50/50

Whenever dealing with heavy themes, it is always important to find a balance to the material. No one in Hollywood is afraid to laugh about terminal illness anymore, but too many laughs and you risk creating an uncomfortable audience, too few and you risk being a Hallmark television movie of the week. Will Reiser is able to take a frightening part of his life and keep the audience smiling while sharing his heartfelt story of survival. 50/50 is a perfect balance of humor and heart to create a terrific story.

Let me start though with the tagline of the movie "It takes a pair to beat the odds," it's just awful. There is so much more to this movie than just two buddies looking to support each other. In fact there is a great ensemble here that helps convey the story’s message. I understand why the tag line exists; it is to let people know that there are two very popular male leads in the story. But this isn't a movie you are going to want to roll into anyway to forget about life for a while, the featured lead has cancer after all, and while there is plenty of humor behind the story the character still has a 50 percent survival rate, and the movie does not shy away from the emotional moments that come with such a diagnosis.

The movie stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Adam, who has just been diagnosed with an extremely rare form of cancer. And to no one’s surprise he plays the role superbly. He goes through the whole range of emotions almost effortlessly yet seems strained while doing it. The strain of course seems natural from a person who can see his own demise. Without the help of Seth Rogan, the performance may have leaned too far towards the depressing. Instead Rogan, who was a producer on the movie, balances out the story with laughs as Adam's best friend Kyle. In the third act though he is able to dig a little deeper into his character and shows why he is so easily likable by audiences despite his usual crassness.

The reason that Rogan does so well though is that he is part of the story that the movie is based on. The movie was written by Will Reiser who worked with Rogan on "Da Ali G Show" which is when he found out he had a serious form of cancer. The first draft of the script which was called "How I Learned Nothing from Cancer" I imagine lacked some of the more heartfelt moments that Gordon-Levitt was able to portray. But Reiser worked with Rogan to reflect back on this period in their lives to examine what really happened from many different perspectives. The combination and reflection both men shared helped to shape the movie.

It wasn't just the men that helped to make a strong finished product, the females co-stars help to elevate the lead actor and sometimes even outshine him. The first woman we meet is Adam's girlfriend played by Bryce Dallas Howard. She is always being cast as the beautiful bitchy character, which she has been playing so well recently. I don't understand how she plays the character so well with her grandparents being the Cunninghams, I suppose good parenting skips a generation. The bigger part though belongs to Anna Kendrick who plays Adam's therapist; she also seems to be cast in similar roles as the young professional who is in over her head. She once again does fantastic in the role and I can't wait to see her more often as she is a great personality to play the love interest in any drama. Anjelica Huston shows her years of experience and is superb as an overbearing mother. Any young person in the audience can identify why Adam may find her annoying but when he finally lets his guard down she shows him the caring and love every mother has for their son; which in turn should make every son feel guilty for blowing them off.

The sadness never becomes unbearable. Sure it may be tough to get through the whole movie without a couple sniffles, especially for those who have been through something like this before. But just when you think all the drama has taken over the actors in the movie will do something unbearably charming and will bring a smile back to your face. Often times while watching a movie I will say to myself “right here” in a hope that the movie will end on a high note, I don’t think any movie has ever gotten so close to a perfect moment, which makes sense as this story is full of near perfect moments. A-

Money Ball

There is a tendency in Hollywood for their movies to have a deeper meaning. If a movie were just about zombies it may be tough to get a broad audience into the theater. So what people tend to do is add a metaphor like zombies that really stand for consumerism or lack of individuality or some B.S. like that. Or they will put in a handsome lead to attract women who may otherwise not want to see a monster movie. Moneyball has every opportunity to do these things as well and while it may touch upon these ideas this is a baseball movie about baseball stats. If you like baseball, hate the Yankees, or find mathematics interesting you'll probably like the movie. That is what the movie is about and while it has a David and Goliath feel with a charismatic Brad Pitt in the lead this is a baseball movie. And how could you hate America's Pastime?

A big contributing factor to the success of the movie is the writing team behind it. When the source material is a look at stats and analysis you need strong writing to engage the audience and that is what Steve Zallian brought to the original script. Once the script was finished they brought over Steven Soderbergh to make the film and he made several changes to the script including interviews and having the players play themselves despite the age difference, the studio was not a fan. So they took him off the project and instead brought in Bennett Miller who has worked on dry material before and squeezed Oscar juice from it with Capote. Once they found a director who would make a more traditional movie (rather ironic considering what the movie is about) they brought in Aaron Sorkin to complete a fianl draft of the script. Usually with too many chefs in the kitchen you create a mess, here it works out and while it seems scattered at times, especially the end, I believe it works to make a compelling story.

As for the story I found some objection to it and what they left out. For those of you who don't know what Moneyball is about, it is based on the true story of the Oakland A's during the early 2000's while their team was good despite the lack of resources (read: money)that teams like the New York Yankees or the Boston Red Soxs have. Billy Beane the A's GM and a former player who had been highly touted coming out of high school abandoned the old method of scouting based off looks and feel and subscribed to an anaylytical, subermetric approach to forming a team. In other words he wasn't looking at batting average and speed like other organizations he wanted player who could get on base and could hit for power. The formula was basically the need to get people on base and keep your opponent off. In the movie they focus on getting men on base but during their run they had three of the best pitchers in baseball on the mound in Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, and Tim Hudson which is arguably a bigger reason they won then the batters they were able to scrap together after Jason Giambi and Johnny Damon left. I understand why they were left out of the movie as they were already on the team and had nothing to do with Beane's negotiations and front office moves, but to completely dismiss them from a movie about why the A's were winning is a little ridiculous.

Obviously nerding out a little there, but besides that the movie is strong. Sorkin writes a script as you would expect with plenty of great dialogue. Brad Pitt plays Billy Beane perfectly in a mix of a confident businessman with plenty of self doubt. His character refuses to watch the games as he believes he is cursed. The need to win the last game of the season keeps his head churning and his confidence in check. Pitt is able to be a character that can walk into a room with a confident swagger then leave it with nothing but doubts and remorse in his eyes. They also choose to include his daughter in the story, in an attempt to humanize a man who needs to be vicious when cuts need to be made.

Beane's right hand man is Peter Brand who is based on Paul DePodesta and is played by Jonah Hill. Hill does fantastic opposite Pitt, and while known for his comedy is able to slow his performance down as a man who lacks the swagger that Beane has but believes that his system is right for the organization. He nails his deadpan delivery and is able to participate in a great give and take with the lead actor. Philip Seymour Hoffman also makes an appearance in the movie as a manager who still believes in the old way of doing things and often clashed with his GM. That dynamic could have been interesting to explore but I imagine that confrontation ended in real life once the team started winning. Chris Pratt also stars in the movie as former catcher and current first baseman Scott Hatteberg, Pratt is always all kinds of charming and he is no different in this movie.

There isn't a whole lot of baseball action in the movie as it is more about the front office moves but there is enough to wet your whistle. The scenes in which we actually do see baseball are shot in different manners almost every time we see it. But since this story is told from the perspective of the GM who doesn't watch the game we only get slivers of action. We also see different shooting techniques from when he is interacting with people to when he is alone which reflect his two states of mind. When he is with others they use normal shooting techniques but when alone, they show Beane's disjointed thoughts and constant questioning of his moves using quick cuts and close ups that help us to further get in the character's head.

Not everyone is going to like Moneyball, it moves slowly and there is not a lot of action to it. But the writing is compelling, the banter and interactions are funny, and the actors are all charming, plus it is a movie about baseball stuff. For all the reasons above I liked the movie, and even if you are not into baseball maybe you will like the movie as well. Much like the movie the producers were able to get the most talented people to play for their team and create a winning formula. A-

Emmy Predictions: Drama

So yesterday I did Comedy, today I'll try my best to predict the Drama categories.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama
Kelly Macdonald, Boardwalk Empire
Archie Panjabi, The Good Wife
Christine Baranski, The Good Wife
Margo Martindale, Justified
Michelle Forbes, The Killing
Christina Hendricks, Mad Men

With two women from the same show, they may be stealing votes from each other, so I don't like either actress from The Good Wife to win. While Kelly Macdonald flourished in a cast full of outstanding male actors Margo Martindale had the performance of her career. Either of these two women could win but I like the Justified actress to give Justified its first Emmy.


Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama
Peter Dinklage, Game of Thrones
Josh Charles, The Good Wife
Alan Cummings, The Good Wife
Walton Goggins, Justified
John Slattery, Mad Men
Andrew Braugher, Men of a Certain Age

My heart of hearts wants Peter Dinklage to win for Game of Thrones (I'm still mad that Sean Bean didn't get nominated as a lead actor). The problem is he has some really stiff competition this year. Alan Cummings was outstanding on The Good Wife just as he was last year. John Slattery is terrific year after year, and for it keeps getting nominated year after year. And Walter Goggins is astonishing on Justified (let's face it that whole cast is great). While Slattery is due Alan Cummings had the better performance throughout the season so I think Cummings will win, but I'm still pulling for the honorable Lannister.


Outstanding Actress in a Drama
Kathy Bates, Harry's Law
Connie Britton, Friday Night Lights
Mireille Enos, The Killing
Mariska Hargitay, Law and Order: SVU
Juliana Margulies, The Good Wife
Elisabeth Moss, Mad Men

That's right, Harry's Law is still on TV. Oh man NBC is in a bad way. Anyway Juliana Margulies won the award last year, so don't be surprised if she wins again this year. The work is consistent and the show is just as good. But I would argue that Elisabeth Moss deserves the award more. As her character continues to grow and become the brains of the operation her talent becomes more visible. She is at her best when confronting Don and gives Jon Hamm a terrific partner in some of their scenes together. I would argue that Moss had the better year, I'd probably lose but I'd still be willing to put up the fight.


Outstanding Actor in a Drama
Steve Buscemi, Boardwalk Empire
Kyle Chandler, Friday Night Lights
Michael C. Hall, Dexter
Jon Hamm, Mad Men
Hugh Laurie, House
Timothy Olyphant, Justified

With Breaking Bad not eligible this year because of the late debut that means someone new has to win. Last year all six men had a legitimate claim to the best actor award, this year it is just as difficult to pick whose performance deserve the award. Kyle Chandler should have been nominated earlier than last year as he is great on Friday Night Lights, and since the show is over with this would be a great way to wrap up his tenure. Jon Hamm has been deserving of the award for the past three years but Bryan Cranston has always been a little bit better. With this season of Mad Men being devoted to the question "Who is Don Draper?" it gave him the perfect platform to show off why this show has won best drama the past three years. Steve Buscemi may play the role of Cranston for Hamm this year. Much like Don Draper, Nucky Thompson is one of the main reasons that Boardwalk Empires is so successful. He is perfectly cast in the lead role and can definitely walk away with the trophy, but Hamm has had this coming for too long not to walk away with the statuette tonight. Don Draper for the win.


Outstanding Drama Series
Boardwalk Empire
Dexter
Friday Night Lights
Game of Thrones
The Good Wife
Mad Men

I don't care who wins the award, Game of Thrones was the best show of the year. It took a manuscript that was written in order to be unfilmable and knocked it out of the park. They made bold moves all season, the premiere included a zombies, rape, incest and the killing of a child and by the end not everyone made it out alive, and did things no other show has ever had the cojones to do. But they won't win, the award comes down to a low year for Mad Men and Boardwalk Empires which started strong but tailed off towards the end. But at its worst Mad Men is still a brilliant analysis of a man destined to fail. The writing is always fantastic, the costumes fitting and they know how to make everything look exceptional by this point. Matthew Weiner will win again and this will give Mad Men their fourth straight win in the category.

What do you guys think? Did I get it wrong? Who do you think is gonna win this year. Let me know. And enjoy the show.

Emmy Predictions: Comedy

For those of you that read this blog know I am a movie guy, but come award season I like to show that not only do I watch a lot of movies but I also watch a lot of television. I really need to get out more, but it’s too late for that so for now here are some of my best guesses for how this year's Emmy awards will be handed out. First we'll take a look at the comedy field.


Outstanding Variety, Comedy or Musical Series
The Colbert Report
Conan
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Late Night with Jimmy Fallon
Real Time with Bill Mahar
Saturday Night Live

This actually isn't in the comedy field but I think it deserves mentioning just because how impressive it is. Last year I wrote a hell of a piece about why The Daily Show would finally lose. And I stand by it for all of those reasons but to sum it up it wasn't their best year and Conan and Colbert were both ON. Stewart didn't even show up last year which means assumedly he had something more important than getting one of the highest honors for television; already knew what it felt like to win and didn't want to go; or maybe thought the competition was better and more deserving. Well he still won, and now I am convinced if he wasn't going to lose last year he certainly isn't going to lose this year. The Daily Show will win its ninth straight award in this field. How many more years do you think Colbert has before he just loses it and goes postal on his past employer.


Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy
Jane Lynch, Glee
Betty White, Hot in Cleveland
Julie Bowen, Modern Family
Sofia Vergara, Modern Family
Kristen Wiig, Saturday Night Live
Jane Krakowski, 30 Rock

This is a tough category to predict. Last year’s winner is this year’s Emmy host and I don’t even know how she is going to do with that, I hope well but it is tough to tell. Last year she was the clear cut winner for her negative slams and one liners, but to end season one they tried to show her evolution and make her a better person. So this season they had to split her time between glee club hater and being sympathetic. The character was at her best when she was mean and awful that is why she won, to give her a heart and redeem no longer makes her the best. While I don’t watch Hot in Cleveland never count out Betty White, she is cute as hell and still hits all her marks. On merit the best performance would have to be Jolie Bowen, she doesn’t get all the laughs but she helps to make all the people around her funnier.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy
Chris Colfer, Glee
Jesse Tyler Ferguson, Modern Family
Ed O’ Neil, Modern Family
Eric Stonestreet, Modern Family
Ty Burrell, Modern Family
Jon Cryer, Two and a Half Men

This is going to someone on Modern Family. Jon Cryer basically did a half season of work so how could he get the award, and Ryan Murphy took all the emotion and love that was in Kurt’s character from season one and instead made him a soapbox to send out his message. Any of the other four men could win it, putting Jesse Tyler Ferguson in a distant fourth. Eric Stonestreet won the award last year, but Ed O’Neil and Ty Burrell were better this season. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burrell won but Ed O’Neil is the heart of the series. He wins the award on his first nomination, an award that he deserves.



Outstanding Actress in a Comedy
Edie Falco, Nurse Jackie
Tina Fey, 30 Rock
Laura Linney, The Big C
Melissa McCarthy, Mike & Molly
Martha Plimpton, Raising Hope
Amy Poehler, Parks and Recreation

Is Nurse Jackie a comedy? Do people laugh at that show? Getting past that, I have never enjoyed Raising Hope, so have a tough time pulling for Martha Plimpton. And while Melissa McCarthy was fantastic in the movies she has been good on Mike and Molly but not amazing.Amy Poehler has been fantastic on Parks and Rec. She leads a fantastic cast and shares the spotlight just as much as it shines on herself. She is the one I believe will win, but this is a tough category to predict and may face difficult competition from Laura Linney who not only manages to be funny but in a show that deals with cancer can also be very touching and Emmy voters love that mix.


Outstanding Actor in a Comedy
Alec Baldwin, 30 Rock
Louis C.K., Louie
Steve Carrell, The Office
Johnny Gelecki, The Big Bang Theory
Matt LeBlanc, Episodes
Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory

This may be the biggest lock of the night. There is no chance that Steve Carrell doesn't walk away with this award. That is not to say that he necessarily deserves it for his work this past season. The award would be given to him for the sum of his work over the past seven seasons on the office and his past six nominations. For all of that, mostly the first three seasons and a little bit for seasons four and five, he will win the award. While Carrell deserves it for all that he has done, Louis C.K. has been hilarious all season, watch the masturbation episode and tell me he’s not funniest actor on television right now.


Outstanding Comedy Series
The Big Bang Theory
Glee
Modern Family
The Office
Parks and Recreation
30 Rock


Does Modern Family have what it takes to become the next 30 Rock, well 30 Rock certainly doesn’t. The show is still smart but for the past two years I have enjoyed the first half of NBC’s Thursday line up more than the second half. To that point Parks and Recreation had a fantastic season. While it was upsetting to not get a fall debut last year, by getting pushed back to the spring it allowed the creative staff to fine tune some of the earlier episodes which only made it funnier. Of the nominees this was the funniest show of the year, and I would be willing to wager that this may be the high point for the series because of the extra time they were allotted. The best show of the year though would probably still be Modern Family. The actors on the show are phenomenal as evident by all of the adults being nominated for acting awards. The jokes are good; there are countless laugh out loud moments but the difference may be the rather clichéd ending where the lone voice over tries to wrap everything up into a neat package. The reason this trick has become so clichéd is because it is effective at doing what they need, and that is tying the episode up. The show’s heart and the love the characters have for each other is what give Modern Family the edge.

Drive

Ryan Gosling is capable of almost anything, and has left little doubt that he is one of the brightest stars in Hollywood. He has can play the heartthrob and romantic like in The Notebook, he can be a heart breaker like in Blue Valentine, he can be funny and charming like in Crazy, Stupid, Love. In the last movie mentioned he stepped out of his comfort zone and tried a comedy. He is often very adventurous in his roles and always knocks then out of the park. In Drive he seems to take a step back in to what he knows and while he does well in the role I doubt this will be a role worth remembering.

For director Nicolas Winding Refn this is his first stab at American film making. He has been very popular in Europe and has shown a knack for making movies, but of his movies that I have seen they have all been very stylistic. There are those who praise his style and concepts as high art and enjoy his projects for it. In Drive he appears to be making an ode to the eighties be it the font on the movie poster and credits, the music, or the white jacket our protagonist wears throughout the story. He obviously is very knowledgeable on the era and creates a wonderful atmosphere. But he always seems to over commit to it. Alright Don, we get the image you are going for but sometimes it seems that you are more concerned with style over substance. Some people will praise his work, and with a 13 million dollar budget maybe the only thing he could afford was an eighties looking B movie. It was a fun style but sometimes, much like in Bronson it overwhelmed the story.

The story is good though, it features Ryan Gosling in the lead role as a man who works as a mechanic and a stunt driver and also moonlights as a getaway driver. In the opening monologue he lays down the rules. He gives them 5 minutes to do whatever they want, outside of that they are on their own. With a hero that dabbles on the other side of the law he must hold a strict moral code on what he is willing to do in order for the audience to side with him. It also helps that the hero seems to epitomize cool. In order to prepare for the role Gosling rebuilt the 1973 Chevy Malibu that his character drives in the movie. The writers also do their best to help the audience connect with the character. He only speaks when it is absolutely necessary. This type of writing is rarely seen anymore, more often opting for dialogue that expresses what our characters think. Here the actors express themselves, rather than verbalize their thoughts.

There are a slew of actors who help to get Gosling's point across and help to define him and his actions. A plethora of television actors make brief appearances in the movie for some defining moments to our other actors including Bryan Cranston, Ron Perlman, and Christina Hendricks. One of the most surprising performances though belongs to Albert Brooks. I can't remember the last performance I liked of his, not counting voicing a fish looking for his son and a billionaire trying to take over the world. He brings a cool calm and trusted performance to the movie that really accentuates his character. Gosling's romantic opposite is played by up and coming A-list actress Carey Mulligan, whose talent seems to go wasted. She is asked to do little for her own character and instead only to move plot and provide support to Gosling. This is something rarely seen anymore either, a supporting actress actually there solely for the support of the main actor. But as the female lead and boasting such a talent it is a shame to see Mulligan’s go to waste in a movie that asks her to do very little.

Mulligan's biggest contribution may be that she brings to the movie what many in the audience may already be expecting. There are very few times Gosling has not been involved with a romantic counterpart, so for the females in the audience she brings some of that to the story. But really any expression of love in the movie is there to accentuate the violence willing to be done for it. For the guys in the audience there is no shortage of blood. It takes a violent turn during the second half. It is almost shocking how violent they go, but maybe even worse it is sometimes laughable how bloody some of the scenes get. Also shocking is despite the movie being called Drive just how little our main character spends behind the wheel. I understand not wanting to be lumped into the same genre as The Fast and the Furious, but there is really only one good driving sequence which I can't help but feel was inserted in at the producer's request to increase the action pacing a bit.

The movie is fun, but it just gives off the impression that it is trying too hard. The movie really wants to fit into a certain genre and be a certain style. It wants to be an art house movie and an action movie and I don't know if the two blend well together. Some people are going to love it, a lot of blood a lot of action why wouldn't they, but for me the need to be artistic as well as bloody made it too ridiculous. For some people that is exactly what they are going to want. If you want an eighties movie with a hero the likes of an Eastwood then you should enjoy this movie. I enjoyed it, but it took me a long time to really formulate any kind of opinion on it which usually means that the movie is good but certainly not a must see. B-