Movies: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

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

Long Story Short: Robert Downey, Jr. returns as Sherlock to face his archrival Dr. Moriarty in a film cut from the same cloth as the first. Of course, in this reviewer's opinion, that is a good thing, with quick banter, elaborate sets and effects, and RDJ's brilliant performance in the lead. Add in higher stakes with more (but well done) action, and A Game of Shadows is, overall, just as good as the first impressive entry in the series.

Ah, back to the movies! After another slow fall season at the theater, it looks like a full slate of interesting titles await audiences. Having seen and highly enjoyed the first, I had been looking forward to this sequel to Robert Downey, Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes. While some may find this series' style too action-packed, I think it is an extremely entertaining one that still manages to include plenty of work for Sherlock's brain in addition to his brawn. A Game of Shadows, like the original, was directed by Guy Ritchie, and co-stars Jude Law as Watson opposite RDJ.

Irene Adler (McAdams), Holmes' competitor/lover from the first film, begins the action by delivering a package - under the watchful eye of Holmes. The package turns out to be a nasty one, and with that Holmes is on the hunt. Watson, imminently engaged to be married, returns to London to find Holmes brooding once more in his suite. Holmes has amassed a number of mysteries that he has linked together, and the recent package seems to be a new clue to the puzzle. Sherlock lets business interfere with pleasure, as usual, seeking out a woman (Rapace) linked to the package during Watson's bachelor party.

With his new evidence, Holmes confronts his nemesis Dr. Moriarty, who warns Sherlock to drop the chase. Following Watson's wedding, Holmes secretly follows the couple to their honeymoon, on the way to which they are ambushed as Holmes feared. His wife safely taken back to London by Holmes' brother Mycroft (Fry), Watson agrees to help Sherlock, traveling from France to Germany to Switzerland, in his quest to discover Moriarty's ultimate ambition and to bring him to justice. (I'm even more vague with the plot details than usual since I think some of the surprises are well worth keeping intact).

First thing's first: Robert Downey, Jr. is just as fantastic playing the legendary Sherlock as he was in the original. There are plenty of things to like about these films, but his performance is probably my favorite part. The delivery of his quips, the physical comedy of his disguises, and his chemistry with Watson, among other aspects, are just brilliant, in my opinion. One thing that brings this movie down a bit for me, however, is the drop-off in roles for other characters. Law as Watson is good again, but his role is reduced. The female lead, gypsy Simza (Noomi Rapace), has a much smaller role than the equivalent Adler (McAdams) from the first film. She is more of a plot device than a character. Sadly, bumbling Inspector Lestrade only gets a small cameo in this film.

On the brighter non-Sherlock side of the cast are two additions. The first is Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, played by the brilliant British comedian Stephen Fry. He doesn't have a huge part, either, but he elevates the scenes that he is in and I would be surprised if he didn't return for any more Sherlock sequels. The other is Dr. Moriarty, played by Jared Harris. Moriarty, for the uninitiated, is Sherlock's archrival in the literature, and Harris plays him with hair-raising menace and mystery. The sparring banter between the two is a treat for the audience.

All the essential elements you remember from the first Sherlock, if you saw it, return here in one degree or another. The action is certainly ratched up in A Game of Shadows, but I think almost every single set is brilliantly choreographed, tense, and of its own. Even action sets that might seem a little cliched in a larger sense are carefully designed and executed. I was a bit skeptical myself when I heard there was more action in this one, but believe me, it's not just there for the sake of appealing to a wider audience. The comedy is slightly down from the first, probably due to the "larger stakes" in the plot, but it still has plenty of laughs; they didn't cast Fry for no reason, after all, and RDJ's Holmes is quirky and hilarious as always, as I said before (one scene involving horses was particularly amusing to me). Both the sets and the special effects are even more spectacular than in the first, given the wider geographic scope and the increased action. And finally, Zimmer keeps the musical theme from the first which fit so well (the lead harpsicord), though the tone is darkened to support the film's atmosphere.

***

I would say A Game of Shadows is at the upper end of the four-star score for me. Above all else, I think it is simply the most entertaining movie I've seen all year. RDJ is responsible for most of this (have I mentioned that I like him as Holmes?), and the action is so well done and yet not overbearing. Dr. Moriarty is both cast and written appropriately as Holmes' archrival, a major improvement (even if not really a fair comparison) from the first film. Still, it is hard to keep everything up to par in a sequel when you ratchet up some aspects. The clue collecting and dissecting aspects do take a hit, though it's far from abandoned. The supporting, non-Holmes/Moriarti cast definitely takes a back seat, but they still provide significant boosts here and there. And the series still doesn't exactly have a strong emotional component, and for this reason I think it would be difficult for an RDJ-Ritchie(Director)-Sherlock film to become a true classic. But at the same time, these films have a style that is so well-defined and well-made that they are worth going back to again and again.

Music: Christmas Special #1

Music: Christmas Extraordinaire (Mannheim Steamroller)

I thought about doing a blogpost or two on Christmas music last year, but didn't end up getting to it. So this year I am going to do a (hopefully) four-part review on by far my favorite group making Christmas music, Mannheim Steamroller. Their music connects me to the season with an intensity beyond any other similar effect in music. Put simply, I can't imagine Christmas without listening to this musical act. I have four of their albums, which I'll review in reverse chronological order; I think there are one or two more but I haven't listened to them yet. As a brief introduction to those unfamiliar with Mannheim Steamroller (yes, both of you), the group is primarily instrumental and uses a unique combination of electronic, modern symphonic, and Baroque-era styles. There is great variation in their arrangements, from major to slight alterations on the originals (and they have a few of their own compositions as well). On to the review!

1. "Hallelujah"

I hate to start off my review of Mannheim on a less than stellar note, but I'm afraid that's how it goes. This arrangement is not bad, but not up to their very high standards. Like the rest of this album, and leans much more on the electronic side of their style than the Baroque-y, featuring a number of synthesizers and drums to keep a pretty steady tempo. Towards the middle, some real strings and brass give a nice change of pace, but the overall vibe is a little like disco (particularly the drum part) which is kind of off-putting and not the best choice for this literally classic piece. A fine album opener, but by no means in the group's upper tier.

2. "White Christmas"

Occasionally, Mannheim adopts a style that is almost too cheesy - but they usually choose the right songs for which to use it. This is one of them. A kiddy-sounding set of bells plays the main melody and is supported by a nice chorus; later a string section takes over to give a tad more weight to the mood. Finally, the chorus takes over for the last major recitation of the theme, and the usual Mannheim electronic instruments show up. This song shows off one of Mannheim's strengths: knowing what style to use in adapting beloved Christmas tunes. Still not a personal preference of mine, I give credit for the quality of the song nonetheless.

3. "Away In A Manger"

Unfortunately for me, here is another song that, regardless of the arrangement, is not one that I especially enjoy. However, the Mannheim touch for style comes through again, perhaps even better this time. Certainly it shows more creativity in the combination of instruments. A lone guitar starts with an intro and continues on to provide support for a recorder playing the melody - a nice combo. The recorder is joined by a pretty oboe in the melody, and a backing string part, all playing well together. Some Mannheim electronics join the party at the song's climax but then fade away. Classic Mannheim, despite my personal lack of fondness for it.

4. "Faeries" (from the Nutcracker Suite)

Here Mannheim goes back to the heavier electronic emphasis heard on the album opener. A deep electronic bass intro precedes the tinkling xylophone-like melody. As the song moves to the second major part of the song more traditional instruments jump in, mostly strings and I think a bassoon. At 2.5 minutes, it's quite short and ends very abruptly so it almost seems like an interlude piece. Nothing wrong with this one, but it last long enough to leave a very significant impression.

5. "Do You Hear What I Hear?"

The tinkling xylophone leads us off again with an intro, backed by a beautiful part in the bass by a string section. A woodwind plays the melody (I believe a clarinet), and the xylophone plays on while the strings are reduced to a quiet but high-pitched backing. Eventually lower-octave strings start a neat plunking rhythm which is quite nice. A return to the stripped-down xylophone/lower strings part ends the song. Certainly one of Mannheim's more passive arrangements, it is one of the album's stronger efforts, fitting very well with the album's sonic themes if not branching out very much (it doesn't hurt that the original is a nice song, anyway).

6. "The First Noel"

A full, beautiful string section intro starts things off, followed by another prelude to the original melody, played by electronic instruments and low, low strings. A violin plays the main melody slowly and somewhat sadly, with only the xylophone still tinkling away beneath it. The second play through gives the oboe a shot at the melody with greater support, with those low, low strings again. The song climaxes with a violin-oboe duet, and it peters out with, again, just the xylophone. Although it's not a bad arrangement, there are several problems. First, the placement is poor, coming after the not much more upbeat "Do You Hear"; second, in my opinion this song's melody tires itself out extremely quickly. Something more creative than xylophone, oboe and violin was in order here.

7. "Silver Bells"

Here we have a more upbeat song, although it's not exactly a rousing rondo, of course. A muted keyboard sound backs the melody throughout and gives it, unfortunately, a rather sleepy feeling (not to mention almost elevator music-like). And guess what instrument plays the melody? Yep, the tinkling xylophone is here again. It isn't until about a minute left that a non-electronic/percussion instrument enters; a single French horn gives the song a little more life. To top it all off, the song is way too long at 4.5 minutes. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of this song. I pretty much skip it every time it comes along.

8. "Some Children See Him"

Ah, no more tinkling xylophone at last! A familiar Mannheim bass drum starts an intriguing beat; overall, in fact, the song feels much more like classic Steamroller than the last few tracks. With strings and keyboard playing an exotic backing, a very high woodwind plays the main melody, one reminiscent of "Pat A Pan." Familiar harpsichord takes over the backing after that and finally some great drumming and a little low brass brings the song to its full energy. The main melody carries on for a good while, though not quite too long, before giving way to the bass drum again and one last solo play through. Perhaps the album's strongest song.

9. "Fum, Fum, Fum"

Lone recorder starts off the quiet, interesting melody, joined by a few siblings after a minute or so. The xylophone makes a return, but the tinkling is toned down and an oboe soon dominates the main melody, anyway, as the song assumes the album's overall instrumental pattern. This one is much like "Faeries," in that it's done before you expect; it's a little bit longer, but has really only two sections in it. Thus, my feelings on it are pretty much the same.

10. "Winter Wonderland"

The heavier electronic theme bounces back for a third round here, with a guitar-like keyboard playing an intro that serves as the backing for the song throughout (sounds a little like a TV intro theme, actually). The main melody is played by a different keyboard, one that sounds more like 80s-style Mannheim, or other similar artists. High strings shimmer and tambourines shakes to give the song yet more of a floaty, whispy feeling. More variety, with harpsichord and French horn, have a bit at the end, but by then it is what it is. I suppose it's a pretty appropriate arrangement for the song, and a fairly strong one at that - but again, here's an original that doesn't rank among my favorites.

11. "O Tannenbaum"

A men's chorus sings a few strains of the melody to start this one, a nice touch. This is followed by a major style change with xylophone, French horn and other electronic effects added in before the most horrifying thing ever heard on a Mannheim record comes in: the voice of Johnny Mathis. This awful decision really overrides everything else, and this is probably the only Mannheim song that I always skip when it comes on.

12. "Auld Lang Syne"

Obviously, this is a very appropriate album closer. I'm not sure what instrument plays the melody here; the best I can think of is perhaps an electronic chime. This is backed by a quiet chorus and high strings from time to time, along with a strange electronic effect. The song ends with a men's chorus, like the one at the beginning of "Tannenbaum", taking over the melody, backed by a deep electronic bass. It's certainly a very Mannheim-y take on the holiday classic, and the sort of minimalist style is a nice touch, symbolizing the reminiscence that takes place at the end of each year. Good finisher.

One reason that I wanted to go backwards in reviewing the Mannheim Steamroller albums was that I could get the worst over with first. This is not a bad album by any means, but I think its songs come across much better when listened to among a mix of other Mannheim songs. The album keeps a nice theme of sound, but sticks to it almost too well in creating more similar songs than you typically find on a Mannheim album (the song selection certainly did not help the group to diversify their sound here). There is still very good quality musicianship and creative arrangement here, but many of the songs are simply not my favorite Christmas tunes. Worth checking out, at least shuffled in among a larger collection of Mannheim music.

Essentials: "Away In A Manger", "Do You Hear What I Hear", "Some Children See Him"

Weak(er) Songs: "Silver Bells", "O Tannenbaum"

Music: Mylo Xyloto (Coldplay)

Album Review: Mylo Xyloto by Coldplay

It's been awhile since I've done an album review, but this was the perfect opportunity: an actually new album! I've listened to Mylo Xyloto a number of times by now, which I think you have to do, for any album, in order to review it properly. I've read a few other reviews for this by "experts," and they clearly listened to this at most once through, and probably only the first minute or so of each song. Anyway, enough about my annoyance with "expert" music critics. This is Coldplay's fifth album, which came an agonizing three years and four months after their last one, Viva la Vida (review to come eventually). The band teamed up with producer Brian Eno again, and created a collection of music largely based around a musical theme of electronic sounds and a bit of modern pop. All songs were written by the band, with some arrangements /effects added by Eno.

As a reminder, I listen to music for the music itself first, second, and so on, and pay attention to lyrics if and when they happen to be prominent. If the lyrics are exceedingly good or bad, I'll comment on them, but if not it doesn't concern me either way. Before I start the song-by-song review, I should mention that there is some neat lyrical continuity that Coldplay built into the album. It isn't a huge thing, but even I noticed it, a non-lyric aficionado. Without further ado...

1. "Mylo Xyloto"

This is the first of three mini-instrumental interludes which basically serve to transition between different parts of the album. They aren't really intended as stand-alone songs, but they're still OK. This one, of course, opens the album, and it immediately introduces the electronic-type sound of much of the album with a shimmery combination of instruments, a high and low part. Sadly, I'm not familiar with these instruments enough to tell you what they are, but I think the high part might be a distorted keyboard. On top of this is added a tinkling xylophone playing a brief but pleasant theme. The last few seconds serve as the lead in to...

2. "Hurts Like Heaven"

... the first real song on the album. It practically explodes out of "Mylo Xyloto" at such a rapid clip that at first you think to yourself, Is this still Coldplay? A lively drum and keyboard rhythm nicely support one of Martin's perkiest vocal performances to date. His voice smoothly transitions from way up high to way down low in a cheerful set of verses. The refrain then bursts in, a classic falsetto croon from Martin, backed by more of the shimmery electronics and drums, before he concludes the stanza using a more relaxed tone for the title lines. The song just coasts along on a bundle of energy and the tight, quick tempo set by the drums and keyboard. Martin uses some clever variations on each verse, and the song fades out, part by part, until all that remains is the guitar in high octave, perfectly symbolizing a journey up to the elusive, weightlessness of heaven. One of the album's best, and a great opener.

3. "Paradise"

This song was released as a single just before the album itself, and it is probably, indeed, the centerpiece song of the album (a la "Viva la Vida"). "Paradise" is worthy of this status. It begins with two different instrumental themes. After this interlude, the main instrumental part crashes in dramatically, a booming electronic bass part and a high-pitched synthesizer. And yet another change as Martin's vocal starts at last, a minute into the song: the backing reduces to drums and piano, supporting Martin's solid singing. Gradually the backing builds up again, and after Martin sings a refrain that mirrors the opening instrumentals, the full band kicks in for the chorus. It is almost a trance-like part, Martin's distorted vocals followed by an "oh"ing chorus and all of it sandwiched between the powerful high-low electronic support. Perhaps not quite as good as "Viva," this one still grows on you quickly.

4. "Charlie Brown"

After a strange opening (I'd do more harm than good by trying to describe it), this one settles into a much more standard Coldplay sound, with little of the electronic theme to be heard. The guitar introduces a neat little hook after the intro, the latter half of which is indeed reminiscent of the "Linus and Lucy" theme from the cartoon strip. Martin starts in on the verses, an unconventional line of music insistently backed by strumming guitars. After a rerun of the guitar hook, a more standard Coldplay refrain composed of the whole group hits the climax of the song. The strange intro is repeated before giving way to the guitar hook, and finally the song ends on a quiet piano solo. A strange song, and one that took me several listens to really get into my head, it's still a good one, although I don't like it as much as the two previous.

5. "Us Against The World"

Here is another song with a more typical Coldplay-like sound (thematically connected to the rest of the album via lyrics), which begins with an indefinite, floaty, soft sort of electric guitar part. This soon subsides and acoustic guitars take over, supporting a simple but beautiful melody sung by Martin. The chorus starts with a distinctive little loop from Martin before settling gently into the title line. The second time through, Martin's vocal is double-tracked and adds a little on at the end before the chorus. A swell composed of electric guitar and the bass of a piano comes in and then fades away, allowing Martin to sing the title line once more. This is a great little song, slower and quieter than its neighbors but very beautiful.

6. "M.M.I.X."

I'm not sure what the acronym stands for, but this is the second instrumental transition song, connecting the slow, quiet "Us Against the World" to the upbeat, electronic-heavy...

7. "Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall"

Now the album comes back full-tilt to the electronic sound theme. A techno-y keyboard hammers out the main, very simple theme of the song a few times, before Martin takes over singing it as the song's verses. A bright, cheery guitar part follows this, sounding to me like shades of Viva la Vida, before coming back with the verses with a full backing band, especially a toe-tapping bass part. Martin then begins the refrain, a variation on the theme including more of his trademark falsetto. From there, it's a bit like a song from The Police in that there are several different variations on both the main line, both musically and lyrically. This was a single last summer, and while it's not their best song, it is very, very well done and a nice, upbeat piece.

8. "Major Minus"

Released with "ETIAW" last summer, this is quite a contrast to that brighter, more pop-friendly tune. A very cool, slightly forboding guitar part starts things off in a not very Coldplay like way. Martin then sings over these guitars in the verses, his voice slightly distorted to convey an uneasy tone. A brief but well-placed deep guitar riff leads into a more familiar Coldplay chorus, a little like some of their earlier stuff with the falsetto and guitar style, then some neat fast singing by Martin. A brief refrain, with Martin singing in a strange tone I've never heard him use before, is followed by a lengthy instrumental section to dwell on the unsettling nature of the song. The song abruptly ends after some more of the rapid singing from Martin. A very creative song, this is a great addition to the album and their repertoire as a whole.

9. "U.F.O."

I was not a big fan of this song the first few times through, but it's been growing on me a little. It's another slower, quieter song like "Us Against the World," but it seems quite a bit more similar to some of their earlier songs in the same vein. There are a number of chord progressions that I did not expect, and at first did not like at all, but they grow more tolerable upon further listening. Strings enter midway through to add atmosphere, and then the song ends with essentially a little interlude to lead more smoothly into the next song. It's not really a bad song, but it just reminds me too much of stuff like "Till Kingdom Come," of which one is probably enough for any band.

10. "Princess Of China"

This song was likely inspired by Coldplay's small collaboration with Jay-Z for an alternate version of "Lost!". Here the collaboration, this time with Rihanna, is more comprehensive; it sounds like some random techno/hip-hop song you'll hear on the radio (forgive my ignorance but I tend not to listen to that genre very much) mushed with a bit of Coldplay's style. The electronic sound theme is at its most extreme here, and I have absolutely no idea what most of the instruments used here are (most of them synthesizers of some kind I guess). The song is based on, unsurprisingly, a pretty simple oriental-sounding theme. Still, Chris Martin and Rihanna sound quite good together, and the beat is fun. There's nothing complex here, but it's a change up for Coldplay and perfectly good ear candy.

11. "Up In Flames"

Here's another song that has a similar basic structure to older songs... but it's done much more creatively than "U.F.O." and just sounds much better. It starts off with a lone bass beat that seems like it would be in a usual hip-hop song - but then a piano comes in along with Martin singing one of his slower, pretty melodies. Somehow, this mismatch works really well. He goes to his trademark falsetto for the chorus, one that exudes some hope despite the melancholic lyrics. Strings gradually filter in passively, and then as Martin repeats the chorus towards the end, a neat little guitar part that reminds me of The Beatles for some reason also joins in. I think this is one of the best tracks on the album - creative and pleasant sounding.

12. "A Hopeful Transmission"

The final instrumental interlude. This serves to improve the mood, using higher-pitched strings and a soft bass drum to keep the beat, leading into...

13. "Don't Let It Break Your Heart"

Here is a pretty standard Coldplay tune; it wouldn't have sounded too out of play on X&Y, with some of that album's noisier songs. The band does do a good job of certainly injecting the song with the electronic theme again, and it fits perfectly fine. There isn't a particularly noteworthy melody to it, but it has that nice album closer sound to it. The instrumentals give it good energy, and Martin's vocal gives it the uplift portended by "A Hopeful Transmission". If you like typical Coldplay stuff, you'll like this; if not, it's probably forgettable. I think it's fine, if not one of the album's strongest songs.

14. "Up With The Birds"

This is a rather odd song, particularly as the album's final one. It's essentially two-in-one, like some of those in Viva la Vida ("Lovers in Japan," "Yes"). The first part is, to be honest, pretty bad in my opinion. Martin sings with no particular tune, backed by a little piano and shimmering electronics. Strings burst in after a little while, but the slow-paced singing takes no better structure. Sound effects enter here and there, and at the end of this part are some bird-like guitar calls. The second half, fortunately, is much better. Guitars play an insistent theme, aided by a fiddle (I think) that blends right in. When Martin starts to sing, he does so near the top of his range without going to falsetto. It gives the piece a little more umph, and Martin manages to sound strained yet under control. I wish Coldplay had just dumped the first half of this song and expanded the last half. Oh well.

Score: 4 out of 5

I would say this album is on the upper end of the 4s, nearly a 4.5. If you decide to give it a try, give it some time because I'm confident it will grow on you. Musically, the album holds a nice theme of sounds, but within that realm it has quite a bit of variety. Some things, as I say, may sound quite a bit like older Coldplay, and others are completely new to this band. A very thoughtful, well-made album, and the only thing I'd like Coldplay to change is the time they take between albums: three years is too long!

Also, check out the song "Moving to Mars" from Coldplay's EP last summer (iTunes should have it). I don't know why it wasn't put on Mylo Xyloto, because it would have fit in nicely and it's one of the band's most creative pieces. It really does convey a space-y type feel, almost haunting. It starts slow but builds to a pretty impressive climax. Give it a try.

Essentials: "Hurts Like Heaven," "Paradise," Major Minus," "Up In Flames"

Weak(er) Songs: "U.F.O.," "Up With The Birds"

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.

Movies: The Tree of Life

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

Long Story Short: An unconventional film, to say the least, The Tree of Life is a good solid film at its core but suffers from excessiveness. The soundtrack is amazing, and serves to lift the narrative-less focus on an average middle-class family. The cast is quite good and convincing but it's just too long. With little dialogue and no plot, slower parts drag interminably, weighing down some powerful moments found elsewhere.

All done with summer blockbusters now. The film reviewed here is about as far from those summer movies as possible. Because of that, I'm not sure how good of a review I'll be able to write, but I'll do my best. It also doesn't help that it's now been a little while since I've seen it, but that's what Wikipedia is for. The Tree of Life was directed by Terrence Malick (The Thin Red Line) and stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. As a quick aside, it was rather amusing to see several young (as in middle or high school) girls watch this movie when I did, obviously drawn by Pitt. I don't think they enjoyed it very much.

This will be a rather different plot summary, since, well, there isn't much of a plot, but I'll go over generally what "happens" in the movie. First, we are introduced, through music and a few spare narrative lines, to an average family (1950s? 60s?) grieving the death of one of their three young boys. This is followed immediately by one of the boys, Jack, (Penn), now full grown, thinking about his childhood while he wearily surveys his business surroundings. Next, we are taken through, essentially a journey from the beginning of the universe through the earliest life forms to the time of the dinosaurs during a fifteen or twenty minute interlude.

Next, we see Jack being born, and his parents' joy over having and raising a son. The other two boys quickly follow, and the film settles into its main chronological period, with the boys in adolescence. The family is middle-class, living in the suburbs of Waco, Texas, and what we see here on out is basically the progression of their normal lives. The main themes are the dual nature of the father (Pitt), who clearly loves his family but is nevertheless often strict and harsh. The mother (Chastain) is fairly passive but provides the foundation of the family. The boys act pretty much like boys, getting into trouble, developing relationships amongst each other as brothers. This main part ends when the father loses his job and the family is forced to move away. Finally, the movie ends with a strange, surely metaphorical series of scenes based around the older Jack (Penn) walking on a beach with his family who are all the ages that they were when he was as a teenager.

Brad Pitt is obviously the big name in this film. And he does do quite a good, convincing job as an everyday dad, with faults like a quick temper, but also a deep love for his sons. His acting lends the film a good chunk of its credibility and impact of showing what is a pretty average family. Penn is the next biggest name, but he really doesn't do much. I don't think he says a dozen words total. He just gives pensive, concerned, or wistful looks and serves basically as a symbol more than a character. His younger counterpart, Hunter McCracken, who probably gets the most screen time in the whole film, does a very good job of conveying a variety of moods despite the lack of much dialogue. Jessica Chastain as the mother is also very effective. Those three - McCracken, Pitt, and Chastain - give great performances that hold up the director's narrative-less film.

Well, there's no action or comedy to talk about in this film, so I'll bring up some things that didn't get mentioned in the film summary. First I want to say, this film has one of the best soundtracks of any film I've seen. I think it's about half original music and half classical selections; the former for general mood setting and the latter for terrific emotional swells. It truly elevates the film dramatically (literally and figuratively). Next, there is a lot of kind of random imagery in the filming - particularly at the beginning and the end, as well as the scientific interlude itself obviously. I guess you could sift through them for symbolism but I'm not interested in doing that. It's not overdone, anyway, and the interlude is spectacular at times, if a touch slow. As I mentioned, there really isn't a plot to the film. The acting work is good enough that it doesn't suffer too badly from this.

***

After seeing this film, I wasn't sure what to think. It is so different from anything else I've seen recently, it was hard to process. Looking at the film as a whole, there are certainly some powerful parts - always enhanced by the outstanding soundtrack - and it sheds light on some aspects of life in interesting ways. The biggest down side of the film is that it is considerably too long. The second half is the biggest culprit here; there is just scene after scene after scene of Jack and his brothers messing around like adolescent boys do. In my opinion, there is no point to it. The director wanted to show normal life, fine. But there came a point when I wanted to yell at the screen "do something, already!" The general lack of dialogue is in line with the film's theme, but during the slow, repetitive parts it just worsens the boredom. Sean Penn was also basically unnecessary, except for the very last part on the beach. A unique, good movie that could've been significantly better had a good editor chopped off a lot of the fat hanging around the important parts.