THE COLOR OF MONEY

Cole's Rating: ★★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 1986
Cast: Paul Newman, Tom Cruise, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio
Genre: Drama/Sport
MPAA Rating: R

        To my mind, there's only a few things that can happen when veteran actors Tom Cruise and Paul Newman team up with the wildly talented director Martin Scorsese and Richard Price, the screenplay writer of Clockers, to shoot a film about pool hustling. Considering all possible outcomes, and what any given critic may say, I'm going to plant both feet firmly on the ground and say that The Color of Money is one of the greatest motion pictures of all time. It is, in every respect, a four star film. Why it doesn't resonate this way with most viewers is beyond me, but considering that I am an avid fan of the director, and the fact that I've seen nearly every one of his films, I'd say that my expectations for the quality of his movies are greater than others. It would be an understatement to say that I was impressed with his 1986 feature film, The Color of Money.

         Considering that it purports itself to be the sequel of The Hustler, a pool hall film from the 60's that starred no other than Paul Newman himself, I'd say that The Color of Money doesn't feel like a second entry in the slightest bit. In fact, I'd hardly say that stands behind Goodfellas in Scorsese's directorial fame (though the fact remains that it does). By making this movie, he dug into a dirty, dingy, depressed atmosphere of reality that he hasn't explored in his other films such as Casino, After Hours, Bringing Out the Dead, Mean Streets, or Who's That Knocking at My Door. However, his directorial bravado, superb camerawork, and masterful handle of the material scene by scene clearly show that he isn't lost without a map from his last visit.

        Before even watching this movie, the pure description of what goes on in it is enough to make any film buff salivate. "Fast" Eddie Felson (Newman) "returns" as a liquor store/poolhall owner whose eye is caught by Vincent Lauria (Cruise), a cocky, sharp shooting pool player, whom Eddie uses to feel rejuvenated in the world of pool. In translation, Eddie takes Vincent under his wing, training and preparing him for a big, upcoming pool tournament, only to discover the intuitions of the sport resurfacing inside of him.

        The brilliance of this film concerns more than just the captivating storyline, to be sure. The script contains several fascinating layers of character and character relationship development. An example of this is evident in the unique and thought-provoking sexual tension between the character of Vincent's girlfriend and Eddie (this is just one good example). While the movie didn't necessarily require this aspect, it packs that in to increase the amount of mental and emotional impact on the viewers; it's not just about pool. It's an intense, involving character study that intrigues on multiple levels.

        Capping the film off with a musical score that money just can't buy (no reference there) and camerawork trademarks of his own, director Martin Scorsese has managed to do it yet again. He illustrates these characters and the events that they live through in such detail that I, as the audience member, am effected every time. The scenes of definition and significance are so potent that I feel the emotions that they both emit and subside. I'm constantly involved with what they are doing, and what they are feeling, and there's no one else to thank than the man behind the camera. The Color of Money is a film of infinite quality, intrigue, and mastery. Aside from other of the beyond talented director's masterful works, there's nothing quite like it.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: The Color of Money is Scorsese personified. It was the first time he ever worked with Tom Cruise and Paul Newman (heck, it was the first time Cruise and Newman worked together). As a sort of sequel to The Hustler, "Money" fashions a bleak, dirty fascination with pool halls and hustling. The plot is a little thin, but again, this is a Scorsese movie. It's about the exuberant scenes of freewheeling direction complete with Cruise's Vincent Lauria coming off as a pool shark's version of a Samurai warrior. This is probably my second or third favorite flick by Marty. The only thing that bugged me was the abrupt and sort of not thought through ending. I wanted more but alas, two hours of poignancy and ironic bliss is substantially good enough. The Color of Money essentially has two Hollywood screen legends and who I like to call "the master" behind the camera. It's a set of matches made in movie heaven. 

ANY GIVEN SUNDAY

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½
Thatcher's Rating: ★★★

Director: Oliver Stone
Year: 1999

Cast: Al Pacino, Jamie Foxx, Dennis Quaid

Genre: Sports/Drama

MPAA Rating: R

        Incredibly detailed, unconditionally enjoyable, yet over length, and in need of editing, that pretty well sums up Any Given Sunday, a 1999 sports film that's not really about sports; yet that benefits it in the long run. It's epic in some people's books, and entirely unappealing to others, but one thing is for sure: it's something moviegoers hadn't yet seen.

       The cast is one of the major factors that makes this movie what it is. Before this, Jamie Foxx hadn't been much of an actor, so this is his big moment of stardom in the film industry (later comes Collateral, Ray, and Django Unchained). His character was the cocky Willie Beamen, back-up quarterback of the Miami Sharks. The film deeply delves into the relationship between his coach, Tony D’Amato, played by Al Pacino, who I found to be a very amusing and wise character; this resulted in the ultimate factor for any film (the main character being very likable and entertaining), the ideal piece of work for any director. It was similar to a father-son’s relationship—but wouldn't that be Dennis Quaid's character's relationship with D'Amato? That's the great thing about this, there's so much to look at when it comes to character variety. Oliver Stone has tattooed the film industry in many different ways, and while Any Given Sunday isn't his best work, he still shows us that he's capable of producing movies in every way shape or form. That may be the most important thing to think about when you're watching Any Given Sunday.

        So where does the movie fall short? Well, it doesn't fall short on length; that's for sure. With a running time of 165 minutes, this movie leaves out nothing that it could have. My Uncle Jesse is a moviegoer who pays attention to detail, and he likes football. You can connect the dots from there, he loves this movie (in fact, it's on his top twenty of all time). If you're like him, this is your cup of tea. If not, don't go into it expecting to fall in love with it, because chances are, you won't. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: In the 90's, Oliver Stone was one heck of a filmmaker. Any Given Sunday represents the last great film he made from that era. He takes his flashy, disorienting, off the cuff style from his movies JFK, The Doors, and U-Turn, and applies it to the bone crunching game of football. The dude also likes to wrap up his films sort of abruptly (even though they’re normally over two hours long) as evident in Any Given Sunday (all the characters who have conflicts between each other suddenly learn to get along 20 minutes before things end). But know this, from the opening scene you'll find out that what you get is an in your face, down and dirty depiction of the most popular sport in America. As usual, Stone literally pulls out all the stops. And with all of his movies, he gets the most out of his actors (at the time Jamie Foxx was not much of one but he sure does shine here). From multiple viewings, I can tell you that this flick is an invigorating and explosive ride. If you saw it back in 1999, you'd realize that Oliver Stone could make an effective movie about any subject. It's just a shame that he hasn't risen to the occasion since. 

42

Cole's Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Brian Helgeland

Year: 2013

Cast: Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford, Nicole Beharie

Genre: Biography/Sports/Drama

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        It really bothers me that 42 is claimed to be too straightforward, or too “by the book”. It’s as if the label “based on a true story” automatically impedes its qualification of a good movie. I’m here to advise you not to heed the warnings of many critics out there, because 42 is one you’ll enjoy, baseball fan or not.

        Chadwick Boseman does a great job playing the character of Jackie Robinson, the African American who changed baseball forever. This is a bit shocking as he has appeared in numerous television series, but an extremely minimal amount of movies. And it’s only so often that the actor that plays a role actually looks like the person he’s portraying! What’s even rarer than that is when a movie has the ability to catch me off guard, to completely and utterly surprise me. That’s just what 42 did.

        The reason this movie is so enjoyable is because it has the perfect balance of light and heavy material. It focuses on Robinson’s struggle with harassment and cruelty while playing for the MLB, and Branch Ricky’s (owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers) desire to change the game he loves. Despite the dramatic material, you find yourself laughing due to a number of different factors including Harrison Ford’s acting. But overall, I’d just say that 42’s chemistry is a forte.

        Never underestimate Jackie Robinson, because like all the rest of the jerks in the baseball industry in the 1940’s who didn’t believe in him, you’ll feel pretty stupid afterwards. That's how I felt about underestimating the film before viewing.

        I can undoubtedly state that the theater that I viewed 42 in was the most packed theater that I’ve ever been in. Open seats were scarce, as were members of the audience not applauding after the film’s triumphant ending. I earlier stated not to heed critics warnings. So what validates my opinion is the fact that I viewed and loved it as an audience member, a critic, a non-baseball fan, a baseball fan, and a compelled athlete. I think that’s enough to write 42 up as a good movie. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: I liked 42. It's a simple, well made film about the beloved baseball legend, Jackie Robinson. With a surprisingly different (out of the box) performance by Harrison Ford (GM of the Brooklyn Dodgers) and a luscious background for sense of time and place on the baseball field, the movie wraps everything up in a nice neat little package. What keeps it from greatness is its minimalistic approach to the subject matter. But for its dead on release date catered to the moviegoing public (the same month as Jackie Robinson day), it's a great way to spend an afternoon or evening at the movies.

MONEYBALL

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★ 1/2

Year: 2011

Cast: Brad Pitt, Robin Wright, Jonah Hill

Genre: Biography/Drama/Sport

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Let's me just start this review by saying that if The Social Network (2010) were a baseball movie, it would be the equivalent of Moneyball, my pick for best film of 2011. Both films are intelligent, dialogue driven, and brilliantly acted by the leads. And what I didn't notice until recently was that both films were written by the same guy, Aaron Sorkin of TV's West Wing fame. His screenplays crackle with biting information about the world the characters inhabit. 

        From his razor sharp script and director Bennet Miller's careful direction, comes Moneyball, a film depicting the true story of GM Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) taking his 2002 Oakland A's to the playoffs (20 game win streak) with a less than talented roster and minimal payroll. He gets help from Yale grad Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) and the two of them compile a roster of players based on unusual hidden stats that a lot of other teams don't pay attention to. This whole concept is based on a book Hill's character reads entitled Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game. To the dismay of team manager Art Howe (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman who may be the world's best character actor), the team starts out slow and makes his job miserable. But over time, the A's go on an unflappable streak and end up winning an enormous amount of contests for a standard 162 game season.    

         What really stands out in Moneyball is that it's different from most baseball films. It goes behind the scenes. You don't see a lot of the game being played. You see people talk about baseball. You get the ins and outs of the business. Normally, this would be looked at as some kind of documentary, but the film doesn't let that happen. It expertly delves into the mind of Pitt's character while not quite letting the viewer see if the wheels are turning. It's about the performances and Pitt, as Beane garnered him an Oscar nomination that was well deserved. In fact, all the actors make it look real, they make scenes stick. You really wonder if half of them were actually working for Major League Baseball.  

        Ultimately, if you want to be inspired or moved by the power of movies, Moneyball is an exercise in intelligent, good old fashioned film making. It's a HOME RUN!

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Moneyball is one outstanding movie. You see this movie not to watch a baseball game, but to be taken beyond the field, beyond the bunker, and beyond the locker room. It takes you into the life of a struggling, yet confident and cunning GM for a baseball team that lacks overall skill, but has a great man behind it. Not only does it do that, but it's really fun to watch also. This may very well be one of Brad Pitt's best movies. Truly!

PLAYING FOR KEEPS

Cole's Rating: ★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Year: 2012

Cast: Gerard Butler, Jessica Biel, Dennis Quaid

Genre: Comedy/Romance/Sports

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Playing For Keeps is constantly being advertised and promoted. Because of all the hype about it, I decided to watch it, as I was anticipating it to be great. The film is about Gerard Butler who plays a out-of-a-job ex-soccer player who tries to connect with his kid, of whom his ex-wife, played by Jessica Biel, has majority custody of. He does this by coaching his soccer team and trying to spend quality time with him. There are many new movies that I am disappointed with because I was expecting them to excel. But I really wasn’t expecting Playing For Keeps to be one of those.

       Dennis Quaid and Uma Thurman co-star in the film and incorporate one of the dumbest subplots I’ve seen in a film so far. Just because Gerard Butler has long hair and an accent doesn’t mean every woman that is a parent of a child on the soccer team will automatically fall for him, and seduce him. But I guess I’m wrong, because that’s exactly what happened. The reason for that being that the plot itself wasn’t enough for the film, so they needed to throw in some inadequate, poorly developed characters to drag out the already too long film.  

       Character development and motivation is a problem for many films including this because when filmmakers want their characters to do something, it’s not always easy to have that make sense to the viewers. And so many parts in this movie had that problem. No information was given on Jessica Biel and Gerard Butler’s relationship. Why did they fall in love? Why did they divorce? I can firmly state that I’m not the only one who had that question after watching the film. The Story Of Us is a fleshed out, fully developed, enjoyable movie that has very real life, fully developed characters. Every single action in that movie was completely understandable because of the information we were given in the “Story”. Playing For Keeps is a movie that was meant to tell a story, not describe a scene.

       The movie tried to do something similar to what Life As We Know It did. At least it modeled itself after something good. This, however, took it farther with the relationship between Butler and his kid, which to me was the best thing about the film. And as far as entertainment goes, the movie provides, but not all the way through the lengthy 105 minutes. So to anybody who asks for a shorthand review of the movie: The trailer was better than the film.

Written by Cole Pollyea

TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Year: 2012

Cast: Clint Eastwood, Justin Timberlake, Amy Adams

Genre: Sports/Drama

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Clint Eastwood is the definition of a Hollywood icon.  He's done it all. His early stuff was playing Dirty Harry and appearing in every movie western under the sun.  Then there is Eastwood the director. Unforgiven (1992), Mystic River (2003), A Perfect World (1993). The list goes on and on. Now, in his glorious 80's, he doing the whole grumpy old man thing. In Million Dollar Baby (2004), he was a grumpy old boxing trainer. In Gran Torino (2008), he was a racist grumpy old retiree. Now, he plays a grumpy old baseball scout in Trouble With The Curve, a film I put down as one of my top movies of 2012.

        Directed by Robert Lorenz (he was an executive producer on Eastwood's film Blood Work (2002), "Curve" tells the story of Gus Lobel (Eastwood), an aging baseball scout whos jobs skills are being questioned by the Atlanta Braves organization. The director of operations (Philip Sanderson played by Matthew Lillard) and the team president (Robert Patrick), feel that Gus should take an early retirement and let new blood inhabit the scouting department. Gus, who's eye vision is going in the wrong direction, is assigned to scout a raw upcoming talent. This is a young baseball player that the Braves are certain, is a number one pick in the upcoming draft as well as the franchise player for the "next ten years."  So Gus ventures out to North Carolina to see this phenom accompanied by his fiery daughter Mickey (Amy Adams). Of course you need a romantic interest for Amy Adams (she's gorgeous) so you get Justin Timberlake (he plays Johnny "The Flame" Flanagan). He's an ex-major league pitcher and current scout for the Red Sox. Timberlake's character is mainly window dressing. He follows the potential Braves phenom (Bo Gentry is his name) along with Gus all the while trying to get a job as a Red Sox announcer and romance Gus's daughter. Mainly though, the movie centers on the relationship between Eastwood's character and Mickey with some small flashbacks delving deeper into what makes both of them tick. This tactic pays off as the films inches closer to its conclusion.

        Trouble With The Curve is a simple, light and breezy film that throws in a lot of movie cliches that scream predictability. All the plot points fit like easy little puzzle pieces. To my dismay though, I did enjoy what I saw on screen.  The actors were likable and the performances were just good enough to sell the weak script that seemed to be recycled from other sports movies. "Curve's" appeal lies in the fact that what we get is an old fashioned movie going experience. Kinda like the sports films that came out in the late 70's (think Breaking Away 1979).  I'm also a big fan of this film because it goes behind the scenes. You don't always have to tell the story from the perspective of the team, the coach, or the players. Moneyball (2011) did it superbly a couple years ago with Brad Pitt as a general manager of the Oakland A's. Now Clint scores with "Curve" because it entertains the audience utimately showcasing his best qualities as an actor. He's built a new niche for himself and it shows in his most recent work on screen. 

        The one thing I didn't see coming in "Curve" was the ending. It was uplifting and it made it a better movie than it really is. It's as gold of a Hollywood ending as a big tub of buttered popcorn.  

        So to close my review, I'm not quite sure what kinds of films Eastwood plans on doing in the future, but he made my day with this one. Watch Trouble With The Curve on a nice lazy day when you have nothing to do but relax. It will put a smile on your face, guaranteed.

-Written by Jesse Burleson