-
Follow me on:
-
Monthly Archives: September 2011
The Debt
I almost passed on “The Debt” because the local paper gave it a pretty bad review and just 2.5 stars out of 5. Eventually, I saw it anyways and found it much better than it’d been critiqued. A thriller about Mossad agents on a mission to capture a Nazi war criminal in 1966, “The Debt” kept me on the edge of my seat for about the entire film.
It starts in 1997 as the former agents, played in older age by Helen Mirren, Ciaran Hinds and Tom Wilkinson, are being honored for the success of the ’66 mission at a book event by two of the agents’ daughter. Mirren’s character, Rachel, reads from the book, recounting the heroics of the mission, but from her despondency, all appears not quite right.
Flash back to 1966, and the three agents, played in younger years by Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas, are sent to East Berlin with a plan to bring the Nazi “Surgeon of Birkenau” back to Israel to face justice. But what happens there is far different than the later version recounted from the book.
Turns out, for 30 years, the agents have agonizingly kept secret what really happened. But now one of the agents looks to come clean, just as a journalist is about to publish a scoop on the war criminal. The ending gets a bit crazy, but at this point it’s impossible to turn away.
The screenplay, though fictional, seems authentic, and is helped along by strong acting and by being filmed on location. Like “Munich,” another excellent film about a Mossad mission, it’s filled with nail-biting suspense. Interestingly, Ciaran Hinds plays in both of these films. As for those who liked Jessica Chastain and Sam Worthington, who were great in this, look for them again in the upcoming “Texas Killing Fields.” Continue reading
Posted in Movies
Leave a comment
Moneyball
It helps to be a big baseball fan to thoroughly enjoy “Moneyball.” I really liked it; I didn’t realize I was wearing a baseball hat in there (a championship Giants hat from my sister), but as I looked around other people were wearing jerseys and hats, too. I warn that non-baseball movie-goers might find “Moneyball” a bit slow, long to take root and not much action (a lot were there for Brad Pitt, no doubt). But stats, lineups and subtleties are at the crux of baseball.
“Moneyball” explores how a team found a way to compete in a league where huge payroll discrepancies exist, from the New York Yankees with their million-dollar players to the Oakland A’s with far, far less. The movie goes back to the end of the 2001 season, when three of the A’s stars: Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and closer Jason Isringhausen became free agents and were pilfered by richer teams. Come 2002, what were the less-monied A’s to do?
Enter General Manager Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt, and his fresh out of college assistant, Peter Brand, played by Jonah Hill. They piece together a motley crew of overlooked players based on a statistical analysis of on-base percentage and runs scored. The A’s scouts think they’re totally nuts, and true to form, the team is awful in the first half of the season, compiling losses at an alarming rate. But somehow the little team takes hold and starts to come to life, eventually winning an incredible 20 games in a row, a record still in the American League.
Pitt as Beane and Hill as his nerdy assistant, are the gist of film, as they concoct a roster they believe can win. Both are great, and fill up the screen with anxieties, and at times humor. It’s mostly baseball from behind the scenes, from a GM who nervously listens to games only intermittently on a transistor radio, and who once was a player, too, with the inner scars still to show for it.
I haven’t liked a baseball movie this much, since perhaps “The Natural” in 1984. Kudos to director Bennett Miller (who also did “Capote”) and screenplay adapters Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin who worked from the bestselling book by Michael Lewis. This reminds me: What are the best baseball movies in recent memory? I’d say: The Natural, Moneyball, The Rookie, Bull Durham and Field of Dreams. Continue reading
Posted in Movies
Leave a comment
The Elegance of the Hedgehog
I recently joined a small book club, which had picked this bestselling French novel to discuss, but unfortunately none of the others really liked it. I liked it in parts though. The novel doesn’t seem too easy at first because it reads a bit more like a series of philosophical essays by two narrators who swap chapters throughout the book than a real story.
First, there’s Renee, a 54-year-old, short, ugly plump widow, who works as a concierge at a luxury apartment building, where the residents are all rich. For 27 years, she’s promoted herself as a lazy, low-level, uneducated servant to her employers, while in reality behind the scenes, she’s a cultured autodidact who immerses herself in the world of art, philosophy, music and Japanese culture. As for the novel’s title, Renee is said to resemble a hedgehog, covered in quills on the outside, but with the same simple refinement on the inside as the hedgehog.
Then, there’s Paloma, the 12-year-old little genius who lives in the building with her family and wants to end her life before her 13th birthday so that she doesn’t end up like the rest of society in life’s “goldfish bowl.” She too is an intellect, like Renee, who disdains the vacuous, rich folks in the building, and adores the beauty in music, nature and Japanese culture.
Renee and Paloma are two peas in a pod, outcasts by their own accord who meet and become friends in the second half of the book, thanks in part to a wealthy Japanese man (Ozu), who moves into their building. This is where the novel begins to pick up and move a bit beyond a walking philosophical exercise. Ozu comes to save both Renee and Paloma, earning their trust and seeing through their fronts in a heartwarming, though tragic last section. I found Paloma’s passages particularly amusing, and the book’s heart and messages on finding happiness in small things, worth the work of plowing through the dense or redundant parts.
Apparently, “The Hedgehog” is now a movie, and came to the U.S. in August (in French with subtitles), though I haven’t seen it playing anywhere. Keep your eyes peeled if you’re curious about this adaptation. Continue reading
The Hunger Games
I consumed “The Hunger Games,” whose fans by now are legion, over Labor Day weekend pretty lickety-split. No matter if it’s meant for young adults or not, the novel is an action-filled, post-apocalyptic survival test that’s hard to put down.
The first in a trilogy, it’s set in the future, where the country Panem rules what was once North America. Every year, its capital forces the country’s 12 districts to send two young people to fight to the death in the popularly televised and watched Hunger Games, somewhat reminiscent of gladiator events in Roman times.
The protagonist is 16-year-old Katniss, who takes the place of her younger sister when she’s picked to compete. Along with the baker’s son, Peeta, from District 12, Katniss goes up against stronger tributes of other districts who have been training for the Games their whole lives. It’s a battle to the death, that makes for quick page-turning, and also sets up Peeta’s and her friend, Gale’s vying affections for the tough, independent Katniss. Does this sound a tad Twilight-ish?
The novel is well done and very visual. Perfect for a movie adaptation — so hopes Lions Gate, which is launching the film due out March 23, 2012, and betting its pennies that it will take off like “Harry Potter” or “Twilight”; see the L.A. Times story. Filmed in North Carolina, time will tell if actress Jennifer Lawrence can live up to the character of Katniss in the book. Admittedly, I fell for the fantasy-action novel pretty much hook, line and sinker but am just a little concerned the two follow-up books, “Catching Fire” and “Mockingjay,” won’t live up to it now that these Games are over. Am I wrong? Continue reading
Posted in Books
Leave a comment
