- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: TulaneLSU's official 2011 movie reviews thread
Posted on 9/8/11 at 3:50 pm to TulaneLSU
Posted on 9/8/11 at 3:50 pm to TulaneLSU
Sarah's Key There is a growing corpus of Holocaust movies. Some of the movies are forgettable and are made with platitudinal frivolity, knowing that critics are slow to trash Holocaust movies, even bad ones. The subtitled, French flick, Sarah's Key, was neither lauded nor dumped, but it did receive a relatively lukewarm reception from both critics and audiences alike. After watching it, I think I understand why many critics were slow to say positive things about this movie.
Similar to the flip-flop juxtaposition of two lives in different time periods in Julie and Julia, we find in Sarah's Key two stories: one of a distrait girl running to release what she had locked away and the other of a woman in search of truth, also locked away. But truth is a powerful thing, something that can evoke angst, guilt, even if undeserved, and the pain of memory. Truth is the reason we are all called to be just, compassionate, kind, and humble. When we are not those things, we create a world in which truth harms the innocent and the innocent are decreated. The innocent become afflicted and suffer an unrighteous, unjustified penalty. We see this symbolically applied through the use of water in several scenes. Water, which is supposed to be a purifying substance, is transformed into purity's antithesis, guilt, as a result of the transgressions of others.
So much of the Judeo-Christian tradition is one of story telling. Whether the authors of this story made into a movie are explicitly aware of this characteristic is unknown. But the theme of remembering is strong, so strong in fact the movie opens and closes with a voiceover on the import of a story: "When a story is told, it is not forgotten." Those who have been following the LNBST may be thinking about YHWH's repeated command to remember. Remember your past. Remember where you were. Remember your bondage. Remember who you are because this story is who we are; this narrative of life is a grand drama from which we draw our understanding. The Christian Gospel, likewise, is a continued proclamation of this grand narrative: of what has happened and what is to come. Stories must be told. If they are not, they are forgotten.
I suppose that is the task of all arts: to tell a story, to prevent the story from becoming annihilated into a Heideggerian Vergessenheit. Without the story, the world has lost something vital to it. And that is probably why preservationists do what they do. They are trying to preserve a story because they understand that we are products of a story, of history, and that we are mere fragments of reality, truly illusions, if we have no roots in the narrative of history. The earth cries out with a story. All land is holy because all land has been witness to the story.
There is so much more to unpack from this gem about the little known story of the Holocaust in Vichy France, specifically, the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup. While the movie's focus is on retelling that story and the story of a woman wrestling with the idea of abortion, and does an adequate job of both, where the movie really succeeds is reminding us of the need for roots. Is a self-uprooted class of movie critics the reason for its critical blackballing? 9/10
Similar to the flip-flop juxtaposition of two lives in different time periods in Julie and Julia, we find in Sarah's Key two stories: one of a distrait girl running to release what she had locked away and the other of a woman in search of truth, also locked away. But truth is a powerful thing, something that can evoke angst, guilt, even if undeserved, and the pain of memory. Truth is the reason we are all called to be just, compassionate, kind, and humble. When we are not those things, we create a world in which truth harms the innocent and the innocent are decreated. The innocent become afflicted and suffer an unrighteous, unjustified penalty. We see this symbolically applied through the use of water in several scenes. Water, which is supposed to be a purifying substance, is transformed into purity's antithesis, guilt, as a result of the transgressions of others.
So much of the Judeo-Christian tradition is one of story telling. Whether the authors of this story made into a movie are explicitly aware of this characteristic is unknown. But the theme of remembering is strong, so strong in fact the movie opens and closes with a voiceover on the import of a story: "When a story is told, it is not forgotten." Those who have been following the LNBST may be thinking about YHWH's repeated command to remember. Remember your past. Remember where you were. Remember your bondage. Remember who you are because this story is who we are; this narrative of life is a grand drama from which we draw our understanding. The Christian Gospel, likewise, is a continued proclamation of this grand narrative: of what has happened and what is to come. Stories must be told. If they are not, they are forgotten.
I suppose that is the task of all arts: to tell a story, to prevent the story from becoming annihilated into a Heideggerian Vergessenheit. Without the story, the world has lost something vital to it. And that is probably why preservationists do what they do. They are trying to preserve a story because they understand that we are products of a story, of history, and that we are mere fragments of reality, truly illusions, if we have no roots in the narrative of history. The earth cries out with a story. All land is holy because all land has been witness to the story.
There is so much more to unpack from this gem about the little known story of the Holocaust in Vichy France, specifically, the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup. While the movie's focus is on retelling that story and the story of a woman wrestling with the idea of abortion, and does an adequate job of both, where the movie really succeeds is reminding us of the need for roots. Is a self-uprooted class of movie critics the reason for its critical blackballing? 9/10
This post was edited on 9/8/11 at 4:24 pm
1
Posted on 9/9/11 at 2:10 pm to TulaneLSU
Warrior Last month, and not by my choosing, I had a meal at Stella! in the French Quarter. It was a meal of highs and lows. One course would soar. The next would flat-line. I couldn't help but to think of this meal as I watched Warrior. Warrior is a movie of flashes of brilliance, but meanders through confused, sentimental story telling.
The director's main fault is trying to make a movie about the brokenness of a family of emotionally constipated individuals into a movie about ring fighting. Ring fighting may have been the vehicle through which the family is remedied, but in a movie as short as Warrior, there wasn't room enough for the two masters to be served with due time. So while one could argue that both parts of the movie were necessary, I don't think any reasonable person would deny that the story suffered from the fight scenes, which are long, riveting, and well-made. The fight scenes will please a certain subset looking only for entertainment from movies, but those who want a broader experience will find those scenes cumbersome.
What I would have liked to have seen more of was Nick Nolte's and Tom Hardy's characters. There were great moments of chemistry between the two of them, the type that wins critical awards, but the director would shift too quickly from the depth of their shared anger, tergiversation, regret, and love. The metaphor used throughout the story is that of Ahab, the inveterate symbol of obsession and hate conquering a life. Warrior would have been laudable had it stuck to this theme, but what we are left with are two commendable, if short, scenes where Ahab is constructed and repudiated. Nolte especially is fantastic in these scenes. The rest of the two hours is not much more than sappy, cheesy Hollywood underdog fluff. Those whose emotions are easily twisted by those saccharine, homogenous pre-game inspirational stories that are so common in sports today will probably enjoy the movie, but serious movie-goers will walk away yearning for more realism and character. Less starch and more Japanese Mero Sea Bass, please. 5/10
The director's main fault is trying to make a movie about the brokenness of a family of emotionally constipated individuals into a movie about ring fighting. Ring fighting may have been the vehicle through which the family is remedied, but in a movie as short as Warrior, there wasn't room enough for the two masters to be served with due time. So while one could argue that both parts of the movie were necessary, I don't think any reasonable person would deny that the story suffered from the fight scenes, which are long, riveting, and well-made. The fight scenes will please a certain subset looking only for entertainment from movies, but those who want a broader experience will find those scenes cumbersome.
What I would have liked to have seen more of was Nick Nolte's and Tom Hardy's characters. There were great moments of chemistry between the two of them, the type that wins critical awards, but the director would shift too quickly from the depth of their shared anger, tergiversation, regret, and love. The metaphor used throughout the story is that of Ahab, the inveterate symbol of obsession and hate conquering a life. Warrior would have been laudable had it stuck to this theme, but what we are left with are two commendable, if short, scenes where Ahab is constructed and repudiated. Nolte especially is fantastic in these scenes. The rest of the two hours is not much more than sappy, cheesy Hollywood underdog fluff. Those whose emotions are easily twisted by those saccharine, homogenous pre-game inspirational stories that are so common in sports today will probably enjoy the movie, but serious movie-goers will walk away yearning for more realism and character. Less starch and more Japanese Mero Sea Bass, please. 5/10
This post was edited on 9/9/11 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 9/9/11 at 2:11 pm to TulaneLSU
What do you do with your life?
Posted on 9/9/11 at 2:29 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
serious movie-goers will walk away yearning for more realism and character
"... She's a day dreamer... a silly heart... and she doesn't take her movie-watching career seriously in the least!"
Posted on 9/9/11 at 2:30 pm to Zamoro10
Here's a quarter. Go downtown, and have a rat gnaw that attitude off your heart.
Posted on 9/9/11 at 2:55 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:
TulaneLSU
Posted on 9/9/11 at 3:31 pm to TulaneLSU
quote:Goodbye credibility
Transformers 3 It was slightly better than the second one, but the story of Omega Prime isn't well told. I think if they had gone a little more in depth with the character of Omega, the movie might have gone somewhere, but Bay knew the public wanted to see bang bang pow pow, transform, die Decepticons! than actually develop a character or a story with any depth. It's a shame because all the animation would have buttressed an interesting story. 3/10
Posted on 9/9/11 at 6:42 pm to Tigah32
May I ask what grants one credibility in your eyes? Could you please critique my criticism if you find it disagreeable to you? I don't expect nor do I want people to agree with me. I do want people to form their own opinions, articulate those opinions with substance, and share those opinions with us. When we disagree, and then state why we disagree with intelligence and respect, we will both be all the richer for it. This is a forum for sharing opinions and ideas on art; if it were only for monosemic opinions, the format could be simplified with nothing more than a series of polls where people like or dislike art without need for further explanation.
Posted on 9/12/11 at 3:17 pm to TulaneLSU
Contagion "The gloom which pervades the stricken cities is indescribable...From the turnings at the various cross streets the dread cavalcades of death are almost constantly filing in [Canal Street]. They turn the corners from every quarter; they wind their long and sinuous way--the silent march of the dead--so many shadowy spectres, beckoning all in their train. The dead are found everywhere...The provision-stores are closed, and the only way to obtain supplies from them is to break them open, which is sometimes done. Even the drug-stores are all closed...there are some cases of inhumanity." The 1878 yellow fever outbreak in New Orleans, a quarter century after another outbreak decimated 10% of the city's population while going unreported by the media thanks to the business community fearing a quarantine, was the occasion for this national news report. And while medical science has advanced, Contagion shows that human nature and behavior do not change. Fear and self-preservation drive us in times of panic. Most of us put ourselves and those "in my life raft," as Fishburne says, ahead of others.
When talking of the end of days, Jesus says, "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars." Jesus recognized that the rumor of war was just as powerful and just as destructive as war itself. Those who have lived through crises have noted the same. Reality is not nearly as bad as rumors are, even in the case of the scourge of a pandemic. Behind the weak performances of a stellar cast and a survey of microbiology for neophytes, what you have in Contagion is a movie about the power of fear and rumors. The actual movie itself plays out like a modern retelling of the Spanish Flu Pandemic or Yellow Fever Epidemics. There is no innovation, no twist, no intrigue. It is an average script adapted from an ever-widening corpus of public health-history-psychological writings influenced by J Barry's The Great Influenza and R Preston's The Hot Zone. What makes these books readable, and this movie watchable, is that they appeal to the paradoxical modern human's desire for fear. For those who are truly fearful and live in a state of fear, it is abhorrent, but for lost people who live for entertainment and rush to avoid life's big questions or ennui, the subject of fear, which for such people is always at arm's length, is a welcome companion. Fear gives the hopeless something to live for. Fear of apocalypse sells: ask morons like John Hagee or the makers of the many 1980s-to present nuclear war movies or the 24-hour news stations.
But as much as fear appeals to the American viewing public, this movie just doesn't go anywhere. The only emotion I felt was a slight bit of anger against the false prophet, Jude Law's character, but even that was tempered by the predictability of his role and his lines. So while this movie is slightly entertaining and never boring, it also does nothing to warrant a second watching or much critical analysis. It is what it is: an average movie about fear and the inevitability of pandemic. 5/10
When talking of the end of days, Jesus says, "You will hear of wars and rumors of wars." Jesus recognized that the rumor of war was just as powerful and just as destructive as war itself. Those who have lived through crises have noted the same. Reality is not nearly as bad as rumors are, even in the case of the scourge of a pandemic. Behind the weak performances of a stellar cast and a survey of microbiology for neophytes, what you have in Contagion is a movie about the power of fear and rumors. The actual movie itself plays out like a modern retelling of the Spanish Flu Pandemic or Yellow Fever Epidemics. There is no innovation, no twist, no intrigue. It is an average script adapted from an ever-widening corpus of public health-history-psychological writings influenced by J Barry's The Great Influenza and R Preston's The Hot Zone. What makes these books readable, and this movie watchable, is that they appeal to the paradoxical modern human's desire for fear. For those who are truly fearful and live in a state of fear, it is abhorrent, but for lost people who live for entertainment and rush to avoid life's big questions or ennui, the subject of fear, which for such people is always at arm's length, is a welcome companion. Fear gives the hopeless something to live for. Fear of apocalypse sells: ask morons like John Hagee or the makers of the many 1980s-to present nuclear war movies or the 24-hour news stations.
But as much as fear appeals to the American viewing public, this movie just doesn't go anywhere. The only emotion I felt was a slight bit of anger against the false prophet, Jude Law's character, but even that was tempered by the predictability of his role and his lines. So while this movie is slightly entertaining and never boring, it also does nothing to warrant a second watching or much critical analysis. It is what it is: an average movie about fear and the inevitability of pandemic. 5/10
This post was edited on 9/12/11 at 3:25 pm
Posted on 9/12/11 at 3:49 pm to TulaneLSU
Where's the Bucky Larson review? I was looking forward to it
Posted on 9/12/11 at 3:56 pm to TulaneLSU
Ignore the haters Tulane. Keep 'em coming!
Posted on 9/15/11 at 2:54 pm to alajones
The Guard If you ever doubted that the people of the British Isles love their Westerns, do not look past The Guard. Listed as a comedy, it is better understood as a nod to the American Western. Yes, it is set on the west coast of Ireland. Yes, neither of its leads ever hop on a horse, though, there is a horse scene. Yes, there are no ropes, dust, tumbleweeds, or cowboy hats, save for the one worn by a former member of the IRA. Missing are the accidentals of the cowboy genre, but accidentals do not make something one thing or another.
So the question then becomes, what makes a cowboy movie? I would argue several essential characteristics: mysterious, morally ambivalent protagonist(s), a quest for something good, bad guys, reticent but concise language, a supporting cast ruled by suspicion of authority but by and large well intentioned, and ambuscades and a showdown. This movie has all of the above, so we can disregard the patina of comedy and look at it as an addition to the Western genre. That isn't to say the movie isn't funny; it's probably the funniest movie I've seen this year. But its humor is a smart humor, not like the trash that sophomoric Americans laugh at (thinking specifically of Hangover-Horrible Bosses poo-penis-drug humor). But humor doesn't drive the movie and its not a good lens through which to view it. The layering of humor through the movie is nearly perfect, like a steady wind that never offends. Its humor serves as a counter weight to the protagonist, a man who, out of uniform, loves hookers and blow, but a man of ideals and character in uniform. But no matter what he wears, melancholy is always close to his cuff. Heroic or stubborn, arrogant heroes often hide their melancholy with humor, and Sergeant Boyle is no exception.
I'm sure many viewers will see the question of this movie as "You're either really dumb or really smart," a once repeated description of Boyle by Cheadle's character. But that's not the question. The question we want to know is which mask does Boyle wear: the comic or the tragic? And we're left believing it's the tragic, and his comedy is only comedy because of his sadness. Like good Westerns, The Guard will leave you thinking about the flawed hero. So far, the best Western of the year. 7/10
So the question then becomes, what makes a cowboy movie? I would argue several essential characteristics: mysterious, morally ambivalent protagonist(s), a quest for something good, bad guys, reticent but concise language, a supporting cast ruled by suspicion of authority but by and large well intentioned, and ambuscades and a showdown. This movie has all of the above, so we can disregard the patina of comedy and look at it as an addition to the Western genre. That isn't to say the movie isn't funny; it's probably the funniest movie I've seen this year. But its humor is a smart humor, not like the trash that sophomoric Americans laugh at (thinking specifically of Hangover-Horrible Bosses poo-penis-drug humor). But humor doesn't drive the movie and its not a good lens through which to view it. The layering of humor through the movie is nearly perfect, like a steady wind that never offends. Its humor serves as a counter weight to the protagonist, a man who, out of uniform, loves hookers and blow, but a man of ideals and character in uniform. But no matter what he wears, melancholy is always close to his cuff. Heroic or stubborn, arrogant heroes often hide their melancholy with humor, and Sergeant Boyle is no exception.
I'm sure many viewers will see the question of this movie as "You're either really dumb or really smart," a once repeated description of Boyle by Cheadle's character. But that's not the question. The question we want to know is which mask does Boyle wear: the comic or the tragic? And we're left believing it's the tragic, and his comedy is only comedy because of his sadness. Like good Westerns, The Guard will leave you thinking about the flawed hero. So far, the best Western of the year. 7/10
This post was edited on 9/15/11 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 9/15/11 at 3:48 pm to UnluckyTiger
quote:
What do you do with your life?
watch and review movies. A lot.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 3:55 pm to WG_Dawg
I don't watch television but once in a blue moon. I watch 4-6 hours of movies and television in the average week. That's significantly less than the average American.
Posted on 9/15/11 at 4:56 pm to TulaneLSU
Do you ever wonder if this site runs slow sometimes purely b/c of the novels that you pen here daily?
Posted on 9/16/11 at 3:16 pm to Hubbhogg
Drive The Psalmist writes, "I was silent and still; I held my peace to no avail; my distress grew worse, my heart became hot within me. While I mused, the fire burned; then I spoke with my tongue: 'LORD, let me know my end, and what is the measure of my days; let me know how fleeting my life is'" (Psalm 39). The director of Drive uses what can best be described as monastic silence to draw viewers into the character played by Ryan Gosling. The impact is strong, for it is able somewhat to salvage a terrible movie. Although exciting, the first scene played out like a scene from Grand Theft Auto. Sure to please 20 and 30-something ribald males, to whom I'm sure this movie will become an unwarranted cult classic, there's very little to this film other than the silence of Gosling.
For Gosling's part, he is masterful. Through facial expressions, we see the most naive, innocent man who ever walked the terra firma. His adorable, childish smile makes us wonder. And in an instant the smile become a devastatingly violent kick to a head. And we wonder. What the hell created the person we see? The director uses a Hitchcockian technique: don't show and let the audience project. Let the audience come up with their own ideas of how this person came to be who he is. While it can stir the imagination, I came out wanting to know more about his childhood, and felt the movie's near complete avoidance of his past came across not so much as a religious mystery, which, by definition we can never know, but more the director and writer's inability to create a suitable and explicable history for a man so, well, mysterious. While the movie is adapted from a book, I think the audience deserved a hint to his past. We end up getting two hints. When Gosling is off-screen, we learn how long he has worked his job and how little he cares about money. The other hint comes from a scene with Gosling. And in that scene, we learn not to prod him regarding his past. If we do, we'll get our teeth kicked in. This character of internal burning can memorize thousands of streets on a map; he is a master at knowing how to get you where you need to go. But he is a mess who knows nothing about the streets of his life's map, primarily because he is afraid to remember his past. As a result, he will never get to where he needs to go.
Gosling's character is the only interesting one. And even though he is front and center, the director wasted too much time on the others. The cinematography has a feel of a foreign film and an 80s film. The lighting is well used as a character, reminiscent of Collateral. Keep an eye out for the symbols of wall paper and blood (cf. "My hands are a little dirty...So are mine"). I'm still trying to come up with a satisfying interpretation of the two. The music may be an important key to unlocking the mystery of Gosling's character, but I couldn't understand all the words. But the movie does end with a song about a hero who is an ordinary human being. Besides these strengths, and the intrigue associated with Gosling, the movie's plot is boring, the ending predictable, and the use of violence cloys. 5/10
For Gosling's part, he is masterful. Through facial expressions, we see the most naive, innocent man who ever walked the terra firma. His adorable, childish smile makes us wonder. And in an instant the smile become a devastatingly violent kick to a head. And we wonder. What the hell created the person we see? The director uses a Hitchcockian technique: don't show and let the audience project. Let the audience come up with their own ideas of how this person came to be who he is. While it can stir the imagination, I came out wanting to know more about his childhood, and felt the movie's near complete avoidance of his past came across not so much as a religious mystery, which, by definition we can never know, but more the director and writer's inability to create a suitable and explicable history for a man so, well, mysterious. While the movie is adapted from a book, I think the audience deserved a hint to his past. We end up getting two hints. When Gosling is off-screen, we learn how long he has worked his job and how little he cares about money. The other hint comes from a scene with Gosling. And in that scene, we learn not to prod him regarding his past. If we do, we'll get our teeth kicked in. This character of internal burning can memorize thousands of streets on a map; he is a master at knowing how to get you where you need to go. But he is a mess who knows nothing about the streets of his life's map, primarily because he is afraid to remember his past. As a result, he will never get to where he needs to go.
Gosling's character is the only interesting one. And even though he is front and center, the director wasted too much time on the others. The cinematography has a feel of a foreign film and an 80s film. The lighting is well used as a character, reminiscent of Collateral. Keep an eye out for the symbols of wall paper and blood (cf. "My hands are a little dirty...So are mine"). I'm still trying to come up with a satisfying interpretation of the two. The music may be an important key to unlocking the mystery of Gosling's character, but I couldn't understand all the words. But the movie does end with a song about a hero who is an ordinary human being. Besides these strengths, and the intrigue associated with Gosling, the movie's plot is boring, the ending predictable, and the use of violence cloys. 5/10
Posted on 9/23/11 at 2:11 pm to TulaneLSU
Moneyball If you think you're going to see a movie about baseball, think again. The baseball scenes are sparse and not good. This movie is about one thing and one thing only: faith despite the evidence and tradition. 3,000 or so years ago, or maybe never, a man named Abram lived. And God approached this man, telling him that if he were to leave his home, God would bless him with a new land and many descendants, despite his wife's old age and barrenness. At the time, it looked like a ridiculous commitment only a fool would make. There was no evidence that hinted that the decision would pay dividends. But Abram packed his bags and headed out, probably to the consternation and ridicule of all his neighbors who mocked him as a mad man. Faith for Abram, Karl Barth, and possibly Billy Beane was believing in something despite all the evidence, and standing back, and watching all the evidence change.
In that way, this movie is much more about a Copernican Revolution, a Abrahamic Revolution, really, than it is about baseball. Without question, this writer was influenced by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which has deservedly become reading for college freshmen across the disciplines, so much so that the paradigm shifts it discusses have almost become cliche' in conversation. In the book, Kuhn uses history to show how normal science is governed by faith, even if its followers claim a lack of faith. Faith in a system and a method, faith in a certain ordering of ideas, is how each school of science becomes dominant, and the assumptions of that school become dogmatic, which is not meant to be used in a pejorative sense. But every system of belief has flaws and will face stalemate. Eventually, a revolutionary questions the assumptions of science to create a new form of science. This is the revolution, the paradigm shift.
Moneyball seeks through the superficial relationship between the plenipotentiary general manager of the A's, Brad Pitt, (Billy Beane) and his head scout and head coach to show a revolutionary butting heads with tradition. But the interplay doesn't work because from the get-go, the old guard is cast in a mocking way. We're never given time or reason to support anyone but Pitt and his way of thinking. Thanks to the overly revealing trailer, we know all the smart lines and ending before the beginning. Pitt is the hero and the movie is agitprop to build the hero. In that sense, the movie is one-faced, simple, and doesn't give justice to the other side, which a good drama demands. The scenes from Pitt's past don't add anything to the character or story, though the director tries to force an interpretation down our throats, but to no avail. Even more superfluous and useless is the weak attempt to bring Pitt's family into the movie. Pitt is not well cast here; his strength is shown when he plays the bad guy with the good heart, not the innovator. His relationship to Jonah Hill, whose me'tier is numbers, is clumsy. Hill is the real hero in the story, yet he is cast to the side as a troll. The only thing that really works is the message: that in order to bring real change, you need a faith in something higher than yourself because the ridicule and rejection the prophet faces is too much for one person to carry alone. Too bad Pitt's character is left as a shadow and the audience in the dark about why he believes the new system will work. 4/10
In that way, this movie is much more about a Copernican Revolution, a Abrahamic Revolution, really, than it is about baseball. Without question, this writer was influenced by Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which has deservedly become reading for college freshmen across the disciplines, so much so that the paradigm shifts it discusses have almost become cliche' in conversation. In the book, Kuhn uses history to show how normal science is governed by faith, even if its followers claim a lack of faith. Faith in a system and a method, faith in a certain ordering of ideas, is how each school of science becomes dominant, and the assumptions of that school become dogmatic, which is not meant to be used in a pejorative sense. But every system of belief has flaws and will face stalemate. Eventually, a revolutionary questions the assumptions of science to create a new form of science. This is the revolution, the paradigm shift.
Moneyball seeks through the superficial relationship between the plenipotentiary general manager of the A's, Brad Pitt, (Billy Beane) and his head scout and head coach to show a revolutionary butting heads with tradition. But the interplay doesn't work because from the get-go, the old guard is cast in a mocking way. We're never given time or reason to support anyone but Pitt and his way of thinking. Thanks to the overly revealing trailer, we know all the smart lines and ending before the beginning. Pitt is the hero and the movie is agitprop to build the hero. In that sense, the movie is one-faced, simple, and doesn't give justice to the other side, which a good drama demands. The scenes from Pitt's past don't add anything to the character or story, though the director tries to force an interpretation down our throats, but to no avail. Even more superfluous and useless is the weak attempt to bring Pitt's family into the movie. Pitt is not well cast here; his strength is shown when he plays the bad guy with the good heart, not the innovator. His relationship to Jonah Hill, whose me'tier is numbers, is clumsy. Hill is the real hero in the story, yet he is cast to the side as a troll. The only thing that really works is the message: that in order to bring real change, you need a faith in something higher than yourself because the ridicule and rejection the prophet faces is too much for one person to carry alone. Too bad Pitt's character is left as a shadow and the audience in the dark about why he believes the new system will work. 4/10
This post was edited on 9/23/11 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 9/23/11 at 3:47 pm to TulaneLSU
Considering you gave the pedestrian Thor a 9/10 and The Dilemma (one of the more dreadful and ill-conceived rom-coms I've seen) an 8/10 - Moneyball must be historically terrible.
Posted on 9/23/11 at 3:48 pm to Zamoro10
or the best movie ever made
Posted on 9/23/11 at 3:54 pm to Flair Chops
quote:
or the best movie ever made
I mean WTF, its gotten fantastic reviews all around and is 93% on RT
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News