'12 Years': The Best Movie of 2013?

For the second year in a row, one of the year's best films is about slavery. But unlike Steven Spielberg's Lincoln, which was an uplifting tale of the demise of our national shame, or Django Unchained, which was a thrilling, fictional action romp, 12 Years a Slave takes a dark look at American slavery and for a (relative) change of pace tells it from the perspective of the oppressed. It also carries the distinct point of being based on a true story; it's adapted from Solomon Northup's autobiography of the same name, released back in 1853. Northup (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor) was a free black man raising a family and making a living as a renowned violinist in New York. But when he was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the deep south, he couldn't dare try and convince anybody in authority as to his identity in a place where simply knowing how to read would be a death sentence for a black man. And so for twelve years, Northup (under the given name of Platt) was forced to pick cotton, build guest houses, punish his fellow slaves, and witness or suffer some of the worst atrocities visited upon man in the whole of our nation's history, all before his eventual (and statistically unlikely) escape all those years later.

We're going to have to learn to pronounce his name, now.

Directed by Shame's Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave is arguably the toughest movie to watch in 2013. McQueen does not shy away from difficult topics, and when a whole race of humans were subject to the kinds of dangers that slaves were subject to in the two decades leading up to Lincoln's presidency, there is no shortage of material for the director to mine. Starting with kidnapping and slavery, we see murder, rape, lashings, lynchings, inhuman punishments, families broken up, and people worked to death. That McQueen and his crew can capture the sheer force of that inhumanity and not flinch at the emotional devastation it brings is more than remarkable; when fellow slaves refuse to get involved in an attempt on Northup's life that literally leaves him hanging from a tree for most of a day, you really get a sense of how that depressingly real world worked on a daily basis. Hans Zimmer's score highlights this all nicely, adapting to the events of this dreary world and excelling where it needs to without threatening to overshadow the scene itself.

Wait... is that Garret Dillahunt? I LOVE him!

McQueen also has the help of an all-star cast to supplement his directing talents. Ejiofor has long been recognized as a talented actor, but not necessarily one that has achieved mainstream success. Arguably his biggest role before now came in the British thriller Pretty Little Things, and that was over a decade ago. Here, he makes the argument that we really should have been paying attention to films like Kinky Boots, Serenity, Children of Men and Redbelt in the years before this. When we're tasked with witnessing Northup's trials over his dozen years of enslavement, you need an actor who can carry that load and look impossibly more tired and worn down from one scene to the next. You can't just ROOT for a character like Solomon; his journey demands that he literally be in the gracious thoughts of the audience, to be PRAYED for, even by nonbelievers. As an actor, Ejiofor manages to elicit that quantity of sympathy with his performance, putting forth a masterful showing that so far outpaces anything else seen this year.

Solomon dearly wishes he knew how to quit him.

And Ejiofor isn't alone, though the extensive cast has a "mixed bag" status. There are some truly epic, award-worthy performances here, especially from the likes of Michael Fassbender, Paul Dano and Sarah Paulson. While each of their characters have similar character traits (evil, quick to anger, sadistic folk), their skills prevent them from becoming overly repetitive, also thanks to the fact that they have their own unique motivations and desires. Other actors would be lucky to have such depth to work with; both Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt put in excellent efforts, but neither is given incredibly much to do, with Pitt narrowly winning out in sheer importance to the story. It never hurts to have such exemplary talents in your cast; sometimes you just wish more had been done with them. That is especially true when noteworthy actors (like The Wire's Michael K. Williams and Academy Award nominee Quvenzhane Wallis) are loaded into "blink-and-you'll-miss-them cameos.

Somehow I don't think he's in the mood for "pat-a-cake"

But even the best films possess a few flaws, and 12 Years a Slave is no exception. McQueen and cinematographer Sean Bobbitt put together some gorgeous shots (Bobbitt's work also excels in The Place Beyond the Pines), but occasionally become lost in them, focusing a bit too long on the beauty of the shot, slightly undermining the nature of the setting. Another quibble (because these are indeed quibbles) is one that other reviewers seem to love, the performance of Kenyan newcomer Lupita Nyong'o. Don't get me wrong, I DID like Nyong'o's performance (even if it's not as groundbreaking as people are saying); it's just that the character itself seems to be a fictional catch-all for black women slaves, a design created explicitly to suffer the tragedies of the era that Solomon Northup was not necessarily in danger of suffering. Again, Nyong'o is fine, but her character seems fabricated merely as a side note to deflect attention briefly away from Northup's story. Personally, I preferred Pariah's Adepero Oduye as a mother separated from her children a more compelling overall character, despite substantially less screentime.

Um, is that Beasts of the Southern Wild's Dwight Henry?

As the closing credits roll, you'll probably never want to see 12 Years a Slave ever again. It's has all the makings of a modern classic, but its subject matter ensures that - while arguably one of the year's best - you're not going to walk away feeling all happy and gleeful and wanting to take your friend to see it as well. It even caps the whole thing off by reminding you that Northup's experience was a unique one; of thousands of free blacks kidnapped and sold into slavery, few were ever heard from again, let alone rescued. 12 Years is a story that took far too long to make its way to the big screen, and the result under the direction of McQueen is quite easily among the year's best. So do yourself a favor and see it once. Even if you never want to see another movie anytime soon, I think you'll agree the risk is worth the reward.

Double Feature: The Counselor and All Is Lost

With Halloween past us and more and more titles hitting local theaters, there are a lot of options from which to choose. Adults especially have no end of options, as only a few releases in the coming months will be even remotely geared towards kids (Free Birds, anyone?). So which ones are worth your ten (or more) bucks? Here are a couple of considerations.

Ridley Scott... what the heck happened? I mean, I know a ton of folk were disappointed with the renowned director's return to both science fiction and the Alien universe in last year's underwhelming and confusing Prometheus, but I never imagined it might actually get worse. There, his confused storytelling was at least partially made up for by his technical wizardry. In The Counselor, an all-star cast cannot make up for that that aforementioned poor plotting and an editing process that is as uneven as such ventures can ever get.

Michael Fassbender plays the titular character, a lawyer who gets involved in shady business dealings with the Mexican cartel due to money problems. But when an expected (and lucrative) shipment is hijacked en route, the criminal organization comes to believe that he is involved, putting any and all of his friends in immediate danger at the same time.

You will learn absolutely nothing about these people.

If The Counselor has one strength, it's the outstanding cast. Besides the always-strong Fassbender, Brad Pitt and Javier Bardem also put in noteworthy performances, really putting some personality into this crime thriller. Cameron Diaz also surprises in a role that is both her best performance in years, and her most shocking (unlike Bad Teacher, which was just shockingly bad). Diaz will do things as an actress here that you've never seen before, and come off as the best part of the movie. Only Penelope Cruz appears completely wasted as a casting choice, given little to do and bad dialogue to do it with. Actually, this is a problem with all the actors, as characters are barely fleshed out and motivations are all but unexplored. What you're left with is an aimless cast reciting endless repetitive monologues explaining the nature of the story, instead of actually showing us any of the interesting bits.

Cameron goes after that Oscar.

This is largely the fault of screenwriter Cormac McCarthy. In his first screenplay since 1976 (and the first to be given feature film treatment), the novelist fails to reign in his enthusiasm for the complex story and the result just isn't pretty. It would be easier to blame Scott, but it's obvious the director did absolutely everything he could with a screenplay that treats little things like the passage of time as an inconvenience. Scott captures the beauty of sweeping landscapes with his camera, and captures the gritty underworld in which our characters find themselves. Another issue he has to deal with as a director however is that there are far too many players in the game. Scott is forced to weave a narrative that is constantly weighed down by about a half-dozen side characters - each with their own arc - with each absolutely necessary to the overly-complicated plot. That wouldn't even be so bad if the leads had anything noteworthy to do; they absolutely do not.

Stetsons are cool, now.

If there's any consolation for Scott, it's that - unlike Prometheus - there really wasn't anything he could DO to make The Counselor good. This kind of high-concept story definitely would have worked better as a novel, and McCarthy should not give up his (undoubtedly lucrative) day job. This film is about as far from a must-see as you can get, and while it's not quite as bad as last year's Killing Them Softly, it runs that same vein of slow-paced, violent crime thrillers, and may appeal to fans of that set. But when a cast and director this good are wasted on a screenplay this bad, nobody is walking away clean.

There's a small, but still decent chance you realized that All is Lost existed. Starring resurgent Oscar winner Robert Redford (after a break, he appeared earlier this year in The Company You Keep and will have a big role in 2014's Captain America: Winter Soldier) and captained by Margin Call (I haven't seen it yet but hear wonderful things) director J.C. Chandor, this is the survival-against-all-odds movie everybody would be talking about if it weren't for the mere existence of Gravity.

Redford plays a nameless sailor, whose private ship "The Virginia Jean" undergoes some of the worst luck you can have when in the middle of the Indian Ocean. First, the boat is struck by a lost shipping container, which rips a hole out of the hull and fries all the electronics in one fell swoop (including the navigational equipment, radio and all wireless communication). Then, after our hero manages to patch up the hole, a storm hits that finishes the cargo container's job. Adrift and with little chance of rescue, Redford's character must do everything in his power to make it back home.

He's looking a little rough around the gills, there.

All is Lost is unlike any similar film you've seen before, with the first divergence being the complete lack of character backstory. As I mentioned before, Redford's character doesn't have a name. We also learn nothing about his family, friends, or reasons for being all alone on that side of the planet. Most movies would attend to those aspects with multiple voice-overs, something All is Lost proudly does not provide. In fact, with the exception of a couple of sentences spoken at the very beginning of the film (and a few incidental outbursts), there's really no dialogue at all. All by his lonesome, Redford's character speaks so infrequently that when he does he usually has to clear his vocal chords from inactivity (I can just imagine Redford refusing to speak on the set in preparation for the role). There is no CGI tiger, nor a volleyball named Wilson, to keep him company, and I'm certain a lesser actor would not have been able to put together such a brilliant silent performance as we see here. Even at 77, Redford reminds us why he's such a renowned actor, as he not only does most of his own stunts but carries an entire film without the need to even open his mouth.

Huh. That doesn't look encouraging.

Unfortunately, that brings with it its own set of problems. As I stated earlier, I never saw Chandor's rookie effort Margin Call, so I have little experience (like most) with his style of directing. And to his credit, he certainly does a great job capturing shots and helping his lone actor maintain that image of the bleak atmosphere of being lost at sea. But without character interaction, we're left with only character activity, and half of this film follows the actor performing acts that may confuse and bore anybody who does not sail on a regular basis. Chandor does a little bit to help, making sure we see the clearly printed signs on things like the "Life Raft" and "Survival Supplies", but those moments are inconsistent with the vast majority of the film, where we're shown things that MIGHT be important, but we're unsure why.

He ain't singin' in the rain.

You'd be forgiven for thinking that - sight unseen - you might have already seen all that All is Lost has to offer. You'd be wrong, however, as the tandem of Chandor and Redford make for an impressive movie, if not necessarily one you NEED to see in theaters. This is a brave production, one that really takes a good, long look at the human spirit and leaves you hanging until the very last moment to see whether it is found lacking. Thematically, it is very similar to Gravity (if a bit in reverse), and since Alfonso Cuaron's drama is DEFINITELY a must-see on the big screen, this being in theaters so soon after seems like a bit of a scheduling misstep. Redford is certainly enough reason to check it out (though Oscar predictions might be a bit out of reach), and Chandor does a good enough job, despite his inexperience as a filmmaker. But if it comes down to this or Gravity (and really, why haven't you seen it yet?), the choice is glaringly obvious. Check out All is Lost only after you first surpass that hurdle.

Welcome to the Zombie Apocalypse

They say that there's no such thing as bad press, because even negative actions mean that somebody is at least talking about it. And yet for over two years it seemed as though nothing positive was coming from the set of World War Z, the zombie apocalypse movie based on Max Brooks' novel of the same name. Rumors and stories of difficulties on set, ranging from going far over budget, to tension between director Marc Forster and star (and producer) Brad Pitt, to a Bulgarian police raid on a prop supply that turned up still-active firearms. Most famously was the hiring of first Damon Lindelof and then Drew Goddard to rewrite the entire third act, because otherwise the film would have no ending. All the images we were witness to painted a canvas of chaos and dissent, complicated further by trailers that made the zombies look more like swarming ants than the shuffling (or even more modern running) zeds that we've become familiar with. When all was said and done, just how mediocre could this particular adaptation turn out to be?

This is ALMOST as chaotic as July 4'th in Boston.

Actually, it turns out that World War Z isn't that bad. Sure, it's a straight disaster flick from the moment we see Philadelphia overrun by leaping, running, and definitely deadly virus carriers (Yes, my friends in Philly, yours is the first city to fall), but the story of former UN investigator Gerry Lane's (Pitt) mission to save the world at least makes the film a globe-trotting epic, leading the audience to South Korea, Israel and Cardiff (really?). Lane is a former UN investigator who is an expert at solving problems, and what government is left drafts him into leading a small team to uncover the start of this global pandemic so that it can be either cured or combated more effectively. In exchange, the government will keep his family safe. It's a race against time, and if he doesn't figure out where the virus started soon, Gerry may find himself with over six billion enemies wanting to take a bite out of him.

Aaaaaalmost...

There's one thing that keeps running through my mind as I see the zombies move about in World War Z: "These aren't zombies." In fact, they're arguably closer to the monsters in the excellent 28 Days Later, who were really just rabies sufferers. The "zombies" here display almost all the same symptoms: near-instantaneous infection from bite, insane sensitivity to sound, and swift, animal-like movement when pursuing their prey. Anybody who has seen the trailers can see the result, as they mainly swarm in huge groups like an unstoppable tidal wave of disease and death. The story is similarly generic, playing to the summer movie crowd with action and adventure and even a little character drama, dropping almost all of the political undertones that were to have been adopted from Brooks' novel. Possibly worst is that this is a one-man show. Brad Pitt is a great actor, but even he can't carry a zombie epic all by his lonesome. The third act does see him accompanied by a tough Israeli soldier called Segen (an excellent Daniella Kertesz), but most of his companions in the movie are either uninteresting (Mireille Einos as Lane's wife, Fana Mokoena as his boss), or here-and-gone characters who pass on important information before getting out of dodge (James Badge Dale, David Morse, Ludi Boeken). Movies like this are usually BUILT on its supporting cast, but Forster decided that this would be the Pitt Show, and all others were just a bite away from going out of style.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaalmost....

But what the film certainly lacks in originality, it actually somewhat makes up for in style. The film's budget may have overshot original estimations at about $200 million, but that money was certainly put to good use visually, with fluidly-moving zombies, gorgeous environments and well-paced action scenes. The only downside to this is that you've already seen most of what happens in the trailer, with monstrous masses piling down every street in Jerusalem and through the corridors of a 747. The zeds are genuinely SCARY at times, though those scares seem relegated to jumping out of the shadows unexpectedly and not due to their bloody natures. Still, they're effective, if not quite what we've come to expect from the shuffling meat-eaters of The Walking Dead or other fare. Finally, the third act is a whole other ballgame, and despite trading the previous hour and a half of open world and adventure for a claustrophobic, Resident Evil-like biological mystery, it has at times the best parts of the whole movie experience. Turns out the rewriting by Lindelof and Goddard was just what the movie needed, they crafted a satisfying (if blandly closed) finale to World War Z.

That's it! Enjoy the fireworks!

Coming out of this film, you might find yourself believing that there's a ton of potential here spoiled by audience and regional pandering. Comparing it to Max Brooks' book does it no favors, as the single-voiced perspective of the film is adapted from the novel in mere name only (seriously, am I the only one who thinks a faux documentary about a zombie apocalypse with interviews and "found" footage would be AWESOME?). It's especially difficult to reconcile the story here with rumors of the original draft, which some outlets shouted was the closest a zombie film might get to the Academy Awards. That movie is not World War Z, a decent but unspectacular action movie that relies on its special effects to bring in the Summer movie watchers. This perhaps isn't surprising considering it's from a director whose good (Monster's Ball, Finding Neverland, Stranger than Fiction) has since given way to bad (Quantum of Solace, Machine Gun Preacher). Still, Forster manages to make it work as a summer event movie, though it'll never reach the iconic status of the all-time greats. It's a fun movie, though one for which you could safely await a DVD release.

Hit Me Baby

So which is the real Killing Them Softly? One is the film that competed for the Cannes Palm D'Or this past spring, and received decent reviews overall, to the tune of 79% on Rotten Tomatoes. It was supposed to secure star Brad Pitt a Best Actor nomination and steal a lot of attention from bigger blockbuster titles during the awards season. The second film is one reviled by audience-goers, given a rare "F" rating on Cinemascore and bombing badly when it was released almost three weeks ago. That's a fairly wide gulf, and while critics and audiences have certainly disagreed on what makes for quality movie time (just look at any Twilight flick), rarely do their opinions appear so disparate when it comes to a potential Oscar darling. So which one is the film you should expect if you go to the theaters?

Frankly, I'm shocked that so many critics could get past the frenetic opening credits sequence to really get into the film based on George V. Higgins' 1974 novel Cogan's Trade. The jagged and frankly pointless opening sequence sets a tone that resonates through the entire film. As to the story, it focuses on the effect of two amateur goons (Scoot McNairy and Ben Mendelsohn) knocking over an underground card game, and the mob hitman (Brad Pitt) who is hired to find and make an example of them. The tale is set to the background of the 2008 Presidential election and the financial crisis that defined both that year and election, and as we see, not even the criminal underground is safe from the recession.

You just know it won't end well for these guys.

Actually, looking at the recession's effect on even criminal markets was a fascinating take on the subject, and in all honesty it's likely the main reason so much critical affection was given to this title. Every character has stories of falls from grace, for instance James Gandolfini as a hitman whose depression has spiraled into passions for booze and prostitutes. The economy is such that probation systems cannot help many reformed criminals, so that those men are forced back into the game to survive. Mob bosses are forced to work together by committee rather than risk alienation by carving their own path, and assassins must offer discounts to remain competitive. It's a unique take on the typical crime drama, and changes the rules and politics of the mob system. The violence is also stylish, with director Andrew Dominik taking the extra effort and making each hit feel like a visceral, important and rare occurrence.

Richard Jenkins is always good, no question.

Unfortunately, while Dominik has a flair for the visual, he rarely indulges it in film chock full of talk, questions, pondering and tons and tons of plot exposition. 100% of often-excellent performer Richard Jenkins' scenes take place with him sitting down and not doing a whole hell of a lot. The cast is full of talented performers but Pitt, Gandolfini, Ray Liotta and Sam Shepard are largely wasted on explaining basic concepts to both one another and the audience. Pitt especially feels pointless, spending most of his time talking instead of actually doing anything of interest. Only Mendelsohn and - most especially - McNairy stand out acting-wise, with Mendelsohn playing nicely as a grubby do-anything character with little-to-no morals and a penchant for disaster. But while his partner is amusing at best, McNairy actually manages to achieve the rare feat in this picture of being someone to root for. As the young Frankie he is forced into a corner as both a character and actor, and McNairy impresses with ample charm and talent. It's a shame most people won't see him in this, as he won't likely get recognition from the his excellent work on Argo, which saw him take on a much different appearance.

Could it possibly be a crime movie without this guy?

While I get why Killing Them Softly has received some positive press, I feel that this was a case in which a movie was overrated thanks to the quality of its cast and a few good moments than for being the powerful, allegorical tale that it was surely meant to be. It's certainly making up for that now, and might be remembered as among the year's worst. Killing Them Softly gets a few things right and doesn't skimp on the blood, but the rest of Dominik's work is a boring, trite and completely unsubtle waste of an hour and a half. Skip at all costs.

Home Run

I don't know how long my father has been a fan of the great sport of baseball, but I do know that it has been a long, LONG time. Particularly interested in the numbers game baseball has become in recent years, he early on bought the annually-released books by statistical pioneer Bill James, the Baseball Abstract. James would tackle the subject of baseball in a way unlike any who had come before or who have since, but fans like my father would snatch up all this unconventional wisdom that would allow them to look at something they loved in a brand new light. James' invention, a statistical analysis of baseball that he called sabermetrics, could analyze a player's skill and could even help plot trends in their baseball careers. Today he is considered one of the most influential people in the world, but only a decade ago he was all but ignored by those who ran the sport, because he often went against their more traditional (and ancient) ways of thinking. Eventually his ideas reached the ears of a man with an open mind, Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane. In the 2003 book Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, author Michael Lewis talked about how Beane used sabermetrics to turn his underfunded baseball team into a juggernaut by focusing attention on players that were dismissed by advocates of traditional scouting due to intangibles or downright incorrect preconceptions. The excellence of the book, not to mention the legacy that James and Beane have introduced to the sport, is the main reason I had been looking forward to the film adaptation of Moneyball. While I may be on the fence at times with Brad Pitt, I can't deny how far he has come in recent years after being little more than a pretty face during much of his early Hollywood career.

Two of the more unexpected faces to see in a Baseball movie

After his 2001 Oakland Athletics suffer heartbreaking loss against the New York Yankees during the first round of the playoffs (winning the first two games before falling in three straight), Billy Beane (Pitt) has an uphill struggle in front of him. Due to the financial constraints of being a small-market baseball team, Oakland is losing its three best players, and a low budget means there is no way they can afford appropriate replacements. Despite this imbalanced system which rewards rich teams while treating poor ones like minor league affiliates, Beane is frustrated that his scouting department refuses to look at the situation differently from their more affluent competition. This is especially personal for him because it was sweet-talking scouts that had convinced Beane that he was a top-notch talent when he chose his own baseball career over going to college twenty years prior. Still not fully trusting scouts, Beane turns to student of sabermetrics Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), to help build a team from players that most won't touch for various reasons. Though the team has some early struggles, Beane and Brand slowly see this team defy the odds and become a championship-caliber ball club, culminating in the longest winning streak in the history of professional baseball.

Rating his performance in The Tree of Life

The superb casting is what gives Moneyball so much of its flavor. While Pitt and Hill are not stretched very far in what they are given to do on screen, it is their character's friendship and professionalism together that really elevate this film over the bargain basement buddy formula it could have become. Of the two, Hill is somewhat more outside his comfort zone as a young comedy actor; however there are plenty of quips, jibes and smirks delivered deftly, and in that regard Hill might appear to most as performing far superior in comparing this to his earlier efforts. He IS better, no doubt, but don't get your hopes thinking this is going to turn Hill into a perennial awards contender. He and the understated Pitt work well together, and for now that's all we need. The two do have some strong support, most notably Philip Seymour Hoffman as Athletics Manager Art Howe, perpetually grumpy at managing under a one-year contract (which as he points out means that the people in charge have no confidence in him). It's not a big part but Hoffman is perfectly cast and of course does a great job when put on the spot. Several of the baseball players also stand out, especially Stephen Bishop as declining veteran outfielder David Justice and Parks and Recreations star Chris Pratt as converted first baseman (he was originally a catcher before a career-derailing injury) Scott Hatteberg, both of whom proved important to Oakland's playoff run. Less impressive are the actors playing parts in Beane's home life, especially the perennially-underutilized Robin Wright as his unremarkable ex-wife and Kerris Dorsey as his supportive but "why is she there?" daughter. Because the film focuses more on the balance between Beane's baseball and home lives, it doesn't move far to either extreme, meaning any lasting impression those characters might have added were reduced to minimal at best.

Now, don't all stand up at once

Aaron Sorkin was brought in to write Moneyball's script, and while his tendency to ramble on for minutes at a time explaining specifics might have gotten a little old in last year's The Social Network (best screenplay my ASS), here it actually works in the film's favor. After all, what baseball junkie have you met who DOESN'T ramble for seemingly ever about minor details? As my father and I and countless others would agree, endless minutiae is what makes baseball such a fascinating topic in the first place. Sorkin and director Bennett Miller capture this by default in tackling the story introduced by Lewis, but focus on the major league club exclusively, where the book also dedicated part of the tale to the A's minor league efforts. Bennett, whose last directorial effort was the overrated but still classic Capote, injects much needed humor into the tale, which helps expand Moneyball's interest to a wider audience than it would normally appeal.

A baseball movie that focuses on the old guys

Of course, this popularization of the film doesn't let a little thing like factual information get in the way. While the basic idea behind sabermetrics and how it helped the 2002 Oakland A's is fairly intact, some nagging inconsistencies do pop up. While Scott Hatteberg did indeed struggle defensively upon moving to first base, his main competition for the role, Carlos Pena, was not the "All-Star" the film would have you believe. Pena spent more of the season at Triple A Sacramento than he did in Oakland and didn't hit particularly well in the majors before being traded to the Detroit Tigers. And while I won't go into a complete rant about it, it was odd for the filmmakers to create a composite of Beane's aides (most notably Assistant GM Paul DePodesta) in the fictional Peter Brand. Also Beane's daughter sings and plays a song about midway through the film that wasn't even in existence until six years after the film takes place (Lenka's 2008 single The Show). These wouldn't be major issues if Moneyball didn't excel in the research aspects of the film, as in the few actual baseball scenes you can see that they have accurate rosters in place for the times of the games, with the correct names stenciled on the back of jerseys. That the film takes pains in some places to appear authentic while simultaneously taking liberties with historical fact is not a bit distressing, as choosing pure entertainment every time is one of Sorkin's bad habits as a screenwriter. As a final note, the film points out that Beane still hasn't won a World Series using his system, but mentions that the Boston Red Sox won just two years later after adopting Beane's philosophies. This is what makes the story behind Moneyball so tragic; Beane changed the game with his methods, but once the big market clubs started looking at baseball stats in the same way he was, his small budget once again had him at a disadvantage. The film naturally glosses this over, failing to mention that Beane's club has not had a winning record since 2006.

Oakland sees a record crowd

These demerits are the only things that prevent me from genuinely placing Moneyball #1 on my Top 10 list for the year. While the narration does get slightly jumbled about the midway point (normal for a sports film compacting dozens of games into five minutes of time), Moneyball excels in telling a story that is smart enough for Bill James enthusiasts while appealing to a wide audience that doesn't need all that mystical mumbo-jumbo to get by. One of 2011's best, Moneyball is worth the price of a ticket as the #2 movie of the year. My father and any other baseball fan would approve.

An Eternity of Boredom

There are dozens of films I've been looking forward to this year. Some of them, like X-Men First Class, Bridesmaids and Win Win have matched or even exceeded my early predictions of excellence. Others, like Sucker Punch and The Mechanic, didn't even come close. And then there are the films that have come out of nowhere to surprise and appease my defiant spirits, sporting titles like Insidious and Source Code. Director Terrence Malick's latest film (his most awaited since 1998's Thin Red Line) The Tree of Life wouldn't fall into either of the first two categories. I was neither enticed nor impressed by the film's trailer, which included a number of various images focusing not only on the birth of a universe but a random 1950's family and showcasing the names of legitimate stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. The only real draw was Malick's association, which was ascertained afterwards, and only by my film-knowledgeable friends like Brian of Moving Picture Trash. In any year, a director of his caliber releasing a film should be a big deal. It would be like throwing out legendary names Scorsese and Spielberg, but with far more talent behind the camera. I still wasn't convinced that The Tree of Life would be a film worth watching, but at least I had a reason to go to the theater and give the whole thing a shot.

The story composed by The Tree of Life is at first glance somewhat complicated. It begins with the birth of our universe, chronicling the eons chronicling the Earth's beginnings and slowing down once we reach the lives of a seemingly random Waco, Texas family during the 1950's. They're a classic American family, with the hard-working father (Pitt), stay-at-home mother (Jessica Chastain), and three sons, with the story focusing on the eldest, Jack (Hunter McCracken). The film tells the story of Jack growing up and figuring out his route through life; that of his innocent and modest mother's, or his determined but emotionally unstable father's. Meanwhile, the story is told through the memories of the eldest son in modern days (Penn) while remembering his deceased younger brother.

As I stated before, the film essentially begins with the Big Bang, the birth of the universe and Earth as we know it. The photography Malick uses is amazing, and he captures amazing images of volcano eruptions, crashing waves and meteor impacts that simply stun the audience into submission. The evocative visuals of cell division, cosmic dust and planetary birth are given almost biblical treatment, a welcome blend that allows for both science and religion to co-exist (of course, the even brief inclusion of dinosaurs means that anyone on the Religious Right is sure to name it their worst 2011 film). As outstanding as anything Nova or National Geographic can put out, I easily could have put up with this type of movie for two hours and discarded the human element altogether.

Sadly, the human story is both necessary and where the film falters. While Malick does a commendable job at disjointing the story with seemingly random bits and pieces that aren't really part of the story yet accurately reflect the jumble that is the human memory, this element of Tree is marred by boring stretches and yet another trite coming of age story. The question that constantly rears its head (by the main characters, no less) is to the existence of God, why He allows evil to happen, and if He does, why should the characters care to be good? Young Jack will either go down the way of Grace, the path of goodness and charity that his mother has lived, or the way of Nature, the self-serving but strong and profitable route that his father has tread. Unfortunately, this must be explained by voice-over narration, because otherwise the audience would have had an even more difficult time understanding than many of the people in my theater already did. Malick is often guilty of making films that are too intelligent for even some of the smarter audience members out there, and sometimes needs to spell things out to keep these folks engaged.

When the story DOES get cohesive, it becomes unbearable to watch. Frankly, I didn't CARE about this random 1950's family and their issues, religious or otherwise. If I wanted more of that, I'd watch Mad Men. I didn't even care as much about the rampant religious doubt that at first takes over the film and is then seemingly discarded for more mundane issues. Sure, I know I'm not the most religious individual out there, but there could have been some interesting conversation between the film and its audience that for some reason doesn't fully materialize. I would have been more interested in more cosmic images rather than a twenty-minute sequence in which Jack breaks into a neighbor's hose, then feeling guilty about it.

At least there is some good acting to offset the frailties of the story as a whole. Pitt once again surpasses his previous set bar, and his complex portrayal of Jack's well-meaning but distressed father is one more accolade to add to his steadily more impressive resume. Many sons grow up both loving and resenting their fathers, and Pitt captures that essence that makes you feel the same for him even as an adult watching. Chastain is definitely a surprise, the young actress making her mark this year here and in the upcoming The Debt. Though her character is sometimes referred to as naive, Chastain carries a knowledge about her, wisdom that supersedes her innocence. She's easily one of the film's best parts, and when the film focuses on her it's often to the benefit of all. The three sons are each ably played by the young men involved, but only Jack is really focused on, and Hunter McCracken (in his feature film debut) is just good enough to carry the weight of the narrative on his back. I may not believe that Sean Penn really deserved those two Oscars he has been awarded, but he's still a very talented actor in the right situation. That situation isn't here however, and I frankly could have done without the modern day Jack storyline, as while I recognize its importance I still fell the film could have been just as stable without it.

There are those who will commend The Tree of Life for its ambition and vision, those who will cement in their minds that this was indeed the best film of 2011. At this year's Cannes Film Festival, it was greeted with much praise and even won Malick the prestigious Palme d'Or award for being best in show. It has received just as much scrutiny, however, and I fear I must add my voice to that mix of folk who didn't appreciate it nearly as much a the film's backers would hope. If it was all down to technical wizardry, The Tree of Life would have it all, with an amazing mix of wonder and amazement that was fun to see but shouldn't have had to carry the film. With the lackluster human tale in the mix, however, it's more of a wash than it should be. With a thoroughly confusing finale and too much snooze time to contemplate how the film could have been shrunk into a more manageable format, I can't recommend it very highly. I'll stop short of calling it pretentious, but only because I can see from where that impression might come. If you REALLY feel you can understand the effect Malick is going for, or if you are a fan of his previous works, then you can possibly sit through all 138 minutes of The Tree of Life with little to no problem. If however you think Pirates of the Caribbean was the best movie you've seen this year, then you can and should probably skip it.