Field of Dreams

I love baseball and everything about it. The Chicago White Sox to the fantasy leagues, going to games to listening on the radio and watching on TV. It is and hopefully always will be my favorite sport. Naturally then, baseball movies have to be the best, right? My list starts with a classic, 1989's Field of Dreams.

Ray Kinsella (Kevin Costner) is a 36-year old man who owns a farm in Iowa and lives with his wife, Annie (Amy Madigan) and their young daughter, Karen (Gaby Hoffmann). One day while he's out in the expansive cornfields, Ray hears a voice tell him multiple times 'If you build it, he will come..." He doesn't know what to make of the voice and its mysterious message. What could it possibly mean? After hearing the voice repeat itself several times over several days, Ray thinks he's figured it out. Somehow, some way, Ray is supposed to build a baseball field in his cornfield. His reasoning? He thinks if he builds that field, his father's hero, Shoeless Joe Jackson, will get a chance to redeem himself for his actions with the 1919 Black Sox. He builds the field and waits...and waits but nothing happens. Then one night as he mulls over their future with Annie, a man appears out on the field. It's Shoeless Joe Jackson (Ray Liotta) himself. That's only the start though. There's much more to come.

Ask 100 sports fans 'What's your favorite sports movie?' and who knows? Maybe you get 100 different answers! I don't know if it is my favorite, but it's certainly in the conversation with Hoosiers, Rocky, and a whole bunch more I can rewatch over and over again. The TV description of the 1988 film from director Phil Alden Robinson (he also wrote the Oscar-nominated screenplay) describes it as 'Capra-esque' -- as in Frank Capra -- and it's an incredibly apt description. It's an American story of family, baseball, hopes and dreams, and without being heavy-handed, believing in something mystical, something bigger than us that doesn't necessarily need to be explained. You just take it on faith and go for a ride.

I like The Natural, love Major League and The Sandlot, and swear by any number of other baseball flicks, but 'Field' is up there at the top. Why? Maybe more than any other baseball movie, it loves and respects the game. It appreciates the history, the unspoken connection people have with the sport, and maybe most importantly, the simple beauty of the game. In a late monologue, James Earl Jones explains the power of the game in one of the movie's most effective scenes. Far earlier as Ray meets Joe Jackson, the famous Shoeless expresses his personal love of the game in a simple, eloquent, authentic monologue. The story loves the history of the game, especially the 1910's and early 1920's. Watch it for that love and respect, the classic uniforms, those famous players, the infamous 1919 Black Sox, and so much more.

Who better to lead the way through our mystical baseball story than Crash Davis himself, Kevin Costner? Just a year off Bull Durham (another excellent baseball flick), Costner returns to the sports/baseball genre and delivers -- for me -- one of his all-time best roles. He's a 30-something farmer who knows little about farmer looking for some answers out of life. Instead, he gets a mysterious voice imploring him 'If you build it, he will come.' Costner's Ray doesn't always know where the road will take him, but he believes. Simple as that, he believes. He believes something good is down the road, and that him building a baseball field in the middle of his cornfield has a higher meaning. It has to, right? When everything seems to scream at how illogical the whole thing is, Costner sticks with his gut and keeps believing. Madigan is excellent as his ever-supportive wife, Annie, with him through thick and thin, while 6-year old Hoffmann is equally solid.

Three supporting performances help take the movie from really good into the classic stratosphere, Ray Liotta (relatively unknown at the time) as Shoeless Joe Jackson, James Earl Jones as reclusive writer Terence Mann, and Burt Lancaster (in his final role) as Doc Graham, a former baseball player who became a doctor in his Minnesota hometown. I don't want to give away too much -- for the 6 people who haven't seen this movie by now -- but these performances are pristine. They're perfect. Liotta brings some edge to Shoeless, the mysterious ex-ballplayer who was banned from baseball even though evidence indicates Jackson did nothing wrong. He's got some cards up his sleeves for sure. Jones as Mann makes it look so freaking easy. Based on J.D. Salinger, Mann has retired from public life and is looking to live a quiet, peaceful life. His chemistry with Costner is pitch perfect from scene-to-scene, dramatic and funny. And, oh yeah, Burt Lancaster, a halfway decent actor in his own right (I guess). He's on-screen for maybe 4 or 5 minutes and steals every second he's in. Three great performances.

Also look for Timothy Busfield as Mark, Annie's brother in the real estate business who's trying to convince his brother-in-law to...ya know, not be nuts, and Frank Whaley as Archie 'Moonlight' Graham, a much younger version of Lancaster's Doc Graham. Dwier Brown has a quick but brutally effective part as John Kinsella, Ray's father. As for other players from the '19 Black Sox who show up, look for some familiar faces who make the most out of their quick, but highly effective parts.

The movie itself is a road picture once things get going, the story of a journey both for Ray but also the people and individuals he meets along the way. We see how Ray's decision to build the baseball field affects one person after another, somewhat like the universe is laying out the groundwork for him -- testing him of sorts -- and seeing if he'll follow along. As for the movie itself, it is a visually subtle but very good-looking movie. Always seems to be shot at sunset with all sorts of beautiful light. If not that time of day, that field o' dreams always is bathed in sunlight without a cloud in sight. Composer James Horner (one of the all-time bests) delivers an Oscar nominated-score that is an additional character there all along the way for the story.

So what is baseball best suited for? As 'Field' shows, it is a sport often shared between father and son, the crux of the story here itself. This is a sport with the subtle, charming ability to bring people together. That sentiment leads to one of the all-time great endings ever with a ridiculously strong final 20 minutes. It's one memorable moment after another, one great line after another, all of it leading to one of the more iconic closing shots ever if you ask me. Is it heaven? No, maybe not, but it's a perfect sports movie and just a great movie all-around. Must watch for sports fans and non-sports fans alike!

Field of Dreams (1988): ****/****

Wyatt Earp

When it comes to iconic, famous names in American history, specifically the wild west of the 1860's and on to the turn of the century, rise above all others. Names like Billy the Kid, Buffalo Bill, Jesse James, Wild Bill Hickok are all synonymous with the wild west, but maybe none more known and recognizable than lawman Wyatt Earp. He led a remarkably busy (and unscathed) life, and has been immortalized in both films and television shows alike. Here's 1994's Wyatt Earp, a bio-pic I'd never seen before a recent viewing.

Growing up on the family farm with his parents and brothers and sisters, young Wyatt Earp grows up learning to trust in himself and his family, and to always be there should that family need help. But as he puts his teenage years behind him, Wyatt (Kevin Costner) marries a beautiful young woman (Annabeth Gish) and looks to settle down and start a life. When his wife dies from typhoid, Wyatt is distraught, turning to alcohol and going into an epic depression. That's not the end that's meant for this enterprising young man though. Wyatt heads west, attracted by the possibility of riches in the untamed regions of the young country. Freight driver, bounty hunter, buffalo hunter, he tries it all, but his ultimate calling? That may be as a lawman, and the west is in great need of those. From boomtown to boomtown like Dodge City and Abilene, Wyatt's reputation grows and grows. That name begins to mean something -- fear, respect, intimidation -- as the far-more experienced, cynical Wyatt heads west once again with his brothers. This stop? Tombstone, Arizona.

I ain't real good at writing the words to describe an epic biography that covers multiple decades, introduces countless characters and in general, ain't easy to succinctly describe. And that's what this movie is. From director Lawrence Kasdan (also directed Silverado), 'Earp' is a three-hour biography of one of the west's most recognizable names, a bio-pic that was originally intended as a miniseries. Big impression? It probably would have been better that way. Even at three hours, this western feels like it tackled too much, taking on too much and not enough depending on the scene. Second big impression? It came out a year after one of the best westerns ever that dealt with the same topic, 1993's Tombstone. That's two strikes. What's gonna be the third one? Pick and choose because there's plenty.

History has a fun way of remembering folks. Case in point...Wyatt Earp. He was not a pleasant fella to say the least. The thing he is remembered most for -- the gunfight at the OK Corral -- led some to consider him and his brothers outright murderers. Wisely, 'Earp' does not try to gloss over the foibles and flaws in its titular character. Costner does a fine job showing Wyatt Earp's dark, cold, brutal side...but that's it. At a certain point, it gets repetitive. It becomes a performance without emotion because Wyatt becomes this one-note person. He wants to make a fortune for himself and his brothers. Anything else is just getting in the way. I found myself actively disliking the character and maybe that's the point. This is a bio-pic that probably shows Earp as he really was, not as we'd like to think of him. Accuracy is always a bonus in biographies, but that doesn't make it entertaining.

Almost from the beginning, 'Earp' felt like it handles everything in matter-of-fact fashion. Again...realistic but not necessarily entertaining (or even enjoyable). In its execution, this is a western epic that's trying to be EPIC and never quite gets there. Just not enough energy to bring it up to an epic level, much less a classic level. Gene Hackman gets to speechify in a small part as Wyatt's father, instilling (you could say drilling) the values that will impact his son for the rest of his life. One bbbbbbig moment after another comes along -- always with composer James Newton Howard's scoring swelling at the right moment -- and I kept waiting for these countless scenes to have some sort of impact on me...but they never did. When you know there's a three-hour running time still ahead of you, that's never a good feeling when you're not..well, feeling much at all about the movie.

One of the best things about Tombstone is the casting and characters. Here, dealing with the same people and the same basic story, only one performance really stands out. That's Dennis Quaid as Doc Holliday, a dentist, southern gentleman and gambler who's dying of tuberculosis. He has the unenviable task of following Val Kilmer's scene-stealing part as Doc, but creates his own character and performance. Quaid lost 30 pounds for the part of the dying gambler, giving him a distinctly sickly look. He's quick with a putdown and insult, just as quick as he is with a gun or knife in a scene-stealing performance. The only problem is that he's not around enough. There's too many speaking parts in general and most of them aren't developed nearly enough. Like so much else here, it felt like a wasted opportunity.

That said, 'Earp' does featuring some cool casting choices, even if they're misused. Michael Madsen, David Andrews, Linden Ashby and Jim Caviezel all play Earp brothers with Madsen and Ashby standing out for the positive. The Earp women, wives and sorta wives, played by Catherine O'Hara, JoBeth Williams and Mare Winningham, are given nothing to do other than complain Wyatt is mean in one-note performances (no fault of their own). In cool parts, Tom Sizemore and Bill Pullman play Bat and Ed Masterson, friends of the Earps and fellow lawmen, but they too are underused. Also look for Mark Harmon, Jeff Fahey, Joanna Going, Isabella Rossellini, and James Gammon in other supporting parts. Too many excellent historical figures are glossed over somewhat or entirely to the point it was unnecessary to even mention them.

I've always felt saying a movie is 'boring' is a cop-out, but man, this movie was boring. The last two hours are far better than the first, but I still kept waiting for the story and characters to pull me in. An epic disappointment unfortunately on basically on all levels.

Wyatt Earp (1994): **/****

Silverado

By the 1980s, the western genre had unfortunately gone by the wayside. The often white-washed entries of the 1950s, the spaghetti westerns of the 1960s and the revisionist westerns of the 1970s had done a number on fans, and the genre was never quite the same. I'm still not sure why dammit! Maybe I was meant to grow up during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s! After the 70s, the western became few and far between, like 1985's Silverado, a throwback western I've seen bits and pieces of but only saw all the way through...well, this time.

Having served a five-year jail sentence for a murder that was actually self-defense, a drifter named Emmett (Scott Glenn) is riding west with California as his ultimate destination. Riding deep into the desert, Emmett finds something his eyes just don't believe. Lying in long underwear in the sand is a man named Paden (Kevin Kline) who tells the story of how he was double-crossed and left to die with no water or supplies. The two pair up and keep on heading west, both with their own objectives. What awaits them? First, they'll find out Emmett's younger brother, Jake (Kevin Costner), is about to be hung for a murder that sounds fishy while also running into a man, Mal (Danny Glover), heading west to help his family run their small homestead and ranch. The trail ahead won't be easy though as a corrupt rancher and his equally corrupt sheriff are wreaking havoc on the town of Silverado, the town they're all heading to.

I caught the first 45 minutes of this 1985 western a few years back. I liked it, didn't love it, but never got back to it. Well, Encore Westerns tempted me once too often with it on its schedule. My biggest takeaway? Director Lawrence Kasdan (who also wrote the screenplay with his brother, Mark) loves westerns. LOVES them. He must have grown up watching countless westerns because in the same way Indiana Jones and Star Wars did, 'Silverado' plays like a tribute film to its genre predecessors while also creating its own identity. I guess it makes sense because Kasdan wrote Raiders, Empire and Jedi. Go figure! It feels familiar -- in a good way -- and the lines are blurred some, but from the start things are pretty clear. The good guys are good and the bad guys are corrupt, greedy and evil. Entertaining in the best kind of way.

What I remember struggling with was the almost complete lack of a story. There are characters. There are some vignettes here and there. But a linear story? No, not really. We meet a ton of characters, things are kinda laid out, and then eventually, the good guys face off against those dastardly bad guys. It can be frustrating, but the payoff is worth it. Just know that getting there can be a tad slow in a 133-minute flick.

If you've seen Kasdan's writing credits -- read it HERE -- it's clear he's at his strongest with ensembles, typically tough guy ensembles. That is the biggest strength here in 'Silverado,' specifically with his four main heroes, Kline, Glenn, Glover and Costner. These are archetypal western characters, and they don't disappoint. Kline's Paden is the former gunslinger with a checkered past, Glenn's Emmett the amiable but tough as nails drifter, Costner's Jake the fun-loving, hard-living, cocky youngster, and Glover's Mal the ice water in his veins rifleman and family man. Kline doesn't scream 'wild west gunfighter,' but he's the coolest character. Glenn and Glover are similarly strong with Costner the only relative weak link in the bunch. It's not his fault, but the character is just a bit too goofy. Still, the strength is in the group. By the time you see the gun-slinging quartet ride to the final showdown, you're fully on their side.

Who else to look for? Let's talk baddies. Brian Dennehy is Sheriff Cobb, an imposing, brutish man who used to ride with Paden and is now working with a local rancher to buy up all the land around the town. Jeff Fahey is solid as his enforcer of sorts, Tyree. Jeff Goldblum has some fun as Slick, a gambler who arrives in Silverado looking for some easy cash. I thought the best supporting part was Linda Hunt (later of NCIS: LA) as Stella, the diminutive but feisty owner of the Silverado saloon. And in the out of left field department, John Cleese plays a sheriff in another town who comes across our heroes' trail. Also look for Rosanna Arquette, James Gammon and Lynn Whitfield in other supporting roles. If there's a weakness in the cast, it's that beyond Dennehy the villains aren't developed much or even on-screen. The evil rancher is almost an afterthought. The depth of the cast is still very impressive.

So westerns, they like their guns. 'Silverado' is a movie for those with a gun fetish. Scene after scene bring these guns to life from the hard, metallic click of the Henry rifle being loaded to a six-shooter being cocked and fired. The guns end up becoming additional characters. The action is pretty violent but never overly graphic. In the throwback fashion, it's good, old-fashioned, rip-roaring action. A rare "cold" western with snow and the mountains instead of the dusty prairies, this is a western that truly appreciates the genre it's come from. An Oscar-nominated musical score (little too adoring at times), a fun cast, fun vignettes and entertaining throughout. One of those perfect 3-star movies, best watched with a big tub of popcorn.

Silverado (1985): ***/****

Draft Day

So the National Football League has been getting a lot of negative press lately if you haven't heard. Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson, commissioner Roger Goodell, and that's just the start. A series of domestic violence involving wives and children, a major sports commissioner lying and those are just the ones dominating the headlines. So how about some good timing? It didn't exactly tear up the box office -- making just $29 million -- but can you imagine if 2014's Draft Day had been released this fall as opposed to this past spring? We're talking bad timing of mammoth proportions.

 The 2014 NFL Draft is just hours away and teams around the league are scrambling to make the right move, to make a big move, to make a splash. High on that list? The Cleveland Browns, slotted in at No. 7 and with a lot of tough decisions ahead of the franchise, especially general manager Sonny Weaver Jr. (Kevin Costner). The morning of the draft, Browns owner Anthony Molina (Frank Langella) all but threatens Sonny to hit a home run with the coming draft or get fired. What to do? Sonny has options, especially with the Seattle Seahawks call him offering the No. 1 draft pick. The asking price is pretty hefty -- three first-round draft picks -- but Sonny feels backed up against a wall. It's a tough call, but he pulls the trigger. The Browns have the No. 1 pick in the draft, now less than 12 hours away. With his job hanging in the balance, what will Sonny do? Who will he pick?

So why exactly did this sports flick flop at the box office last spring? Well, it reeks of being backed by the NFL and all its support. There are times it feels shoved down our throats about getting an inside look at the inner-workings of an NFL front office. From director Ivan Reitman, 'Draft' is a movie shot in swanky offices, conference rooms with dry-erase boards and lots of scouts, and one team office after another. It's dumbed down for even the most casual football fans -- "Seattle.....Home of the Seahawks" -- and never feels forced. It clocks in at 110 minutes and is enjoyable throughout. Just beware of all those real NFL cameos from Goodell to Chris Berman and Mel Kiper Jr. Potentially nauseating? Yes, basically at all times, but I liked it a lot just the same.

It's not the spectacle that works though. It's the smaller moments. Those windows where you feel you're actually getting an insight into an NFL team prepping for a draft. Sonny and the Browns are focusing on three players, the can't miss QB from Wisconsin, Bo Callahan (Josh Pence), the freakishly athletic LB from Ohio State, Vontae Mack (Chadwick Boseman), and the dual-threat RB from Florida State with some law issues, Ray Jennings (Houston Texans RB Arian Foster), who's got ties to the Browns via his father (Terry Crews), a former Browns superstar. Why does a team ultimately decide on their player? What detective work goes into it? Is it talent, character or drive? There are a couple great scenes where you feel you're getting some inside info, especially one trick several teams use concerning their playbook with potential rookie QBs.

Who better to lead an NFL franchise from the general manager spot than Kevin Costner? Trick question. No one. No one is better than Costner. It's been cool to see Costner jump back into regular acting roles from Jack Ryan to 3 Days to Kill to Man of Steel. He seems at ease in everything he does, bringing that cool, calculating charm to the screen with each role. Yeah, the personal drama with his salary cap analyst/girlfriend (Jennifer Garner) and his angry mom (Ellen Burstyn) and ex-wife (Rosanna Arquette) don't work as well as the football drama but that's to be expected. Costner is cool even if he's dealing with some hammy, forced personal and family issues. He's a G.M. trying to piece it all together with about a thousand different options at his disposal. Welcome back, Kevin Costner. We're glad to have you!

Also look for Denis Leary as the a-hole new head coach, Tom Welling as the Browns' incumbent quarterback, Sam Elliott as Callahn's college coach at Wisconsin, Patrick St. Espirit and Chi McBride as the Seahawks' GM and President, Kevin Dunn as a Browns official, Sean Combs as Callahan's all-powerful agent, and NFL/Cleveland legends Jim Brown and Bernie Kosar appearing briefly as themselves.

Things get a little goofy at times once the draft comes around in the final act. There's an epic case of luck as Weaver makes a decision that should have doomed his career as a G.M. and possibly the Browns as a franchise too in terms of player personnel. Is it a cool ending? Sure, Costner gets to flex his muscles with one twist after another. A little too tidy? Oh, yes, very much, but it works. Oddly enough....it's not too far from what the Browns actually did in the 2014 draft. Did this movie see into the future?!? Meh, that's too much thinking involved. It's a good, not great movie, that's an enjoyable way to pass two hours. An easy flick to watch and be entertained with.

Draft Day (2014): ***/****

3 Days to Kill

I don't know what's gotten into Kevin Costner, but I'm not complaining. A huge star in the 1980s, he didn't have the same success in the 1990s, a couple big box office bombs to his name. He kept acting throughout, but there....just....weren't....as....many roles. Then 2014 came along, and Costner WAS EVERYWHERE with movies like Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, Draft Day, and for today's review, 3 Days to Kill.

An experienced CIA assassin with plenty of years of experience under his belt, Ethan Renner (Costner) has been tasked with another dangerous mission, capturing two terrorists in Belgrade suspected of selling a dirty bomb. Nothing goes right though, Ethan wounding one and unintentionally spotting the other, previously unknown to security forces. He's wounded in the process, only learning after that he has brain cancer that's spread to his lungs. The prognosis for survival? Three-to-five months at best. With his time running out, Ethan leaves the CIA behind and heads to Paris to try and make up for lost time with his ex-wife and teenage daughter, Zooey (Hailee Steinfeld). His plan is thrown for a loop though when a fellow CIA assassin, Vivi (Amber Heard), approaches him with an offer. She can give him an experimental drug that could significantly prolong his life, but she'll only give him the drug if he agrees to finish the job, killing the two dangerous terrorists, sited again in Paris.

So that Kevin Costner guy, he's pretty cool. The star of Field of Dreams, Bull Durham, No Way Out, he's a movie star that can act and as a movie fan, it is definitely cool to see him in more theatrical releases. In the Liam Neeson vein, Costner isn't necessarily a romantic lead anymore. Yeah, at 59 years old, he's just too old. I'm kidding of course. My girlfriend would certainly disagree. But like Neeson, there's potential for him to be that gruff, grizzled action star, and this seemed like a good jumping off point. As a tough guy, as an action star, Costner is the best thing going in this pretty bizarre 2014 action flick. The script has some fun with Ethan's portrayal as a modern-day American cowboy in Europe, and it works at times, even if it is overused. So Costner is an ideal action hero, more than capable of handling himself in said action scenes. How then does the rest of the movie hold up? Not nearly so well.

Dying secret agent, nuclear bomb potentially being sold to terrorists, the future of mankind on the line. A cool formula, don't you think? I do. It may be familiar for spy/espionage/thriller fans, but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. So what did director McG and screenwriter Luc Besson (of Taken, Transporter fame) do with that movie? They make it a story about a family torn apart by the father's job -- expert CIA assassin -- trying to reunite because said father is months away from a tragically young death. Wow, I wasn't expecting an after school special when I sought out a movie about Kevin Costner saving the world all across stylish Europe. Costner is excellent at that gravelly, chiseled way and Steinfeld has shown with her limited roles that she could an actress to watch out for in the coming years. They do have some chemistry together, two talented actors working together, but when the script does them absolutely no favors? Well, this movie got bad, and it did so quickly.

I think that becomes the biggest issue. What kind of movie is this? Is is a stylish action movie with Belgrade and Paris serving as the film's backdrop? Or is more a family drama with some action thrown in. Unfortunately, it's both. There are some very cool moments, and wouldn't you know it? They're the action scenes! Renner's mission to catch The Wolf (Richard Sammel) and his malicious assistant, the Albino (Tomas Lemarquis) -- yes, there is a villain named the Albino, so you know he's a villain -- is especially cool as a gunfight goes pretty wrong pretty quickly. The same for a car chase through the streets of Paris, two cars slamming into each other, managing to not kill hundreds of folks, avoiding obstacles left and right, it's all those things that Besson can be so good at...when it works. Simply put, there aren't enough moments like this because....someone decided no one likes action movies? Your guess is as good as mine.

It becomes laughable, even painful. Tasked with finding that terrorist duo, Renner is also trying to redeem himself in the eyes of his daughter. At different points, he menacingly looks at her very French boyfriend, teaches her how to dance, teaches her how to ride a bike (are you kidding me?!?), all these cutesy little things that scream 'Lifetime Movie gone wrong!' more than action-packed thriller. For goodness sake, he teaches his teenage daughter to ride her bike!!! It's awful, all the attempts at humor falling short basically across the board. By the time the Wolf shows up at the most ridiculously convenient place to set up the finale, wow, I was just done. Renner also yells at a snitch tied up in his trunk "Shut up! I'm trying to have a conversation with my daughter!" and later asks a kidnapped, about to be tortured Italian (appropriately named Guido) what his family recipe is for making pasta sauce is because.....Renner's daughter needs advice. Eek, just eek. That's not good.

Who else to look for in this pile? Heard goes from button-downed, plain-looking CIA agent to puppet master and CIA assassin expert specialist in the matter of like 4 days, bringing countless cool outfits and wigs with her. Connie Nielsen plays Renner's wife, tasked with gasping and covering up tears every time she sees her ex-husband bonding with her angry daughter. Oh, and the daughter sets her Dad's ringtone as I Love It by Icona Pop, an annoying shrill song you can listen to here. Don't say I didn't warn you though.

So yeah, this movie was rough to get through. Almost two hours long, it drags anytime action gets left in the background. Costner is exceptionally cool, but even that cool factor couldn't save this one. Steer clear in a big way.

3 Days to Kill (2014): */****

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

I think the first 14 years of the 21st Century have earned a new nickname, a new era. We are residents of the Reboot Era!!! Basically any successful franchise series from the past, from any decade with any potential for earning money is going to get a reboot. Young audiences can't be trusted to actually look to the past, can they? Some are good, some are worthy, and some are clearly ploys to make boatloads of money. Enter 2014's Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit because there was audiences knocking down doors for a reboot of the famous Tom Clancy character.

Studying in London when the 9/11 attacks occur in New York, Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) decides to put his academics on hold, joining the Marines and becoming a hero in Afghanistan in a helicopter accident, saving two fellow Marines. The accident almost cripples him, but as he goes through extreme rehab, Ryan is approached by Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner), a C.I.A. official interested in recruiting Ryan as an agent. His hope? Harper wants Jack to work as a compliance officer at a brokerage house on Wall Street, looking for patterns and algorithms in the sales and deals. Ryan heads back to school, gets his degree, gets a job and goes to work for the C.I.A. deep undercover. Ten years pass, Ryan staying in touch with Harper, especially when he starts to find hidden accounts from Russian organizations that are doing the exact opposite of what the market suggests. This is enough money to cripple the United States, its government and its economy. Looking to get some answers, Jack heads to Moscow to investigate.

Before his surprising passing in October 2013, Tom Clancy was a go-to author for anyone interested in espionage and military science and technology. His most iconic character? That would be Jack Ryan who has been played by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck in four Ryan movies. All four movies are good in their own right, but it's been since 12 years since 2002's The Sum of All Fears. Did we really need a reboot? Were audiences clamoring for a new movie? For me, it seems like a ploy to make money, pure and simple. Naive of me? Probably, but here we sit. Still, there was a lot of talent assembled here, and as a Jack Ryan fan, I wanted to give it a shot even if I wasn't dying to see this new espionage thriller from director and co-star Kenneth Branagh.

So is it worth it? Yes and no. I've got some issues with it. This is the first Ryan movie not to be based off a Clancy novel, and I think it shows. We're re-introduced to the character, tweaking his backstory to make it more modern, more appropriate for the 2010s, not the 1980s/1990s. For starters, the movie clocks in at just 105 minutes. Take away a seven or eight minute credit sequence at the end, and we're talking a movie just over 90 minutes long (about the length of your average screwball comedy). From the opening 10-15 minutes, things are far too rush. Ten-plus years of Jack's backstory are jammed into that first 15 minutes. We go from London to Afghanistan to Walter Reed in a flash, and then we're off to international intrigue as Jack really delves into things in the financial world. The character is too cool for it not to be at least remotely interesting. While it has its moments though, it feels like James Bond meets Jason Bourne meets the Mission Impossible series. Not unique enough to really stand out. Still entertaining? Yes, but nowhere near as good as it could have been.

There are positives, starting with the cast. A star of another successful franchise reboot with the Star Trek movies, Pine is a strong choice to play Jack. He's likable, funny, and more than capable of handling himself in an action scene (but more on that little thing later). Too much time is spent on his relationship with his fiance, Cathy (Kiera Knightley, rocking an American accent), as they try to figure out what their future holds. Oh, by the way, he can't tell her he's a C.I.A. agent, Cathy a young, successful doctor relegated to paranoid girlfriend mode. The human element is one thing, a good thing, but focus on the espionage more! Costner has officially become that Actor, the older actor who isn't the A-list star who carries a movie. Instead, he has become that great actor who now plays the key supporting part, stealing scenes left and right. His Thomas Harper is a great supporting part. As for the villain, Branagh plays Viktor Cherevin with relish, a fun bad guy who's smart and sinister and extremist. A fun part, up there with Costner as the best characters.

Rushed though the story may be, it has some really cool set pieces. Upon arriving in Moscow, Ryan must face off with a hired killer (Nonso Anozie), a brutal, knock down fight in a high-class hotel room. The fallout and payoff is just as good, a CIA team coming in to remove any traces of the fight, including the body. Later in a scene reminiscent of 1996's Mission: Impossible, Ryan must sneak into Cherevin's highly-guarded office with every sort of security imaginable. Knightley's Cathy helps distract Cherevin while Costner's Harper looks on as security from the building across the street. It is a perfectly tense extended sequence that shows you don't need huge special effects or explosions or gimmicks to work. Definitely the high point of the movie.

Where are the gimmicks then? In the immediate follow-up, and that's where the rushed feeling of the entire movie becomes an issue. It's the type of scene that drives me nuts. With time running out, Jack figures out in about 37 seconds what Cherevin's plan is, how he'll execute it, where he'll do it, when, how his sleeper agent (Alec Utgoff) will accomplish it, how he created the bomb, blah blah blah. It's an almost painful scene, agents sitting around a command post and plane while Ryan rattles off numbers and names and questions, clues coming together at an alarming rate. Yeah, I get it. He's a brilliant analyst, but he's able to do in minutes what the C.I.A. and all the government agents couldn't do in years? Come on, man! I'm not buying it. The one actual action sequence in the movie follows it up, a sequence with a complete lack of a payoff. It counts far too much on coincidence to work, characters doing things that need to happen for the story to continue, not because it makes any sense.

I realize I'm really ripping this one. I can't help it. When it is bad, it is really bad, but I still found myself liking it. I walked away disappointed because the finale is so dumb, but the build-up was entertaining. 'Shadow' does have the feel of a throwback spy movie where the Russians are evil, the Americans angelically good, and dammit, we've gotta save the world. Definitely a mixed bag, but just enough to recommend in the mindless entertainment department. I just expect more from a Jack Ryan movie.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Man of Steel

First appearing in 1939 comic 'Action Comics 1,' Superman has become one of, if not the most recognizable superheroes around, right up there with Batman and Spiderman. He's come a long way in countless comics, even getting a 1950s TV show and ultimately feature films, starring Christopher Reeve, before disappearing for years (of sorts). Then, there was a 2006 reboot that the universe unanimously agreed was really, really bad. Well, it didn't take long for another reboot, 2013's Man of Steel. 

The planet Krypton is quickly dying, a father, Jor-El (Russell Crowe), saving his infant son by sending him off the planet at the last minute with Krypton's incredible power hidden away in the capsule. The space capsule travels through the galaxy, ultimately crashing on Earth where the infant is cared for and raised by a middle-aged farm couple. He grows up knowing he isn't quite normal, the young boy showing incredible feats of strength as needed. The boy, Clark, grows up and into his 20s and 30s, Clark (Henry Cavill) is still struggling to find himself as an outsider in this similar but ultimately strange world. He drifts from job to job, his strength and powers usually forcing him to leave sooner rather than later. Clark begins to find out who he really is as the years go by, all in time for him to fully embrace his superpowers. A survivor of Krypton, General Zod (Michael Shannon), has finally tracked Clark down after 30-plus years of searching the galaxy. Can Clark embrace his true self and help save Earth in the process?

Growing up, I was a Batman fan above all else. I'm pretty sure as a kid I watched the Christopher Reeve movies with my folks, but it's been years, and I don't have a great recollection of them. When I saw the teaser trailer way back in summer 2012 though for this Superman reboot, I was more than psyched. The talent behind the film was evident, director Zack Snyder (of 300 and Watchmen fame) working with producer Christopher Nolan (of the recent Batman trilogy) and a script from David S. Goyer (who wrote the Batman trilogy) working together to bring this reboot together. And going in, I think a distinction should be made. This is a movie about how Superman came to be, not an established Superman saving the world. It is exactly what a reboot should be, an explanation of how an iconic character that most of the audience knows and how he came to be that icon.

The obvious place to start is with Superman himself, Henry Cavill, the 30-year old British actor cast in the part of Clark Kent. A relative unknown in terms of star power before this role, Cavill is ideal casting. I thought he did a great job putting a new spin on a familiar character. This isn't the jokey, smart-mouthed Superman. Instead, Clark is an introspective, intelligent and even tortured individual trying to find who he is in this strange world. He has some similarities to us, but he also knows there is something very different and potentially dangerous about him, his powers coming to light as he grows up and learns his true identity. Now I should say, I'm a sucker for tortured anti-heroes dealing with their own demons, but I really enjoyed a far more serious, more cerebral superhero movie. It's hard not to compare this film to the Batman trilogy in that sense, a look at a superhero but without that comedy and sense of humor to fall back on. Oh, and as for Cavill? He looks like Superman, like he could pick a skyscraper up, save a bus from sinking in a river. The physical goes a long way.

What surprised me some in the development of the character was the reliance on the father-son dynamic between Clark and his father, Jor-El (Crowe nailing the part, "huge surprise" there), and his adopted father on Earth, Jonathan Kent, similarly played to perfection by Kevin Costner. It's a surprising dynamic that develops, Clark learning through he is through conversations with Jonathan, but also talking with his long-dead father through Krypton technology. It's those little things that bring the movie up a notch or two, Goyer's script providing some emotional, effective moments that ring true, not false as Clark becomes what he must become. In a weird way in terms of that father-son dynamic, 'Man' reminded me some of 2013's The Place Beyond the Pines in how it deals with that tricky relationship. It works though, right from the start, adding a layer to the story. Yeah, we've seen a Dad helping his son out before in movies, but how does a Dad help out his son who also has superpowers that could save or destroy Earth? Surprisingly, it's not that different.

From top to bottom, the cast may not have the instantly recognizable huge names, but I think that works in the movie's favor. Along with Cavill, Crowe and Costner, look for Amy Adams as Lois Lane, intrepid reporter who may be onto Clark's real identity and ability, Diane Lane as Martha, Clark's adopted mother, Harry Lennix and Christopher Meloni as Army officers tasked with finding the truth about Superman, Laurence Fishburne as Lois' editor at the Daily Planet, an underused Richard Schiff as a scientist working with the military, and Ayelet Zurer as Lana, Clark's real mother on Krypton who must decide what sacrifice to make with her son. As the villain, General Zod, Shannon is great casting, his huge presence a big positive in this reboot, Antje Traue as his indestructible right-hand officer.

Reading reviews, listening to friends, what caught me off guard was the hate this movie received. I don't know why. If anything, I was pleasantly surprised. Maybe it's because I didn't go into the movie with any preconceived notions of what the movie should be, not being a diehard Superman fan. I came away very impressed from the get-go. The story is non-linear, bouncing around between flashbacks and the current time as Clark moves ever close to fulfilling his destiny. The storytelling device works, simple as that. Composer Hans Zimmer's score is big and booming and appropriate while the visual look of the movie -- polished, but slightly washed out, even faded -- similarly works very well. Even Superman's outfit is a darker, more pale blue, not that bright blue we've come to associate with the character. The action is solid, especially an epic showdown in Smallville, but I found myself more drawn to the story and the characters. Go figure.

In the months since the release of 'Man,' the franchise/series has been in the news because of where it's going. Instead of just continuing the Superman movies, the next movie will be Batman vs. Superman, scheduled for a 2015 release. I'm curious, even intrigued, but I can't say I'm excited. 'Man' leaves the story on such a good jumping off point that it seems almost a gimmick to revive Batman so quick and bring him into this series. That said, I'll probably go see it. If nothing else and not knowing where the franchise will go, 'Man' is a great jumping off point in itself. Lots of dissenters and haters out there, but make up your own mind. I for one, loved it.

Man of Steel (2013): *** 1/2 /****

The Company Men

So the 1930s had the Great Depression. Now, our current recession has been dubbed the Great Recession since the global economy took a world-changing hit in 2007 and 2008. How about some movies about it?!? Not exactly a warm, uplifting story now, is it? Just like movies about Iraq and Afghanistan, these movies seem doomed. Maybe the wounds are too fresh, maybe in years to come they'll gain popularity. One that's good in the moment and will hopefully be remembered pretty well is 2010's The Company Men.

Like many international/worldwide companies, Global Transportation Systems (GTX) is hit very hard when the economy bottoms out in 2008, forcing the higher-ups to approve severe layoffs almost across the board. A 12-year veteran of the company, Bobby Walker (Ben Affleck) is among the first wave fired, forcing the husband and father of two to desperately search for a new job. Not soon after when things don't go on the upswing, 30-year veteran Phil Woodward (Chris Cooper) is among the second wave of employees fired, one of thousands across the company. GTX offers a severance package on top of a company meant to help them find new jobs, but the dire situation is lousy just the same. All the while, one of GTX's most powerful employees, Gene McLary (Tommy Lee Jones), sees the writing on the wall but can do little about it. What does the economy hold for both the company and the individual?

I'm basically the most un-savvy business mind ever. While I tried to understand and grasp what the economic downturn, it basically flew right over my head. Thankfully this drama from director John Wells doesn't try to explain the recession, instead focusing on humanizing the recession. We don't see the bigger picture for the most part. There aren't any huge, emotional scenes showing how the recession came to be, how the world, the economy, businesses/corporations adjust to the problem, how it may ultimately be solved at all. We meet the people -- on both sides, being fired and doing the firing -- as they try to survive this downturn unlike anything else the economy and world has ever seen. In that sense, it's a good, old-fashioned drama that allows the cast to do their thing. No gimmicks or anything forced, just personal, human drama.

If there is an issue with that personal, human drama, it's that it can be difficult to fully get behind and support these characters. They're dropped from six-figure paying jobs to searching for jobs. We hear them -- especially Affleck's Bobby -- talk about not being able to afford his Patriots tickets, his country club membership, his family's vacations to Disney. Boo-hoo, I get paid $60 per story I write at work. The same for Tommy Lee Jones' Gene on a smaller level, one particular line hamstringing an otherwise very effective monologue. Cooper's Phil is the most sympathetic -- and similarly most underutilized character -- a factory worker turned office supervisor trying to pay for his daughter's college tuition. End of rant. Moral of the story....it's hard to feel too bad about people complaining about losing the ultra-luxuries of being rich. Yeah, #FirstWorldProblems.

That minor rant out of the way, I thought the acting was uniformly solid across the board. Lack of sympathy aside, Affleck does a good job showing how low a man can get, how frustrating it can be when your world is completely pulled out from under you. Jones is his typical professional self, a solid role that shows not all big business is evil. He's worked his way up to the hierarchy and appreciates the work it's taken to get there. He also sees the hypocritical excesses all around him but knows there is little he can do at the same time. Cooper is underused as Phil, but his character is key to show a variation on how some people handle losing their job. Because it's a very real part, his scenes can be incredibly uncomfortable to watch. Also look for Kevin Costner as Jack, Bobby's blue collar brother-in-law who owns his own construction/contracting company, never missing a chance to dig Bobby for his evil ways with big business.

It was a wise choice to give all these individuals some personal flaws so we're not seeing "perfect" people thrown out on their backside. Affleck's rage comes out in one particular interview, Bobby making comments that are just wrong. Jones too has a personal secret that came as a surprise. We see all these little foibles, these little idiosyncrasies in all of the cast. Also joining the cast is Craig T. Nelson as GTX's ridiculously rich CEO, Maria Bello as GTX's battle axe, the woman placed in charge of organizing the mass firings, Rosemarie DeWitt as Bobby's wife, and Eamonn Walker as Danny, a fellow victim of the mass firings who bonds with Bobby.

First-time director John Wells has a winner here. It's low-key in its message without beating us over the head with that message. Because of the subject, the story can be a tad bit uncomfortable to watch. We're seeing people at their lowest, their most desperate. 'Company' doesn't try to explain it all, to fix it all with a snap of the finger. The ending does provide some hope for the future, building up the tenacity and courage of the American worker. There is no easy answer to the current recession so why force one on the viewer? It's a good movie, a solid drama that capitalizes on a very strong cast. 

The Company Men (2010): ***/****

The Untouchables

So Prohibition, huh? That must have sucked. People wanted to drink, but the government said it was illegal to do so. The government agencies and police forces were tasked with limiting the bootleggers, but that was easier said than done. The most famous? Eliot Ness, a Treasury agent who became famous for helping take down Chicago gangster Al Capone. His story was turned into a successful TV show in the late 1950s and early 1960s and maybe most famously in a feature film, 1987's The Untouchables.

It's 1930 and Prohibition has turned Chicago into a warring city of dead bodies and rival gangsters fighting for control. The most powerful though is Al Capone (Robert De Niro), ruling the city and the influx of alcohol with an iron fist. Where there's demand, he's got the supply. A U.S. Treasury agent, Eliot Ness (Kevin Costner), has been called in to bring Capone to justice, hopefully bringing his crime empire down with him. Ness, idealistic and a little naive, struggles with where to start, meeting dead end after dead end as he discovers how deep Capone's empire goes. Obsessed with doing his job and doing it well, Ness keeps on, recruiting a small group of agents and police officers, including a tough Chicago beat cop, James Malone (Sean Connery), who knows the streets better than anyone. As he quickly finds out, Ness doesn't know how deep he'll have to go to accomplish his mission, especially when the bodies start to pile up.

From director Brian De Palma, this is one of those perfect guy's guy movies. It is based on Ness' real-life exploits as his crew of Untouchables took the battle to Capone in Chicago between 1929 and 1931. Yes, time is compressed, some names are changed here and there, but the point is the same. It has just about everything going for it. 'Untouchables' was filmed on location in Chicago (looks gorgeous), and it feels like Depression Era Chicago, picking up two Oscar nominations for Costume Design and Art Direction/Set Decoration. Everything from the background on the streets to the cars to the time-appropriate costumes (Armani suits never looked so good), it all adds layer after layer to the film. Also picking up an Oscar nomination is the score from composer Ennio Morricone.Listen to his full soundtrack HERE. I love the sweep of it, quiet, moving Morricone balanced with bigger, epic Morricone.

At the forefront of 'Untcouhables' is a great pairing of stars. Costner is one of the biggest stars of the 1980s with everything from Bull Durham to Field of Dreams, Silverado to No Way Out. Connery was a Hollywood legend, the firmly established star. Their on-screen dynamic is an underrated part of the success here that can get lost in the shuffle. Costner's Eliot is a hard-driving, hard-working idealist. He wants to accomplish his mission, but do it the right way, not knowing how filthy the world is he finds himself in. Connery's Malone is the flat-footed beat cop with a long career behind him. He knows everyone, knows all the secrets and inner-workings. Eliot Ness is looking for help while Malone is looking for a reason to become re-energized again after years of watching greed and corruption poison Chicago. Their scenes together crackle, dialogue just brimming with energy and plenty of great one-liners.

Joining Costner and Connery as the Untouchables are a very young Andy Garcia and a scene-stealing Charles Martin Smith. Garcia plays George Stone, a cop fresh out of the Police Academy and a dead-shot with a pistol, his Italian background hinted at but never fully explained. Garcia's Stone is inherently cool, a man of few words who lets his smirk and his pistol do his talking. Martin Smith plays Oscar Wallace, a Treasury accountant/bookkeeper who jumps at the chance to do some actual field work with the Untouchables. It's four cool characters, a great dynamic among the quartet, an odd couple men on a mission grouping that works perfectly.

Committing to gaining weight to really look the part, De Niro is a fine choice to play infamous Chicago gangster Al Capone. It is a part that would have been easy to be exaggerated, but De Niro knows how far to push it. Capone is hot-tempered, fiery and barely keeps his emotions in check. The part is mostly long scenes, monologues really, where De Niro gets to flex a bit. Richard Bradford plays the police commissioner caught in the middle of it all and maybe playing all sides, Patricia Clarkson plays Ness' pregnant wife, an uncredited Clifton James as the prosecuting district attorney, and Billy Drago as Frank Nitti, Capone's chief enforcer and accomplished killer.

With the actual history here condensed from a few years to seemingly a few months, we get an episodic story that covers a ton of ground in the 119-minute movie. More than the performances, the music, the period appropriate....well, everything, 'Untouchables' always stands out for me because of the well-staged set pieces. An ambush near the Canadian border is a gem, the machine guns rattling like crazy to Morricone's swooping score. The highlight though has Ness and Co. looking for Capone's bookkeeper, desperately trying to get out of town, at Union Station. The action, the drama, the nods to classic films (Battleship Potempkin), and the slow motion all build to this almost unbearable tension. Maybe it isn't the most unified script/story, but the set pieces help keep things together beginning to end. A gem, a must-see for fans of Costner, Connery, gangster movie fans and any Chicagoans.

The Untouchables (1987): ****/****

JFK

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was traveling by motorcade in Dallas when he was shot and killed by Lee Harvey Oswald. Or so some think at least. One of the most tragic events in U.S. history, Kennedy's assassination has sparked hundreds and thousands of theories. Was Oswald working alone? Was it a government conspiracy to kill Kennedy? Maybe no one will ever know for sure, but the conspiracy theories abound. Enter stage right, 1991's JFK.

The district attorney in New Orleans, Jim Garrison (Kevin Costner) is stunned like so many Americans when news of President Kennedy's death hits the airwaves. He watches with morbid curiosity and a desire for answers as Lee Harvey Oswald (Gary Oldman) is arrested for the murder and summarily shot by Jack Ruby two days later. Several years pass, but by 1966, Garrison is bothered more and more by the details of the assassination. With help from his staff, Garrison begins to do his own investigation, and the results are startling. What exactly happened in the days and months leading up to Nov. 22, 1963? More importantly, what happened after? The more they find out, the more Garrison smells a government cover-up.

From director Oliver Stone, this is quite the ambitious project. For starters, because it involves such a touchy subject as the JFK assassination, everyone has at least somewhat of an opinion on the subject. More than just viewer opinions, the amount of info, theories and evidence involving the assassination is endless. Type in 'JFK Conspiracy' at Google, and see how many results you get. So walking through a virtual filming minefield, Stone takes on a gargantuan task. The end result is a thought-provoking, somewhat meandering (at 206 minutes) story that throws a lot at the viewer, but if you pay attention, it's not a difficult movie to keep up with.

The goal from the beginning is simple; Stone intends to put that bug in your head that the lone shooter theory -- Oswald shooting Kennedy -- just isn't the way it happened. Recent studies show that some 60% of Americans believe there was a conspiracy involving the shooting. Stone has always had an aggressive shooting style, but it's a positive here. The entire movie is basically one interview after another -- quick cuts, fast editing, flashbacks galore -- as one piece of evidence piles up one on top of the other through Garrison and Co.'s investigation. The story is based on the true-to-life efforts of Garrison and his staff (with some tweaks here and there), but it plays like All the President's Men or any number of other films detailing an investigative report.

Ready to be impressed? This is one doozy of a cast, starting with Costner who delivers a likable, human performance as the D.A. driven to obsession to find out the truth. The subplot with his family (including wife Sissy Spacek) is one of the few weak points the movie has. Seeing him only in flashback, Oldman is frighteningly good as Oswald, and a dead ringer physically to boot. Garrison's investigative staff includes Jay O. Sanders, Laurie Metcalf, Wayne Knight, Michael Rooker and Gary Grubbs. Don't go anywhere. I'm not to the halfway point yet. There's also Ed Asner, Jack Lemmon, Brian Doyle-Murray (as Jack Ruby), Walther Matthau, John Candy, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Bacon, Joe Pesci, and Tomas Milian. Some are nothing more than a scene or two cameo, but their presence alone legitimizes their scenes. Jones, Sutherland, Bacon and Pesci are the most memorable of the group.

Presenting all sorts of what ifs and could bes, the movie builds to a courtroom scene where Garrison puts someone on trial for conspiring to kill JFK. The scene is a gem, capping off all we've heard, sene and learned through their investigation. Costner is highly effective in this scene, both pointing out the flaws in the lone shooter theory (later referenced famously in Seinfeld with the Magic Loogie, watch HERE) but also addressing the jury for what they should do. It shows one man's frustration at what he believes the government has been up to, doing something for extraordinary amounts of money rather than what's good for the country. The whole movie is enjoyable and extremely polished, but the court scene (about 35 minutes at the end) is the best thing going.

So did Oswald shoot Kennedy? Were there other shooters? We'll probably never know. But I have to give Stone's film credit. Say what you want about your own thoughts on the assassination, but Stone cleanly lays out the potential for at least one possibility. Maybe Oswald was a patsy, one man set up by larger forces at work. It's something you will have to think about yourself, but as a director, Stone does an admirable job at least making us question what really happened.

JFK (1991): ***/****

Bull Durham

Of all the sports out there -- and there's plenty -- my favorite is and always will be baseball.  There's something simple about America's pastime that you either appreciate or you don't. Little middle ground exists. You can watch 10,000 baseball games over the course of your life and never see the same game twice. More than that, on any given play in any stadium across the country, you can see something you will most likely never see again. Baseball is baseball, a sport and a beast unto itself.

One of the best movies to ever try and explain the beauty and lunacy of baseball was 1988's Bull Durham. With professional baseball, there are the thousands of players who want nothing more than to play in the Majors, or as 'Bull' puts it....make it to The Show.  This is a story from the minor leagues though, players who don't necessarily have a great shot at future stardom. This is a movie about long bus trips, games in front of half-filled stadiums, eccentric players left and right, and most importantly, that dream of making it at the highest level even if it's just for a game.

Recently signed for a large bonus, rookie pitcher Ebby Calvin 'Nook' LaLoosh (Tim Robbins) has been assigned to Class A ball, the Durham Bulls in the Carolina League. LaLoosh has all the talent in the world, but he struggles on focusing, keeping his mind in the game, and therefore his pitching control. Hoping to groom the star pitcher for the majors, the organization brings in career minor leaguer Crash Davis (Kevin Costner), a catcher with 12 years experience under his belt. The rookie and the vet don't exactly get along, making things worse when Annie (Susan Sarandon), a diehard "supporter" of the team takes an interest in them both. Each season Annie picks one player and hooks up with them all summer, prompting a great season. How's this mess of a situation in the middle of a baseball season going to be fixed?   

Where to start with Bull Durham? Lots of good starting points -- there's a reason it is held in high regard among baseball fans -- but the best point to start is Kevin Costner, a baseball fan and a movie star. With this movie and Field of Dreams and For the Love of the Game, Costner has shown his love and respect for the game of baseball.  Playing Crash, he looks and sounds like a baseball player. You're rooting for him with the thousands of miles he's put on his legs chasing his dream. Signed by the Bulls as a mentor, he has the dubious honor of chasing the all-time minor league home run record but wants nothing to do with it. He's a baseball player on his last legs looking to stay in the game a little while longer, and Costner nails the part.

Director Ron Shelton, the screenplay and the cast get this one right. An easy 3-for-3. There are sports stories, and there are chasing your dream sports stories. For the most part, that's what these players are doing albeit in a funny fashion. There's the superstitious Hispanic player blessing his bat and glove, the bible-thumping player who leads a prayer group, the manager (Trey Wilson) trying to hold it all together, and his assistant (Robert Wuhl) always ready with a word. 'Bull' gets the little moments right; the manager losing his mind following a bad loss (watch HERE), Crash's 'I believe' speech (watch HERE), the meeting of the minds at the mound (watch HERE), LaLoosh striking out 18 in his debut and walking 18 batters, and so many more, too many to mention.

Selling these moments along with Costner is Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins.  Sarandon's Annie is an interesting character, a baseball groupie if a highly intelligent one. Each summer she picks one player and teaches him the ways of love and baseball, always producing his best year for himself and the team in the process.  She's torn between Nook and Crash, knowing she can help the star pitcher but wanting Crash instead. Robbins is hilarious as Nook, the tall, lanky and generally clueless star prospect. He wants to do things his way, accepted ways be damned. In his cluelessness though, he's likable in a part that would have been easy to dislike. And as a topper, seeing his Fernando Valenzuela-like pitching motion is hysterical.

Where other movies don't understand the people and places they're showing, 'Bull' hits it right on the button. This is a movie and story that knows baseball, that respects baseball and all its idiosyncrasies, all its positives and negatives that can switch with the snap of a finger. It is a game that people and fans have always been drawn to, and you can see why through all the craziness. In its simplicity, it is a most beautiful game.

Bull Durham <---trailer (1988): ****/****