"Trouble" with the Curve

You see what I did there? How I used quotation marks to emphasize the one word in the title of the movie that actually describes its execution? Wasn't that clever? What? It wasn't? Well, Clint Eastwood has made a career out of making similar unsubtle statements in his films he directs. No, it hasn't always been a deal killer; he has built movies wonderful (Unforgiven, Million Dollar Baby), awful (Letters from Iwo Jima, Hereafter) and everywhere in between (Mystic River, J. Edgar). But anyone who contends that he is a great director has obviously been swayed by his long acting career and forgiven many of the cliched storytelling elements he includes in his pictures, ones that most truly talented filmmakers would never use in this day and age.

I was worried at first that this style would be the problem with Trouble with the Curve, which is also Eastwood's first acting gig since people say he was snubbed for a Best Actor nomination in 2008's Gran Torino. Surprisingly, while there are a few cliched moments (parent releasing child's hand to show abandonment, a few lingering shots expressing a character's loneliness), Trouble was not the technical abomination I had been expecting. I found out in the closing credits for the reason for this; turns out the film wasn't directed by Eastwood at all. Instead it was filmed by Robert Lorenz, who had been an assistant director on over twenty films. While Lorenz certainly learned a bit from working with Eastwood on Bloodwork, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby, it's obvious he also developed his style from working with other directors, making for a thankfully more adept movie than I was expecting.

Timberlake gets directing tips from Eastwood.

It's a shame that my expectations had been so low, as a movie featuring baseball, Eastwood, Amy Adams and BASEBALL should have been one of my more highly expected theatrical releases. It was, but more for potential than what I actually thought I would see. Eastwood plays longtime baseball scout Gus Lobel; an employee of the Atlanta Braves, Gus is as old-fashioned a talent scout as you can get, completely eschewing the modern computer age and relying exclusively on what he can see in a player. This hasn't endeared him to his superiors in Atlanta, who want him to check out a highly-touted player in the Carolinas as their potential top pick in the upcoming draft. The expectation is that if Gus fails, they can simply let his swiftly-expiring contract run out. When his longtime friend and superior Pete (John Goodman) worries about his diminishing health, he calls Gus' daughter Mickey (Adams) to join him to see if there is anything she can do. With relations already strained between Gus and Mickey, all they can do try to communicate with one another while bonding over the one thing they both seem to love; baseball.

"OMG JT is SOOO HOT"

Unfortunately, just because it's not directed by its star doesn't mean that it's automatically better. This is the first ever published screenplay by Randy Brown, and it definitely shows in the overly-simple rendition of what should be deep emotional themes. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the routes the characters take, with the relationship between Gus and Mickey especially jumpy in between scenes. One scene they seem fine, the next they're at each others' throats. There are reasons for that, and the film does its best to lay them all out, but I never felt as though any middle ground between those two points was explored. Adams is nevertheless wonderful, her naturally bubbly persona taking a backseat to a serious, dramatic side that gets her attention and awards. Eastwood however tends to rest on his laurels, with only a few scenes making him reach as a performer. His role is fine, as is that of Justin Timberlake as a former player turned scout (turned love interest for Mickey) for the Boston Red Sox, but both are limited to performances that are high on levity and short on storytelling.

Standing around waiting for something to happen; just like the real game!

Worse is the cliched junk that seems tossed in as filler. Of COURSE there's an "evil scout" who relies solely on computer data (Matthew Lillard) who actually seems to want Gus fired. Of COURSE the player Gus is asked to scout is a complete asshole. Of COURSE he has a fatal flaw which is not apparent at the college level but that Gus knows will prevent him from being successful in the big leagues. Of COURSE the answer to everyone's dreams is telegraphed a mile away. Of COURSE Gus is losing the ONE THING (his eyesight) which would prevent him from excelling at his job. Of COURSE they use a Dirty Harry scene for a flashback. Okay, that last one was a bit out of left field. The point is that for every decent or genuinely good thing Trouble pitches us, it lobs more than a few stinkers that undermine the quality of the film. A script rewrite should have been in order, and the lack of one indicates that Eastwood was more in charge than we were led to believe.

"Wait, he gave us a bad review?"

Trouble with the Curve came out with a LOT of potential. Baseball may not be that popular sport, but it has inspired more great stories in film and print than just about any other game, even the all-powerful sport of football. For a baseball story to appear so hollow and disingenuous is certainly a disappointment, especially when it gathers such a solid blend of acting talent as its foundation. Still, Curve disappoints, especially considering its fighting the scout/computer battle has been more or less settled in the years following the publication of Moneyball. Like Eastwood, Curve is a story out of time, not exactly sure where we are today, and both scared and angry about it.

Life in a Vacuum

Well, I wasn't expecting that. With hordes of folks out this weekend to see one of the two new blockbusters released - the mythological warfare epic Immortals and the Adam Sandler comedy Jack and Jill - I was sure that lost in the struggle would be the Clint Eastwood directed, Leonardo DiCaprio starring J. Edgar, the biopic on the life of the man who was the face of law and order in the United States for almost forty years. These days, most people know little about J. Edgar Hoover, other than that he, according to rumor, preferred the feeling of wearing women's clothing. Those historians that do know him often neglect to give credit for many of his modern innovations in the world of criminal justice still used today (forensics, fingerprinting) and instead focus exclusively on the controversies surrounding his methods of investigation. Maybe they should, maybe they shouldn't, but the vast majority of people still don't know much about this major figure in American History. Between that and the questionable abilities of Clint Eastwood as director, I was frankly expecting to see J. Edgar in a half-full theater. I was soon proven wrong as I found myself in the presence of a packed house, and was lucky to find a good seat with which to see this surprisingly sought-after release.

J. Edgar did not have sex with that woman... or anyone else, apparently

It is the closing days of the career of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio). For thirty-seven years, he has fought to protect his country from Communists, anarchists, saboteurs, and anyone he thinks is being disloyal to the United States. Drafting an agent to chronicle his memoirs of his career in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Hoover is determined to set the story straight: that he is a hero to be celebrated, a devoted civil servant who protected all of us from the radicals who would undo all the greatness we have attained. Following the story through flashbacks, we witness the entirety of his career, between pursuing legitimate criminals to spying on government officials, and the relationships between he and his mother (Judi Dench) and his only real friend and confidante, Associate Director Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer).

It's like Rear Window meets Goodfellas

The production values are at a high standard, not surprising for a Clint Eastwood picture. Every detail from the post-WWI scenery of the film's opening scenes to the costumes and props of the times represented are meticulously detailed and perfectly placed to make each era of Hoover's career feel unique and properly aged. The gray film quality also lends an old-timey look to the visuals, making it appear a true period piece not unlike this year's Jane Eyre. Clint obviously pulls off the stops, making sure that there are no visual errors that would detract from the splendor of the picture. If nothing else, J Edgar does its best to at least look the part of an Academy Award shoe-in.

He's 6'5", 220, but there's only one of him this time

There is also some decent acting, though sadly the dialogue is often times presented in such a ludicrous manner that you can't help but laugh. DiCaprio deserves a lot of credit for his performance however, his Hoover standing above the rest of a very talented cast. He has the distinct difficulty of taking a singularly unlikable character and making him charismatic enough to carry a film. That he fails does nothing to discredit his effort, and people will certainly be discussing his work come award season. Armie Hammer runs a close second in the chops department; the man who made us take notice as twins in 2010's The Social Network goes solo this time out, and he portrays Tolson as an idealistic foil to the film's lead. Sure, there's no explanation as to why Tolson (in this telling) would be drawn to an unlikable goat like Hoover, but that's obviously where artistic license is brought into play. Surprisingly underused is Naomi Watts as longtime Hoover receptionist Helen Gandy. I actually thought Watts would play a large part when she got some early screen-time, but instead she is a constant presence, one that inspires neither interest nor contempt in the irrelevance of her appearance. Beyond that, there are an assorted collection of recognizable actors who make sporadic appearances. To a point, their limited appearances are consistent with the historical figures they represent, but soon you are distracted by the recognition of some noticeable actor over what is actually happening, causing overall disinterest in the actual story in progress.

"Land Shark, calling on line one"

And in the end, that is just one small thing wrong with J. Edgar, part of a sea of small, wrong things. Clint Eastwood as a director hasn't been a major factor since 2004'a Million Dollar Baby took it all. Hereafter was one of 2010's worst. Gran Torino and Invictus were popular but quickly forgotten. Changeling had a great Angelina Jolie performance but not much else. Don't even get me started on the overrated heaps that were Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima. Eastwood has a very obvious style of directing, sadly lacking in innovation and tending to stick to "tried and true" methods. That worked fine when the material he worked with was at the top of the game. Now that he's delving into less heralded territory, his flaws as a storyteller become more readily apparent, as far too often did the story he was trying to tell get away from him, and the cliched film-making methods he used only exacerbated the problems. To be fair, I can't think of any director who could have pulled this tale off; it's only because Eastwood is such a known commodity that his failures here are so remarkable.

Five makeup companies had to be hired to slather that on

So what else is wrong with the film? Well, the sexual tension between Hoover and Tolson gets more than a little ridiculous at times. Yes, I know there is speculation as to the nature of their friendship, but these two seriously have more passing glance moments than Sam and Frodo had during the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I had enough more than halfway through. Judi Dench is absolutely horrid (I never thought I would say that in my lifetime), completely wrong for her role as Hoover's demanding mother. I also hated Hoover depicted as an emotionally-stunted mama's boy with serious development issues. Sure, he might have actually been that, but when I watch a biopic of someone, I expect that he or she will present me with at least ONE good quality. Hoover's ability to do the wrong thing for potentially right reasons is an interesting idea, but one lost early on when getting into his growing levels of corruption. Yes, absolute power, blah blah; I'm bored now. The film's makeup is one of the lone visual aspects that looks absolutely fake on screen. Older actors should have been hired to portray the elder Hoover and Tolson, as neither lead actor looks believable in the aging process. If it wasn't for the fact that Cylde Tolson really did have a stroke, I'd have thought it was an excuse for the complete lifelessness in Hammer's face in the film's latter act. And DiCaprio manages to just look like a twenty-something wearing heavy prosthetics. And finally, the story's focus on the Lindbergh Baby tragedy turned the film into complete shambles, though it did provide one of the film's unintentionally funniest lines of dialogue.

He's... to sexy for his derby hat...

From the perspective of those who want Award season to begin, I guess I can understand why people flocked to see J. Edgar this weekend. It's unfortunate though that the object of their affection is in fact quite broken, none of the better concepts working out as they should. While the film boasts some good acting and is at least told competently, if not WELL, there are far too many moments where you have to remind yourself why you chose this film over anything else currently in theaters. Though not among the worst films this year, J. Edgar is by no means recommendable, and will likely be long forgotten when it comes time to nominate the year's best. Despite his apparent efforts at notoriety, it seems Hoover is destined to become forgotten as his many contributions to law enforcement will forever be overshadowed by bad decisions, character flaws and extremely casual dress codes. This film, and its director, do him no favors in getting any better.

Move Along, There's No Oscar to See Here

Eastwood. It's a name synonymous with hard work, dedication and strength, both without and within. For nearly sixty years, Clint Eastwood has molded himself into one of the more celebrated and acclaimed performers of his or any time. His acting roles are iconic. Since winning his first Academy Awards for Unforgiven in 1992, he's become something of an Oscar darling, with his films garnering both critical and commercial success. Million Dollar Baby might be one day considered one of Hollywood's finest films ever. People still say he was snubbed for Gran Torino in 2008. In the past two decades he's simply become one of Hollywood's most important people, and even that isn't a stretch from where he had been before that. When he makes a movie, people see it.

You know he's unhappy because he can't sleep

So when I first saw the trailer for Hereafter, I was hooked. Matt Damon playing a man with a psychic connection to the afterlife who wants nothing to do with his mysterious power, as well as a narrative on our fear and beliefs concerning death, was a very interesting concept. Infinitely unique and anchored by Damon, the film looked sure to be one of the season's obvious award-winners. So when my friend Shannon invited me along to see this film opening weekend, I jumped at the opportunity to catch the film early and see one of my more anticipated films this season.

I see dead people

As I already mentioned, Damon plays former psychic George Lonegan. George, who somehow can communicate with souls in the afterlife, gave up his trade long ago when he decided that living a life surrounded by death simply wasn't for him. He's content working as a factory worker for much less pay than he'd made before, and considers his "gift" a curse, avoiding his brother's (Jay Mohr) attempts to get him back into the business. But George isn't the only main character in this film, as it is actually split into three concurrent storylines, the second of which involves a young British boy named Marcus (Frankie McLaren) who must cope with the tragic death of his twin brother Jason (George McLaren) and his mother's addiction to alcohol and heroin. Finally, French journalist Marie Lelay (Cecile de France) survives a tsunami while in Thailand and "dies" briefly, before being resurrected by rescuers. She feels that she made a connection to the afterlife, however, and wants to write a book about her experience, wondering what happens after we leave our mortal coils.

Psychics: Untold online dangers for kids

I mention that the film is in fact three stories happening simultaneously, though you know that with movies like this, the three characters will eventually meet somewhere towards the end of the story. However, before we reach that point, we sit through all this story in which each story has little to do with the other stories besides death being the contributing plotline. The film also features a very clockwork way of telling the story, where we take X amount of time to learn about Marie, then an equal time focusing on Jason before turning to George, then repeated ad infinitum. You start to notice this about halfway through, and that's when you start taking bets to see if the director will change tack and switch it around (he doesn't). Eastwood, while certainly talented, has never been a terribly original director, with his talents based on those before and around him. He makes great films, he just happens to make them in the same way everybody does.

Aww, a happy moment. Too bad they're French

Matt Damon retains the aura of greatness he's acquired in recent years, putting together a magnificent performance in the process. When George does his seance "thing", it's one hundred percent believable, and even when he's not, his character melds into the world trying to better himself, to be a better person than he believes his talent allows him to be. In fact, scenes between he and an attempted romance in Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard) are some of the best scenes in the film. In respect to fairness, however, the biggest journey is actually covered by de France's character. Marie is haunted by her near-death experience but the journalist in her drives her to seek out and research the idea of an afterlife that sees her going against ideas she's carried her whole life with. Death is a taboo topic, she learns, but never stops her journey to spread what she learns. Though de France is a talented actress (and thankfully, most of her dialogue is in her native French with subtitles), she would have to be as domineering of the screen as Damon to keep our attention for long, and sadly, while she has the best story of the three, she simply doesn't have Damon's chops. Neither of the McLaren twins are particularly good actors, but since neither are trained performers this can be mostly overlooked and Eastwood definitely picked the more talented twin to play Marcus. Grieving for his brother and suffering in a foster home while his mother is in rehab, Marcus is incredibly lost and unable to move on with his life, trying any which way to reconnect with Jason. Though the least interesting of the three storylines, it does have some good moments, including one in which divine intervention seems to protect Marcus from being on the Underground rail when a bomb detonates on the train he failed to get on, saving his life. Good secondary performances by Howard, Richard Kind, Lyndsey Marshall and Thierry Neuvic, among a few others, round out a series of solid acting performances helmed solely and rightfully by Damon.

Why yes, I am @#^$ing Matt Damon

The story does vary the characters' unique interactions with the concept of death well, but it's still a concept that only goes so far. Besides the fact that you know by the end that the main characters will be meeting and interacting with one another, the film introduces many ideas that it never resolves. Indeed, for a film questioning life after death, it gives the barest of glimpses into the actual concept, instead wrapping a small version of it around Damon's visions and Marie's experience. Some of the more paranormal bits, though few, are a little overdone, and the ending is a mess, with no real conclusion, or at least not a satisfying one.

Okay, awkwaaard...

Clint Eastwood won't be snubbed at this year's award shows. Hereafter simply isn't a film good enough on it's own merits, let alone on the standards set by Million Dollar Baby, Unforgiven or even Changeling. Damon's award-worthy performance aside, it's a mediocre movie at best, taking an interesting idea and handicapping it by telling it with a story not quite worth the paper it's written on. Of his latest films, this one is by far the weakest (worse even than Letters from Iwo Jima), and is simply not Clint at his best. It's a shame to spoil a movie with so much potential. But hey, we can't all be lucky, punk.