bedsitter23

It's been awhile, but here goes.

Ferdinand- Ferdinand is an Oscar nominated kids film from Blue Sky.  Blue Sky is the third major player in the animated film game behind Disney and Pixar.  Their big breakthroughs were Ice Age and Rio.

This is pretty much the Ferdinand the Bull story.  Though, bullfighting is an odd place to pull kid's stories from (a few truths are inescapable, though the film generally tries to make those nuances subtle for kids), it generally works.  John Cena is Ferdinand, which is weird, of course.  It is hip for wrestling fans to hate Cena, and though Cena pales to The Rock (everyone does), one cannot watch a lot of Cena and think anything but that he's talented.  He works here too with a cast of knowns and lesser knowns and some unusuals like Peyton Manning, Kate McKinnon, Anthony Anderson, David Tennant, Gabriel Iglesais, Juanes and many more.  The mixture probably works to the film's benefits- making it more natural than Disney's star-studded affairs.

It was a real fun movie that as an adult I rather enjoyed.  At 108 minutes, it is fairly long, though it manages to never really get dull,  As an adult, there were parts I laughed at (ok, smirked) and my five year old enjoyed it just as well, laughing at some of the goofier moments.

I was really impressed as I watch a lot of kid's movies these days and thought this worked better than most.  I liked that my five year old enjoyed it, and made the decision to give it a shot over the less artistically ambitious Sherlock Gnomes.  It probably will never get the reverence given Disney's classics, but all things considered, I enjoyed it.

The Post - This one's back in the public eye with Oscar nomination as Best Picture and for Meryl Streep's portrayal of Washington Post's Katherine Graham.  Probably obvious, but Streep and Tom Hanks are excellent.  Now, Streep plays Graham in a way that I feel is like some of her recent portrayals, and Hanks, of course, is the fighter for all things right going against the waves.  Still, both are fantastic.  Streep really gives a strong performance of Graham who never had a job in her life, and is suddenly in charge of the Paper.

I didn't know much of the story of the Pentagon Papers, but it is here.  It is hardly a stretch to see why this film is out here and now, as it talks about Nixon and his crusade against the press.  With all of those plotlines (and the fact that newspapers are struggling financially), it is very much in the here and now.

It is suspenseful and action packed in its way, but this may be a tougher sell for those that aren't particularly interested in this already. For those viewers, the real hook (publish classified documents or not) is nearly at the very end of the movie.

It probably won't convince those, though there is certainly enough here for everybody.  Streep and Hanks are great, and though the film takes no short cuts, at the end, even the most unfamiliar viewer will have a good idea of what is going on.

For those that are naturally inclined towards movies like this, while not perfect, it's a slow burn and one's mind will swim with natural modern-day parallels and with "big debate" questions.

So after a couple of Disney movies, things swing over to Universal Studios which seems to have an edge on making kids movies for adults via Illumination studios.  A short history but one defined by the Despicable Me/Minions franchise and Secret Life of Pets.

Sing is pretty great.  There is quite simply something magical in animated animals with human characteristics, in this case, singing pop songs.  Everyone will surely know this film from the trailer preview with the bunnies singing "Baby Got Back" (or Nicki Minaj's "Anaconda).

Indeed, it's fairly inexplicable, but it is one of those things that makes kids laugh and adults smile.

Sing is a pretty basic plot.  The well-tread "We have one chance to make it against all odds" whose examples I cannot think off the top of my head- but certainly Fame and Rocky.

The leads aren't obvious, which is good.  Matthew McCounaghy as a lead is not distracting in a way that others might have been.  It follows across the board that the voice talent (from Reese Witherspoon to Scarlett Johanson on) work in a way that we focus on the character not the voice.  With the exception of Seth McFarland who trods out his Sinatra act one more time.

The pathos are actually pretty great, even with the familiar Rocky/Fame tropes.  Yes, the characters are animated, and they all fall pretty much into American Idol-ish stereotypes.  Yet, it warms the heart as the underdogs succeed.

Sing isn't wall to wall laughs, but it has funny moments, and it did keep my attention.  It generally succeeds and feels more "modern" than Disney in that it is certainly written with an adult audience in mind.  It could be funnier, sure, but generally is an enjoyable two hours in the way the Minions movies do.

 Money Monster is one of the first great non-superhero non-franchise movies of the year, at least box office wise, but I wasn't exactly sure what to expect.

Given the cast (George Clooney, Julia Roberts) and given the topic (Occupy Wall Street/Feel the Burn righteous anger), it is easy to think this might be Oscar bait.

Indeed, the movie owes huge debts to Network and Dog Day Afternoon, movies we still talk about 40 years later.

It's unlikely we will be talking about this movie 40 weeks from now, but once it is established that this is going to be mindless action, then we can proceed.  Indeed, if the marquee star was Jason Statham not Clooney, we wouldn't have even thought of that.

Indeed, there are many good things about this movie, and it might not have taken all that much to get to the next level.

Clooney plays an obvious ripoff of Jim Cramer's Mad Money stock analyst, though played up to Bulworth level ridiculous extremes.

Indeed, it is easy to see that the decisions the moviemakers make prevent it from being much more.  Jack O'Connell's character essentially just walks in and holds up the show.  It's impossible to think someone could just walk in and hold Cramer hostage in the post-9/11 age.  There's a few ridiculous asides like the Viagra one.  There's a great level of predictability in the plot and a lot of "coincidences" that get us to our conclusion, but don't feel "real" enough.  I should also make mention that there is a great level of assembled talent (Giancarlo Esposito, Dominic West, Chris Bauer), but they could be filled by anyone.  Only Clooney's character seems to have any level of depth.

So, that's the bad, but I am actually going to end up recommending it.  Besides the predictability, there are moments where the film takes some turns that I thought worked well and did not expect.

Clooney is pretty good.  Roberts is good.  O'Connell may have shined had he been given more to work with.

I also think the real hero may be Jodie Foster as director, as I felt the pacing and suspense put it a notch ahead of similar movies.  I have seen some complain of its short (94 min) running time, but I don't know if longer would have been better.

The platitudes are fairly general.  i never did see The Big Short, but don't expect any kind of those type of revelations.  Selfish CEOs are bad, although being greedy isn't necessarily against the law, and no one complains about selfish CEOs when everyone's making money, only when they lose it.

The bottom line is that there are more things that work in this movie than things that don't, and I suppose if you take an average action film and add Clooney and Foster, it's going to work.  I liked it.

Football is more and more America's obsession, and Draft Day intends to capitalize that.

It's the fictional story of a front office club president and the pressures of draft day excitement.

It's a large credit to Kevin Costner and Ivan Reitman that they do a decent job pulling this off.





But is there enough people who "get" the draft. It seems like a niche film. Certainly, ten years, I know people weren't interested in the draft, but in 2014, America obsesses over football, and every minute detail. I don't think this is too obscure.

Also, I guess I probably should bring up "Moneyball" as it seems all reviews on IMDB do. That said, I never thought of the comparison. The reason- Moneyball is a fascinating true story. Sure, people loved the film because of Pitt, Hill, et al; but I like to think it was successful because it's based on a real story, which is an interesting one. "Draft Day" is fabrication.

In fact, movie reviewers at the time of the movie's release were sure to point out that the actual 2014 Cleveland Browns draft (a fact that Reitman and co. would have no way of knowing) was more interesting in plot than this film.

Being fictional creates a challenge, in that we have to learn characters quickly. I am not sure how well they succeeded. I could keep track, but I don't know if others could. Certainly, one way it could have been handled was as an ensemble piece, and maybe that would have been the right decision. Flawed as it might be "Any given Sunday" gave you fuller fleshed out characters and though it was clearly Oliver Stoned, might have been a direction that would have helped this movie.

The thing with this movie is you have to create fictional players, and you have to give them dimension to give the film meaning.

That said, Costner generally succeeds as a likeable character who you root for. Which is tough. The decision Costner makes at the beginning of the movie (which is necessary for the plot to take place) seems a bit far-fetched and for lack of a better description (bone headed).

Similarly, everything non football related in the film is well, crap. There's a love interest with Jennifer Garner which is totally unnecessary and doesn't really succeed in anything else but making Costner like a d---. And a little bit creepy. There's family drama, though it's highly improbable that a family steeped in decades of football tradition would have it play out on Draft Day.

All that said, I am sincere that saying they generally succeed in their work. It moves at a good pace, and though you know what will inevitably happen, it twists and turns enough to keep interest.

The real secret of course, is the draft isn't the end all- be all. The Seahawks (portrayed in this movie as a team in desperate need) were Super Bowl winners last year, and in no small part to what was considered at the time, a terrible draft. Dan Marino was someone who dropped on draft day due to an image he had, and everyone reading this regardless of how much they like football, knows who he is.

The verdict is that most football fans will find enough to enjoy, and even those who aren't as in tune with the game will likely enjoy the ride. If you are expecting "Moneyball", this isn't it.

So, we know this could be great or it could be terrible.

It stars a talking raccoon, so I think it's acceptable to automatically assume that this could be like that other talking-animal comic-inspired big budget movie Howard the Duck (I have thought this since the beginning, and if you watch the movie, you will know why this is funny).

It's a relatively new group of characters, and the good news is (though I never read the Abnett & Lanning originals) that Brian Michael Bendis has done a great job with this group and consistently makes humorous action adventures for them that work.

The good news is it does.  This film is hardly The Avengers, but it wants to be funny space action.

There is hardly a review that doesn't mention Star Wars.  I want to make it very clear this movie is not related to that one in any way (and most disappointed reviewers seem to expect it to be).  There are a lot of clear parallels between the two, and the thought that I can't escape is "Would Star Wars be made the same way today?'

I doubt it.  Everything has to be ironic and sarcastic and post-Fifth Element-ish.  Star Wars today would probably have cast Jack Black as Han Solo or be ultra-goth Dark Knight-ish.  It's not all true- there are some straight sci fi movies, but it does seem rare, and those that do instantly come to my mind (Star Trek, Ender's Game,) are established franchises.

If anything, this movie reminds me of Buckaroo Banzai. 

It is clearly meant to be funny, and it succeeds, and the action succeeds as well. 

Bradley Cooper as Rocket Raccoon is great and the rest of the cast is as well, though, clearly, they are better than their sum of their parts.

WWE Wrestler Batista, Zoe Saldana, and Vin Diesel (which is strictly a promotional gimmick) are perfect, but hardly going to win awards.  Chris Pratt is great, though I don't think this will catapult him to superstardom outside of this.

Pratt is great as one of those characters Kurt Russel would surely have played in the 80s.

In any case, i was well pleased.  It starts off looking like it could go either way, but it does go the right way.  At worst, i think it will be a cult movie, but I really think that it will unmistakeably be loved by mass audiences (and it does seem like that is the initial response).

Really, just a fun movie that hits all the right notes.  So much could have went wrong- the humor, the action element, the CGI element, the characterization, the team aspect- and it all hits on the mark on all those things.  This is a talking raccoon and tree we are talking about, but it all fits perfectly.

If you know me, I am a sucker for sports movies, which is why with everything in theaters, I am going to this film.

I am also a sucker for the sports movies that Disney churns out.  You know most of these.  They aren't out to illustrate a big point like Moneyball, they're there as good family fare.

So, knowing this, and admitting that yes, many of these flicks are a bit of a letdown, Arm is actually pretty good.

It helps that it's a story that even the biggest sports fans won't know the ins and outs of.  It's not Secretariat or the 80s Olympic Hockey Team.  It also probably helps that it's pretty much all true.  There's not a lot of embellishment from the original story.

Of course, the main reason this movie succeeds is because of the cast.  Jon Hamm is a more talented actor than most who might get cast in this role and he really helps the film.  Lake Bell plays a standard quirky/smart/manic love interest in the Abby from NCIS/Jennifer Lawrence in Silver Linings Playbook standard mould, but really delivers.

Alan Arkin shows up and does Alan Arkin, but he's brilliant of course.  Suraj Sharma (Life of Pi) and Madhur Mattal (Slumdog Millionaire)  are perfect choices as well.

It's fairly standard stuff.  Hamm as "Nice Guy Sports Agent".  Sharma and Mattal as "Fish Out of Water"/Coming to America naive boys.  but there is a lot to like here.  Everyone is likeable and you get fairly invested in the characters.  There are also some subtexts about 'chasing your dream' and what that means, and 'chasing money' (as opposed to 'chasing good') and what that means.

It is a really good movie that does go a bit longer than necessary (Could surely have been 90 minutes instead of 120), but it's nice to have good family fare that actually delivers in terms of acting and filmmaking.

Enjoyable

I guess people really hate this movie.

I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.  I think it has a lot to so with expectations.  This is much more like The Men who stare at Goats than does it resemble Saving Private Ryan.

It's played mostly for laughs and has more in common with a Lee Marvin movie from the 60s than anything else.  It's a great cast put together of Clooney, Damon, Murray, Goodman, Blanchett and Downton Abbey's Hugh Bonneville. 

I am not to say it is a perfect film.  At 2 hours long, it feels about 30 minutes too much.  Even with all the whimsy, and as much as I enjoyed it, I reached the point where I just  wanted to wrap it up.

But it is a largely enjoyable film.  Obviously, it is the cast, but it hits mostly perfect notes- never too slapstick-y and never too serious; and I felt the serious points got kept too.  Is art more important than the life it takes to save it?  It is a hard question.  Nothing is worth the loss of human life, but if anything is, surely it's the centuries of art that make that life worth living.

Having read the story of the real Monument Men, this clearly is an oversimplification.  That said, I did feel it paid appropriate tribute.  Despite's the comedy's most absurd elements, it's hard not to credit the real men who went to the battlefield to save art (and historic buildings, which may be more accurate, but is hard to play out in a 2 hour comedy plot).

Overall, i think this film has gotten an unfair wrap.  It really is a fun film by a gang that looks like they are having a fun time making it, and enough serious points thrown in that you still take away something that will resonate. 

It's the time again for awards shows, and as much as they really aren't relevant in our lives, I can't resist watching them.

Last week was the People's Choice Awards.

The PCAs are the lowest rung on the Awards Show chain.  You can always tell who will win the award because it's the people in attendance.  You almost never see the runners up in the crowd.

There is something a bit satisfying in seeing shows like Psych and Castle winning awards, and you get the satisfaction you don't always get in the Oscars in that Iron Man 3 was named Movie of the Year.

It's easy to see why this is the awards show stepchild when things happen like Britney Spears wins female artist of the year.  No one with any kind of eye would have said that.  She had a couple of singles, but surely Rhianna, Katy Perry, Taylor Swift and others were more in the public conscience.

The PCAs also are trying to find a niche for itself which means it feels like a watered down version of MTV's VMAs.  To lively things up, they included categories like 'Best Bromance" and played up genres like Sci-Fi.

The stars of Two Broke Girls -Beth Bliers and Kat Dennings hosted, and I thought they did fine with an unenviable task of making these awards relevant.  I think both are funny and work well together.  Two Broke Girls is a funny series that is going through some growing pains that come with working into a third season, and although it gets a lot of internet hate, I still find mostly humorous (and raunchy, like CBS's other hit Two and a half Men, it's all pot and sex jokes that I wouldn't dream of watching with my kid.

They had a great opening (that included cameos from Christina Aguilera, Bryan Cranston, and others) and their hosting job won't propel them to the next level, but I thought was decent.

This weekend was the People's Choice Awards.  Hosted by Tina Fey and Amy Poehler, who America (if the media is to be believed) dearly loves.  I am not a Fey fan at all, but Poehler and Fey do seem to have the right combination of humor and tastefulness that makes them work as presenters.

There were plenty of funny moments.  My favorite was presenter Kevin Bacon asking if he was "connected" to anyone at the Awards show, but there were certainly memorable moments like Amy Poehler making out with Bono, Amy portraying Tina's cranky son, Tina's George Clooney zinger ("He would rather float out in space and die than spend time with women his own age" and of course, Alfonso Cuaron telling Sandra Bullockhje was going to give her herpes.

Yeah, thumbs up.  I usually like to be snarky, but credit to the two of them who have made this awards show (which has been an afterthought,. or at least just a show for film diehards) and crossing over to a broad audience.

I am not hip enough nowadays to comment on their selections.  American Hustle clearly has the momentum headed towards the Oscars, and 12 years a Slave and Gravity should fare okay.  I knew there were films that I wouldn't have crossed path with, but there were some like Nebraska and Her that I was completely unfamiliar with.  I am slipping.

TV has become equally obscure.  Ten years, there might be a series on HBO that would steal the spotlight, but there are so many good shows on sucha wide array of channels- AMC and HBO of course, but other pay channels like Showtime have picked their game up and channels that aren't even really 'channels' like Netflix and Starz.

Like last year's Jodie Foster's speech last year, this year's honoree speech was lost on America-  Woody Allen was honored and Diane Keaton gave the speech complete with singing a Girl Scouts song.  While Woody Allen diehards took something away, it seems like the Lifetime Achievement award is the WTF moment  for this show.  Jacquline Bisset similarly gave a speech that was more incoherent rambling than anything else.

As far as snark, yeah, that's what I am here for, but I don't have a lot of it.  I didn't think Captain Phillips was Oscarworthy, but the performances were (It got nominated for Best Film at the Globes).  I am not quite convinced Brooklyn99 is the end-all, be-all comedy, but it is funny. I certainly don't get Andy Samberg winning best comedic actor for essentially being Andy Samberg.

Leonardo DiCaprio took Best Actor.  His speech was a bit overwrought for my tastes, but people seemed to enjoy it, and I really think he is one of our finest actors.  It would be nice to see him win an Oscar this year.

Anyway, that's what I had.  Thoughts?

From the first preview that you saw, you knew Captain Phillips was going to be a thrill ride.

And possibly Oscar Bait.

Phillips pares it down to the basics.  If you were imagining Zero Dark Thirty, well this isn't, this is Zero without Jessica Chastain's part.  Argo without backstory.

Which is fine.  Director Paul Greengrass is best known for the Bourne sequels, and he goes for all adrenaline.

Not that plot and backstory is needed,  There is terror inherent in the unpredictability of Somali pirates (and Greengrass does try to reveal their motives).  Amateur actor Barkhad Abdi as the lead pirate puts on a mesmerizing performance.

Tom Hanks is strong as well.  Sure, we've all since learned that the real hero of the day was probably the Chief Engineer (and Captain Phillips is probably an a--hole who no one wanted to work for, who ignored warnigns, and got too close to the Somali coast.  Maybe?).  We come to expect our movies to take such liberties.  Of course, Hanks is the hero, and serves as a competent lead.  he tries to pull off Phillips' Boston accent which makes the thing a bit Forest Gump-ish, but he carries the film, and the final scene (in which a real live Navy Seal features to make the scene more realistic) is some powerful stuff.

It will satisfy a lot of audiences and if Hanks and Abdi get Oscar noms, don't be surprised.  Like Denzel's Unstoppable, there is enough talent in the actors and enough skill from the director to take a quick premise and run with it.  There's really not much else to say though, and if you don't like these adrenaline-producing thrillers or you are expecting anything more, you may end up disappointed.

Jackie Robinson's life story makes for a good movie plot, and it really hasn't had a big budget telling since 1950 when Jackie played himself inThe Jackie Robinson Story.

I have seen some recent documentaries on Jackie, and so i know there's a lot more than just the fact he was the first African American professional baseball player.  He went through hell.

That said, I had high expectations for this movie, but at the same time, I have hard time for biopics when real life offers so much richer detail and I know the story well.

42 tells the story and gets a lot of deatils in for people just learning about Jackie Robinson. 

That it does that well (a show of support from Pee Wee Reese, heckling from racist manager Ben Chapman, etc) in giving good detail and making a pretty gripping story.

Chad Boseman as Robinson is sympathetic, but also multifaceted.  Harrison Ford as Branch Rickey was an inspired choice (He does some of his Harrison Ford-isms but they are perfect as Rickey's larger-than-life character who looms large throughout).  The movie's look is great- from capturing the action on the field to the crisp, bright uniforms.  Screenwriter Brian Helgeland  (LA Confidential, Mystic River) brings real life dialogue and the action is well paced.

It all leads to a story that is true and a little bit more than what you might expect from what could have been a cliche sports movie.  It doesn't overplay it's hand in trying to teach a lesson.  It doesn't over-explain or under-explain the story.  It's warm, it's inspiring, and it's a real solid family (for the most part, at least fine for teens and preteens) movie.  It's not quite Oscar worthy, but it is enjoyable.