Movie Review Monday #48: Moneyball

Jeff and I used to try to watch the majority of the Oscar-nominated films before the awards ceremony. Of course, that changed after Eiley was born since it became harder for us to randomly go to the movies, so this year we had only seen two (The Help and Midnight in Paris). Last night we rented a third: Moneyball. Moneyball is the story of the General Manager of the Oakland A's using a new (at the time, which was in 2001) method of statistical analysis to choose the best team with the smallest amount of money. It's a true story, which always makes things more interesting, and it stars Brad Pitt, which always makes things more attractive. Observations:


1. I am not a baseball fan, so I'm certain I missed out on some of the appeal of this film, but it was still extremely accessible. You really don't have to be a baseball fan to understand the thought process behind their statistical theory. And obviously you don't have to be a baseball fan to appreciate the character development of Billy Beane, played by Pitt.
2. Even without being a baseball fan, the film editors certainly evoked emotion from me. After a particularly inspiring moment, Pitt says "How can you not get romantic about baseball?" and I very nearly agreed with him.
3. This film was slow at times, but in such a realistic way. It had slow moments like life has slow moments. It had slow moments like a good baseball game has slow moments.
4. Pitt's performance was impressive. I forgot at times that I was watching Brad Pitt. His character was at times angry, superstitious, sad, passionate, insecure, overly confident. What I'm getting at is that the dude has range in addition to his good looks. Whatever.
5. Chris Pratt was also in this. I have to admit that I thought he was 100% like his character on Parks and Rec (though maybe not quite that dumb), so I was surprised to see him in a completely different role. I don't know why I assumed he was a man-child in real life.

He doesn't even look like the same person.
It looks like there are thoughts running through his head here.

In conclusion, two claws up, though I recommend watching when you are not tired in the least, otherwise it might be too slow to keep your eyelids up.

Movie Review Monday #9: Midnight in Paris

I have previously only seen two Woody Allen films: Hollywood Ending (which my mom and I watched during a trip to New York purely to escape the heat so I don't remember anything about it except that it was air conditioned) and Melinda and Melinda (which I saw in Spain and all I remember was that it had Spanish subtitles and I liked it). So I didn't have a deep knowledge of his style or anything, nor did I go in expecting to either love or loathe the film. I feel like people who have seen a lot of Woody Allen films automatically know whether they'll enjoy new ones or not. 


Anyway, we went to Midnight in Paris last week. Observations:
1. Paris is beautiful. Yes, this is an obvious statement to most of you, but for some reason I never grasped it. Even though my husband can talk for weeks about a few days that he spent there, I still didn't comprehend the draw of it. The cinematography in this film gave me a glimmer of understanding though. 
2. I am an uncultured dolt when it comes to 1920s painters, writers, filmmakers, and musicians. I think I would have enjoyed the film a little more if I'd taken a class on the Artists of the Roaring 20s. With my current base of knowledge, I understood some of the Ernest Hemingway humor, I knew who the Fitzgeralds were, I recognized Dali, and I vaguely recalled Cole Porter. That left a slew of characters that were flatter to me than Allen probably intended. 
3. Rachel McAdams is capable of being not adorable. Who knew?
4. Owen Wilson completely held my attention. I don't think he's the best actor of ever, but he does entertain. Other Owen faves: Bottle Rocket, The Royal Tenenbaums, and, of course, Zoolander. (I'd probably also enjoy him in Marley and Me, but I refuse to watch that. I was inconsolable for a solid two hours after Turner and Hooch, so now I avoid sad dog movies at all costs.)
5. For me, the film's message was to focus on the present when creating art, which was encouraging. Like Owen Wilson's character, I sometimes look at past authors and think there's no way I could recreate such incredible works. But here's the thing about art (and in my case, art is literature): It shouldn't be recreated - it should be created. Which means there is always an opportunity for new greatness. There can always be a new golden age of artistry. Not to say we shouldn't be inspired by past artists - just that we shouldn't feel belittled by them.


I have left out several tidbits of information about this film on purpose. There's a delightful mystery about it which I hope you experience yourself. I recommend watching it at home with the encyclopedia open in front of you so you can learn as you go. Not necessary, but I know I would have enjoyed that.

Two claws up, Lobsters!