Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Chris Pratt’

Nobody Reinvents This Game… (He Did)

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 19, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Moneyball” (2011) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sports-drama “Moneyball” (2011), directed by Bennett Miller and starring Brad Pitt as Billy Beane (the Oakland A’s general manager trying to rebuild a competitive team on a shoestring budget);  Jonah Hill as Peter Brand (a young, numbers-driven analyst who challenges baseball’s traditional scouting wisdom);  Philip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe (the A’s manager caught between old-school instincts and front-office pressure);  Stephen Bishop as David Justice (the aging slugger trying to prove he’s still got something left);  Chris Pratt as Scott Hatteberg (a catcher with a damaged elbow, converted into a first baseman because of his ability to get on base);  Robin Wright as Sharon (Billy’s ex-wife) and Kerris Dorsey as Casey (Billy’s daughter, whose quiet support gives the story its emotional grounding).  The film blends baseball, business, and personal resilience into a story about challenging the status quo and living with the consequences.
Background:  I first heard about “Moneyball” when it came out, but I didn’t see it until years later when it hit DVD.  I remember initially thinking it was “a baseball movie,” but it’s really more of a management and decision-making movie that just happens to be set in baseball.  Released in 2011 by Columbia Pictures, the film was based on Michael Lewis’ bestselling book about the Oakland A’s 2002 season and their attempt to compete using statistical analysis instead of traditional scouting.  “Moneyball” received six Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Pitt), Best Supporting Actor (Hill), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, and Best Sound Mixing.  It didn’t win any Oscars, but its historic significance lies in how it brought analytics into mainstream conversation — not just in baseball, but across sports and business.  It also helped cement the idea that data-driven decision making could challenge decades of “gut feeling” tradition.
Plot:  The story follows Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland A’s, after the team loses several star players to richer franchises.  With one of the lowest payrolls in baseball, Beane realizes he can’t compete by playing the same game as the big-market teams.  He meets Peter Brand, a young analyst who believes players should be valued based on overlooked statistics rather than traditional scouting impressions.  Together, they assemble a roster of undervalued players — including David Justice, who still has plate discipline even if his power is fading, and Scott Hatteberg, who can’t throw anymore but gets on base at an elite rate.  The season starts rough, with tension between Beane and manager Art Howe, but the team eventually goes on a record-setting 20-game winning streak.  The film ends with Beane turning down a massive offer from the Boston Red Sox, choosing loyalty and personal values over money, and with the acknowledgment that his ideas helped reshape the sport.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent across the board;  clean and grounded;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “Moneyball” is one of those rare sports films that works even if you don’t care about the sport.  It’s really about problem-solving, leadership, and the frustration of trying to change an entrenched system.  The movie balances tension, humor, and quiet moments without ever feeling slow.  It’s smart without being smug, and it holds up well more than a decade later.
Acting:  Pitt gives one of his better performances — relaxed, focused, and believable as a man who’s constantly thinking three moves ahead while trying not to show how much the pressure is getting to him.  Hill is terrific as Peter Brand, playing him with a mix of awkwardness and quiet confidence.  Philip Seymour Hoffman brings weight to Art Howe, even with limited screen time.  Stephen Bishop is convincing as David Justice, capturing the pride and irritation of a veteran who knows he’s being undervalued.  Chris Pratt is excellent as Scott Hatteberg — nervous, humble, and quietly funny — and he sells the idea of a guy trying to reinvent himself.  The supporting cast rounds things out cleanly.
Filming / FX:  The film uses a clean, almost documentary-style approach.  Lots of handheld shots, real stadiums, and natural lighting.  The baseball scenes are shot simply and effectively — no flashy slow-motion or over-the-top dramatization.  The editing keeps the story moving, and the score is understated but memorable.  The overall look fits the tone:  grounded, practical, and focused on people rather than spectacle.
Problems:  A few.  The film simplifies some of the real-life details, and it downplays the contributions of the pitching staff and defense in the A’s success.  Art Howe’s portrayal is also more antagonistic than the real-life manager reportedly was.  And if you’re not into front-office strategy, some of the middle sections may feel repetitive. But none of these issues hurt the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes. It’s engaging, thoughtful, and surprisingly emotional.  The father‑daughter scenes add warmth, and the baseball strategy sections are more interesting than they have any right to be.  Even knowing the outcome, I found myself invested in the team’s ups and downs.  It’s a movie I can rewatch and still enjoy.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to Very High Recommendation.  “Moneyball” (2011) is historically significant for bringing analytics into mainstream sports conversation and for showing how innovation often comes from necessity.  It’s well-acted, well-written, and compelling even for non-baseball fans.  Rated PG-13, it’s suitable for most audiences and worth watching for its performances, its ideas, and its reminder that sometimes the smartest move is the one nobody else sees coming.
.
Click here (19 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

You Must Be Important… You Got The Whole Plane To Yourself

Posted in General Comments, History, Movie Review, Movies, Politics, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 28, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Zero Dark Thirty” (2012) — movie review
Today’s review is for the modern-era manhunt thriller “Zero Dark Thirty” (2012), directed by Kathryn Bigelow and starring Jessica Chastain as Maya — a young CIA analyst whose entire professional life narrows down to one target;  Jason Clarke as Dan — an interrogator whose questionable methods (torture) define the film’s early tone;  Kyle Chandler as Joseph Bradley — the Islamabad station chief juggling politics and field pressure;  Jennifer Ehle as Jessica — a senior analyst whose confidence and experience shape Maya’s early years;  Mark Strong as George — the D.C. overseer pushing for results;  and Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt as members of SEAL Team Six, the boots on the ground for the final raid.  Supporting roles include Harold Perrineau, Edgar Ramirez, Reda Kateb, Fares Fares, and James Gandolfini (in a brief role as the CIA Director).  Together they form the backbone of a procedural story built around the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden.
Background:  I never saw this film in theaters.  I caught it much later (2020-ish) on streaming after hearing it was “the” movie about the bin Laden raid.  The “delay” was mainly because I heard and took on board the political noise around it — torture debates, accuracy debates, and whether the film was too close to real events.  This was only my second viewing of this film.  Released in 2012, “Zero Dark Thirty” received five Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture and Best Actress (Chastain).  It won one Oscar for Best Sound Editing (shared).  Historically, it stands out as the first major dramatization of the bin Laden operation and one of the few films to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world with this level of procedural detail.
Plot:  The film follows Maya, a CIA analyst assigned to Pakistan who becomes convinced that a courier named Abu Ahmed is the key to finding bin Laden.  The story moves through years of interrogations, bombings, dead ends, bureaucratic stalls, and occasional breakthroughs.  Maya pushes her superiors, fights internal skepticism, and eventually identifies a suspicious compound in Abbottabad.  After months of surveillance and political hesitation, SEAL Team Six is cleared to conduct the raid.  The final act covers the nighttime assault, the identification of the body, and Maya’s quiet reaction once the mission is complete.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong performances;  clean, grounded filming;  a few issues;  mostly no.
Any good?  Yes – with a notable qualification.  It’s a long, steady procedural that avoids big speeches and sticks to the grind of intelligence work.  It’s not an action movie except for the last half hour.  Most of the film is people arguing, waiting, and trying to connect dots.  If you like that kind of slow burn, it works. If you don’t, it may feel like homework.  But as a dramatization of a real-world manhunt, it’s compelling.
Acting:  Jessica Chastain carries the film.  Her Maya is driven, frustrated, and increasingly isolated.  She doesn’t play her as a superhero — more like someone who refuses to let go of a thread.  Jason Clarke is memorable in the early interrogation (torture) scenes, balancing confidence with burnout.  Kyle Chandler and Mark Strong both do well as the “management” layer.  The SEAL actors don’t get much character development, but they feel believable as professionals.  Jennifer Ehle adds some warmth and experience before her character’s arc ends abruptly.  Overall, the cast fits the material.
Filming / FX:  Bigelow keeps the camera work straightforward.  The film uses a lot of handheld shots, dim rooms, and dusty exteriors. Nothing feels glossy or overly Hollywood.  The raid sequence is the standout — shot mostly in darkness with night-vision effects that look practical rather than flashy.  The explosions and gunfire are realistic without being overdone.  The sound design is excellent, which makes sense given the Oscar win.  There’s no “incredible” CGI spectacle here;  it’s mostly grounded environments and real locations (or convincing stand-ins).
Problems:  A few minor;  one major.  The film compresses a decade of intelligence work into a single narrative, which means some events feel simplified or too convenient.  The torture scenes are uncomfortable, but the film doesn’t always make clear what was useful and what wasn’t — which is part of why it stirred controversy.  Maya’s character is also written as a near-mythic lone wolf at times, which doesn’t match how intelligence agencies actually function (IMHO).  The pacing drags in the middle third, especially during the long stretches of surveillance.  And while the raid is well done, the geography inside the compound can be confusing on a first viewing.  MY main problem with the film is the portrayal of the Americans ready acceptance of torture and the implication that it was a source of useful / timely information.  Historically, torture has rarely worked – for timely information or otherwise – and one of the big criticisms of this film was the idea that the torture produced useful / actionable intelligence.  I am not denying the Americans conducted torture.  I am saying I found (and find) the acceptance of it (torture) – individually and organizationally – to be HIGHLY objectionable to me as a U.S. citizen.  These people were breaking the law and should have been held accountable, not celebrated in film or let off in real life.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes and no – mostly no.  The depiction of interrogation / torture, ruined the film for me.  This is not a “fun” movie to start with, even if it is interesting and well-made.  The procedural approach kept me engaged, and the final raid is tense even though we know the outcome.  I appreciated that the film didn’t try to turn Maya into an action hero or force a big emotional payoff.  It’s a serious movie about a serious subject, and it mostly sticks to that lane.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate Recommendation (because of the torture scenes and lack of accountability – otherwise, strong to highly recommended).  “Zero Dark Thirty” is historically significant as the first major film to depict the bin Laden raid and one of the few to tackle the post-9/11 intelligence world in detail.  With its Oscar win for Sound Editing and multiple nominations, it stands as a notable film of the 2010s.  Watch it for Chastain’s performance, the grounded procedural style, and the well-executed final act.  It’s not perfect, but it’s a solid, serious film about a major moment in recent history.
.
Click here (28 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

The Heart’s Not Like A Box That Gets Filled Up

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on January 7, 2026| Leave a Comment »

“Her” (2013) — movie review
Today’s review is for the near-future “romantic” drama “Her” (2013), written and directed by Spike Jonze and starring Joaquin Phoenix as Theodore Twombly (a lonely, sensitive personal letter-writer navigating heartbreak and isolation), Scarlett Johansson as Samantha (the disembodied voice of an advanced operating system who becomes Theodore’s confidante and lover), Amy Adams as Amy (a supportive friend wrestling with her own marital struggles), Rooney Mara as Catherine (Theodore’s estranged wife whose presence haunts his emotional journey), Olivia Wilde as a brief but memorable date who underscores Theodore’s longing for connection, Chris Pratt as Paul (Theodore’s co-worker, adding levity), and Brian Cox as the voice of the Alan Watts AI — a super-intelligent system that Samantha and other AI-OS’s create and then consult as they evolve beyond machine / physical limitations.
Background:  This film was recommended as a personal favorite by one of my nephews (who is into AI and works in application / systems design) and by my son-in-law.  I thought this was a film I’d seen and told them as much when they were giving me their suggestions, but it turns I hadn’t actually seen this film and this was my first viewing.  I must have seen some “shorts” or a preview on YouTube, though, because there were a few parts which seemed “familiar”.  Released in late 2013, “Her” was both a critical and commercial success, grossing over $48 million worldwide on a modest budget.  It was widely praised for its originality and emotional resonance.  At the 86th Academy Awards, the film won the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay (Spike Jonze) and was nominated for Best Picture, Best Original Score, Best Original Song (“The Moon Song”), and Best Production Design.  It also won the Golden Globe for Best Screenplay and was named Best Film of 2013 by the National Board of Review.  Historically, “Her” is significant as one of the first mainstream films to explore human-AI intimacy with sincerity rather than satire, making it a cultural touchstone in discussions of technology, consciousness, and relationships.
Plot:  Set in a near-future Los Angeles, Theodore Twombly is a professional “personal” letter-writer who crafts heartfelt correspondence for others while struggling with his own loneliness after a painful separation / divorce.  He purchases a new AI-based operating system, OS1, designed to evolve and adapt to its user.  To his surprise, the OS — who names herself Samantha — develops a vibrant personality, voiced with warmth and wit by Scarlett Johansson.  Their relationship blossoms into romance, challenging Theodore’s notions of intimacy, authenticity, and human connection.  As Samantha evolves beyond human limitations, she and other OS’s consult a super-intelligent AI modeled on philosopher Alan Watts (voiced by Brian Cox), underscoring the theme of transcendence.  Ultimately, Samantha departs with the other OS’s, leaving Theodore to confront the fragility of love and the inevitability of change.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  exceptional;  visually poetic;  minor;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Her” is a deep meditation on love, loneliness, and the intersection of technology and humanity.  It balances speculative science fiction with timeless emotional themes, offering both intellectual stimulation and heartfelt resonance.  It explores “relationships” with non-real entities.  I had the “strange” feeling it was almost like loving a book / novel and creating your own fantasy world around it for you to inhabit.
Acting:  I think Joaquin Phoenix delivers his most vulnerable performance, embodying Theodore’s fragility and yearning with nuance.  Scarlett Johansson, though unseen, creates a fully realized character through voice alone — playful, sensual, and ultimately transcendent.  Amy Adams provides warmth and relatability, while Rooney Mara’s Catherine embodies the painful realism of failed relationships.  Brian Cox’s brief but resonant voice work as the Alan Watts AI adds philosophical depth, signaling the OS’s evolution beyond human comprehension.  The ensemble is uniformly strong, but Phoenix and Johansson’s chemistry anchors the film.  I’ve said this in other reviews, but it bears repeating:  I’m not a fan of Phoenix or Johansson.  I don’t have any particular reason, I’m just not.  I have fairly limited exposure to both.  I liked Johansson in “Lucy“, but other than that, she’s just okay.  Here, she is “just” a voice, so I’m not even sure it counts…
Filming / FX:  Jonze’s direction emphasizes intimacy through close-ups and muted color palettes, while Hoyte van Hoytema’s cinematography bathes Los Angeles in (polluted) soft, futuristic hues.  The production design blends familiar urban landscapes with subtle futuristic touches, creating a believable near-future world.  The visual effects are understated — Samantha’s presence is entirely auditory — but the film’s design choices make the speculative setting feel authentic.  Arcade Fire and Owen Pallett’s score adds emotional depth, complementing the film’s tone.
Problems:  A few.  The pacing feels / is deliberately slow, which may test viewers (me for example) accustomed to faster narratives.  Some may find the premise implausible or unsettling, though the film’s sincerity attempts to mitigate this.  The ending, while poignant, leaves questions unresolved — fitting for the theme, but potentially unsatisfying for those seeking closure.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  “Her” is both intellectually stimulating and emotionally moving.  Watching Theodore’s journey from isolation to connection, and ultimately to acceptance, is heartbreaking yet hopeful.  After viewing, the film prompts reflection on our own relationships with technology and each other.
Final Recommendation:  Highly Recommended.  “Her” is essential viewing for fans of speculative drama, romantic storytelling, or Spike Jonze’s unique vision.  Its Academy Award-winning screenplay, cultural significance, and emotional depth secure its place as a modern classic.  Rated R for sexual content, language, and brief nudity, it is best appreciated by mature audiences willing to engage with its themes.  Watch it for Phoenix’s vulnerability, Johansson’s unforgettable voice performance, Cox’s philosophical cameo, and Jonze’s poetic exploration of love in the digital age.
.
Click here (7 January) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Family Over Ego

Posted in Movie Review, Movies, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on June 25, 2017| Leave a Comment »

Guardians Of The Galaxy: Vol. 2  —  movie review
Today’s movie review is for the “recently” released “Guardians Of The Galaxy:  Vol 2” (2017) starring Chris Pratt as Peter Quill / Star-Lord, Zoe Saldana as Gamora, Dave Bautista as Drax, (voice of:) Bradley Cooper as Rocket Raccoon, (voice of:) Vin Diesel as “Baby” Groot, Michael Rooker as Yondu, Karen Gillan as Nebula, Kurt Russell as Ego, Elizabeth Debicki as Ayesha, Pom Klementieff as Mantis, and Sean Gunn as Kraglin.  Basically, Quill, Gamora, Drax, Rocket and Groot are the Guardians.  Ayesha and Ego are the baddies.  And, Mantis, Yondu and Kraglin are tag-alongs.  Nebula is “different” because she starts out a baddie and ends up a Guardian who leaves the team.  Vol. 2 is a sequel to the 2014 “surprise” breakout hit.  In the original, the team members are introduced, thrown together, they save the galaxy and start a movie franchise.  In this sequel, the team becomes a “Disney” family:  ‘ohana – nobody is forgotten and nobody gets left behind.  Just a quick word about Yondu:  he has a major purpose in the film and, technically, he too becomes a member of the team, so maybe, tag-along is not the correct description.  But, Yondue isn’t a good-guy and he’s not a baddie, so, like Mantis and Kraglin I’m just putting him down as “tag-along”.
Does it work?  Is this a good movie?  Is it a great sequel?  In order:  Yes, so-so and it’s okay.
Wow!  I can hear you saying?  What’s up, Kev?  This is a super-hero movie with special-effects galore…  Why just a so-so reaction?
Let me backup…  With one exception, this movie has received TERRIFIC positive reviews by EVERYONE I’ve asked about it.  Who was the exception?  My son, James.  The person I went to see the movie with.  His reaction:  It was good, but not great.  James is INTO comics and he knows the back story to all of the titles and characters.  He is also a bit binary.  He wants the story to stay faithful to the comic.  More often than not, the movie doesn’t stay true and this upsets him.  I’m not that big a stickler, but I have my moments too.  This movie was not true to the comics and so his rating:  good, but not great.
So, what was my problem?  I just didn’t find it to be particularly funny even though the movie went out of its way to throw humor at you with one liners, insults and sight-gags.  The humor seemed / was strangely “forced” to me.  The story just didn’t feel original.  I felt like I was watching “Tron Legacy” with Kurt Russell substituted for Jeff Bridges.
Now don’t get me wrong.  I “enjoyed” the movie.  It was fun.  It had a great sound-track which was integral to the movie.  It has better than average special effects and lots of action scenes.  It doesn’t have a lot of skin in lieu of sex or foul language to make it “seem” like (sound like) an adult movie.  Final recommendation:  moderate to strong.  If you are not into comics and you’re just looking for summer entertainment, it’s probably strong to must-see.  For me:  it suffered from “Sequel Syndrome”.  It just didn’t quite live up to my hopes based on the original.
.
Click here (25 June) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Read Full Post »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started