Movies: The Ides of March

Score: **** out of *****

Long Story Short: With a top-notch cast, The Ides of March is a compelling political drama. Youth and its idealism, in the form of new stars Gosling and Wood, go toe-to-toe with veteran stars like Clooney, Hoffman and Giamatti. While they may not all play nice with each other as characters, the audience can enjoy a script that takes these talented actors through political intrigue both minuscule and massive.

I had been looking forward to this movie since I first saw the trailer not long ago, but it took me a little while to finally see it. Sorry the review is coming so late. As usual, you can always rent it, Netflix it, downlo-, I mean... With such an odd array of films coming out this time of year, it was impossible for me to resist one with so many good actors and an interesting topic (presidential elections). The Ides of March was directed by George Clooney, and stars him, Ryan Gosling, Evan Rachel Wood, and many others.

The first part of the film introduces the Democratic primary for the presidential election of 20_ (it doesn't say when). The field is down to two nominees: Ted Pullman and Mike Morris (Clooney). Day-to-day operations are sampled, from Jr. Campaign Manager Meyers (Gosling) working with Morris on his speeches, to informal staff meetings. Meyers is a young but very savvy political aide, the second in command under veteran Paul Zara (Hoffman). Morris and Pullman are battling over the Ohio primary, which is likely to decide the nomination; after a debate there, Meyers is contacted by Pullman's manager, Tom Duffy (Giamatti).

After their tense meeting, Meyers meets a young Morris intern named Molly (Wood). They soon begin a quiet relationship, during which Meyers is horrified to discover a huge secret Molly is keeping. Back on the campaign, Pullman and Morris fight in secret for the support of Ohio senator Thompson; unfortunately, a reporter finds out about Meyers' unofficial meeting with Duffy, and threatens to reveal it unless details of the Thompson negotiations are given. Things continue to spiral downward from there, as Meyers' former honest, good intentions are put to the test when he finds himself in the middle of an ugly political fight.

While the script of the film is very good, it took the efforts of not only talented actors but ones with a strong presence to truly bring it to life. Gosling, as Morris' #2 campaign manager, is certainly the main character. He does a nice job, and shows the gradual change of his character, transformed by the political process, in a believable manner. He is charismatic, but I have to admit that the role was begging to be knocked out of the park, something he fell just short of, I think. Evan Rachel Wood does a very good job as well, a young, enthusiastic girl who is just in over her head; her performance creates the most emotional parts of the film. Clooney is, of course, a perfect choice to play a presidential candidate. However, he doesn't overdo it, and in fact his role is much smaller than I expected. Very, very well done by George.

The campaign managers for the dueling candidates are played by two actors who I've always put in sort of the same category anyway, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti. Hoffman has the slightly bigger role, considering he's on Morris' team. He does a fantastic job as a pro who isn't exactly jaded, but so used to the slime of politics that it just rolls right off him. He's not a bad guy, but Hoffman's performance makes him an interesting, complex man. Giamatti plays a much more overtly sneaky, oily guy, a character that he seems well-suited to play (no offense meant, Paul). Giamatti is one of the film's biggest scene-stealers, drawing my attention to him consistently. Other minor roles include Marisa Tomei as the reporter, and she does a very good job with the role's combination of schmoozing and pushiness, and Jeffrey Wright as Senator Thompson in a few brief scenes.

The script, by Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon, along with Clooney's input, is great. Possibly many of you will see the twists and turns ahead of time, but I don't tend to see them so clearly. Either way, predicted ahead of time or not, I have to say that they are well-constructed and quite believable. And of course, the performances of the actors described above just hammer the impact of those events home in a way that an inferior cast never could. There aren't a whole lot of other aspects of the film to discuss. There is a little bit of humor, but it is by no means any kind of comedy. One aspect I was impressed with was the variety of sets; I have no idea how many were actually on location, but it gave an authentic feel of a campaign actually being out in the world and working at the ground level (one that I can remember is a secret meeting of Morris and his top campaign managers... in a barren, dull school rehearsal room).

***

I must give you fair warning: this is not exactly a feel-good movie. I felt rather depressed by the end; not by the quality of the movie, of course, but by the implications of its events. Sure, it's a fictional drama, but the basic ideas seemed like they could very well apply to today's world. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if worse things happened in the real political process. Enough of that gloomy talk, though. This is simply a very entertaining film driven by its creative script and fantastic cast. It's interesting to see some new faces (Gosling, Wood) almost as symbols of the rising stars in the industry, with their ups and downs, while the older vanguard (Clooney, Hoffman, Giamatti) still guides the whole thing along steadily. Not much else to say about it, other than that I highly recommend it.

Movies Contagion

Score: ***1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Contagion is a very effective thriller/disaster film, better in many ways than most of its genre brethren. Good editing and writing provide a great sense of realism, and you may find yourself depressed (in a good way) about what would happen to you in such a situation. A great cast (though some with necessarily small roles) gives the film genuine human characters. An entertaining, if somewhat flawed time at the movies.

Unfortunately, I'm rather late with this movie. If you're interested in seeing it and still haven't, you may have to wait for it to hit dollar theaters or DVD. The trailers for this certainly caught my attention with its suspense and big-name cast. When it got a good score on Rotten Tomatoes, my mind was made up; it just took me awhile to get there. The film was directed by Steven Soderbergh (Ocean's Eleven, The Good German) and stars a lot of people I'll mention as they come up ;)

Like a virus itself, Contagion begins at the individual level - here, a family consisting of Beth (Paltrow), Mitch (Damon), and their young son. Beth has just returned from a trip to Hong Kong, and she has a nasty cough; the next morning, she collapses and Mitch takes her to the hospital where, to Mitch's utter disbelief, she perishes within minutes. He is immune, but by then it's too late for his son. Meanwhile, the CDC begins to learn of this spreading disease, and Dr. Cheever (Fishbourne) puts Dr. Mears (Winslet) in charge of tracking down where it is coming from. In the labs, scientists are baffled by the strange and deadly thing.

News of the disease begins to spread even more quickly than the virus itself, and journalist / slimeball Krumwiede (Law) decides to make a name for himself on the internet. He does, but also sends the public into a hysteria trying to acquire forsythia, a drug he blogs can cure the disease. The CDC and its hard-working but overwhelmed staff (including epidemiologist Orantes - Cotillard - sent to Hong Kong) start to lose control of the situation, and widespread quarantines are invoked. Eventually, tireless lab worker Dr. Hextall discovers a vaccine - but it's not the end of the story.

Contagion, as you can see, features quite an array of characters in their stories, and features a star playing each of them. I suppose Matt Damon is probably the main character - and biggest star - here. His role is primarily that of concerned, protective and loving dad, one that he does well. Nothing special, but he makes his character as convincing as you'd want him to be. Next up is Laurence Fishbourne, playing Dr. Cheever, (I believe) head of the CDC. Always a great choice for a figure of authority, Fishbourne does his usual great stuff, and also is effective when it comes to the more personal side of his character. Smaller roles include Cotillard, Paltrow, Cranston (didn't even know it was him at the time), Jennifer Ehle, and Elliot Gould, who all do fine jobs but don't have the time to shine too much.

The best two roles, in my opinion, are Kate Winslet as Dr. Mears and Jude Law as Krumwiede. Winslet's character is courageous, though not blindly so; you can tell she is still frightened, for herself and others. She has a very effective professional partnership with Dr. Cheever, but one that is also appropriately affectionate. A hero in over her head, but determined to do all she can, anyway. On the opposite side of the spectrum we have Krumwiede, who just exudes sliminess. But Law does not overplay his deplorable, even villainous, character - Krumwiede seems to be certain of his own righteousness. His arrogance and outrage are genuine.

Contagion seems to be classified as a thriller, which is somewhat accurate. It's really a combo of thriller and disaster film. I've seen enough of the latter to know the easy pitfalls of the genre; some it avoids, some it doesn't. Like most disaster films, Contagion does a great job of the build up - how serious is it? What kind of effects are there, both macro and micro? In fact, it does this even better than most, because it seems quite realistic. Unfortunately, the edge-of-your-seat suspense really fades in the second half, but perhaps the expectations had just been built up too much early. With so many characters and mini-story lines, good editing is even more critical here than in most films. For most of the film, it is handled quite well, and contributes to the suspense. However, too many of the film's plot threads die away without much resolution.

***

This is not the type of film - unless done really, really, well - that tends to become one of the year's best. And this isn't one of the exceptions. However, with that said, it is one of the best of its kind I've seen, and one that was clearly made with care, creativity and purpose rather than just "hey, let's make a movie about an epidemic with lots of stars." Like other disaster films, it gives you that sense of society-level dread. But it also does a great (and terrifying) job of letting you imagine yourself in such a situation, and how the disease itself is only a fraction of the problem in such a hypothetical situation. A bit of an issue I had was with a plot point *SPOILERS!!! (highlight with cursor to read)* that at first the disease seemed to be a super fast, unstoppable killer, which killed all the sample tissues that the CDC tried to test... yet later in the movie, we find the actual mortality rate is *only* 25%. Huh? *END SPOILERS* And the abrupt endings of several character arcs was rather troubling. But the ending is very nice, unlike many films of its genre. So if you're in the mood for suspense, I'd recommend you give this a try.

Movies: Moneyball

Score: ****1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Moneyball is one of the best sports movies I've seen in a long time, and it follows in the same vein of storytelling as last year's The Social Network. Like that film, it features Sorkin's excellent dialogue, but it also has a much more effective emotional core than that Best Picture nominee, plus more humor. With Pitt as the charismatic and (surprisingly) sympathetic main character, and Hill and Hoffman in effective supporting roles, Moneyball hits a grand slam.

After a short hiatus following the end of the summer movie season and the beginning of the football season, I've at last come back to the movie theater. I generally steer clear of sports movies, despite the fact that I love both movies and sports. When they're put together, though, the results are usually not very good, in my opinion. However, Moneyball (directed by Bennett Miller, who also did Capote) seemed to have a good combination of fun, sense of humor, and creativity, along with positive critical reviews. So, I gave it a try as my first movie of the fall.

The story begins with a brief recap of the Oakland A's 2001 postseason run, which ended in a series loss to the Yankees. Following this loss, their three biggest stars left the team for more money (including with those conquering Yankees), leaving Oakland's general manager Billy Beane (Pitt) a serious challenge to rebuild the team for next season. He consults his team of scouts, then goes visiting other managers around the league looking to deal. While visiting the Cleveland Indians, Beane notices a young assistant, Peter Brand (Hill). Brand, an economist from Yale, uses a new strictly statistical formula for evaluating players. Desperate for any edge due to his lack of salary capacity, Pitt steals Brand away from the Indians.

Beane quickly becomes caught up in the new evaluation method, and overrides his incredulous scouts to sign various players who have baggage (age, behavior, etc.) but the necessary stats. His team's coach Howe (Hoffman), however, upset over not getting a contract extension, is skeptical about the new style Beane wants to implement. The team does start off slowly, despite the development of a few new stars, as Howe neglects Beane's favored acquisitions. Beane forces Howe to change, though, by laying his own job on the line in getting rid of the team's few stars. His chips all in, Beane's fate appears to be either glory - or unemployment.

Moneyball sports some nice performances from its cast, although probably nothing that will get nominated come awards season. Pitt was a good choice as the star, general manager Beane, with his charisma and confident personality. I think he perhaps plays the role with a bit too much of his "cool-dude" style, but he still gives a genuine sense of conflict and vulnerability at the right times, given his character's past (which I didn't want to spoil in the plot summary). Plus, he's become quite adept in the humorous moments as well. Jonah Hill is an even more appropriate choice as analyst Brand, a rolly-polly, shy, yet bright and determined young man. Brand doesn't get much development, but serves as a good partner to Pitt's Beane and comic counterpoint to the other baseball people (scouts, Howe, etc.). Philip Seymour Hoffman as manager Howe is yet another excellent choice as the grumbling, tobacco-chewing, traditional club leader. His part is pretty small, but he makes the most of his screen time. A final notable role is one of the new players, Hatteberg, played by Chris Pratt. I was surprised to find he is also in a TV show I've just started watching, Parks & Recreation, as he plays a much more serious, vulnerable character here, and does it quite effectively.

The script, co-written by West Wing and The Social Network wizard Aaron Sorkin, is one of the film's highlights. The dialogue is excellent and mercifully devoid of the many painful sports cliches that almost inevitably infiltrate these films. At least, I don't remember hearing any of them. The two main facets of the film, being Beane's character and the A's season, are very well developed and intertwined throughout without interfering with each other. The film is also, as the trailers and commercials suggested, a pretty humorous one. Certainly, it is supposed to be a based-on-a-true-story drama, but there are plenty of laughs and chuckles, mostly created by the clever dialogue. The actual baseball that is shown is kept pretty minimal, and so when it appears it's usually interesting. The film also uses a neat technique of putting the players in spotlights within a dark set to accentuate each individual's role (and pressure) on the team. Finally, I don't really remember the soundtrack for the most part, but Beane's daughter sings a song (and plays guitar) at one point that is quite good, and fits the story's emotional arc well.

***

I suppose it would take another viewing or two for me to really be confident that Moneyball is worthy of a 4.5/5 rating (or "excellent"), but I think it is. It's certainly one of the best sports movies I've ever seen. In part that's because it isn't really a "sports" movie in the traditional sense, in the way that The Social Network (another Sorkin script) wasn't really about social networking software. Baseball provides the film's specific flavor, but the main ingredients are A) a young, upper-level manager struggling to reconcile his passion for his vocation with his other duties, and B) a small "company" with little money or clout and a band of misfits trying to compete with the big boys. It intrigues both the mind and the heart, and when a movie can do that it is set for great things. And in a nice sense of humor and some other perks, and you've got a hit. Highly recommended, either in the theater or on DVD.