The Ides of March (2011)

Oh man. Get ready for some typical Liberal Hollywood Propaganda! George Clooney and the rest of those flag-burning godless hippies are up to their old tricks again! I'm sure the movie will end with them having gay sex on the White House lawn after having nailed the Communist Manifesto to the front door and having used the Constitution as a moist towelette to wipe the blood from the baby sacrifices off their hands!

(The editors wish it to be known that the writers of the previous statement have been sacked)

Hey, when did Glenn Beck get access to my blog? And why is he writing film reviews? Crazy people, I tell you...

So "The Ides of March" was interesting to me because unlike other political dramas, there is only one political party. The movie takes place over the course of a couple days during the Democratic primary, and while the Republicans are mentioned, they aren't a part of the story. What it all boils down to is the two candidates running for the Democratic nomination are working to basically tear each other apart, using Ryan Gosling's character as a chess piece in a game he doesn't fully comprehend.

In a way, this is a more poignant story than if they had done the typical thing of having the two parties spatting back and forth. This is exactly the kind of in-fighting that has made people so weary of politics, especially after four years of the Republican party stonewalling progress in the name of being sore losers under the guise of false patriotism. In this way, it really makes the story that much more tragic, because these are members of the same party - they shouldn't be tearing each others throats out like that. It's really sad to watch.

And as far "liberal Hollywood propaganda" goes, George Clooney's character in "The Ides of March" turns out to be kind of a scumbag. So...not biased I guess? At least they're playing to the "all politicians are sleazeballs regardless of party" crowd. I'm a card-carrying member.

Has anyone else noticed that Ryan Gosling's eyes are really close together? I just thought I'd throw that out there.

 It's like having a staring contest with a perch...

"The Ides of March" was actually a pretty good movie. I'm not always on board with political dramas but every once in a while one comes along that really captures my interest. "Frost/Nixon" was one, as was Oliver Stone's "W." While I wouldn't call "The Ides of March" as good as those two films, it certainly manages to approach them in terms of entertainment value.

What really helps out is the cast, which surprised me because to be honest, after this and "Drive," I am so over Ryan Gosling, and I never really liked him much in the first place. I'm not a huge Clooney fan, either. That being said, they were both pretty good in it, although I still get annoyed by Gosling's mumbling, halfway stoned way of delivering his lines.

It's the supporting cast which really makes this movie work. Philip Seymor Hoffman was quite effective, if not slightly irritating as Gosling's boss, and Evan Rachel Wood portrayed a very human and vulnerable temp who has made some exceedingly bad mistakes to great effect. But for me, the real standout was Paul Giamatti as Hoffman's rival. He just oozes slimy sleazeball and totally deserves his status as the film's antagonist, but he never comes off as a villain.

I thought it was fascinating to have a villain who is really just doing his job - and doing it damn well. Yes, he manipulates Ryan Gosling. Yes, he wants his guy to win no matter the cost. And yes, lots of people get screwed over because of his actions. But in the end, the people who got screwed over, like Ryan Gosling, really brought it on themselves. They can't really blame Paul Giamatti's character for taking advantage of other people's mistakes. That's his job. It's like blaming a shark for eating a seal. It's what they do. And Ryan Gosling was the stupid seal who offered to floss the shark's teeth. What did you think was going to happen?

And by the end of the movie, Ryan Gosling is as big a "villain" as Paul Giamatti is. Or at least, he has reached the same level of sleazeball. It's basically about an idealistic man's evolution into a cynical, back-stabbing douche, which is exactly what all the political players around him are.

And who says Hollywood is biased?

THE BOTTOM LINE - This is a movie which has grown on me since watching it. I think the discussions to be had about the themes are probably more interesting than the movie itself, and it may have its head up its ass just a little, since it IS Clooney directing after all, but "The Ides of March" is by no means boring. Recommended.

Moneyball

"This is where you talk about Moneyball. You liked it."

Those two sentences have been sitting in my "drafts" folder in this blog for roughly the past 15 hours. Usually I write the entry immediately after seeing the movie, so that it's fresh in my mind. But last night, after the credits rolled, and I watched some behind-the-scenes extras on the Blu-Ray...that's all I could type, and after a while I realized I wasn't going to be able to write anything more that night. So I went to bed. It was late anyways, and my sleep schedule is hilariously whacked out. I didn't need to be up until 4:30 AM again.

I found it really hard to write anything because I found it really hard to be funny about "Moneyball." It's a lot easier to make fun of a bad movie than a good one, most of the time, and "Moneyball" definitely qualifies. It's rock-solid. And I liked it, so I guess it's time for my "serious face" to come out.

Knowing nothing about the events that "Moneyball" covers, the only background I can give is what the movie told me, so for anyone who is a die-hard baseball fan, forgive any ignorance in the following paragraphs. "Moneyball" is the true story of Billy Beane, who was the GM of the Oakland A's in the early 2000's. Along with a Yale-educated economics major, Peter Brand (which wasn't the real guys name) they broke down the scouting of new players into a numbers game, assigning a value to every player based on how beneficial they are to scoring runs. Personality doesn't count, history doesn't count, age doesn't count, looks don't count, nothing but the numbers count.

It sounds like a "duh" idea but this was revolutionary, and flew in the face of over 100 years of baseball tradition, and it really was an ostentatious notion to a lot of people. For years baseball scouts had looked at potential players and rated them on things like their personality, looks, and what was perceived as their potential, what they could be instead of what they were, and it was more of a "gut feeling" than a hard science. This meant a lot of potential fell through the cracks because someone "pitched funny" or something, even though they were performing really well. But here comes Billy Beane saying "Everyone is baseball has been dead wrong about scouting since the beginning."

So the Oakland A's, who had a miniscule budget, had to assemble a rag-tag team of outcasts and throw-offs that nobody else wanted, but the formula said they were winners. And to everyone's shock, the formula worked. The A's set an MLB record by winning 20 games in a row, something never done before, and ended up winning just as many games as the Yankees...with a third of their budget. And baseball was never the same, because now, everybody uses this system.

What was interesting to me with "Moneyball" is that I'm not quite sure how we as the audience are supposed to feel about Billy Beane. Obviously, we are meant to root for him and the A's, but at the same time the man is changing everything. Him and Brand seem to be taking the soul out of a the process of baseball, and implementing a very cold, mathematical formula that treats people like numbers. But by the end, I don't think it really comes down on one side or the other. I think the only real opinion the movie puts out regarding the state of baseball is "screw the Yankees." And I can get behind that.

I know that comparisons to other sports movies are inevitable, and yeah, maybe there is something to comparing "Moneyball" to "Rocky" or "Rudy," considering that it's about a guy overcoming insurmountable odds in sports to prove his life is worth something. Huh. That's kind of sad when you look at it that way. Anyways. It even has a "Mighty Ducks" vibe, not in terms of film-making but in terms of "fist-pumping in the air after the wimpy kid finally knocks one out of the park." Dare I say, it may even have some "Cool Runnings" in it, what with the idea "it's not about winning, but what you prove to yourself" ideology at the end.

From a technical standpoint, it's a beautiful film. The baseball scenes are wonderfully shot and edited together with what appears to be actual footage from the games, although those could be recreations. The sound design is also very nice. When they want you to feel the hit of a bat, man do you feel it. The *crack* that comes off that thing is crazy well done, and works to give intense moments in the game that extra "oomph" that almost gets you half-way standing up, craning your neck to see if that sucker is long gone. It's like baseball without all the boring parts!

It's pretty clear from the beginning that this movie was groomed for an Oscar or five. First of all, it has Philip Seymor Hoffman in it, which is just coming right out and saying INSERT OSCAR HERE. I don't know what it is, but man, the Academy loves that pasty tub of mumbling dough. Second, It was directed by Bennett Miller, who did the not-too-bad-but-kind-of-dull Oscar winner "Capote," and finally, it was co-written by Aaron Sorkin, which is basically guaranteeing you at least get a Best Picture nomination, especially after the inexcusable ass-kissing "The Social Network" received at last years awards.

Does "Moneyball" deserve it? Well, I'd say it's a hell of a lot better than "The Social Network" for starters. That's not even a contest. So I guess I'll say that if "The Social Network" won three Oscars, "Moneyball" is worth at least that. But then again, who says these things are fair? To that end, who says they even matter? (They don't.) I'm just surprised that I like a movie so much that was clearly Oscar bait. That's usually a sign that I'll hate it.

But one thing we can all agree on, whether you like the movie or not, whether you think it deserves some Oscars, whether you like baseball or not, whether you're a human being or not...

Screw the Yankees.

BOTTOM LINE - It may be Oscar bait, but it's damn fine Oscar bait. To my pleasant surprise: Highly Recommended.