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): ****/****

History's Texas Rising

I am a self-admitted, fully nuts, obsessed Alamo nut. I grew up watching Disney's Davy Crockett episodes and John Wayne's The Alamo and have been reading and watching everything I could find in the many years since. A few years back, I found out I was even related to one of the Alamo defenders who died in the infamous 1836 battle. So when I discovered that History was doing a TV miniseries about the Texas Revolution following the battle of the Alamo, I almost lost my mind. Here it is, the recent five-part TV miniseries, 2015's Texas Rising.

It's March 6, 1836, and Mexican forces under president and dictator Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna (Olivier Martinez) have wiped out the Alamo garrison in a brutal, bloody massacre. Some miles to the west, Texas forces under General Sam Houston (Bill Paxton) are trying to build an army to combat Santa Anna's troops that severely outnumber the Texans. Much of Houston's staff and many of his men want to turn and fight the Mexicans, avenge the Alamo massacre, but Houston knows -- even though it's difficult -- that he must pick and choose his spot to fight, even if it means retreating much to the chagrin of his men. So as Houston's men move east across Texas, Santa Anna's forces chase close behind, both sides waiting for their moment to strike. Many will be impacted, from a former slave, Emily West (Cynthia Addai-Robinson), to a deaf Texas Ranger named Erastus Smith (Jeffrey Dean Morgan). In the process, a whole bunch of history will be made.

Much like the western genre, the TV miniseries has gone the way of the do-do bird. Basically, it's extinct. History (formerly the History Channel) seems to have found a way to revive it starting with Hatfields and McCoy and more recently the so-so but generally well-received Sons of Liberty. This recent venture is a five-part miniseries, covering about eight months in 1836 following the massacre at the Alamo. It's a daunting task taken on by director Roland Joffe and his cast and crew with tons of moving pieces from real-life historical figures and events, an immense backdrop, characters covering the entire gamut and so much more. The verdict? Pretty good but not great. I think Joffe and his screenplay writers did a pretty admirable job assembling this whole story into something digestible for casual fans and diehard fans of the time and history.

Maybe the biggest thing going for 'Rising' is that the history just isn't as well known as what precedes the story we see. It starts with an effective scene that takes place maybe an hour or so after the end of the Battle of the Alamo. Most Texas Revolution-themed movies use the following history as an afterthought, but here, it's the guts of the story. Plain and simple, it's cool to see the Runaway Scrape with some detail. Houston and Santa Anna are at the forefront, but we also see Colonel James Fannin (Rob Morrow) and the disaster he causes at Goliad. We see President Andrew Jackson (Kris Kristofferson) back in Washington, keeping tabs on the ever-escalating conflict in Texas. We get a genuine picture of the history and the bigger picture of the time and its impact. I won't bore with the history details, but there's also cool parts for Jeff Fahey, Crispin Glover, Chad Michael Murray while also meeting real-life figures life Alamo messenger Juan Seguin and Mexican officer Juan Almonte. Some cool parts.

The focus of course is on two things, Houston vs. Santa Anna and then the early development of the Texas Rangers. Paxton and Martinez both have some fun with their parts, generally avoiding cliches that could have gone really badly. Paxton's Houston speechifies too much, but in the quieter, more personal moments, you feel like you get a picture of the man who became known as the Father of Texas. Martinez is okay but the script has Santa Anna portrayed far more as a straight villain, a bloodthirsty dictator and ruler. By all accounts, this portrayal is at least somewhat accurate, but it plays too much like an over the top Bond villain.

My favorite part of the movie though was those Texas Rangers, led by Morgan's Erastus 'Deaf' Smith. A hero of the Texas Revolution, 'Deaf' (pronounced 'deef') finally gets his due, and Morgan gives the miniseries' strongest performance. He's dying of tuberculosis but he's going to play out his hand as the revolution heats up. A very strong part for an underrated actor. His men include Brendan Fraser as a white man who lived with the Comanches, Christopher McDonald (Yes, Shooter McGavin) as Karnes, Smith's right-hand man, Jeremy Davies as cowardly Knowles, Rhys Coiro as ladies man Vern, Joe Egender as goofy Beans, Stephen Monroe Taylor as outlaw on the run Gator Davis, and Trevor Donovan as Kit Acklin, a good rider, good guy and a trustworthy partner. The scenes focusing on the Rangers were the movie's strongest I thought whether it be on the trail, in camp or during battle. Some fun parts with Morgan, Fraser and McDonald especially standing out.

It's the rare miniseries that is able to juggle so many balls in the air, and 'Rising' has its flaws. For the most part, the historical accuracy is pretty decent with a few liberties taken here and there. Not much is known about the real-life Emily West so the script fills in the holes by adding a love interest with Sam Houston. It feels forced although Paxton and Robinson do have some chemistry. There are too many plotlines, as simple as that. Thomas Jane and Sarah Jones play the Wykoffs, a family moving into Texas with a story that never gets much development. Robert Knepper's evil empresario is too evil for his own good venturing into caricature as well. Things move around a lot to cover so much ground so it's understandable to get mixed up if you're not familiar with the history. History also aired quick mini-movies about a subplot that seemingly got cut for time. Face it. There's a TON to be dealt with, and 'Rising' I thought did an admirable job juggling it all.

What else to look for? I especially liked Ray Liotta's especially dark turn as Lorca, an Alamo defender who though badly wounded survives the massacre and goes on the warpath, murdering all the Mexicans he meets. I also liked the subplot between two real-life rangers, Jack Hays (Max Thieriot) and Bigfoot Wallace (Robert Baker) as they ride across Texas toward the fighting.

I very much enjoyed this History venture into a known part of history that definitely needs more spotlight. It's cool seeing these people and stories so often brushed to the side in the portrayals of Texas history. From the Alamo to Goliad to the Runaway Scrape to San Jacinto to the fallout following as Texas becomes its own republic, 'Rising' tackles a lot and comes through pretty well. I look forward to seeing this one on DVD again soon. Definitely worth giving a shot, especially if you're a history/Texas/Alamo buff!

Texas Rising (2015): ***/****

Stretch

Way back in 2004 -- good Lord, that's 11 years ago already -- I was introduced to Patrick Wilson with one of my favorite movies, the newest version of The Alamo. In the decade-plus since (again, it's 11 freaking years later), Wilson has worked steadily and turned in some very solid performances. He hasn't taken that next step though, no star-making role that helped him take the next step. Courtesy of some studio shenanigans, this next flick might not be that role, but Wilson, well, he absolutely steals 2014's Stretch.

After several years in Los Angeles trying to become an actor, a man named Stretch (Wilson) has cleaned himself up after a particularly bad break-up with the girl (Brooklyn Decker) he was about to propose to. He kicked a drug and drinking problem and has slowly but surely been paying off his gambling debt. Well, all his plans are kinda up in the air now. Working as a limo driver, he's threatened by his boss to pick things up, to help the company, and to do so NOW. That's the least of his problems though. As he's off to pick up a client, his bookie chases him down with a menacing thought. His debt has been bought by a rival bookie, and now Stretch has until midnight to pay up the $6,000 he owes. What sounds impossible might not be too bad if his next client, eccentric billionaire Roger Karos (Chris Pine) somehow comes through with a huge tip. What's getting that tip entail? Even Stretch doesn't know what awaits.

This helter-skelter crime thriller (with some very funny moments mixed in) from director Joe Carnahan (who also wrote the screenplay) has a less than pleasant production run. Originally scheduled for a theatrical release March 2014, it was scrapped and only released via iTunes, Amazon and On-Demand this past fall, October 2014. Biggest takeaway? I don't know what kind of response 'Stretch' would have gotten in theaters, but I loved it. Smart, funny, stylish and featuring a deep, talented cast that looks to be having a ball. It isn't your normal old action thriller either, trying to be something different, something better. In a movie age of lowest common denominator -- what appeals to the most viewers -- it's cool and refreshing to see a movie just try something different. When it works? All the better, and Stretch works in a big way.

It starts with a style. Voiceover narration is nothing new in crime thrillers, but this one is almost non-stop. If Wilson's Stretch isn't actually talking on-screen, the narration kicks in. That could be a deal-breaker, but man, it works. Stretch wants to be an actor and as he gets deeper and deeper into this whirlwind of a night, he becomes that actor, pretending to be all sorts of things to get in and out of all these messes. As a CSI Miami producer once told him, 'Own your space.' Well, he does. The basis for the story is a sub-genre, the overnight movie where a whole bunch of stuff happens in one extended night. 'Stretch' was filmed in Los Angeles at night, a world unto itself and all the people and goofs and crazies that our intrepid, troubled limo driver will come across. It gets crazier by the minute, and I laughed and loved it throughout. Style to burn but not a style that tries too hard.

There's a certain charm to Wilson's titular character and a credit to Wilson in general. Our desperate, not so heroic limo driver isn't the most likable character. He's a bit of an a-hole. Now that said...I did like him. You're rooting for him because it's just too goofy not to. I thought Wilson was great here. He's excellent delivering the narration as the action develops, as we hear his thoughts in the moment of how to improvise, how to get through this night alive and with some cash. By the end of the movie, he's beat up, bloodied and bruised, and you feel like you've been through the ringer with him. A sign and show of the talent he has, talent that will hopefully lead to more bigger and better parts.

I thought it was odd that co-star Chris Pine went uncredited for his part here. He's previously worked with Carnahan on Smokin' Aces and has the second-most screentime of the entire cast. Blah blah blah I guess. He's a scene-stealer. His Karos is unhinged, possibly a lunatic and an alpha-male who doesn't have a care in the world...although he definitely should. Similar to his part in Horrible Bosses 2, Pine just commits to the craziness/goofiness and goes for it. The result is that it feels real and funny, not forced. His chemistry with Wilson is perfect as the night goes on, two guys playing off each other seamlessly. Also, stick around for the outtakes in the credits. There's a ton of laughs, but the best scenes have Wilson and Pine trying not to crack up in what looks to be an improvised scene. Very funny stuff.

The cast overall is excellent. Also look for Ed Helms as Karl -- with a 'K' -- a limo driver who killed himself and now serves as Stretch's conscious of sorts...while sporting a mustache he grew in Hell. Yeah, go with it. It works. Jessica Alba plays Charlie, Stretch's dispatcher trying to help him out with some major clients while James Badge Dale plays Laurent, a mystery man caught up in the nighttime full of betrayal and international intrigue. Appearing as themselves as clients are David Hasselhoff and Ray Liotta (another Smokin' Aces co-star) while Randy Couture appears in uncredited fashion as El Jovi, a rival limo client with some extravagances. Matthew Willig is memorable as Boris, his tow-truck driving brother and enforcer.

In the end, things are wrapped up a little too tidy for my liking, but overall, I loved this movie. A thrill ride in 94 minutes, the pace never slows down and it's entertaining and fun throughout. Highly recommended tracking it down.

Stretch (2014): *** 1/2 /****

Muppets Most Wanted

I grew up watching The Muppets, loved them and always have loved them. The Muppet Movie was a childhood favorite and still is, and their TV show that ran for five seasons remains a gem. So naturally I was pretty disappointed when I came away incredibly disappointed with the 2011 franchise reboot, The Muppets. I gave it 2.5 stars but I came away less than pleased. I'm quick to forgive though and here we are with 2014's Muppets Most Wanted.

Having put themselves back on the map.....well, sort of, the Muppets must decide what to do now with their rediscovered fame. Kermit the Frog wants to take it slow, letting the group find their rhythm before jumping back into the limelight. The rest of the Muppets? Miss Piggy, Fozzie the Bear, Gonzo, Rowlf the Dog and the whole crew want to embrace the spotlight. Kermit goes along with it somewhat unwillingly, the Muppets hiring a manager, Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais), who unfortunately has some other plans. Badguy is partners with Constantine, the world's most dangerous frog and recently escaped from a Siberian gulag. Their evil, crazy, ridiculous plan? Constantine kidnaps Kermit -- a spot-on lookalike -- and sends him back to the gulag while he takes over the Muppets. Can the gang figure out what's going on or is Kermit doomed to waste away in Siberia?

It wasn't just that 2011's The Muppets wasn't good. It had its moments, and let's be honest. As long as the actual Muppets characters are around, a movie has to be halfway decent, right? Whatever the reasons -- and I'm still processing those reasons -- I liked this version far more. The reviews were about the same, and this follow-up actually made far less money (about $75 million) so go figure. I can't explain it everyone else. For me, I liked the cameos more. The story was goofy but funny. And no disrespect to Jason Segel and Amy Adams and Walter (who's still around), but I never found myself truly interested in their story. Here, I went along for the ride a little bit more. Sure, there are still some flaws that I don't know if any new Muppets movie can fix/solve but those flaws are minimized.

What did director/co-writer James Bobin and writer Nicholas Stoller get right this time around? For starters, more of a focus on the actual Muppets, those created by their founder and brilliant mind Jim Henson. We see Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie, Gonzo, Rowlf, Animal and the whole crew. The voices behind the familiar faces are different, but it's a seamless transition. Walter returns but he's just one of the gang now, not a major focus and that's a good thing. It's fun watching these characters you grew up watching. Their running bits, their sight gags, their subtle one-liners, it's all there. Could there be more focus on our favorite Muppets? Sure, but what's there is getting back to basics.  

If there's an issue, it's the over-reliance on the cameos, the surprise appearances from the Hollywood masses. The key characters include Gervais, nicely cast as the evil sidekick to Constantine, Tina Fey as Nadya, the musically-minded commander of the Siberian gulag, and Modern Family's Ty Burrell as an Interpol agent tracking down Constantine, Sam the Eagle making a memorable appearance as his C.I.A. agent counterpart. They're all solid, all bringing the laughs...but that's just a start. Also look out for -- and take a deep breath --  Lady Gaga, Tony Bennett, Hugh Bonneville, Jemaine Clement, P. Diddy, Rob Corddry, Celine Dion, Zach Galifianakis, Josh Groban, Salma Hayek, Tom Hiddleston, Toby Jones, Frank Langella, Ray Liotta, James McAvoy, Usher, Stanley Tucci, Danny Trejo, Christoph Waltz and probably a bunch others I'm forgetting. Most are a quick scene, a blink and you'll miss it appearance.

And there's the bigger issue. The movie becomes more about the goofiness, kookiness and I hate to say it, the gimmick. It doesn't feel like a movie, just a series of running gags. With this much talent assembled, some of them are going to work. The Muppets' complete acceptance of Constantine as Kermit is pretty hilarious. Animal's immediate awareness of what's going on is perfect. The musical numbers are excellent and far better than the original, especially 'We're Doing a Sequel' and 'I'm Number Two.' It is a movie missing that special something, those magic Muppet moments. It's really good but just not a classic.

Muppets Most Wanted (2014): ***/****

Killing Them Softly

As an author, the name George V. Higgins doesn't set off trip wires and alarms about all the classics he's written. His fans love him though, love him for his bestselling crime novels that brought the darkness, reality and extreme violence and betrayals of the criminal underworld to life. I'd seen -- but haven't read -- The Friends of Eddie Coyle and liked it. One of Higgins' novels, Cogan's Trade, received a big screen adaptation last year, 2012's Killing Them Softly.

With the help of a businessman, Squirrel (Vincent Curatola), an ex-con, Frankie (Scott McNairy) and a drug addict acquaintance, Russell (Ben Mendelsohn), have a plan to net some easy money. Frankie and Russell will rob an illegal high stakes poker game run by Markie Trattman (Ray Liotta), the owner of a ring of illegal games. In his past, Markie secretly took down one of his own games, and Squirrel intends to set him up as the fall guy for his upcoming job. The actual robbery goes down pretty smoothly, but the fall-out is severe. With mob ties to the card game, a feared enforcer, Jackie Cogan (Brad Pitt) is called in to handle the situation. He's got to find out who was involved, who was behind it, and who's lying to him. Brutality, intimidation, straight murder, Jackie isn't afraid to pull out all the stops to find out what he needs to know and get paid in the process.

What I liked most about this film noir-like crime flick is simple. Based off a novel Higgins wrote in the 1970s, 'Killing' feels like those down and dirty crime dramas of the 1970s. There is a throwback feel to it that works on an effortless level. Some of the style, especially Pitt with his slicked back hair and duded up look, has that retro feel. Mostly though, it's that ever-present sense of doom. In this criminal world as the movie presents, there is no hope, no light, no potential for happiness in the end. Anyone and everyone is trying to look out for No. 1. Betrayals, murder, backstabbing, all are fair if it helps you get somewhere or something. That ultra-dark cynicism plays well. We know from the start that none of what we are about to see will go down smoothly. Blood will be spilled and money will be made, but at what cost?

That sounds like it's right up my alley, doesn't it? An almost artsy feel of a 1960s/1970s French crime drama mixed with the tones of a barebones American crime drama from the 1970s? That's got to be good, right? Well, it never amounts to much. This movie plays like a dirtier, far more foul-mouthed version of something Aaron Sorkin would have written. 'Killing' is absolutely obsessed with dialogue. When written well, that can be enough to carry a movie, but the dialogue here gets tedious and serves no real purpose at a certain point. How many times can we hear Frankie and Russell talk about their sexual preferences before we just become numb to it all? I appreciate a slower, more character driven story that doesn't focus exclusively on action, but it's got to go somewhere. We get a long dialogue scene.........and another.........and another. An already short movie (in running time at least) at 97 minutes, it feels far longer, and I was using the fast forward option liberally.

What ends up being the biggest waste here is the cast. There's lots of dialogue here, but it feels like actors showing off but without any substance. Pitt is a bright spot (not a surprise) as brutal, quiet and effective Jackie, a man who has a special skill -- enforcing/killing -- and puts it to his advantage. McNairy and Mendelsohn are appropriately slimy while Liotta isn't given much to do unfortunately as Trattman, a marked man. James Gandolfini plays Mickey, a down on his luck hit man who Jackie recruits for another job, hamming, whoring and drinking it up. Richard Jenkins is maligned and beaten down as Driver, Jackie's link to the mob. Sam Shepard makes a bizarrely quick one-scene cameo as Dillon, an older enforcer with the biggest reputation around.

The story itself has some flaws, but I think director/writer Andrew Dominik makes a really bad style decision. Any transition scene -- car driving, men walking, whatever -- has a voiceover being played over the visual. We hear George W. Bush and Barack Obama talking about the economic crisis, country unity, working together. It all comes together in the end in the final scene, but it's not worth the payoff we get. Instead, it comes across as a heavy-handed, obnoxious stylish storytelling device that handicaps the movie. As a film, it just can't quite figure out what's going on. Is it darkly funny? Just dark? A metaphor for something bigger, more profound? All of the above, none of it? If you're going to tell a crime story, do it. Don't get all mixed up in a message about America's current economic state.

Too bad overall. Lots of potential, and when it works in small snippets, it reminds me of a mix between The Departed and No Country for Old Men. Too often though it doesn't do enough to give it a recommendation (even a mild one). Sorry to report I came away disappointed in a big way.

Killing Them Softly (2012): **/****

Wanderlust

Airing between 1993 and 1995 on MTV, The State was an odd mix of weird characters and skits that helped put an impressive list of comedians in the limelight, including David Wain who's become a film director -- among other things -- in the years since. The State crew sticks together though, working together in films like Wet, Hot American Summer, Role Models, and most recently 2012's Wanderlust.

Having bought a micro-loft in New York City, married couple George (Paul Rudd) and Linda (Jennifer Aniston) are forced to improvise on the fly when George's financial company is shut down and Linda's documentary is turned down by HBO. With no money to speak of, the couple heads south to Atlanta to live with George's brother (Ken Marino), who has also offered him a job at his successful port-a-potty company.  Road tripping south, they stop at Elysium, a bed and breakfast spot they soon learn is a hippie commune. Weirded out at first by the commune's general freeness with just about everything, George and Linda then start to see that maybe this out of the way place is what they needed. It gets them away from the hustle and bustle of the big city, reconnecting with what brought them together..........or maybe not.

Anyone who's watched the above-listed movies along with a film like The Ten, comedy groups like Stella and TV shows like Reno 911 knows that the type of humor the extended State group favors is........odd? Off the wall? Eclectic? Random? Yep, one and all. The best example is 'American Summer' for me, ridiculously stupid and random humor that rises above because it embraces the stupidity. I find the humor hit or miss for the most part though in their other ventures. When a bit works, it can be a home run. When a bit fails, it does so epically. Directing this 2012 comedy that struggled in theaters (making just over $17 million), Wain has that typically odd humor with a solid cast. It starts off strong, producing a fair share of laughs, but it struggles to keep up the energy throughout its 98-minute run time.

What is never in question is the strong casting. Rudd is one of the funniest actors currently working in film and television, and he doesn't disappoint. It's not quite a straight man part to the hijinks -- he's given his chances for looniness -- but it's a relatively subdued part. Aniston too is solid if unspectacular, but the duo has some good chemistry together. As George's well-to-do a-hole brother, Marino is a scene-stealer. He has perfected that jackass part dripping with smarminess, Michaela Watkins playing his spaced-out wife. Also look for Keegan Michael Key as an HBO executive, Todd Barry as George's jokey co-worker, and an uncredited/unlisted Ray Liotta playing himself in a scene-stealing appearance in the final scene wrap-up.

It's at Elysium though that the more memorable parts come out, many of them coming from State cast members. Justin Theroux plays Seth, the philosophical Renaissance man running the place with his new-age thinking while Alan Alda plays Carvin, the man who founded Elysium in 1971 and never left. Oh, and acid has torn apart any sort of memory/coherence he has. Just some of the zany folks at the zany commune include Eva (Malin Akerman) who wants to sleep with George, Wayne (Joe Lo Truglio), the nudist winemaker trying to write a novel, Karen (Kathryn Hahn), the hotheaded pacifist, Kathy (Kerri Kenney), the necessarily ultra-odd hippie, and Almond (Lauren Ambrose) and Rodney (Jordan Peele), the white woman dating a BLACK MAN!!!!!

With a whole lot of talent on-screen, much of the humor looks it came from improv. A "truth circle" is a good mix of laughs and drama with a great pay-off courtesy of peyote. The reveal of George playing a didgeridoo with the hippies is similarly a solid pay-off. The hippies rub their fingers together rather than clap because it's "less aggressive." Little things like that go a long way, underplayed to perfection. Unfortunately, much of the humor doesn't lean that way. It's obvious, even a little self-indulgent like Wain and Stella-mates Michael Showalter and Michael Ian Black playing a news team with some painfully obvious sexual innuendos. It's so obvious it takes away the humor.

So while there are laughs, it only takes the movie until around the hour mark. From there on in, the laughs are left by the wayside, and things get more predictable. The supposedly pure Seth has his eyes set on Linda?!? I didn't see that coming!!!! Worst than that, some of the humor becomes uncomfortable to watch, like Rudd's improvising dirty talk in front of a mirror is painful. It gets worse later when he tries that with Akerman's Eve. I became increasingly frustrated with this movie as it went along to the point I actively disliked it at times. It's never good when the final wrap-up scene is the movie's highlight, the outtakes over the credits producing the biggest laughs. Capable cast, some funny moments but mostly a disappointment.

Wanderlust (2012): **/****

The Place Beyond the Pines

It's been about 24 hours since I saw 2013's The Place Beyond the Pines in theaters, and I'm still processing the film. Reviews were uniformly positive, the trailer instantly hooked me as did the cast, and my first thought was that it resembled an art-house crime drama like a Melville film or a moody 1970s American flick like The Driver. So yeah, I'm still processing it, but in a good way for a change. I liked it a lot, just deciding if maybe I loved it too.

A stunt motorcycle rider at a traveling carnival, Luke Glanton (Ryan Gosling) meets Romina (Eva Mendes) as the carnival returns to towns it visited the summer before. She has a shock for him; she had a baby, and it's his, the product of their one night together the year before. Romina has moved on, but Luke wants to help raise his son. He starts work as a mechanic, hoping to provide for his boy, but the money just isn't there. With a co-worker, he starts to rob banks, netting more than enough money to give Romina and his son everything they need. The plan can only work for so long though, and Luke's actions have put him on a path that will have him cross ways with Aaron (Bradley Cooper), a talented if inexperienced cop dealing with his own issues in the department.

I don't usually do this, but here goes. This is a review that's going to be somewhat difficult to write without giving some spoilers away. I won't be giving away any MAJOR SPOILERS -- and there are some surprising twists -- but be forewarned. There are some storytelling twists that I will have to talk about to be even remotely coherent.

Director Derek Cianfrance's follow-up to his uniquely interesting -- some would say odd -- 2010 film Blue Valentine, 'Pines' is a gem of a film. I fell for it the second I watched the trailer. It is an artsy, well-told and unique story that doesn't settle for any semblance of the status quo. The developing story has a lyrical feel to it, based in this world but in an almost ethereal feel to it. Cianfrance filmed on location in Schenectady (where the story takes place), a city in eastern New York that feels removed from the congestion and business of everyday life. It's a town that looks like any number of small towns across the country. Maybe the best thing adding to the mood and tone is the soundtrack from composer Mike Patton. It is a perfect mix of trance, subtle electronica, choirs, and quasi-religious church hymns. The score is perfect, giving it an authentic sense of the ethereal, the other worldly. Give it a listen HERE for the best track. 

Here comes the semi-spoilers so again, be forewarned. At 140 minutes, 'Pines' is broken down into three separate segments. The first has Gosling's Luke trying to provide for his son in desperate fashion, turning to robbing banks. The second has Cooper's Aaron trying to carve a name out for himself as a young police officer dealing with quite a legacy. The third actually fast-forwards 15 years as Luke's son, Jason (Dane DeHaan), meets Aaron's son, A.J. (Emory Cohen), at high school, the two teenagers not knowing that they're somehow connected through their fathers. Each segment is given equal time, about 45 minutes, each given a chance to breathe and develop without feeling forced. Don't be confused. They are connected, one part of the story transitioning seamlessly into the next. It's rare to see a story develop like that, and 'Pines' does it well. It's different from most films which isn't necessarily a good thing, but this one is a huge positive.

The unifying link among the three segments is the relationships between fathers and their sons, a story arc used in everything from Field of Dreams to The Godfather and countless others. Luke sees he's made a mistake and wants to right those mistakes. He's so driven to do that, he turns to crime. Aaron similarly wants to care for his infant son, but he doesn't know if the career he's chosen is actually the right one. Cianfrance's script shows how one decision affects another, one action leads to another. The relationship between a father and son is a simple and complicated relationship at the same time. Without sounding pretentious, the artsy story uses the notion that the universe is connected, people who are supposed to meet will meet. Some paths and individuals are destined to cross no matter what happens.

There isn't a weak performance in the bunch. Semi-channeling his part from the equally impressive Drive, Gosling is a gem. His part as Luke is the perfect doomed, moody anti-hero. We know from when we meet him his path will not be a smooth one. Luke's scenes with his baby boy are perfection, including one silent scene after some startling violence. He continues to impress me as an actor. Arriving about the 45-minute mark, Cooper takes a familiar part -- young cop dealing with corrupt police force -- and makes it his own. He's a hero on the force and struggling to deal with his newfound fame. Relative newcomers DeHaan and Cohen more than handle themselves well in the final act. The high point of the story was Gosling's portion, but I enjoyed it all from beginning to end.

Playing a key supporting part, Mendes too is very solid as Romina, the mother of Luke's child who has moved on, moving in with Kofi (scene-stealing Mahershala Ali). Without being obvious in her part, Mendes does a good job making Romina human without being obnoxious or hamming it up. Ben Mendelsohn is similarly a scene-stealer as Robin, Luke's boss at a fix-it shop who turns him onto bank robbery. Rose Byrne plays Aaron's worrying wife while Harris Yulin plays his famous father. Bruce Greenwood makes an effective, quick appearance as a district attorney while Ray Liotta plays (GASP!) a dirty cop recruiting Aaron. All solid parts supporting the leads.

I'm liking this film more and more as I write the review. The third part drags a little bit, and I would have liked a more definite ending, but it works just the same. Cianfrance's script has everything coming full circle (well, almost), wrapping up everything in a moving, at times heartbreaking finale. The title comes from the Mohawk translation of Schenectady by the way. I loved this movie. It starts with a worthy start, an impressive tracking shot following Luke as he walks through the carnival, and never really lets up. Well worth seeking out, and definitely a change of pace from most movies.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2013): ****/****

Revolver (2005)

With The Transporter, Crank and The Expendables series among a few other stand alone movies, Jason Statham is first and foremost an action star.  If anything of late, he's being typecast in the same part over and over again, not even an all-around action star. When given the chance to actually act, he's more than capable. He's just not getting that chance too often.  Working with frequent collaborator director Guy Ritchie, he got his chance in 2005's Revolver.  

After serving seven years in solitary confinement, Jake Green (Statham) is released from prison, and using a simple, effective and brilliant "formula" builds himself a fortune in just two years. He's got revenge on his mind, going up against Macha (Ray Liotta), the casino kingpin who helped put him away for all those years. Green does it in a flash, taking him for a cool fortune, but now Macha is gunning for him. Two loan sharks, Avi (Outkast's Andre Benjamin) and Zach (Vincent Pastore), mysteriously step to the plate offering to help Green survive...for a price. With no other options, Green agrees. Can his formula that helped him rise to fame help him now when he needs it the most?

Well, let's talk about Statham because other than his part -- and one supporting player -- I basically hated this movie. An action star of few words, this is a huge departure for the British actor. Statham shows he is more than capable of acting, not just beating the crap out of people in highly choreographed action sequences. His Jake Green, an ex-con looking for revenge, is battling with some inner demons of epic proportions.  He believes he's got it all figured out, but everything around him is trying to tell him otherwise. One monologue about halfway through is a great dramatic moment as is a late scene where Jake -- alone in a claustrophobic elevator -- forces himself to battle through his demons and issues. In a movie that defies a simple description, Statham's performance is lost in a maze of symbolism, metaphors and a pretentious existentialism that drove me nuts.

I like Guy Ritchie. I do. Snatch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, RocknRolla, Sherlock Holmes, all entertaining, enjoyable movies. This isn't his best work. It's funny that the story focuses so much on ego and handling your own ego because the movie feels like a huge ego trip for the director. Look at me, I'm talented! With a Ritchie film, a certain amount of over-the-top style is to be expected, and that's fine. His personal directing style is aggressive, even in your face at times. How many directors have classical music playing over frenetic and/or slow motion action? There's convoluted, and there's this story. Characters drift around, pitting themselves against each other, guys shoot at each other, and somehow it's supposed to make sense. As near as I can figure, Avi and Zach are trying to "save" Jake from himself, but it is the most ridiculously complicated plan ever.

Okay, stories meant to confuse you, forcing you to piece things together. Thoughts? I'm all for it. I appreciate a movie that forces viewer interaction.  Ritchie makes his story not only confusing, but as mentioned before, pretentious. According to Wikipedia (the end all, be all for info), Ritchie was highly interested in Kabbalah while filming, taking some of those teachings and putting them into his story. Jake Green's reasoning for revenge -- which is never explained -- will open doors to something bigger. I thought I was getting one movie and got another. 'Revolver' is all about expanding your mind and refusing to be kept down by your own ego, your own greed and needs. Once you truly allow your mind to see, the potential and possibilities are unlimited. Really? That's where this movie is going? It took two hours of violent, pointless detours to get to that point? Yeah, I'll pass.

Not knowing what I was getting into when I picked this movie, my reasoning was Ritchie directing and the cast he assembled. Behind Statham's strong lead, Liotta is a good choice to play Dorothy Macha, gambling kingpin, if somewhat underused. In most of his roles, Liotta can be intensity on a crazy level, but here it works. It's needed. Over the top, yes, but we need this crazy, live-wire to counter Statham's Green. Benjamin and Pastore are supposed to be these mysterious, all-knowing loan sharks, but their "background" is left unexplained until the end so I never connected with either character. Terence Maynard is a scene-stealer as French Paul, Macha's right hand man, while Ritchie favorite (and JHP favorite too) Mark Strong is Sorter, Macha's personal hired killer, the best money can buy. Andrew Howard too is very good in a small part as Billy, Jake's brother caught up in the craziness.

I wanted to like this movie. I like Ritchie and much of his cast. There apparently was a reason Netflix didn't think I would like it though, and they were right.  A story with a more profound message that's trying to say something is rarely a bad thing. With Revolver though, it's wrapped up in a convoluted story with needless departures from the story that looking bad now, were unnecessary and served no purpose other than to confuse us intentionally. Some reviewers are quick to jump to "If you don't get it, you're stupid" (which is always a classy response; some people just don't like movies...doesn't mean they're dumb). Maybe it would be better with a second viewing where everything can be pieced together, knowing what's coming. On first viewing though, it wasn't good.

Revolver <---trailer (2005): * 1/2 /****

Goodfellas

If there is one thing director Martin Scorsese knows -- and I'd say he knows a lot more than that one thing but just go with me -- it is the gangster/mobster movie, a theme he has gone back to the well for several times, starting as far back a 1973's Mean Streets and continuing through 2006's The Departed with a few ventures spread through the years in between. With other successful movies like Gangs of New York, Raging Bull, The Aviator and Taxi Driver, Scorsese is shown he is more than just a one-trick pony, but for many fans he will always be associated with gangsters and mobsters.

Is it really a bad thing to be known for success with one type of movie? Scorsese is far from being typecast, and he can make any movie he wants at any time he wants to so I wouldn't say he's been typecast. What sets all his gangster movies apart from your average mobster flick is that he brings the underworld to life in a way where the viewer can appreciate all aspects of the life. One, there's the bond, the camaraderie that develops among these crooks, making the life almost seem glamorous, Second, the not so nice end, the betrayals, double crosses, murders left and right. Nowhere are both aspects handled better than 1990's Goodfellas.

Growing up in 1955 New York, half-Italian, half-Jewish teenager Henry Hill wants nothing more than to be a mobster. Living with his family across the street from a mobster's hangout, Henry sees the life and knows he wants to be a part of it. So he gets a job working for the local boss, Paul Cicero (Paul Sorvino), and starts working his way up the ladder. Fast forward seven years and a 20-something Henry (Ray Liotta) is a powerful member of Cicero's crew and showing no signs of slowing down. Working with Irish hitman Jimmy Conway (Robert De Niro) and livewire psycho Tommy DeVito (Joe Pesci), Henry continues to make a name for himself.

He marries a Jewish girl, Karen (Lorraine Bracco), and starts a family with the nice suburban house. Everything seems to be in Henry's favor as the money from all his *cough* business ventures continues to roll in. But how many times have we seen this story? For every meteoric rise to the top, there's also the inevitable downfall. Based on a book called Wiseguy, Goodfellas brings you into the life of a mobster like few other movies have -- sometimes to the detriment of the story, but more later on that. Henry serves as the narrator (Karen gets a few voiceovers too), explaining and illustrating background in a few sentences that would have taken whole scenes to describe.

And working with a true story as a source, Scorsese nails the scenes with these underworld personalities. The dialogue crackles with energy, the banter between these guys is unbelievable, blunt, in your face, filthy, and generally as politically incorrect as possible. These scenes also serve to show the tight-knit bond and culture these guys share -- sometimes for good, sometimes for bad -- having chosen a "job" that will most likely end with a jail sentence or a bullet in your head.

For years, all I heard were positively glowing reviews for this movie, and I'm not disagreeing but parts are both sluggish and too fast-paced at the same time. In 145 minutes, Scorsese covers 25 years of story with some parts going by too quickly and then the whole last 30 minutes devoted to a single day. And as good as Bracco is as long-suffering wife Karen, the segments dealing with Henry's family don't have the same energy as the rest of the movie. That's not to say these scenes aren't good, but it never feels like I'm watching anything I haven't seen before.

The scenes that are on par with everything Godfather I and II offers are with Henry, Jimmy and Tommy. It's the type of role for Liotta that makes me question why he never became a bigger star. He might not have the most glamorous part here, but don't fool yourself...this is his movie, and he's the star. De Niro and Pesci (who won a best supporting Oscar) have parts that don't require them to be in every scene so their characters drift in and out of the story. But when they are on-screen, it's some of the best scenery-chewing (thank you Netflix for the description) you'll ever see. Pesci is a lunatic (watch this classic scene), ready to blow somebody away for insulting him, and De Niro isn't too far behind. Great parts here for two great actors.

Picking this movie on my Netflix queue, I wanted to love it but only ended up really liking it. All the Scorsese touches are there, the great rock soundtrack used to perfection, the amazing script, and that dark humor that works so well in stories like this, like THIS scene where all the mobsters are introduced. All the positives definitely outweigh the negatives, and I'm definitely recommending this one, but I'm a little disappointed I didn't like it more.

Goodfellas <----trailer (1990): ***/****