15 Minutes

Starring: Robert De Niro, Edward Burns, and Karel Roden          
Directed by John Herzfeld
Year: 2001
IMDB / Wikipedia

When I was a bright-eyed journalist cutting my teeth on the college newspaper, I thought long and hard about what I would need to do to get along in this business. I always wondered how some reporters got the big stories and the people who vowed to keep their mouths shut to tell their side of things. Then I learned that journalism isn’t about cracking a case like a detective, it’s about agreements. If you can get someone to agree to tell their story they will expect something in return. Whether it’s money or a favorable slant on the story, journalism is more of a two-way street than anyone ever thought.

15 Minutes  was billed as a gritty take on the media (personified by Kelsey Grammer), the police (Robert DeNiro), and how the two helped one another. Mixed into this agreement and the sensationalism that follows, are two Eartern European criminals (Karel Roden and Oleg Taktarov) who decide to buy into the fame and fortune of crime they see on television and videotape their crimes to, one day, sell for a fortune. Along for the ride is an idealistic Fire Marshall (Edward Burns) who does his best to be the moral compass of the story.

The last movie reviewed here was helmed by a director whose distinct lack of style was noteworthy. With this film, the director has too much style, making odd shot choices, and telling a good story with a slew of A-List actors very poorly. There was so much ham on screen I don’t think observant Jewish people should view it. The stars seemed to be forced to chew the scenery so much I could see bleeding gums. This movie should have been a great crime drama/thriller but, instead, was two hours of people overacting and making stupid looks into the camera (way to break the fourth wall, dumbass!).

More than that, we finally saw that Edward Burns is not the big movie star he was advertised as being. His role was simple enough they could have brought in any young actor to play it. It required a gritty innocence that anyone could have pulled off but, somehow, it seemed forced and contrived when coming from Burns. Someone once told me that any bad actor is one where you can tell he/she is trying to act. For Burns, he looked uncomfortable and unnatural on screen surrounded by all of these acting heavyweights. A better script would have called for more screen time for DeNiro and his partner, aptly played by Avery Brooks, a man who overacts so well that it actually becomes good.

I have said in the past that I do not have a bad movie in my collection. Here I am, only a handful of movies into this project, and I have to recant. I can’t believe I paid money for this piece of shit. It was profound the first time I saw it but it didn’t have staying power. Lesson learned. Moving on.

Most Valuable Actor: Oleg Taktarov as Oleg Razgul, the “director” criminal. how can one actor be, simultaneously, the best and worst thing about a movie. He was the best because he was so childlike and, really, the only principle who didn’t seem like he was acting. Plus, he got some really good lines as he was the only comic relief in the film. He was the worst, however, because this film didn’t need him to be comic relief. He could have been written as a straight-man accomplice and it would have had a more resonating effect that countered Karel Roden’s sociopathic character. Oleg gets this distinction because he took a shitty part and did it very well.

The 13th Warrior

Starring: Antonio Banderas, Vladimir Kulich, and Dennis Storhoi        
Directed by John McTiernan
Year: 1999
IMDB / Wikipedia

There are directors whose works are unmistakable, who have a certain style, look, and/or feel to their movies that make them stand out like a signature. John McTiernan doesn’t have a style, look, and/or feel to his films. His films (among them, the immortal Die Hard) are almost pedestrian. The drama is left tot he actors and he simply documents what is happening. Some may call it lazy directing, I like to call it blissfully simple.

This movie is taken from the Micheal Crichton novel ‘Eaters of the Dead,’ and tells a story about vikings that take on a savage race of hill people who are terrorizing a small hamlet. Though a brutal film, McTiernan refrains from adding any more gore or violence that what is necessary. Like Hitchcock, much of the violence is implied through the use of shadow in the nighttime battle scenes. When there is violence shown, it is usually to break the cycle of fast camera shots that set up the scene. Much like the human eye, shots often move around a lot during battle scenes and some of the detail is lost when showing the big picture of war. This includes the stabbings, decapitations, and other acts that may push the limit of the film.

But the story is interesting. Not just because it came from Crichton, the same man who gave us ‘Jurassic Park,’ ‘Congo,’ ‘Rising Sun,’ and ‘The Andromeda Strain,’ (all great books turned into movies), but it is because it is a both a historical fiction piece combined with a fish-out-of-water story. An Arab ambassador (Banderas) is chosen as one of the warriors who would go and defend the hamlet from these enemies even though he is not a soldier but a poet. I rather enjoy the scenes early in the film where he is learning about the other twelve warriors accompanying him to this task and how he comes to know their language (one of the most underrated devices in modern movies).

The pace of the film is sharp. There is very little character development, instead focusing on the collective being of the group and little bits about their culture through the actions of the men. It’s a fascinating way to develop a story because, though the characters are pretty two-dimensional through the film, I get the sense of brotherhood that binds them. Perhaps it is from the same innate sense of belonging that binds teams to one another: personality and actions dictated by a common goal.

I am surprised at the reaction I get from people whenever I mention this movie. Most either reply with scorn or have never heard of it. It didn’t do very well at the box office (imagine if they kept the original title) and I almost never see it on television. It is a lost gem, much like the book, that tends to be overshadowed by similar films that had larger budgets, bigger stars, and less disturbing storylines. But, if you enjoy a good action film that is supported by capable actors and a fine story, then this movie is for you.

Most Valuable Actor:  Dennis Storhoi as Herger. In a film of easily forgotten characters, this is the one that is fully fledged and memorable. Set up as the comic relief of the film, he has all the best lines, has the swagger of a battle-tested warrior that can make light of even the most gruesome events, but still comes out of the film as the most likable character and the one and imparts the biggest lessons of all.

12 Angry Men

Starring: Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, and Jack Warden         
Directed by Sidney Lumet
Year: 1957
IMDB / Wikipedia

The last time I watched this movie was in high school (I think). It was for a civics/government class, that much I’m sure of. While some of my classmates took the time to sleep or screw around in the back of the classroom, I sat riveted at the drama unraveling on the screen. Sadly, it took well over a decade for me to return to this film, an error I do not plan to make again.

There are very few works of art, no matter what medium, that can be considered timeless. This film is timeless because of two things: it’s simplicity and its subject matter. The simplicity is related to how it’s shot, the venue, and the way it is a dialogue-driven drama. Much of this is thanks to the fact that it is base on a teleplay, but there have been many plays that have been adapted for the screen that downright betray the source. This film did not do so.

Secondly, the subject is timeless (at least, until the apes take over the planet and change it into a dystopian oligarchy) as it could take place at almost any time of American history. These jurors could be deliberating the trial of O.J. Simpson and the drama and questions they faced would have been very similar.

But the highlight of this film is the acting. Each character is distinctly different and deliberately meant to be so. There is:

… the reluctant leader (Juror #1/Foreman)
… the quiet, timid one (Juror #2)
… the angry person with a personal axe to grind (Juror #3)
… the cold, logical businessman (Juror #4)
… the reformed “thug” (Juror #5)
… the blue-collar worker (Juror #6)
… the self-involved salesman (Juror #7)
… the one who doesn’t believe the hype (Juror #8)
… the old man who brings a life’s worth of experience to the table (Juror #9)
… the bigot (Juror #10)
… the Immigrant (Juror #11)
… the young professional (Juror #12)

The jury portrayed is a precisely-defined microcosm of the  American public and what each portion of the population would do in a situation like this. Thorough the film, each actor deftly portrays their character, their biases, their doubts, their stubbornness and, most importantly, what it takes to change their minds. Each of them is hung up on some part of the case that has guided their decision as to whether the young man on trial is guilty or not guilty and, as they dissect the case, each of them shows how they were swayed to one side or the other. Film scholars have pointed to this story as the one film that accurately portrays the American public as a whole, the good and the bad, and how we all look at guilt and innocence, fact and truth, and where our own motives begin and the rest of the world ends.

Most Valuable Actor: With so many terrific actors in this film it is hard to pick one. But, since that’s what I do, I chose the last hold out, Juror #3 played by Lee J. Cobb. When done on stage, this character is reserved for the most senior or experienced actors who can bring the raw rage and emotion needed to fill the role. This is a character whose disappointment in his own son (which is never revealed) leads him to condemn a young man for a crime he may not have committed. Such a powerful performance, and yet, Cobb did not receive an Oscar nomination.

Moneyball

Starring: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Phillip Seymour Hoffman          
Directed by: Bennett Miller
Year: 2011
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times. 

Those of you who do not know me personally, I love baseball. I’m looking forward to tonight’s Rockies game against the Pittsburgh Pirates and I’m about two-thirds of the way through Jim Bouton’s classic baseball tome ‘Ball Four.’ If it were up to me, there would be a second major baseball league formed that would start playing the day after the World Series ends and would end the week prior to Spring Training. I just can’t get enough.

The idea and the concept of Moneyball is not new; Billy Beane is just the first one to try it on a major scale. Winning an unfair game is what all of us who have ever been put into any sort of competitive atmosphere tries to figure out. Some evolve and get bigger and strong er to survive while others, in more intellectual competitions, become smarter or acquire new tools. But, no matter the competitive nature of your life, one thing is for certain: you must innovate or adapt or you will die. It’s why we, as a race of people came out of the oceans and onto dry land millions of years ago. Something needed to change and we did.

Baseball, at all levels, is an unfair game. Ever pass by a little league field and see a team with financial means play one without? It’s very obvious to tell which one is which not just by the quality of the jerseys, but by the score on the board. The same goes for Major League Baseball. Without going into a huge diatribe about how parity is forever lost in professional sports (too late?), I will say that all of the emotion that Beane felt in the early 2000s was not just a visceral response. It was real, it was happening, and it was the largest probalem everyone talked about but no one ever tried to solve. How could the have-nots compete against the have and win? In the pros, it’s not always about who is big and strong, it’s about who has the biggest pocketbook.

The movie chronicles Beane’s encounter with baseball statistics nerd Peter Brand to try and rebuild the Oakland Athletics after their breakout 2001 season where the three big cogs are pilfered in free agency (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon, and Jason Isringhausen). The idea that is posed is to not find another single player to replace these guys, but cobble together a team that can match the output of those three with cheaper players. History shows that it worked (no World Series win, but a playoff appearance) and they did it cheap. Brad Pitt and Jonah Hill give excellent performances as the two masterminds behind this experimental way to run a professional baseball club.

I am finding this review to be more about the method than the movie. There is a reason for this though and that’s because of who I am. Throughout this entire film, I am thinking about not only how well the movie has been made, but the attention to detail, the baseball idiosyncrasies that are involved, and what a dumbass Billy Beane was to let writer Michael Lewis in to document this entire statistical strategy for the world to see. Beane found a way to win the unfair game (or, at least, help level the playing field) but now everyone had the secret formula, including the big guys. Now the game is still unfair, the same major-market teams are going to the playoffs again this season, and the movie acknowledges that in some way.

In all, it’s an honest look at baseball and what it is like in the front office. There are faces and minds behind every professional sports team and there is no one single person that makes it all happen. This movie (and the book from whence it came) should be eye-opening for casual sports fans to see behind the scenes at how the games are played and won.

Most Valuable Actor:  Jonah Hill as Peter Brand, the player analyst (and Bill James disciple) who comes up with a revolutionary way to, not only evaluate players, but also how to make James’ Sabermetrics work to form a winning ballclub out of players who may have gone under the radar. In short, when you hear about WAR in baseball, it has nothing to do with guns and bombs, and it has everything to do with the work of James, Brand, and Beane. Hill’s work garnered him many award nominations including a Best Supporting Actor Oscar nomination.

Hugo

Starring: Asa Butterfield, Chole Grace Moretz, and Ben Kingsley       
Directed by Martin Scorsese
Year: 2011
IMDB / Wikipedia

Every now and then, I will find it necessary to break protocol to tend to my extremely large Netflix queue. This is one of those times. 

I have found that, by and large, 3D films get a bad reputation about being all flash and no substance. I, personally, have only seen a handful of movies in my time and I do not seek them out. Aside from being outrageously expensive (especially IMAX 3D films) they don’t add anything to cinematic experience (which is also my case against Blu-Ray/HDTV). Yes, it looks nicer and the effects are very direct, but that’ about it. If the story sucks then it’s living up to only half of the hype.

Hugo, despite being labeled as a box office flop, was an extraordinary and very beautiful movie. Just as some are moved by great works of art, I was moved by this moie’s aesthetics much like I was moved the first time I saw Edward Scissorhands. Everything in that film was so rich, vibrant, and meticulously designed it was beautiful even without the 3D experience.

But, more than that, it had a good story along with it. It was not a unique story by any means, but the fact it was all encapsulated in this one setting of a Paris rail station, that made it so rich. There was the main story about the boy and the automaton he is fixing after his father’s untimely death, but also the story of the people around him in the station who have their own lives and simple stories to tell. Other movies and movie-makers would have tried to tackle too much with multiple story lines (which does happen ever so often) but Scorsese only added what was needed to add emotion and give support to the dominant story arc.

Normally, I would have the film’s faults here at the end before my summation, but it was hard to find one. If anything, my only complaint is that this was too perfect a movie. Yes, it did have the happy ending (which usually pisses me off, but here it doesn’t) and it did resolve everything (I’m so used to movies leaving plot holes open that I’m used to is) and the entire experience did not leave me exacerbated. Even the lack of 3D didn’t bother me. In all, this was a wonderfully fantastic movie that would resonate with movie lovers of all ages.

Most Valuable Actor:  Chloe Grace Moretz as Isabelle, the goddaughter of Ben Kingsley’s character and the engine that makes this entire film go. Without her, or even with another actor in this character’s shoes, this doesn’t work and the movie falls flat. Moretz brings this character to life with her spontaneity and her childlike lust for life as she befriends Hugo and the adventure begins.

8 Mile

Starring Eminem, Mekhi Phifer, and Kim Basinger          
Directed by Curtis Hanson
Year: 2002
IMDB / Wikipedia

Let’s forget a few things going in. First, let’s all agree that is’ self-indulgent to make an autobiographical movie about yourself when you’re under the age of 40. Second, let’s leave Eminem, the person, out of this discussion. Whatever you think about him is kind of irrelevant for this piece.

But why is Eminem so different than the Jimmy “Rabbit” Smith we see on the screen? For one thing, this is a dramatization of Eminem’s life prior to being discovered by Dr. Dre and signed to a record deal. Rabbit likes his mom whereas Eminem dislikes her so much, the things he said about her got him sued. I think, on that alone, the two should be separate.

There are a lot of people out there (I won’t call them racists) who believe that rap is something that should be left to the black community. There are those, of all races, who beliueve that they hold the keys to various artforms and that outsiders need not apply. However, in this film it is shown that, not only are we products of our environment, but that in order for something to truly be considered art, it must be open to all.

I have no doubt Eminem had people try to keep him from rising in the rap game for whatever reason–his race, where he lived, who he knew–but he had one card that could trump anything: talent. That was the great equalizer and, much like in the movie, it is what won him the respect of his peers and the rap community.

But there are some who would judge this movie the same way. “Here’s a movie about a white guy trying to be black,” they might say. Those who would think that would be missing the bigger picture. This movie is no different than the movie Rudy. Both movies each have protagonists who, let’s be honest, don’t have a lot going for them but have a lot of drive, desire, and talent. Both use those things to actualize their dreams and get what they want out of life. The only difference is, more people can agree about football than can agree about rap music. But the similarities still stand.

The movie is wonderful. Helmed by Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential, The Hand That Rocks The Cradle), this show shows a side of rappers that reinforces many of their stories of growing up in bad situations and using the one thing they have going for them to make their lives better. With a terrific supporting cast, the movie shines a light on how rappers are not thugs, but people who do what they need to survive, get by, and take what they can from a world that can be cold and cruel. This is a must see for anyone who has ever had a dream but circumstances held them back.

Most Valuable Actor:  Mekhi Phifer as Rabbit’s best friend Future, the host of the rap battles where Rabbit proves his worth. People lucky enough to have friends who are loyal to a fault will understand the dynamic between these two characters. Those who don’t will be envious.

8MM

Starring Nicolas Cage, Joaquin Phoenix, and Peter Stormare       
Directed by Joel Schumacher
Year: 1999
IMDB / Wikipedia

One of the reasons I enjoy going to the movies is because it entertains me; it is a way to escape the monotony of real life for a couple of hours and escape into another world. Because I have this view of movies, I never understood why I am drawn to movies like 8MM, why I’m drawn to worlds I would rather not visit inhabited with people I don’t really like. But I go and I subject myself for a couple of hours coming out the other side in need of a thorough scrubbing.

Say what you will about this movie, its star, Nicolas Cage, and its director Joel Schumacher, and their collective film making sins–this is a damn fine movie. It haunts me and deals with topics I would rather keep out of my life, but it’s so well done and so hanting that I have to tip my hat to it. Cage is well-cast and his part, while not terribly well-written, is suited to his strengths. Schumacher is one of the best shot designer since the days of Hitchcock, but his score choices made it seem like this movie was laid over a rejected Disney movie soundtrack. Nevertheless, the two of them brought all the darkness needed t really mke this movie standout.

Not too many films or scenes get to me in a negative way, but when it happens it is usually a testament to the authenticity of the scene or the haunting realization that this could (and, in all likelihood, does) exist in our world, in our towns, and behind closed doors. That makes it all the more terrifying and haunting. Writing this has also allowed me to realize why I never liked or sought out horror movies: they don’t seemed to be set in reality. But you should know, just as anyone would, the scariest things are not the ones that go bump in the night: they’re the ones that can get you in broad daylight without thought of remorse or retribution.

Most Valuable Actor: Joaquin Phoenix as Max California, the intellectual porn store cashier that introduces Cage’s character to the world of underground porno and the all-too-real world of ultra-hardcore pornography and the people who desire it.

10 Things I Hate About You

Starring Julia Stiles, Heath Ledger, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt       
Directed by Gil Junger
Year: 1999
IMBD / Wikipedia

Moving from remakes to re-imaginings, we come across 10 Things I Hate About You, the 90s non-gross-out teen movie taken from The Bard‘s The Taming of the Shrew. It has everything that made 90s movies what they were (awkward moments, crappy pop music,the obligatory house party, flannel, etc.) and made my youth in the 90s what is was (everything listed before with the exception of the house parties). I knew at least one person in real-life that resembled each character in this movie. I guess that’s what made me part of this movie’s target demographic.

Like most teen movies, this one wasn’t up for any Oscars and probably won’t make the IMBD Top 250, but it’s still cute and kind of endearing. It doesn’t hurt that Julia Stiles is a certified hottie and the late Heath Ledger’s performance was charming, and that the supporting cast did a great job setting up the rest of the story. It’s not a heavy movie, it’s not a light movie, it’s a fun movie, the type you find on basic cable on a Sunday afternoon that you happen to turn on during your favorite scene.

I have always contended that I have no bad movies in my collection. What I actually mean is that I do not have any movies that I dislike or find annoying. I could have easily found many faults with this movie or wrote it off as just another teen flick that didn’t hold my attention even though it was written for my age group. But the smart dialogue (smart does not necessarily mean good, but in this case it does), lots of laughs, and is pretty satisfying. Even my dad likes this movie, and that’s saying something.

Most Valuable Actor: Larry Miller as the girls’ over-protective father. I often wonder what type of father I would be and, though I would not be as over-bearing and over-protective as Miller’s character, but I see what I could be and I see there is love in the parents that are usually labeled as “mean” or “not with it” by their children. Plus, I would love to make my teenage daughters wear “the belly” before they go to any and every social event.

3:10 to Yuma

1957 Version        
Starring Glenn Ford and Van Helflin
Directed by Delmer Daves

2007 Version
Starring Russell Crowe and Christian Bale
Directed by James Mangold

We are no longer a society that respects the old-fashioned western movie. In generations past, the strong, silent types were revered and idolized. Now, we don’t have heroes unless they blow something up or swear every other word.

Because of this, people in Hollywood have decided to re-write cinematic history by remaking classic movies and adding the edge that contemporary movie-goers come to expect. The 3:10 to Yuma pictures each encapsulate what is good and what is bad in each of the genres and eras.

Westerns are supposed to be stories of a time and a place where the rules of right and wrong were not laws written and debated by men, but codes of honor that were held by both the good and evil. Each side had their principles because, back then, that’s all there was. You did what you felt was best for you, your family, and the Lord, and nothing else really mattered. Some felt that meant killing and stealing while others thought that meant the opposite.

In the 1957 version, the Dan Evans and Ben Wade characters were diametric opposites in the good/evil alignment, but their common ground was their code. There was no chaos, no deviation from character or motivation, just the code. Some might think that’s poor character development when, in fact, we are all very basic and very plain people despite our best efforts. The two play a chess game of wills as one fights for his freedom while the other simply wants to do the right thing and make life better for his family. both have honor and never become a caricature of their way of life.

The remake, however, did not age well in 50years and, in order to get audiences to step up and take notice, they filled the script with cheesy one-liners, unnecessary gunfights and, of course, explosions. I love both Russell Crow and Christian Bale as actors, but neither could really breathe life into characters that ended up being so one-dimensionally brutal to one another that each other’s motivations seemed to be muddled. Was Ben Wade wanting just his freedom or did he want to just kill everyone? Was Dan Evans wanting to do the right thing, or just look good in the eyes of his oldest son or was he simply in it for the money?

There is a lost art of storytelling that needs to be reborn. Most of the 1957 version took place in a few places while the remake was all over the place, sacrificing some of the great dialogue for galloping horses and gunshots. The newer one was no longer a true Western; it was just some action movie set in the old west.

Most Valuable Actor: Glenn Ford as Ben Wade in the 1957 version. Where Russell Crowe’s character was much more brutal and vicious, Ford made the character what he needed to be: a charasmatic and gentle criminal. Ford almost made Wade civilized and charming which was the point. At the end, I felt the character of Ben Wade had actually grown as a person and was much more believeable than Crowe’s Wade who, even after appearing to learn something, still slaughtered six men in the street.

The Insider

Starring Al Pacino and Russell Crowe      
Directed by Michael Mann
Year: 1999
IMDB

OK, maybe I cannot do this solely alphabetically. When I was going through and putting this together I completely forgot about my Netflix queue and the recent slew of movies I have watched. I’m going to try and do as many movies in alphabetical order as I can, but Netflix often gets in the way.

This movie was chosen because of the recent passing of journalism legend Mike Wallace, portrayed in the movie by Christopher Plummer. This is the story of a tobacco industry whistle-blower (Crowe) and the 60 Minutes producer who draws him out and fights to get his story aired. As a former journalist (kinda-sorta-not really), this is what I was hoping reporting and journalism was all about. When I started my time in J-school I thought every story could be made interesting and even kind of dangerous but, in time, I found that it was really boring work that dealt with asking local business owners about whatever events were coming on the horizon. Sure, like with every job you have to work your way up, but there’s only so many cat shows I care to cover.

But this story was intriguing and a really candid look at how journalistic integrity can be easily pushed aside for monetary interests. In the end, the truth came out and the “good guys” won, but it was the drama that made the story real. Jeff Weigand, in real life, pretty much lost everything in order to come forward and tell what he knows about the tobacco industry. That’s brave. To support this kind of bravery is its own type of bravery. Though some might contend that 60 Minutes producer Lowell Bergman (Pacino and Wallace were chasing their own glory and their own professional ends in this story, there was something more. In the scene where Weignd is tapiung his interview, Bergman’s mouth is hanging open at the details of how tobacco is manipulated. It’s a powerful scene that shows just how big this story was and just how large this secret was.

The only fault I find this this movie, and I’ve seen it several times, is the unnecessary dialogue of some characters and some shots that could have been easily cut. Why is it necessary to show Pacino call someone only to tell that person to call him back in 10 minutes? Very odd, especially when there is a disclaimer at the end signifying that some events were altered for dramatic effect. But, Michael Mann does make some rather odd filmmaking choices and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Most Valuable Actor: Diane Verona as Liane Wigand. In stories like this, the family suffers as much as the principle, and this story is no exception. Diane does a great job (though often over-the-top) of playing Jeff Wigand’s wife who is thrown into a tailspin as she sees her life change dramatically by the choices her husband has made.