The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Oh, how quick the time goes. It seems like the first The Hunger Games was hitting theaters way back in March 2013 and doing it well, earning over $400 million in the U.S. alone. Well, it is based off a trilogy by author Suzanne Collins and as good as the first entry was, the series certainly held a ton of promise going forward. The early returns for 2013's The Hunger Games: Catching Fire were incredibly positive, earning over $300 million in just three weeks in theaters. Does it hold up to the pressure of the vaunted second movie in a trilogy sub-genre?

It's been several months since Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) survived and won the 74th Annual Hunger Games, both struggling to cope with what they were able to survive. Their victory in the Games wasn't so simple or straightforward though. The Panem government is struggling to hold the Districts together, the people seeing that the government isn't so perfect, all of it caused by seeing Katniss and Peeta's defiance in almost choosing suicide rather than one of them winning the previous Hunger Games. While struggling through their own issues, the Game's winners are required to go on a victory tour, taking a train across the 12 districts until they finally end up in the Capital. With each passing district though, the defiance and unrest grows bigger and bigger, leaving Panem President Snow (Donald Sutherland) little choice but to do something desperate in hopes of turning the tide in favor of the government.

SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS Because I'm not sure who's read the books, who's seen the trailers, who's looked for possible spoilers, it is rather difficult to write this review without giving away a pretty major spoilers about where the story goes in the second half. Watching previews, it's pretty obvious what's going on, but I don't want to be the one blowing the surprise so be forewarned as you continue reading. SPOILERS FROM HERE ON IN

My personal favorite of the trilogy, I was very curious to see what director Francis Lawrence did with the series' second entry. The second film in a trilogy is pivotal, movies like Godfather 2 and Empire Strikes Back setting the bar pretty high. 'Fire' does a good job setting up where the series will go, the third book broken up into two separate features scheduled for 2014 and 2015. Almost across the board, we learn a lot more about all the characters, the disintegrating situation in Panem. If there's a weakness, it's that at 146 minutes, 'Fire' is a little long in the tooth. The first hour is a little slow-moving in setting everything up, laying everything out with the feel of duplication. It plays a lot like the first movie, scenes repeated, situations repeated almost word-for-word. Thankfully, that's not the entire movie. Things pick up near the hour-mark for the better, the momentum picking up and never slowing down until the final credits.

What is never in question -- and wasn't an issue in the first one -- is casting Jennifer Lawrence in the lead role here as Katniss Everdeen, a teenager living in Panem's District 12, the poorest of the districts. Coming off her Oscar-award winning performance from Silver Linings Playbook, Lawrence adds to the development of Katniss, and for the better in a big way. She may be a teenager in years but in experience, she's a grown woman, questioning everything about what her life has become. Lawrence's Katniss still struggles with the spotlight, not understanding why she's being glorified for killing and surviving where so many others died. Her Katniss has become a hero, a beacon of the rebellion, a hope for something better, something she is quickly figuring out. Whether it be on-screen or just doing promotional interviews, Lawrence has a very natural, likable side, and she proves again why she was such an ideal casting choice to play Katniss.

All the other key players return as well, and with some new additions. I liked Peeta's development, Hutcherson capitalizing on a script that allows him something to do other than whine and look dreamily into Katniss' eyes. Sutherland too is spot-on, brimming with menacing intensity and trying to hold onto a tenuous grasp of his country. Also returning are Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, the former District 12 winner and booze-addled mentor to Katniss and Peeta, Elizabeth Banks as Effie, the group's agent of sorts, promoting them while growing close to each, Lenny Kravitz as Cinna, their stylist and Katniss' confidant, Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, the TV host of the televised Hunger Games, Toby Jones his partner. With so many characters, it'd be easy for some to get lost in the shuffle, but that's not the case here. Each supporting character gets his moment to shine, Harrelson and Banks taking Haymitch and Effie forward, Kravitz doing a fine job as Cinna, and Tucci is ever the scene-stealer as Caesar, able to produce a laugh or a harsher, more emotional moment almost at will.

Where 'Fire' hits its groove is near the hour-mark, and here come the SPOILERS. In hopes of squashing the symbol Katniss has become, President Snow has a twist in mind for the 75th Hunger Games, the Third Quarter Quell. The competitors will be two winners apiece from each District, Katniss and Peeta forced back into the arena, this time created by Game Master Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The setting looks like the South Pacific, a jungle-covered island with a lagoon in the middle, but there's countless twists and threats awaiting the competitors as they see who will be the last fighter standing. Much like the first movie, 'Fire' is at its strongest during the actual Hunger Games. There's something primal, exhilarating, profoundly dark and exciting about these sequences. As a bonus, we get to know more about the other Tributes -- far more than the original -- including Sam Claflin as Finnick, the ego-driven District 4 hero, Jena Malone as Johanna, the vicious, cynical fighter who isn't interested in public opinion, and Jeffrey Wright as Beetee, the squirrelly mechanical and engineering specialist.

Sure, there are weaknesses along the way, especially the sometimes sluggish first hour. Taken as a whole, it's a more than worthy follow-up in the series. If it's not the end-all, be-all second entry in the trilogy, it's still very good and more than lives up to the groundwork Collins set up with her second novel. The ending especially works, doing a great job ending on a cliffhanger that should propel the series right into the final two movies. What else to look for? Liam Hemsworth as Gale, Katniss' quasi-boyfriend, and Willow Shields as Primrose, Katniss' younger sister, growing up at the most turbulent of times and maturing just as fast. And this time around, I noticed James Newton Howard's musical score far more, a worthy addition to the trilogy.

Where does this one stand? Fans of the series -- the books or the first film -- will no doubt enjoy this one. I liked it a lot, even loved the second half. I resent the three books being split into four movies, but like the rest of you jamokes, I'll be there when it hits theaters. 'Fire' does a very nice job setting things up, and I'm psyched for where things are going.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013): ***/****

The Master

If this sounds pretentious, so be it, I believe it to be true. Some directors make films, not movies, and Paul Thomas Anderson certainly applies under that distinction. These aren't movies you sit back and laugh at or even simply enjoy. There's supposed to be something more. Maybe we're not supposed to enjoy them at all, just appreciate them. That's where I sit now having watched Anderson's 2012 film The Master.

A Navy veteran who served in the Pacific during World War II, Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix) wanders aimlessly with his life. He moves from job to job, fired by one or forced to leave by others. Running from one job to the next with no sense or purpose or future, Freddie stumbles onto the boat of Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), a well-to-do middle-aged man who most definitely knows his own purpose. Dodd has started The Cause, a movement that encourages its believers and followers to expand their minds and what they think they know. Freddie is instantly drawn to Lancaster, and the feeling is mutual. These two vastly different people have a common bond, a link somehow. Freddie starts to travel with Dodd's Cause movement, but those around Dodd start to question Freddie's motives, even fearing his violent outburst, and also begin to question what Dodd hopes to achieve himself?

Other film reviewers I trust and respect generally liked this movie while some even loved it. I came away.....disappointed. I say this for one, because I had extremely high expectations. Two, I thought the first hour (maybe a little longer) is a nearly perfect start. I was curious, fascinated, disgusted, and I wanted to see where it went. Then something changed in a huge way. Near the halfway point of Anderson's 144-minute film, Freddie and Dodd are arrested and put into adjacent cells. They scream at each other mercilessly, eventually getting their release. From there on in, the movie loses any purpose. I don't know what it's trying to say -- if anything -- up until the conclusion. An immaculately spelled out, hand-fed story is not necessary in my head, I like trying to figure things out in a film, but the second half of the movie felt wasted to me as if it didn't quite know where it was going or how to wrap things up.

There are very few perfect movies (if any) out there, right? It's always in the eye of the beholder. Individuals as an audience are drawn to different things. So while I didn't love Anderson's film, I can also appreciate that as a film, it is a gem. Anderson and Co. -- including cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr. -- elected to shoot in 65 mm, a throwback to Hollywood days of old when everyone now prefers to shoot in digital. In the visual sense, the movie is a masterpiece. The look of the film alone is worth it no matter how you feel in the end about the story or characters. This isn't characters having to act to look like its the 1950s. This truly feels like the 1950s from the clothes to the hairstyles, cars to the sets. Anderson's shots are full of depth, characters hovering on top of each other, full of rich colors that benefit from the old school filming technique. A member of Radiohead, Jonny Greenwood did the musical score, an unsettling, moving score similar to his music from Anderson's There Will Be Blood.

Directing this film, Anderson is without question a freakishly talented director. This isn't a typical Friday release. 'Eh, what crap can we go see this weekend?' this is not. It is a self-assured confidence and talent that I'd like to think directors either have or they don't. I don't know if you can work to get to this level. Writing the script for 'Master,' Anderson is counting on you being able to follow with the story and make some decisions on your own. Freddie bumps from one job to another without a transition. He's there, now he isn't, and now he's elsewhere. Figure it out for yourself. Anderson's script never spells things out for us, and his story as a whole....well, it isn't a story. There's no real plot, no huge set pieces. It moves from one scene to another without warning. He has style though. That's evident. Beautiful long shots, extreme close-ups that linger on for seemingly endless periods, uninterrupted shots that speak to a more classical time in Hollywood, Anderson's got that innate ability.

For the recent award seasons (I'm looking at you, Academy Awards), 'Master' was in that odd category that earned acting nominations, but nothing else. There are flaws, but the characters are interesting if highly unlikable. Phoenix was nominated for Best Actor, but as good as his performance is, I got the sense it was just a continuation of the weirdness we saw on Letterman years ago. It's very good, but it's not the all-time classic performance some make it out to be. He did become Freddie though, making the character come to life, especially his awkward walking, hands on his hips. Freddie could have PTSD from WWII (although his problems seem deeper-rooted), but there's also trouble with his alcohol addiction, sex obsession, and horrifically violent outbursts. It is a character from the moment we meet him that we know it will not end well for him. Tragic isn't a spot-on description, but it sure is close.

Similarly nominated is Hoffman as Lancaster Dodd, loosely based on Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. I liked this performance more than Phoenix, even though both are worthy performances. Hoffman's Dodd is interesting because we see the good and bad. He presents himself as this brilliant, philosophical thinker, but it's all an act. I especially liked the dynamic between Freddie and Lancaster, the two inexplicably drawn to each other. The third nominated performance, Amy Adams as Lancaster's wife, Peggy, is all right but nothing more. Also look for Laura Dern as one of Lancaster's loyal followers, Jesse Plemons as Val, Lancaster's questioning son, and Ambyr Childers as his daughter, recently married to fellow believer, Clark (Rami Malek).

Something fell short here for me. Every little thing doesn't have to be spelled out, and a non-linear story isn't a deal breaker. The second half of the story falls short though in a big way. It never goes anywhere, ending in disappointing fashion that brings the story full circle without any resolution. An incredible visual with some worthy performances go a long way, but there is simply some missing ingredient here that prevents it from being a classic. It needs to say something.

The Master (2012): ** 1/2 /****     

The Ides of March

As friend and fellow blogger Chris said so succinctly in his review of this movie....politics are bad. Let that sink in for awhile. Comes as quite a revelation doesn't it? Check out his review HERE. I guess it's safe to say as a viewing audience we're not going to get many in the way of happy-go-lucky political movies these days. Yeah, recession! Political thrillers are usually pretty reliable though -- however familiar -- so I at least wanted to give 2011's The Ides of March a fair shot.

It is a week away from the all-important but not quite decisive Ohio primary for the Democratic party, and campaign adviser Stephen Meyers (Ryan Gosling) is riding high. He is second only to veteran manager, Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) in the campaign of Governor Mike Morris (George Clooney), a popular, likable and seemingly shoe-in candidate for the next presidential election. The Republicans have no counter for him so all Morris needs to do is gain the Democratic bid. Stephen genuinely believes in Morris, thinking he has a chance to help make things right in America where others will certainly fail. As the Ohio primary draws closer though, their Democratic rivals for the bid have news that could cripple the campaign, not to mention Stephen finding out something about the supposedly-perfect Governor Morris.

There is a certain comfort level when watching a political thriller. From older classics like Fail Safe and The Manchurian Candidate to more recent entries like Spy Game, the Jack Ryan films, and The International, it is an enjoyable genre to watch. You know what to expect going in; betrayals, under-handed deals, conspiracies, murder and who knows what else? While I don't think 'Ides' is a classic by any means, I can say I enjoyed it. The story telegraphs everything that's going to happen -- okay, there's a twist here and there -- and the characters are stock characters we've all seen before and will see again. It isn't particularly unique, new, or even that memorable, but in the moment? It's good enough. Put as much talent together as was involved here (Clooney also directed and wrote), and it's hard to mess that up.

A star on the rise, Gosling had quite a year in 2011 with starring roles here and also in Drive and Crazy, Stupid Love.  I'm not completely sold on him yet, but I think there's potential if nothing else. Just 31 years old, he is excelling of late at playing that smart, preppy, well-spoken young man able to get what he wants because he's smooth, charming and likable. In other words? Feels like he's playing himself. Of all the characters though, Gosling's Stephen is given the only real character arc from beginning to end. It sounds dumb, but it is cool to actually see a character change some over the course of a film. It is a somewhat obvious change -- idealistic and naive to bitter and manipulative -- but because Gosling is so likable, I went along for the ride. His character is supposed to be disarming and able to convince you of something without revealing he's doing that. Good if not great performance to lead the way.

The rest of the cast definitely comes from the Stock Characters 101: Political Thrillers Edition. If there was lesser talent involved, it'd be a dull movie to watch. Clooney is Clooney, a similarly charming presidential candidate who is respected and even loved by some of his followers. Some thinly veiled comparisons to the Obama campaign fall flat by the way. It's not an out of this world great part, but a necessary one. It amounts to what the Morris character means more than what we actually see. Hoffman is his typical solid self, intense throughout as the veteran campaign manager with far too many campaigns under his belt, Paul Giamatti as Tom Duffy, Hoffman's rival in the other Democratic camp. Giamatti is a scene-stealer in a small but very effective supporting role. Evan Rachel Wood is also good if a little cliched as Molly, the 20-year old intern who similarly believes in Morris, but also has her eye on Gosling's Stephen. Marisa Tomei does what she can as a walking cliche, a reporter looking for a scoop and not caring who gets taken down in the process.

It is a story that is focused on politics so are we supposed to be surprised when we find out that everyone has secrets they'd like to keep to themselves? Nothing about 'Ides' should shock viewers, absolutely nothing. If the movie is at fault, it's there. While the twists and turns in the campaign are key, they don't exactly come out of left field. Jeffrey Wright as a Democratic senator who will pledge his delegates to Morris....if he gets a cabinet seat?!? Gasp! 'Ides' shouldn't surprise you. People making decisions not on like or dislike, but the bigger picture seems like Politics 101 to me. Manipulation, betrayal, blackmail, back-alley deals, under-handed arrangements, conspiracy theorists, all the ingredients of the game.

With that said, I did like this movie. It isn't a great political thriller, but it is a good one if nothing else. If it's not particularly original or innovative, well, so be it. A good political thriller can still be a good thing.

The Ides of March <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Moneyball

I think you either get baseball or you don't. It's that simple. Somethings you just can't explain the beauty of a sport to someone who either 1. Doesn't get it or 2. Doesn't want to get it. It is a sport that has changed with the times over the last 150-plus years so when someone comes along and drastically tries to change it? The "accepted way" of succeeding is going to resent the newcomer, the new way of doing it. That's what Oakland Athletics general manager Billy Beane tried to do as we see in Michael Lewis' book and 2011's Moneyball.

A former first round bust, Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) is at a turning point in his career in 2002 as the general manager of the Oakland Athletics. In a small market with a small market budget, Beane is trying to figure out how to field a competitive team in a market where rival teams are spending three and four times as much money as he is. While trying to pull off a trade, Billy meets Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a 25-year old Yale grad who has developed a way to analyze baseball in a more statistics-oriented fashion, working for the Cleveland Indians. He "trades" for Peter and goes about rebuilding a team and a franchise as it loses three key players. The whole baseball world says Billy is wrong, and that he will fail on an epic scale. Can he pull it off and show that his strategy can work too?

Like I tried to say earlier, there is a beauty of baseball that translates well to film. Watch a baseball game, and you will never see the exact same thing. Getting 27 outs will provide countless opportunities to see something that you've never seen before and may never see again. The ride along the way is the fun. Say what you will about Moneyball, but it is above all else a baseball movie. You can poke holes in the story -- I will later -- or question the bigger picture and claims it makes, but it manages to personalize a story that is based in numbers and statistical analysis. The actual game action is kept at a minimum (the exception is an American League record the A's take down), and director Bennett Miller does a fine job condensing a year of action into a 133-minute long movie.

This was a film that was in the works for years, always seemingly hitting roadblock after roadblock. The only reason it kept chugging along was producer and star Brad Pitt who always kept things moving. He earned a Best Actor nomination, and while he didn't win, I think he very much deserved the nomination at least. I'm a Pitt fan -- don't really get all the hate he gets as an actor -- but I don't think he gets the credit he deserves at times. Playing a person that most sports fans will know, he humanizes him instead of playing a cliched stereotype of the man. Quick flashbacks show how he got into baseball, failed as a player, became a scout and eventually a GM. This is a man who hates losing more than he loves winning. He is blinded by his own ambition, not seeing what he's accomplished. We see him interact with his 12-year old daughter (Kerris Dorsey) and his ex-wife (Robin Wright), but this is only way to develop the individual, not the name we've all heard on ESPN. Understated but emotional, a highly effective lead performance.

Only two other performances are given a chance to breathe. A pre-weight loss Jonah Hill plays Peter Brand, the brilliant baseball mind who looks at the sport as a statistic, not a sport based solely on physical skills/talents. The character is based off Beane's top assistant, Paul DePodesta. He too was nominated for his part -- didn't win -- and shows that if there was a question, he can most certainly act in a dramatic part, not just do comedy. Hill is so sublimely underplaying his part, you don't always notice his part, but then you think back and realize what a perfect counter/foil he is to Pitt's Beane. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Art Howe, the A's manager who resents Billy for some of his out-of-the-box thinking. Because it is a movie about Beane and his Moneyball strategy, Howe's part is downplayed, the manager coming off as a whiny punk. Still, a good part for Hoffman without a ton of screentime.

I love sports movies from the great to the good to the awful. This true sports story is a self-confident sports story. Like its two stars in Pitt and Hill, it is understated. It doesn't blast away at you, insisting you understand the message. STATS ARE IMPORTANT!!!!! I loved the musical score from Mychael Danna, an almost ethereal, synthesized electronic sound. Give a listen HERE and poke around Youtube bit, the soundtrack is a real winner. The story varies between live action and archive footage from the 2002 season, and while it doesn't focus on a ton of key games, it knows when to delve into some detail. Is it a compliment to say a movie is self-assured? I hope so because I intended it that way. Now if you're not a sports fan, you can stop reading. I loved the movie, but as a baseball fan I had some issues with the movie. NERD ALERT! NERD ALERT!

In an effort to emphasize Beane's impact on the A's and MLB in 2002 and since, the story in Moneyball is streamlined. Losing key players in slugger Jason Giambi, lead-off man Johnny Damon, and closer Jason Isringhausen, Beane and Hill must improvise. The movie focuses on three key signings including journeyman Scott Hatteberg (Christ Pratt in a great part), aging star David Justice and submarine "specialist" pitcher Chad Bradford. Yes, I know a movie can't tell every little thing, but it completely disregards part of the team's success. Yes, the A's lost Giambi and Damon. They still had Miguel Tejada (34 HRs, 131 RBIs in 2002), Eric Chavez (34 HRs, 109 RBIs), and Jermaine Dye (24 HRs, 86 RBIs) offensively. Oh, and that pitching staff? How about Barry Zito (23 wins, 2.98 ERA), Mark Mulder (19 wins, 3.47 ERA), Tim Hudson (15 wins, 2.98 ERA), and Billy Koch (44 saves, 11 wins)? Yes, Beane and his staff made some crazy brilliant moves that season, but to basically ignore all those other players? It's a disservice to the story of what was a great season. That's the end of my baseball nerd alert. Back to your regular programming.

My objections to the movie are because I love baseball. That's all. As a stand-alone story without much in the way of prior baseball knowledge, it is still a highly effective, well-told and professionally done movie. Easy-going isn't fair to describe it, but Moneyball has a confidence that brings it up a notch. Pitt and Hill are a great duo together. It's a great baseball and sports movie, but mostly it's just a good movie.

Moneyball <---trailer (2011): ****/****

Almost Famous

One thing that always drives me nuts is when people say "They don't make them like they used to." It usually drives me nuts because I've said it enough, and I realize I sound like a pretentious dolt when saying it.  You know, that feeling you get when you say "Yeah, I saw the movie, but the book was much better." I stand by that statement still.  So anyway, that's my lead in. I grew up listening to the classic rock groups, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, Jimi Hendrix, any number of other bands I'm forgetting as I write this at 2 in the morning. The late 1960s and early 1970s were a heyday for these great rock groups.

In one of the best examples I can think of that captures a time and an era in history, 2000's Almost Famous could serve as a blueprint for how to make a coming of age, rock and roll movie. For some reason, this movie slipped past me over the last 10 years, and I'm only now catching up with it.  Well worth the wait.  This is a movie that is a lot of things, doing all those things well.  It is a coming of age story. It's a fictional, almost documentary look at a fictional mid-level rock band in 1973. It is about friendships, relationships, love, maturing, and without sounding too incredibly cliched, just living life.

A highly intelligent high schooler and a huge fan of rock-n-roll, 15-year old William Miller (Patrick Fugit) has landed his dream job. After writing a few stories for an underground rock magazine, William is offered a job that pays $700, requiring him to write a story about mid-level and possibly up and coming rock band, Stillwater, as they go on their summer tour, the Almost Famous tour, in the spring of 1973. He's told to just write an honest story, write what he sees and hears.  William goes along with it, quickly being welcomed onto the tour by the group with open arms, especially lead guitarist Russell Hampton (Billy Crudup) and frontman Jeff Bebe (Jason Lee). He's not quite sure how to read the group though. Are they using him so he'll write a favorable story, or do they genuinely look at him as a friend? That's just a start for the teenager, who also falls madly in love with Penny Lane (Kate Hudson), not a groupie, but a band-aid. Can he figure it all out in time?

With just 10 titles to his name, director Cameron Crowe has nonetheless carved a name for himself in Hollywood with an ability to make very personable, very relateable stories. Above all else, that's where this movie succeeds, or at least for me it did. It is a coming of age story that doesn't smash you over the head with a message. William is a really smart kid, but he's also naive, impressionable, and just looking to be accepted, to be one of the group.  Fugit does a great job keeping this main character grounded in this turbulent world he's thrown into.  He is the viewer, experiencing all the craziness and trying to handle it all in stride.  Is he getting played, or is Stillwater genuinely looking out for him? Or could it be both?

Part of the fun was this quasi-documentary movie of a 1970s rock group and all the touring, the partying, the excess that was a part of everyday life for these musicians.  For one, the look of the movie is right, the bad haircuts, the even worse facial hair, the clothes, everything is right on target.  With this fictional band, we get an inside look at the inner workings of a moderately successful rock group, the in-fighting, the bonding, the performances that bring them all together.  Think of any episode of VH1's Behind the Music, and you've got the drama levels for the fictional Stillwater. The soundtrack is solid too, using plenty of 70s rock without overdoing it.  There's also some underplayed digs at Zeppelin, Bowie, Dylan, the Stones (especially Mick Jagger) that produce some good laughs.  It never goes too cliched though or too far down the spoof road, maintaining a level of seriousness through all the craziness.

Almost Famous is a good example of how great an ensemble cast can be when it's clicking on all cylinders, and Crowe gets winning performances out of the whole group. Crudup is the high point, the scene-stealer as Russell Hammond, Stillwater's lead guitarist and possible breakout star.  He's the one William is drawn to right away, and it's easy to see why. Crudup makes a character that would have been easy to hate incredibly personable.  Hudson earned an Oscar nomination for her Penny Lane part, the mysterious non-groupie searching for some sort of reality in her life whether she realizes it or not. Always a scene stealer herself, Frances McDormand is just that as William's mother, Elaine, trying to look out for her son while also allowing him to grow up on his own.  A favorite actor of mine, Philip Seymour Hoffman nails his small part as Lester Bangs, a rock journalist who ends up becoming a mentor to William in his adventures and how to handle the job.

Those are just some of the names from this incredibly deep cast.  Here's just a few more.  Lee plays Jeff Bebe, Stillwater lead singer who wavers between the money and the message, Zooey Deschanel as William's sister trying to rebel in her own way, Noah Taylor as Stillwater's on-tour manager, Anna Paquin and Fairzua Balk as two band-aid/groupies, and Jimmy Fallon as a manager sent out to help the group from the record company. I don't know what else to say. It's one of those movies that is just hard not to like.  It is an enjoyable story with drama and comedy, a great cast, a great soundtrack, and believable, interesting characters.  Hard to beat that combination.

Almost Famous <---trailer (2000): *** 1/2 /****