and The Lego Movie are out the same weekend, which adds some credit to the theory that studios literally wait to release their movies right outside of January, to separate themselves from the junk.

This movie in particular has an all-star cast, directed by George Clooney (his fifth overall), and a World War II story. Yeah, it has a lot going for them.

Typical rag tag group of men to save the day.

The Monuments Men tells the true story of a group of seven men, mostly art historians, curators, and museum directors, who join up with the Allied forces to preserve culture and art that might be destroyed during World War II. Most of these men are old, or out of shape, but they believe in their goal, and convinced the men in charge to let them help.

They were brought together by Frank Stokes (George Clooney), who had the idea after they almost lost The Last Supper when the UK bombed a city. His hand picked team included James Granger (Matt Damon), a painter, Richard Campbell (Bill Murray), an architect, Walter Garfield (John Goodman), a sculptor, Preston Savitz (Bob Balaban), a historian. They also have Donald Jeffries (Hugh Bonneville) and Jean Claude Clermont (Jean Dujardin), a British officer and a French man, for culture purposes. They are later joined by Sam Epstein (Dimitri Leonidas), a German translator.

These men split up around the war front from 1943-1945 searching for lost and stolen treasures. The Germans hid the art in their country and intended to destroy them should Hitler be killed. They also are racing against the Russians, who have lost so many men in the war that any stolen art they find they will steal right back and keep for themselves as a sort of reparations.

Also starring Cate Blanchett, as a very convincing French art curator, who really enjoys a nice painting. Like. A lot.

Bill Murray looks like a fucking giant in this movie.

Well drat. Turns out, The Monuments Men ended up being the antithesis to That Awkward Moment. If you remember, That Awkward Moment looked bad, but turned out to be decent.

Clooney took an interesting piece of history, put in great actors, and gave us a mediocre movie overall. It is incredibly disappointing that this movie wasn’t amazing, but I have to make sure my review still accurately reflects the overall quality, and not just say it is bad because I am feeling betrayed.

This movie did surprise me in a few ways. One, I saw Murray give a real and convincing cry, which I definitely did not see coming. I don’t think I have ever seen that man cry, it was heartfelt, and I almost teared up as well. Two, I did learn about some famous art pieces in Europe, and it is awesome how close they came to being destroyed/lost forever. Three, there isn’t a number three.

All of the funny moments made it into the trailer, leaving not a lot more for the movie. That is incredibly disappointing, as it was advertised a comedy, with not a lot of laughs. The rest of the movie was slower and more dramatic, but most of the times I didn’t really care enough about the individual characters to care what was happening to them.

The Monuments Men will be forgotten with time. It was a decently acted movie, certainly not bottom of the barrel in terms of quality, it just didn’t have a lot more going on for it.

 

2 out of 4.

My main initial complaint with Inside Llewyn Davis is the name. I have seen the title online for months, but no one ever pronounced it for me by an official source. I had to wait til I saw the dang thing to know just how to pronounce Llewyn. And it is like Lue-Win.

Now we all know!

I still have problems spelling it too though, so that’s not going well either. I end up adding like, two extra e’s some how.

Clearly, I was not made for the folk scene.

But clearly these guys were!

Llewyn Davis (Oscar Isaac) is a folk singer in 1961, and he is basically living couch to couch at his friends apartments in the Village in NYC. He used to be part of a duo, with a Mike, but now he is a solo artist and basically making no money at all. Sad times.

The movie basically examines a week in his life, trying to make ends meet, trying to not piss off all of his friends, and trying to get rediscovered as an artist to sign a new deal. He also performs at The Gaslight Cafe, which was famous in real life for folk stuff. He is good friends with the owner Pappi Corsicato (Max Casella), which gets him gigs all the time.

Some of his friends include Jen (Carey Mulligan) and Jim (Justin Timberlake), also folk singers, but they are making better life choices and potentially getting really successful. He has a college professor friend (Ethan Phillips) and his hippie wife (Robin Bartlett) as sort of a last resort.

He meets other musicians, like Al Cody (Adam Driver), a deep voiced almost country singer, Troy Nelson (Stark Sands), a simple army man with a simple voice, and Roland Turner (John Goodman), a limping jazz star who wont shut up and his personal driver Johnny Five (Garrett Hedlund).

Basically, it is just a story of poor old Llewyn Davis trying to get by, to make money, to get signed, to be who he wants to be as an artist, and occasionally carry around someone else’s cat.

Basically, a great movie for those who love kittens.

A professor of mine described the movie as sort of a O Brother, Where Art Thou? meets A Serious Man, and I’d have to agree. If you know those movies, you might be able to figure out what I mean. If you don’t, go fucking watch the first one right now. Then maybe watch the other one soon after. Eventually. That one is a bit weirder.

Because Inside Llewyn Davis is kind of weird. In a nice way. I liked its weirdness more than I liked A Serious Man.

The music though, was awesome. I already have the soundtrack. The songs are all very soulful and seem from the heart. Well, not the one “pop song” but at least that one is silly and fun to listen to. Huh. Like pop music.

Oscar Isaac really transformed himself for the role. I’ve seen him in a few movies, and I don’t think he has ever gone too deep into a character like this one. I am sure he received some votes for Best Actor.

Although it was an enjoyable film, and one I will definitely buy and watch again, I can’t help but want more. Which is part of the point of the movie. To not give you everything. To make you fill in your own theories with what they don’t tell you. I am not saying I would change anything either, I just didn’t super love it. Just regular like it.

3 out of 4.

I will say this right up front: I was not looking forward to Monsters University at all. First off, I thought the first film, Monsters Inc. was only okay. More importantly, I think doing prequels is generally very lazy writing. Monsters Inc. gave us not only a lot of character development, but also entire society development. Doing a prequel basically says fuck you, we are going to ignore all of that change and go back to the original ideas from our movie instead.

This is also Pixar‘s first attempt at a “college” movie, and what better way to parody all of the college movie stereotypes by using monsters?

I am starting to think that purple dude on the left is just a manifestation of the other guys mustache. Monsters University takes place when our heroes are freshmen in college at (you guessed it), Monsters University. There is more than one college in the area, don’t worry, the boring sounding one is just the one they both picked. Mike (Billy Crystal) wanted to go there his whole life to train to become a Scarer, while Sully (John Goodman) was basically bred to be a  Scarer like his famous father.

Basically, Sully gets to be the jock that has everything handed to him, but he doesn’t take it seriously, so he does really bad on all the tests. Mike is not scary at all, but he studies enough, so he knows everything to do in every situation! Classic nerd. Either way, both of them get into hot water when their constant bickering gets them kicked out of the Scarer program. Dean Hardscrabble (Helen Mirren) isn’t fucking around. She is also terrifying by the way.

This forces our heroes to join the “lame frat” on campus, having to turn a group of losers into the scariest monsters in school, in order to get back on their career track to be the best Scarer team Monstropolis has ever seen. A lot of famous people voice random monsters in this movie too. Steve Buscemi returns to his role from the previous film, but we also have new comers with Charlie Day and Aubrey Plaza.

Seriously, check this bitch out. Dragon wings to fly and centipede body for cackling down a hall. Utterly terrifying. Originally I was going to ignore the first film for this review, to try and go in watching it as neutral as possible, but it turns out, I actually liked Monsters University more than Monsters Inc. Maybe it is the subject matter (College, yay!), or maybe it is actually just a better structured film overall.

Obviously we know that somehow our heroes will end up coming out on top by the end of the film, because “Monsters Inc.” has already happened, and they are clearly Scarers. What we don’t know, is just how twisted and strange that journey actually ended up being. I was shocked at the clever ways the story developed, while also maintaining a parody vibe in relation to other famous college movies.

What did bug me was the ending. It felt like it dragged on near the end, so I found myself getting a little bit fidgety, hoping it would get to the point. It wasn’t as bad as the ending to The Lord Of The Rings: The Return of the King, but it still took its time at the finish line.

I also think they did a poor job of showing that there are other majors and departments in the university outside of fields related to Scaring. After all, in Monstropolis, Scaring is just one job profession, and they still have scientists, mathematicians, historians, and all of that, but the only classes that ended up getting shown related to Scaring. Sure, they had a dancing major, but outside of a casual mention, they could have shown a quick clip of a class. They even mentioned scaring in their school song. Now imagine a university doing that with just one department, like Physics. Pretty messed up yo.

3 out of 4.

The Hangover series is a bit of an enigma. Here is why!

The original is about four men on a bachelor party in Las Vegas, where they all black out, one goes missing, and they have to retrace their steps through the wildest night of their lives before the wedding. So what’d the sequel do? The Hangover Part II gave us another wedding, another night of blacked our memories and regrets, but in Thailand. Like most sequels, in contained the same theme and a similar plot. After all, it is called The Hangover and is about being hungover, and it is not called “Some Guys Get Into Shenanigans!” I don’t know if people complained about the similarities between Die Hard and Die Hard 2.

But for whatever reason, audiences hated it and voiced their displeasure. Which is why we now have The Hangover Part III! (Trailer) Learning from their mistakes, we now have a movie about a few guys getting into shenanigans and no hangovers.

Classic elevator scenes are classic. Those sheets are suggestive as fuck.

A few years after Part II, Alan (Zach Galifianakis) is still a madman. He is off his medication and causing accidents, overly stressing his father (Jeffrey Tambor) and giving him a fatal heart attack.

Which is why his friends decide to give him an intervention. Doug (Justin Bartha), Stu (Ed Helms), and Phil (Bradley Cooper) convince him to drive down to the rehab center to get his life back on track! But along the way, they are hijacked by Marshall (John Goodman), a drug dealer and international criminal, who claims Chow (Ken Jeong) stole $21 Million in gold bars from him.

Of course the only person to be in contact with Chow since Thailand is Alan. So he kidnaps Doug, and they have three days to find Chow and his money, or Doug dies. Swell!

This film also brings back Mike Epps as “Black Doug”, Heather Graham as Jade, and introduces Melissa McCarthy as a pawn shop owner.

Yep, the whole gang is represented in this poster. Wait…

I think I am going to put this blame on the writers. In terms of plot, this Hangover actually tells a decent story. There is betrayal, redemption, and a group of guys that can’t fix their larger than life problems. But instead of focusing on the entire group, it is almost a if Stu and Phil get pushed out of the way for the Alan and Chow show.

Alan is an annoying character, which Zach G. tends to to play a lot (With mixed results). He is the type of character that is good for a comedy, but shouldn’t be the main focus. Chow was also a secondary character, but  it feels like he has more lines than even Stu, who in turn is just a punching bag for Alan this movie.

The writers intended this to be a redemption movie for Alan, and thus  gave him the leading role. After all, everyone else has settled down besides his character, so this is just his turn to settle to end the series. But it feels very forced. The film on the whole has less humor than the previous two, focusing more on the intense plot lines. In fact, the scaffolding scene from the trailer made me jump from my feet in fright. Not that the seriousness was a bad thing, but it is framed as a comedy and not an adventure/action film.

I know it is a strange thing to blame the writers yet talk highly of the plot.I wish they were able to have the same overall storyline, without cramming two (Arguably) secondary characters down our throat. It shouldn’t be hard to give Bradley Cooper or Ed Helms bigger roles in the film. They felt like replaceable cast members, which is unacceptable.

That being said, Part III wasn’t horrible, it just wasn’t amazing either.

2 out of 4.

Normally I do my movie prep right before I see a movie, not months. But hey, turns out I never watched Monsters Inc., and some other variant of the movie is coming out this summer. But it was in 3D!…Which kind of makes this a new release…which means I can review it. Kind of like how I did a review for Cars, despite having no good reason for that one.

THREE DIMENSIONS THOUGH. WHY NOT.

Imagine this face popping out at you.

Monsters Inc. is the dark and twisted tale, of transdimensional travel and the energy crisis. Thanks to the onslaught of violent video games, tv shows, and the moral fabric of society falling, kids have become emotionless zombies that can no longer react to fear as a stimuli. This has a big effect on the Monster society, another dimension away from the human world.

They have not only perfected transdimensional travel between the worlds, but they can go to any home in which a closet exists, and have each one labeled and organized to go wherever they want. They have also figured out how to refine the screams of children into portable energy. But as I already stated, the screams are lowering. Sure, some monsters, Sully (John Goodman) and Randall (Steve Buscemi) are approaching record breaking numbers, but it is probably due to the apathy of the other workers realizing their jobs are at risk and their world as they know it is crashing around them.

Mike (Billy Crystal), Sully’s partner is too engulfed in the race to notice the crisis, and to smitten with a receptionist Celia (Jennifer Tilly) to realize the changes.

The drive for more scares engulfs Randall and Sully, so much that they end up doing whatever they can to get ahead of the other. Randall, the lesser scarer of the two being born with a smaller frame, has to rely on his intellect to give him an edge, much like the common ancestors of our past began to make tools to fight off the mammoths. He is smart enough to realize that the human kids are not actually poisonous to touch, but that was instead a message spread around just to increase work performance in these tough times. If you are scared of them, you will be more willing to try and scare them as much as possible.

Randall actually invents a machine to extract and force screams from not only children, but any source, monsters, whatever. Presumably beta testing is over, and now he has one test subject less, a girl who is named Boo. Boo is immune to fear in the traditional sense, referring to monsters as kitties. If his machine can work on her, it can work on anyone, and Monstropolis can continue to be prosperous.

But Sully, for whatever reason, is afraid of change. He made his record, and he doesn’t believe in that new form of science. Maybe because he hasn’t tested it himself. Either way, despite not knowing the full story, he decides to do everything in his power to get Boo back to her room, because that will protect her somehow.

It isn’t until he discovers and alternative form of energy from the children, through laughter, does he begin to accept change. It is stronger than the average scream, but is it easier to get laughs through the same manual labor process versus machine work? Does he really only care about the laugh method because he found it out first? Or maybe he is going around his boss, Mr. Waternoose (James Coburn), just to take over his job by the end?

Is Monsters Inc. really a story about how unions are a good thing, and that innovation through technological advancements leads to loss of jobs, in order to be more efficient?

For whatever reason, she reminded me of Katy Perry.

So why not talk about Monsters University? Seems like an odd direction to take the franchise. A prequel, 10 years before Inc. This will be a movie about how all the characters we know learned about each other and developed friendships. I am expecting it to be 100% Monster, 0% Human. After all, humans will still be poisonous or whatever. I think it would have a bit more interesting have a real sequel, what that would be about, I have no idea.

I think the over all plot was a fine one, minus a lot of instances where I didn’t understand the character actions. Such as taking Boo from the Sushi shop, when they could have left here there, ran away and been done with the problem. Or the door factory chase scene.

The 3D was good and felt natural. Since the movie was made in 2D, it was just there for rounding, not having shit fly at you, which was nice. Billy Crystal made his character his bitch, like normal. The rest of the voice work was relatively okay.

Over all, I don’t see the hyper I originally heard from the movie. Way better than Cars though.

2 out of 4.

At this point, if you mention Robert Zemeckis around movie people you will probably see a strong positive reaction. After all, he brought directed Back To The Future, Forrest Gump, and Cast Away.

So when news came out of his new movie, Flight, one of his first R rated picture which he claims will be his darkest movie ever, it obviously had a lot of hype.

“Uhh, we seem to be turning. Yep. Gravity is a bitch.”

The hype doesn’t die with the trailer, which makes it seem pretty amazing and dramatic. A pilot, Whip Whitaker (Denzel Washington) is able to use his instincts to crash land a plane with very few casualties. Not only that, but the same conditions were run with different pilots in simulators, and each and every one of them crashed and burned. Whip Whitaker is a hero! However, he had some alcohol in his system, so he might be facing legal trouble. The trailer makes it seem like this is a story about a hero who is being used as a scapegoat by a big corporation, despite saving almost a hundred lives!

Turns out the trailer is very misleading. The movie earns its R rating right away by giving not only full frontal female nudity, but also cocaine use. Whip Whitaker is not only an alcoholic, but an illegal drug user and cigarette smoker to boot. He was very unfit to fly, but it was still not the cause of the eventual accident.

Instead of a false manhunt, this movie is more about doing whatever possible to protect the pilot from getting reprimanded, despite the serious problems in his life. After the crash he decides to quit drinking, bu that only lasts about a day. He feels sorry for himself and pushes away the ones he loves. This movie also features John Goodman as his dealer/best friend, Don Cheadle as his criminal attorney, Bruce Greenwood as his union representative, Nadine Velazquez as a flight attendant, and Kelly Reilly as a heroin addict he meets in the hospital.

Band aids are the classiest facial accessory you can bring to a hearing.

Outside of the misleading trailer, the rest of the movie was a big “meh” fest. There was a lot of religious talk in the film, because that is usually what happens after a large disaster. However, the entire focus of the movie is on Whip and his drinking problem. That is literally the only thing people care about (and only because of the legal trouble he faces). Once again, drinking becomes the worst thing to ever a person can do, while completely ignoring his smoking and cocaine use. A similar point was driven home with Seven Psychopaths, but at least then it was in a hilarious way.

Personally, I don’t drink at all, never have, never really plan to. Just never had an interest. I get annoyed when it seems the majority of my friends prefer to drink in every possible social setting, but hey, it’s their choice and I will fight for their right to. The movie is actually a giant walking ad for AA, which I also feel is one of the worst transgressors of Separation of Church and State in America. The 12 step programs all feature acknowledging one’s own weaknesses and putting your life in a higher power.

The film also had a problem in that the ending was entirely predictable as soon as they first went to an AA meeting halfway through the movie. I knew how the hearing would play out, and no longer cared about the him as he continued to dig himself into a hole. Denzel Washington did however act amazingly in this movie, it just wasn’t enough to justify the over two hour propaganda fest that I had to sit through.

2 out of 4.

It has been a few years since we have had a stop motion scary movie, the last of which was three years ago in Coraline. But this year we have two! ParaNorman, made by some relatively unheard of directors, and Frankenweenie, a remake of a 1984 short film by Tim Burton, king of the slightly creepy.

Yep, ParaNorman is the underdog in this fight but hey, it is at least in color!

All white people, but color nonetheless.

Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee) can see dead people. Ghosts at least, who are stuck on earth because their time and tasks have not been completed and cannot move on. So you’d think Norman would go around helping all the ghosts move on, but instead he just befriends them and acts like its not his problem. That isn’t the movie plot, they never even bring up Norman helping the ghosts, he is just a dick kid who never thinks to help out his ghost friends. Just an observation!

He doesn’t keep the ghosts a secret either, so everyone thinks he is a freak. His parents don’t know what to do (Jeff Garlin, Leslie Mann) and his sister (Anna Kendrick) thinks he is a loser. Outside of the ghosts, so far just a normal sounding life. His only friend is a guy named Neil (Tucker Albrizzi), who has no friends because he is fat. True story.

In this town, their claim to fame is that they once burned a witch. But before the witch was burnt, she hexxed her seven accusers into a zombie fate once they die, meaning that  she is actually a witch and really they did nothing wrong. You can’t just let witches free and running amuck! Years later, the curse still has not occurred because of people like crazy uncle Penderghast (John Goodman) who delay the curse. But once he kicks the bucket, it is up to Norman to make sure the zombies don’t rise up and take over, with the help of Neil, Neil’s older brother (Casey Affleck), his sister, and the local bully (Christopher Mintz-Plasse).

SO MANY ZOMBIES. SEVEN OF THEM. AHH.

Personally, I found the movie to be a bit boring. It is hard to classify just what kind of movie this was, and for who it was meant to be enjoyed by. Most of the good jokes were given away in the trailer and I didn’t understand how this town even felt threatened. I mean, seven zombies? That is a very specific finite number of zombies, in the modern age, a town should be able to handle them. There is a scene where the towns people try to destroy them and end up killing exactly zero. Despite multiple guns, they actually just end up beating them up with umbrellas and clubs and let them get away. Well then.

I could talk a lot about the actual movie, but this one has controversy which is more exciting.

Controversy? In a kids movie? Yes! At the end of the movie, one of the main characters turns out to be gay. It was just meant to be a minor joke, but it has caused a lot of parents to freak out. I won’t get into how ridiculous this controversy even is, leaving that up to you.

Overall, I can’t see why this film has received such high praise. I just felt the stop motion wasn’t the best and that most of the jokes fell flat. Feel free to see it as soon as you can and prove me wrong or tell me what I missed, because I am willing to listen. I do understand that the moral of the film wasn’t just destroy the witch/zombies, but that wasn’t enough for me to care.

2 out of 4.

Ben Affleck. Have you heard of him? He started as an up an coming actor in the 1990s, even won an academy award for writing, but then made a series of bad choices. He followed the Paycheck, got it on with J.Lo and became an easy laughing stock of Hollywood. Basically, he became synonymous with Canada jokes. Something that is joked about to seem cool, basically.

But then something happened. He directed a movie. Gone Baby Gone and The Town were both considered great hits. Now we haveArgo, and if it is any good, it could potentially cement himself as a great director (generally you need at least 3 good movies, in a row preferably).

And if it isn’t good, well then, Argo fuck yourself.

Back in the 1960s, Iran was fucked up. The film does a great explanation to catch you up to the events at hand though. Basically, the USA helped make a military coop, put a leader in charge who was horrible but loyal to the US. Eventually Iran gt their country back and the leader was brought back to US for protection, and was dying of cancer. Iran protested under their new leader, demanding the old one be brought back to be tried for his actions, but the US refused. They rioted at the US Embassy, eventually broke in and took everyone captive. Everyone, but six individuals who were able to escape (Tate Donovan, Scoot McNairy, Rory Cochrane, Kerry Bishe, Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham).

They find themselves in the house of the Canadian Ambassador, Ken Taylor (Victor Garber), and become stowaways. Unfortunately for them, the fact that they escaped puts them in more danger than those who were captured! The whole world is looking at those captured hostages, so Iran knows they cant have them killed. But people who escaped and have been hiding out? They are clearly spies and can be killed. Well, shit.

Two months later, enter the CIA. They are brought in to help extract the individuals from Iran, lead by their best man, Tony Mendez (Affleck). Unfortunately, their best idea is a long shot. He will head to Iran, pretending to be part of a Canadian film crew looking to shoot a new sci-fi movie, called Argo, there. He will teach the captives their roles and they will just leave hopefully. But first they have to make it seem real. With the help of some Hollywood big wigs (John Goodman, Alan Arkin) and the head of the CIA (Bryan Cranston) they attempt a rescue that basically seems like a suicide mission.

Tip 2 on how to be Canadian: Apologize always and often.

One thing people ask me a lot if what is my favorite movie, and every time I say Chasing Amy. Clearly I am a fan of Affleck as an actor usually, I just think he made some bad decisions in his life (the first half decade of 2000, specifically). Most people would agree that he was the bomb in Phantoms as well.

Thankfully, Affleck lived up to his hype and both directed an amazing movie, while also acting the shit out of it. First off, the way the movie set up and explained all the history before the hostage situation was really good. I was worried never hearing of the Canadian Caper before would lessen the movie for me, but they quickly set it up while also making it easy to understand. The entire film puts you into the late 1970s, everything from the looks of the actors, to the language just seems to fit.

Sure, it is true the Canadian involvement is incredible downplayed, but movies aren’t meant to be historically accurate, just entertaining. Historically accurate movies tend to be documentaries.

I think I would call Argo one of my favorite movies of 2012, which is an amazing accomplishment with all of the big movies that have already been released this year.

4 out of 4.

From what I can tell, Trouble With The Curve seems to have snuck up out of nowhere. It is Clint Eastwood‘s first acting role in four years, and the first time he has acted in a movie he also wasn’t directing since 1993!

It is quite understandable that he is slowing down, right now clocking in at 82 years old and generally can only play the “mean old man” roles at this point, which doesn’t give him much diversity. But what does it mean that he is willing to act in a movie he has no control over? I guess he believes in that film’s message.

This is a shot of Clint Eastwood doing whatever the fuck he wants.

Eastwood plays Gus, a scout for the Atlanta Braves baseball team. He is a pretty big name in the scouting world, signing some of the greats and having an incredible eye and ear for future potential. Unfortunately, his wife died almost thirty years ago, when their daughter Mickey (Amy Adams) was only five years old.

Not being one for emotions (he is Clint Eastwood, after all!) Gus has had a strained relationship with his daughter throughout the years. Originally sending her off to live with her aunt/uncle, he began to take her on the road with her for about six years. She learned a lot about baseball, scouting, and potential, but when she hit 13 she was sent to boarding school (and later college, and law school), with barely any contact with her dad.

Mickey is now an associate lawyer, close to reaching a Partnership, making her both the youngest partner ever, and only female to have done it. But there is competition, and problems at home. Gus has problems with his prostate, and his body seems to be failing him. Most notably, his eyes. What good is a scout that can’t see the prospects?  Mickey is convinced by Pete Klein (John Goodman), the head of Braves scouting to head out with her dad to North Carolina to check out Bo Gentry (Joe Massingill), a potential future star in the MLB. The Braves have the number 2 overall pick, so if the Red Sox pass, they can nab Bo, but they have to make sure it is the real deal!

While in NC, we are given the perfect storm of dramatic potential. An aging man, going blind, too stubborn to care, and unwilling to tell his organization as his contract is coming up. A daughter, who wants nothing more than to talk with her father and finally clear the air with some of their issues. Coniving young people with fancy computers (Matthew Lillard) trying to take over the scouting department without even leaving the office. Not to mention a former pitcher that Gus signed for the Braves, who had his career end early, and is now scouting Bo for the Red Sox and scouting Mickey for himself (Justin Timberlake).

Also, there is some baseball in this movie as well.

The first thing I noticed about this movie is that it felt like the anti-Moneyball. Moneyball is a true story about how different advanced statistics could be used to determine players better than the old stats and ways of scouting. Trouble With The Curve is about how computers don’t know a thing and that the only good way of scouting is by being there in person watching them play.

The obvious real life answer is that both parts are important, computers can’t predict how a players hands move during a swing, or if they have trouble with certain situations, or their ability to bounce back. But to ignore computer stats completely is also ridiculous.

I think the movie had a good idea behind it, but didn’t execute it to its full potential. One scene early on, involving Eastwood singing “You Are My Sunshine” is one of the saddest things in awhile. It made me cry, and I thought I was in for a depressing movie. But it lets off from that sad feeling and just kind of rides neutral until the end of the film, with a happy ending and everything getting resolved. One plot point that they were clearly building towards early in the film was then ignored and brought back by the end, seemingly forced and not natural.

I will say the film had some great acting, but the way they got their point across at the end didn’t flow as well as I’d have liked.

2 out of 4.

The Artist, or as I like to call it “The Last Movie I Have To See To Have Seen All Nine Nominations For Best Picture At The Last Academy Awards”, is as we all know a “silent film”.

Made in Black and White, mostly only with background music (except for a few scenes), and title cards that come up with some dialogue.

What I am really trying to say is this is a movie you can’t watch half assed. Gotta get off you laptop (unless you are watching it on you laptop), and you games and your whatever else, and pay attention.

This movie doesn’t come dubbed, because that doesn’t make sense.

But hey look, a puppy!

George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) is a famous silent film actor in the late 1920s, kicking all sorts of silent ass. Some random girl, Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) bumps into him at a film premier, and George jokes around and shows her to the camera, causing the media to “freak out” wondering who the mysterious girl was! Turns out she was a dancer, who wanted to be an actress. Heck, she was even auditioning for a movie that next day with George.

Well George, strangely fascinated, he wants to get her in that film work. He demands the director Al Zimmer (John Goodman) to give her a spot, and the rest is history. Eventually. She starts as a small role, but gets more and more famous, they even start spelling her name right. Heck, she even gets main roles.

And then the “talkie” movie revolution begins. George insists it is a fad, and doesn’t want to do it. But hey, Peppy is like fuck yes. All on that shit. George has nightmares about the talking films, even having dreams where all the appliances starts making noises and he can’t talk at all! Oh noes! So George makes and finances his own Silent film, but for whatever reason he has it on the same day as the premier of Peppy’s first talking movie. Seems dumb. Especially since that day also featured a 1929 Stock Market crash.

Now that George is ruined, financially and more, what does he have left but to fire his driver Chifton (James Cromwell), be sad, and mope through life. But hey, at least he has a puppy.

Also did I mention John Goodman?

A potentially touching tale about an actor on the decline from Silent to Talking films, while someone he get started rises to fame in the exact same environment. How can their cases be reconciled, and can they ever find love?

I like the general synopsis, but what I don’t understand is the reasoning behind making it a “silent” film. I use quotation marks, because well, it was a modern version of a movie trying to represent the 20s of film, by having a movie also set in the 20s. Obviously it isn’t identical to one of those films, that’d be hard, but when I think about this movie and the 1920s, I didn’t see really much that the 1920’s couldn’t have done to make this exact idea then instead of now.

And that bugged me. According to Singing In The Rain, people in silent films aren’t even real actors. They just have to make facial expressions (versus theater actors at the time), and then people are praised in the film for acting, at their ability to make facial expressions? Hmm.

I was also disappointed that a recreation of silent film in the modern era had its story take place…during the silent film era. I’d be more excited to see a silent film set in the year 2012 or whatever, and see how that is done. That is something new and fad worthy that I’d probably enjoy a lot more. But instead we got someone making a movie using modern technology, to accomplish something doable 90 years ago. I’m not about to give my money to every person who figures out how to start a fire with a lighter in hand.

I honestly think this film is overhyped entirely on the style of the movie (A lot like Avatar) and not on the fantastic acting or story, which is overall just okay in my book. But hey, won’t penalize it for overhype.

2 out of 4.