MovieOx

Let me say this first:

The current Sherlock Holmes franchise would be non-existent without the stories of Alan Moore.  SH the modern franchise takes place in a world very like the one Moore created for The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.  It is Moore’s take on SH that began this line of thinking about Victoriana.

Anyway, in this 2^nd entry we finally see Moriarty’s face.  He’s played by the glorious beard of Jared Harris (Mad Men); and he is done rather well.  Moriarty has been modified to be more of a counterpart to Downey Jr’s energetic Holmes; as a man who’s not afraid of getting his hands dirty.

There’s also a glorious cameo from Naomi Rapace ( The original Girl w/ Dragon Tattoo) as a gypsy and Rachel McAdams returns as Irene Addler.

Basically, Moriarty is engaged in the same plot as Die Zwielichthelden in companion materials from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen; as in he’s trying to start WW1 and has placed himself to make a substantial amount of money from the bloodshed.  Of course Sherlock has worked this out and must borrow Jude Law from his honeymoon to stop the bastard.

This film works mostly because of the repartee between Watson and Holmes.  Jude Law makes John Watson an interesting character on his own (Not so in Sir Conan Doyle’s work) and they have a great back and forth.

And there’s a bunch of special effects, but the film is carried by the charm of the actors.

Worth seeing in the theater.  Lots of fun.

Clint Eastwood has come a long way.  People of my generation and younger aren’t going to remember, but there was a time when there was a stigma against Eastwood as a director.  The Outlaw Josey Wales is probably one of the top 3 if not the best western of all time.  As far as awards, nothing, zilch.

Switch to today, and people assume an Eastwood film is going to be nominated for something.

Just musing over some tinsel town history…

Now to J. Edgar; I would have like to have seen a film that examines Mr. Hoovers career and the implications of the tactics he used.  Hoover was the originator of the FBI and his career straddled the ongoing tradeoff between freedom and safety.  What I would like to have seen is a critical look at what we got from the FBI law enforcement, and what price we paid, in terms of freedom, for it.  But, J. Edgar is not that movie.

J. Edgar is amost entirely about the personal eccentricities of Mr. Hoover and how they flavored his behavior and how they may have affected his policies.  It is the story of a closeted homosexual’s hypersensitive defense mechanisms.  It’s more of a psychological portrait of the man than a study of how he affected history.

So, I was bored.  What the hell do I care if the man was gay?  And what is it to me if his fervor to hide that fact spawned a fascination with gathering intel on other’s private lives.  To me that is the background for one character in a film.  It is not the whole film.

So, if you want to see some very good actors wasting their time in period clothes and (rather effective) makeup; go ahead.  But there’s an actual story to tell that effects all of our lives today.  And they kind of ignored it.

So, meh.

Quick version: Ides of March does not suck, but neither is it awesome.

I haven’t liked it as much as other films Clooney has directed.  Probably because it didn’t have as sharp a plot as his past efforts.  Good Night and Good Luck was more than just a biopic; it was a sharp and biting indictment of a media that has become the force it was supposed to monitor.  Confessions of a Dangerous Mind was a hell of a spy movie that may or may not (probably not but still) be trueish.  It was wonderfully demented.  Leatherheads was about how professional football (as a stand in for all sports) got where it is today.  These are all fine films.

Ides of March is a political thriller and that is a difficult genre in which to raise eyebrows.  Because: A: there are already several good political thrillers that are based on actual events.  All the Kings Men, Primary Colors and all that.  2:  Even if you make up a story you’ll still be judged against the likes of The Contender and Bullworth.  The field is rather packed.  Also, all those films mentioned also have awesome endings.   And D:  a bunch of films also use a political thriller element but also have a meaty spy story or a classic courtroom scene.  So, if you want to make a film that’s just about the intrigue of a presidential campaign; it needs to be juicy.

Ides of March isn’t that juicy.  It has an excellent cast that acts excellently.  I’ve got no problem with any particular piece of the picture; it’s just that when they’re all put together it’s all rather tame and uninteresting.

The sexual scandal doesn’t seem all that scandalous to me.  Sad?  Sure.  Would it ruin someone’s presidential campaign?  Yeah.  Does the film make me care?  …No.

There needs to be something more at stake than a bunch of politician’s careers.  I think the Clooney character is supposed to be the one man who can fix the U.S.; but they don’t establish that well.  He’s a broad liberal candidate whose speeches are just lists of generic sound bites.  So it’s not really clear what the salvation would be (unless you’re one of those folks whose worse nightmare is a Republican president; if that’s the case you’ll be on the edge of your seat) or why this guy is different.

Let’s take Bullworth for example.  That film made very clear why and how the titular candidate was different from his competition.  That’s what’s missing from Ides of March; there’s nothing to tell us what if anything is actually at stake; other than some white dudes’ jobs.

But well acted, you won’t be disappointed on that score.  This is a solid rental.

But if you like political thrillers rent The Contender first.

ROBOT FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, so I’m an easy target for this film.  I love a good robot fight.  Based on that criterion alone, this film is a success.  It has all the ROBOT FIGHT I need.

All right, that’s why I like it.  Why will you:

If you hated Rocky IV you may want to skip this film.  Its that type of movie.  You know where it’s going the whole time; the way there is just fun.  If I had to describe this film without using the words ROBOT FIGHT I’d say its Over the Top meets Rocky IV without ever having to listen to Sly talk (I love you Sly but still).

Also the near future world is surprisingly well thought out.  What’s among the first 10 things rednecks would do if there were affordable large fighting robots?  Robot vs. Bull!  Clearly beating on farm animals is the bottom of the fight game, but you can’t tell me it wouldn’t happen.

And bucking the trend in this type of family film; the kid isn’t even that annoying.  It’s hard to be annoyed by him since Hugh Jackman quasi tortures him for the first part of the movie.  But he does a good job not being an annoying pussy (like Rocky’s kid in Over the Top).

Hot women?  Check.  They keep their clothes on for the most part but there’s a hot bad one and a hot good one so most bases are covered.

Topless Wolverine?  Yes ladies, yes.

And…  ROBOT FIGHT!!!!!!!

It’s literally like someone watched the robot fighting league from Futurama and decided to make a serious version of it.

Very worth seeing in the theater.

This film plays like a 2 hour summary of a 12 episode mini-series. It doesn’t work at all as a movie.

The premise is very intriguing and the film is actually supposedly a true story.  Supposedly in the 70’s and 80’s a 17 year long covert war was waged between a deposed Omani Sultan and a secret group of former British Special Forces.

But ignore the movie. Just don’t see it. Pick up a copy of The Feather Men by Sir Ranulf Fiennes and find out what the story actually is.

The film is a silly waste of everyone’s time.

I should start by stating I’m not an avid baseball fan.  I watch the playoffs, but not religiously.  I don’t like fantasy baseball, all the freaking stats baseball people keep, and I don’t give a shit if anyone is on steroids.  So, baseball people freak out a little when they talk to me.  To them I’m a Martian.

All that said, I love a good baseball movie.  Major League is still one of my favorite movies; and if you haven’t seen Long Gone you need to quit reading this and go to your friendly neighborhood illegal download and watch the awesome.  For all the bullshit, baseball can still be magic.  Hence, why I watch the playoffs.

I do enjoy the premise of the film.  Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), GM of the Oakland A’s, comes to a realization several days into a rebuilding project (he’s just lost Damon, Isringhausen, and Giambi to free agency).  He realizes it’s stupid to play the game the same way as the Yankees who have 4-5 times his resources.  He doesn’t have the luxury of doing things the same way.  He has to be cheap in every sense of the word.

He retains a highly overqualified statistician from the Indians (Jonah Hill) and begins to approach players in a different light.  They determine a minimum run total the team must achieve to win a minimum number of games Jonah projects will get the team into the playoffs.  So they have to score x amount of runs and allow no more than y amount of runs.  And they determine that the most important statistics that result in runs scored are on-base percentage and to a lesser extent, slugging percentage.  So when they‘re looking to replace Giambi; they don’t look for a similar talent.  They look to replace his contribution to the team’s on-base percentage.  So they don’t look to buy players, they look to buy runs.

Similarly, they ignore several hallowed baseball standby’s.  For instance, they completely ignore the dominant hand of the player.  Statistically it didn’t seem to matter whether the pitcher was a righty or lefty; so they just looked at the on-base and slugging percentages against him.

These new innovations lead to a different value scheme for players and the A’s were able to field a  very competitive team playoff team even with their low budget and the loss of 3 marquee players.

The interesting thing is that the antagonist in the film isn’t the Yankees, its not an opposing coach or team or scout.  The antagonist is baseball itself.  Baseball culture is highly resistant to change.  The scouts on Beane’s team all rebelled against his new system and the head scout even quit.  The new format completely ignored their opinions and focused on obscure (at the time) quantitative data.  Beane isn’t too sorry to switch focus from the opinions of scouts since he views himself as a prime example scouts don’t know shit.  (Billy was a major league prospect and ignored a scholarship to Stanford to play for the Mets because they told him he was a can’t-miss talent.  He never really amounted to anything in pro baseball [as a player])  Jonah Hill at one point theorizes that unless they actually win the world series; baseball would try to bury what they accomplished because it didn’t fit in with established baseball culture.  He was half right.  According to the film, the Red Sox were paying very close attention and would later adopt Beane’s system as their own.  And something about a fat dude’s curse ending.  I don’t know, apparently it’s in a Steven King book.

All in all this was a decent film.  I like the story of kicking the dust off baseball culture and trying to update it.  History isn’t usually kind to the originators of new ideas (until they’re safely dead) but Mr. Beane and company deserve some credit for trying something new in a game where nobody ever ever does.

As far as murderous covert agencies go, I’ve always liked the Mossad.  I know they’re mean to the Palestinians but there seems to be (at least in the realm of spy fiction which is what I’m basing my opinions on) a brutal simplicity to their aims and motives that’s just missing from your other covert agencies or criminal/terrorist syndicates.

They don’t try and set up friendly dictatorships, they don’t try and blackmail people, they don’t try and profit on drug trafficking or airport construction.  They kill people.  They kill people who have or want to kill them.  No overtly political motivation outside of survival and revenge.  Clean, simple, brutal and tidy.

The Debt is about a Mossad operation in the 60’s.  3 operatives are sent to locate a sadistic Nazi scientist (who experimented with glee and bloodlust on captive Jews at concentration camps) and kidnap him for trial and execution in Israel.

The film has 2 separate storylines.  One is in the 60’s when the operatives are in East Germany on the actual mission, and the other is set 30 years later when the operatives must deal with unforeseen repercussions of their work in their old age.

The operatives have become heroes to the people of Israel and there are books written about their successful mission.  But the mission didn’t quite go down the way the history books report it.  There are still some ghosts that need to be murdered.

Not sure why there are so many negative reviews for the film.  I’m not suggesting a conspiracy necessarily, but something’s up.

And this film is based on an Israeli thriller that I’m going to have to track down.

I found the film to be highly enjoyable.  There are moments of supreme tension that can only be found in a good spy story, and the film is never going the direction you think it is.   Jessica Chastain (Tree of Life), Martin Csokas (Kingdom of Heaven), and Sam Worthington (Avatar) play the young operatives; filled with righteous Jewish anger and sexual tension; and Helen Mirren (Red), Tom Wilkenson (Batman Begins), and Cirican Hinds (Rome) play the operatives in their dotage, haunted by truth and lies.  And Jasper Christensen (Casino Royale) is fan-damn-tastic as the batshit crazy (or is he!?!) Nazi.

If you like spy movies, check this one out.  It does not disappoint.

YES.

I have been waiting for this one and I was not disappointed at all.

With the exception of Redbelt, any MMA movie or MMA treatment in a movie has been very stupid.

Warrior is awesome.

First, we have an eccentric retired hedge fund manager who decides to become the Mark Cuban of UFC.  He sponsors what amounts to a King of Iron Fist tournament in Atlantic City, looking for the baddest man on the planet.

Next, we have a reclusive Russian badass who’s never come close to losing, finally tempted into fighting in the states by the large purse of the tournament (Tournament is named Spartan).

Third, we have a Afghan war vet who has come into huge popularity because he beat the living piss out of a top contender in a sparring session and a iphone vid of the whuppin ended up on youtube.  Both the vet and the whupped contender are in the tourney.

And last, we have a former UFC fighter/High school physics teacher who has been suspended from teaching because he was moonlighting as a pitfighter to keep his home out of foreclosure.

All these characters come smashing together at Spartan.  And it’s great.

Tom Hardy is ridiculous as the war vet.  And if anyone ever doubted he has the physicality to play Bane in the next batman film; they will not if they see this film.

Joel Edgerton is great as the physics teacher.  The two actually share a father who is played by Nick Nolte, who is also brilliant.

Gavin O’Connor is emerging as one of my favorite directors.  His previous efforts include Pride and Glory, and Miracle.  He’s accomplished something here.  Filming MMA action is difficult.  Grappling doesn’t translate particularly well on film to the average fan.  But it’s an integral (and arguably the most important) aspect of MMA.  So if you’re accurate with your action you run the risk of boring the average movie goer, and if you shy away from accuracy it’ll come off looking like WWE bullshit to someone who knows MMA.  O’Connor did an excellent job of filming accurate action that was also exciting as all hell.  This film is a real achievement for him.

Go see this movie.  If you’re disappointed you probably ought to see Shark Night 3D.  That’s probably more your speed.

Outbreak 2: Pretension.

Well, it’s not really as bad as all that.  But Outbreak was a more enjoyable movie.

If you keep reading, beware. There be spoilers.

This film had a slightly retro, clipped down style that I did enjoy.

If unfolds like a 70’s procedural (except for the attention to detail).  The film follows the spread of a very deadly virus and all consequences.

And I do mean all consequences: scientific, political, societal, financial, you name it.

My favorite character was the amoral blogger (yep) played by Jude Law.  He see’s the outbreak coming and seeks to profit by his hugely increased readership as the disease spreads.  Jude Law needs to play more bad guys.

Lawrence Fishburn is a CDC luminary who’s team is tasked with fighting the disease in the US, but his real problems are navigating the political pitfalls that emerge (democracy is a goddamn hassle sometimes).  Especial insanity occurs when it leaks that they might have a cure for the virus and there will be delays manufacturing it.

So there’s good here.

The problem I have is the consequences are too pat.  Things work out for the good people (good defined by a strict eco-socialist definition) and the bad people are punished.  Matt Daemon’s daughter is rewarded with life for waiting to bone her boyfriend until he is certified clean by the government.  And there’s lots of stupid shit like that throughout the movie.

And lastly, the virus was a pretty cool story in and of itself but the conclusion of the film ruined it.  The virus was caused by bats who were fleeing deforestation in Kowloon.  Or nearby Kowloon.  Whatever, it was retarded.  This would be a better film if it stressed the indifference of nature instead of trying to be eco-preachy.  Meh, I should have seen The Debt instead.  That’ll be coming soon.