Moneyball

Inside Baseball

by Hunter Isham

        Every now and then I'll have to begin a review by revealing my bias for certain films, the ones that I already have a vested interest in before having seen them. Moneyball is one of those films. The main reason? The script was co-written by my favorite writer of film and television, Aaron Sorkin (I could go on and on about The West Wing, but I'll spare you that for now). The other reason I was rooting for Moneyball was that it's all about my hometown team, the Oakland Athletics. I might as well have bought my ticket the day Sorkin came on board, something I was not so eager to do when he signed on for "The Facebook Movie"—*shudder* (which is how I  processed the magnificent Social Network before it actually saw the light of day), but I digress. Even films I'm unwaveringly eager to see can be massive disappointments, but Moneyball quite thankfully turned out to be a smart, funny, and moving sports drama that sits easily in the pantheon of great films about baseball.
        Moneyball is an adaptation of Michael Lewis' book of the same name, which chronicled A's General Manager Billy Beane's (Brad Pitt) attempt to use sabermetrics to round up a group of talented yet undervalued players on a shoestring budget. The time between the 2001 and 2002 baseball seasons saw the A's lose star players like Jason Giambi to well-funded teams like the New York Yankees, whose budget of about $150 million was a war chest to be reckoned with when compared to Oakland's $39 million. Introduced to sabermetrics by Peter Brand (Jonah Hill's composite character partly based on Paul DePodesta), Beane decides to buck the trend of traditional baseball scouting and recruit seemingly worthless players in an attempt to get a championship team out of that small budget. As Brand explains, it's not about finding another Giambi, but rather about finding the right combination of players who can, based on their stats, deliver the same number of runs Giambi and his fellow former A's once did.
        A film built largely around statistics might sound exceedingly boring, but Sorkin and co-writer Steve Zaillian (who wrote Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List) keep things fast and funny, and do an excellent job of explaining how all the math works without either boring us or making our heads spin. Director Bennett Miller is similarly skillful in balancing the strategic plays both on and off the field, as well as Beane's lonely personal life and attempts to spend time with his daughter. For all the wonderful work done by the talented group behind the scenes on Moneyball, the true heavy lifting is done by the cast, who takes a rich story and makes it a highly personal film.
        Brad Pitt is quite honestly a revelation as Billy Beane. I've enjoyed him in more comedic fare, like Ocean's Eleven and Inglourious Basterds, where he cuts loose and has some fun in which the audience can join, but I've never given much thought to his dramatic work. Not that he hasn't been good in the past, but just that I haven't really seen his more serious films. As Beane, his playful persona from Ocean's is apparent, but with a jaded emptiness that lies just beneath, keeping him more subdued, and consequently more human, than I've ever seen him while still tossing out the occasional zinger. Jonah Hill, another actor I know from comedy, gives a breakout dramatic turn as the statistician who helps Beane guide the Athletics in a new direction. He plays against type as a quiet, brainy individual who is often the smartest guy in a room in which he's hardly welcome. Pitt and Hill together form a kind of odd couple as they work together against baseball scouts and Art Howe (the reluctant manager of the A's played by a gruff Phillip Seymour Hoffman), and the result is a chemistry that gives the film its pulse.
        Moneyball is a unique sports film in that it puts the focus on the politics and methods of how playing the game is made possible. It's a fresh approach that results in an equally fresh and intelligent film, one that, if it has any weaknesses, is hindered only by the real-life story that saw the A's never going as far they had always hoped. But Moneyball is a tale of victory off the field and in life, striving to go against the grain and change the way people think about baseball. "Any other team wins the World Series, good for them," Beane says to Brand, "But if we win, on our budget, with this team... we'll have changed the game. And that's what I want. I want it to mean something." Moneyball is a film that at its core is about that old adage, "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game," except here the focus is inside baseball in the front office. The fact that the Oakland A's have remained  both the perennially underfunded, under-attended underdogs and a regular wildcard team of Major League Baseball is a testament to the work done by Billy Beane as their general manager. Moneyball shows how even as we lose the little fights, we can still survive with some creative perseverance, redefining what it means to be champions. 9.5/10

Moneyball

by Tyler Darke

      Let me start this review by saying that I am not a baseball fan and sports movies are generally not on my list of favorites. That said, this is the second baseball movie we are reviewing and I have to say...I enjoyed both immensely.

      Moneyball is not only a baseball movie that I enjoyed. It is my favorite sports movie of all time. Before watching it, I had not seen many movies with Brad Pitt. I had seen Fight Club and although I may lose all my readers by saying this, I hated it. When I first heard about Moneyball and learned that he would be playing the lead role, I cannot say I was excited about it. However, my fellow blogger Harry really wanted to see it, so I agreed to go with him. I am so glad that I did.

      The film is a fantastic adaptation of an epic baseball story that most Bay Area sports fants are familiar with. It highlights the unorthadox style of management that Billy Beane brought to the Oakland A's. After seeing his performance, there could not have been a better actor to play the role of Billy Beane than Brad Pitt. This movie definitely made me a fan, and since watching it I have seen a couple of his other films and very much enjoyed them. He balances the various aspects of Beane's personality and management style perfectly. When he's angry, he's furious. When he shows love, it's deep and emotional. When he's dealing with executives, it's in an unexpected way. He has a great sense of humor that adds a fantastic comedic aspect to the movie. The role was phenomenally played and Brad Pitt deserved the Academy Award for Best Actor. Jean Dujardin could only dream of delivering such a performance, but I will refrain from diving too deep into that side of the subject.

      Another surprise performance was delivered by Jonah Hill who played Peter Brand, assistant general manager to Billy Beane. Before seeing this film, I really only knew Jonah Hill as a comedic actor. I was not aware that he was so talented as a dramatic actor. To say I was impressed would be an understatement. His performance was fantastic. His chemistry with Pitt was obvious and really made the duo more believable. Although I was pulling for Max von Sydow to win the Academy Award for Best Supporting actor, I felt that Jonah Hill was very much deserving of his nomination. I believe it will be the first of many for him in his acting career, and I am excited to see him win it someday.

      Moneyball is an outstanding film that I would recommend to anyone. Do not miss out on this movie because you are not a baseball fan. It is worth seeing for anyone who enjoys a good drama with some thoughtfully-placed comedy. 10/10

Moneyball

By Harry McPhaul

Moneyball was easily one of the best baseball movies of all time.   It was a film about the new age of scouting and forming a major league team.   I have lived in the Bay Area all my life and I always was confused on what exactly the Athletics’ (A’s) thought process was around building a successful organization.  Every year it seemed as if they were not trying to sign any of the big name players who were established in the league.  They were beginning to implant a new way getting quality players over the All-Stars in the hopes that one day they will be able to manufacture a championship team rather than just signing one. 

Brad Pitt who plays the A’s General Manager Billy Beane gave one of his best performances.   I could sense that he knew that by being a pioneer with this new system he could lose his job because of it not working out.  The determination to make it work was the main philosophy that kept Beane from giving up.  Pitt, I thought portrayed Beane excellently.  He gave off this vibe that he was an easy to talk to person but he knew his boundaries.  One example was that he would never fly with the team or get to close emotionally with the players so it would be easier for him to release or trade them later on in their career.   Pitt also created this persona as a guy who always seemed to stay positive.

Pitt had a few jokes and funny lines throughout the film but it did not take anything away from how serious baseball was to him.  Most of all they were not corny jokes that made me lose interest.  By having a quality humor throughout the film it was a nice way to break up and sort of just take a break from the current situation of his new system not working out.   To help with this comedic presence Jonah Hill was casted as a sort of assistant to Pitt.

Jonah Hill also gave a surprisingly well done performance.  He showed that he has the range to play a funny stupid kid and just a casual person who had jokes occasionally.    I was not sure if he would be able to pull it off but it turned out to be one of his better roles.   Of course he is going to have a few funny lines but the film was not driven by his comedic personality.   It was a film that I would highly recommend.  I would give it a 9/10.   

Bully

by Tyler Darke

      Bully was a touching, insightful documentary that brought attention to a severely underestimated issue in our society. Bullying is something we are all familiar with, whether we have been the subject of it, or we have just witnessed it. It is generally not taken very seriously due to how common it is. Many people shrug it off as part of childhood that everyone will be exposed to. They assume that it is just a stage in development, and that children who are subject to bullying will simply grow out of it at some point in their lives. Bully highlights the ignorance of these assumptions through real examples of how detrimental bullying has been to countless children.

      As our first documentary, I would like to take a different approach to reviewing this film, as you may have already noticed. While stylistic elements are important in any film, I believe they are less crucial in documentaries. For me, the power of documentaries comes from the content, and that is what I intend to focus on.

      I appreciated the variety of experiences that Bully presented. They did not compile a documentary of repetitive stories. There was variation in the effects that various families experienced through bullying. One family had to deal with the tragic loss of their son, while in another story, a mother was facing a possible life sentence in prison for her daughter who retaliated in the face of bullying. We get to see that there is no one way that all families are affected by bullying. Every family has a different, tragic experience. 

      It was extremely unfortunate to see how lightly school officials were taking the subject. They speak to concerned parents as if there is nothing they could possibly do to help them. They hear countless stories from students about their experiences with bullying, yet they only take very minor action. It was scary to see how helpless these children were. They turned to every adult they could for help, and nobody offered a solution. Many offered the same, cookie-cutter answers that solved nothing.

      I was shocked to see how severe this situation has become in our own country. I had heard some horror stories about bullying, but I never realized how few options children being bullied really have. Bully should be shown in every school in the country and at least recommended for parents. We have to find a solution for this epidemic that has proven to be detrimental to children in our society. Bully did a fantastic job of concisely explaining the severity of this situation, and I would highly recommend it. 9/10

Bully

By Harry McPhaul

Bully was one of the best documentaries I have ever seen.  Most documentaries are a product of an issue that the filmmaker is has passion towards.  This is what makes them so well done and insightful.  A great documentary should show footage of the issue that is being discussed as well as interviewing individuals who are either experts or someone who experienced it.  Bully does this exceptionally well. 

One of the aspects of film that I thought properly displayed the experience of someone being bullied was to show each one of the children telling parts of their stories throughout the film.  It did not focus on one child then go right to the next.  By doing this the audience can pick up some similarities between each situation.  I also liked how they chose not to emphasize on one type of bullying.

 As we all know they are many forms of bullying or hazing.  The most common I think is kids being picked on at school for looking or acting different.  This film covers that side of bullying along with children being taunted for being openly gay and from child who had finally had enough.  The number of perspectives we see helps to build this view that schools are not doing all they can to protect children.  This seemed to be the most common theme in all the lives the film chose to follow.

Every school had pretty much the same answer which was along of the lines of we will look into it.  This meant that they were not going to do anything about the bullying accruing at their school.   There were countless instances of parents telling the school officials that they have been complaining about the safety of the children for months and nothing has happened.  Even law enforcement in some cities was not doing anything even after being told what was going on.  Hopefully they had the chance to view this film and see how poorly their actions were and that they could have saved a life or lives.  

This film was simply captivating in that it showed how flawed some school systems are toward bullying.  Another reason why I liked this documentary was that it did not focus on the bully too often.   It was more about the results of bullying.   It also did not share the perspective of the bully or why the bully was acting that way.  I liked this idea because it shows that there is no excuse for bullying.    This documentary was one of the best of all time.  I would highly recommend it and give it a 10/10.

Bully

A Problem in Need of a Solution

by Hunter Isham

        Before having written anything, I know this will be a relatively* short review. Not because Bully is a bad film, nor because it doesn't have anything to say, but rather because it's a fairly straight-forward endeavor. The documentary follows the lives of students facing bullying in public schools in the United States, while also visiting two families who've experienced the recent loss of a child due to bully-induced suicide. Suffice it to say, this film is not the kind of charming experience we might expect from Ken Burns, but rather an emotional punch to the gut that reveals what it's like to be a little different in the modern public school system.
        We all may have wondered before if a little harsh teasing or joking among friends has gone too far, but the kind of ridicule and pain on display in Bully goes far beyond the momentary lapse of judgement, as we see and hear stories of kids like Alex (pictured above) who are endlessly picked on and physically hurt. Cracking jokes at friend's expense on a level playing field is one thing, but when an older kid tells Alex on the morning bus that, "I'm not your fucking buddy," and proceeds to explain how he'll kill him, we as the audience know that there is something terribly wrong in our schools. I was fortunate enough to grow up in an environment where negativity of this magnitude was never present, so it was initially shocking for me to witness the intensity of the bullying on display in the film, although I was hardly surprised when a middle-American family discusses how they have been shunned in their hometown when one of their children came out as gay (to the enormous credit of the family, they seemed fully supportive).
        Why then, if the film brings to light such horrors of U.S. public schools, do I think this documentary is a bit less than revolutionary? Well, despite my surprise with regard to the severity of the bullying, I was quite sadly not surprised by how often it occurred, especially as the victimized kids were in what appeared to be somewhat rural communities, let alone public schools in those communities. Bully has no real message beyond the fact that bullying exists and that we can stop it by banding together to eradicate it from our schools, a thought that, like the film, is quite powerful but not without previous awareness. My reaction to the film is tempered by my own knowledge of bullying, and I am therefore not the target audience for whom this film can truly make a difference.
        Everyone and anyone who either works in a school or attends one should see Bully, to at least to gain a greater appreciation for the problem at hand, if not to further work to eradicate it. The communities for whom this film should be required viewing are those that are akin to the towns on display here, where there is a need for a more nuanced and focused understanding of bullying. They need to realize that something can be done, and should be done, lest they wish to find yet another young member of their populace dead at his or her own hands. Bully is the unique documentary that does not aim to tell a story we don't know, but rather to remind us that since we do know about it, attention must be paid. It's a wonderful thing that there is an audience for this film that can truly be changed by what it has to say, but it's also altogether disappointing that this needs to be seen by anyone. Bully may not change your life, but hopefully it will change the lives of the people who desperately need it. 9/10



*Those of you who know my writing know that when I say this will be, "a relatively short review," I mean that in the same way as if I were to say the New Testament is relatively shorter than the Old Testament.

42

by Tyler Darke

      42 is absolutely the best film of the year so far. It was one of the movies I was looking forward to most this year, and it did not disappoint. The true strength was in the balance of acting genius and terrific screenplay. The two elements came together to create a touching, memorable film that will surely be recognized at the Academy Awards.

      I have seen a number of movies with Harrison Ford, and I've always been impressed by his work. He is obviously an A-list actor who viewers always expect a lot out of. In 42 he delivered a performance that did not meet this expectation, but rather exceeded it. Every aspect of his personality was adapted beautifully to portray Branch Rickey, General Manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers. He melted seamlessly into the role, making his character so believable.

      This is the first film I've seen with Chadwick Boseman (Jackie Robinson) but I look forward to seeing more of him. He did a great job portraying a difficult character whose story is familiar to many of us. The challenge was not really in telling the story of Jackie Robinson, but in showing the world the man who Robinson was. Boseman presented a character who was strong and courageous, yet gentle and lovable. We were able to see the contrast between his tough exterior on the baseball field and his kind personality he showed with his wife.

      The success of the screenplay was attributed to its ability to cross the line with offensive dialogue without making that the focus of the film. It was used in select scenes to emphasize the severity of the racial tension at the time, but it did not carry through the entire movie and become distracting. The dialogue between Robinson and his wife was also beautifully done. It showed a loving relationship without seeming cheesy or overdone.

      42 was a wonderfully executed film that deserves a great deal of success. I enjoyed it and can't wait to add it to my movie collection. Go out and watch it while it's still in theaters so you won't have to wait for the DVD! 9/10

42

By Harry McPhaul

42 was a truly inspiring film.  It depicted that time period in American history (late 1940s) with excellence.  Everything from the fashion to the old baseball parks (which were none existent) was done to every single detail.  Right in the beginning of the film I felt as if I had transcended into Jackie Robinson’s life.  I am not huge of biopics because it is difficult for me to differentiate the actor from the person they are playing.  Casting Chadwick Boseman was a great choice for this reason. 

Boseman’s ability to portray Jackie Robinson was surprisingly believable.  I had not seen him act before this film so I was a little hesitant.  He turned out to be home run.  I could see every emotion he was feeling, especially when the Phillies manager (Ben Chapman) was yelling racist remarks at him.  That was one of my favorite scenes in the whole film because before that it seemed like none of the chants he heard was getting to him.  It created this image that he was immune to the spectators.  In reality, no one could with stand all the racism from the crowd and teammates and not show any emotion to them.   

I could see that Chapman’s comments were almost the straw that broke the camel’s back.  After that at bat you can see Jackie had had enough.   He goes down into the locker room slams his bat against the wall, breaking it and starts to yell.  He is then comforted by Ricky (Harrison Ford), the owner of the team.   This was just one of the memorable scenes from this film.  Most of them involved Harrison Ford.

This was one of Harrison Ford’s best performances.   Everything from his accent to the way he walked seemed authentic.  I was glad to hear his reasoning for wanting to sign Robinson was not just so he could be credited as the first owner to sign an African-American player.   In simple it was “You made me love baseball again.”  This was my favorite quote from the film because it shows that he knew that the major leagues were supposed to have the best quality of play which means the best players.   He also figured out that the best players were not all white. 

From the very beginning of the film I could see that he was determine to fix baseball so that anyone who was good enough to play in the MLB should have an opportunity.   Even when two of his close friends were against it at first, later in the movie one of them was ready to defend Jackie against Chapman.  Ricky was able to make his point clear that this going to happen with you like or not to everyone who opposed him.   It was a powerful film that I enjoyed.  The only thing I did not like about Jackie was that he played for the dodgers but I would give this film  a 9/10.

42

 


A Good Ol' Fashioned American Hero

by Hunter Isham

        Every time a new film comes out, one that I'm looking forward to, I do something I really shouldn't. I read the reviews. Yes, I'm fully aware of the irony. I guess I should be a bit more specific: I read too many reviews. Sometimes I'm just afraid of spoilers, in which case I refer to just a few sentences from favorite critics and Rotten Tomatoes to guide my expectations, then going back to read the reviews once I've seen the film. In the case of a film like 42, one which doesn't offer a story of twists and surprises, I just don't want reviews to spoil the experience. I had the same problem with Lincoln, as both that film and 42 are movies I had read about for years, and  eagerly anticipated once they actually came to fruition. Those of you familiar with my personal taste in film will understand why my interest in this Jackie Robinson biopic increased exponentially when Harrison Ford signed on to play Brooklyn Dodgers general manager Branch Rickey, a chance for a dramatic turn in a quality film (I may love Ford's work, but I don't delude myself about many of his recent films). Needless to say, I was looking forward to 42, and then reviews started pouring in, some criticizing the film for its "hagiographic" portrayal of Robinson. You know what? They're right, but it's still a good film.
        42 covers the years of 1945 to 1947, during which time a young African American man named Jack Roosevelt Robinson went from being a shortstop for the Kansas City Monarchs (a Negro League team) to being the first baseman for the Brooklyn Dodgers. Did I mention that Robinson became the first black player in Major League Baseball when he joined Dem Bums from Brooklyn? Well, you probably knew that already, and the film doesn't pretend that you aren't familiar with Jackie Robinson and his achievements in baseball. By focusing on such a relatively brief period of Robinson's life, the audience can go on that journey with him, not reveling so much in his talent as his perseverance. A great scene in the film encapsulates its approach to Robinson's struggle, when Rickey pressures his prospective new player to tell him if he can handle an angry, inert white world. Robinson asks if Rickey wants a player who has the guts to fight back. "No!" barks the manger, "I want a player who's got the guts not to fight back." As Rickey and his scouts establish at the film's start, there were plenty of talented ballplayers in the Negro Leagues, but they needed someone who would neither crack under the pressure nor explode in a fit of rage when faced with rampant bigotry.
       This inner strength, as well as charm, humor, and just a hint of naïveté, is brought to life by Chadwick Boseman, the relative unknown tasked with the "American Legend" the film's posters and trailers proclaim Robinson to be. Boseman is excellent in the role, although it doesn't hurt that I have no real perception of Robinson aside from him being a trailblazing man in a Dodgers uniform. Jackie Robinson is an American Legend, more than earning that capital "L," although unlike more historically distant figures like Abraham Lincoln and George Washington, Robinson's place in our popular culture is still being established by films like 42 (although the famous Dodger played himself in 1950's The Jackie Robinson Story). Most people know who he is, but many, like myself, don't really know the man behind the number. This film does fall prey to giving us a legendary man, rather than a man who became a legend, never showing us any of Robinson's faults*. Despite this, Boseman acquits himself quite nicely, creating a three-dimensional person with Robinson's charisma and fortitude alone.
        Just as Boseman shines as Jackie, Harrison Ford gives an equally charming performance as Branch Rickey, the irascible, humorously crusading manager who made it his personal mission to integrate baseball. As stated above, Ford is a favorite of mine, and by inhabiting the role of a famously colorful individual, he is given the chance to switch out his fedora and bullwhip for yet another fedora (brim turned up) and an endless stream of ever-present cigars. I've heard Ford's Rickey called "cartoonish," but with an understanding of Rickey's real-life flair, the performance seems less exaggerated and more grounded with each passing minute of his screen time. For all of Ford's great work here, the character nearly becomes a caricature before being sufficiently fleshed out with an eleventh-hour scene in which Rickey explains to Robinson his personal motivation for integrating the game.
        Now, as I readily admit at the start of this review, 42 is indeed a bit of hagiography in the name of the patron saint of baseball. The film is about as earnest as it could be, and its racist antagonists seem to share an archetypical Jim Crow mindset, but this doesn't really hurt the film. Once again, Jackie Robinson is now a legend, but he's yet to be given marble monuments, or his face carved into the side of a mountain, so a film that paints him in a pretty great light can be forgiven for at least not being a retread of the (non-existant) countless films and tributes that have come before**. 42 was written and directed by Brian Helgeland (Oscar winner for co-writing the fantastic L.A. Confidential), and his passion for the subject matter is evident, although his reverence for it is what can occasionally drain the film of its power. It's not even that the film's poorly written, but rather that it's a very old fashioned approach, and as one review I read noted, it's not dissimilar to the kind of film in which Jimmy Stewart would feel at home. Throw in a score that, like the script, is on occasion just a bit too much, and you'll readily understand why the film falls short of being legendary itself. Mark Isham's (no relation) work here is reminiscent of Randy Newman's triumphant sounds from The Natural (a baseball flick I've yet to see), and for the most part it is effective, if not quite memorable. The last thing that, to this reviewer, held 42 back ever so slightly was its direction by Helgeland, framing many of his shots in a fairly basic way. Once more, this is nothing bad, just ordinary, although the scenes out on the field have a certain electricity and energy to them, giving the most dynamic parts of the film the most dynamic camera work.
        42 is most definitely a film that will be remembered, and probably loved by many. It is not a modern American masterpiece, nor the best sports film of recent years (that honor belongs to Moneyball; Go Athletics!), but it is a pretty good portrait of, and tribute to, one of the most admirable athletes of the last century. Jackie Robinson did something extraordinary when he was given the chance by Branch Rickey, and together those men ushered in a new way of life not just in baseball, but in the country that calls that game its favorite pastime. God knows America has enough legendary heroes to fawn over, but there are those that, despite their true dimensions or faults, really do deserve the same old fashioned treatment Gary Cooper might've gotten. Something has to keep our legends legendary. Maybe its a towering monument, or maybe its a film that wears on its sleeve the love of a certain game and the man who changed it forever. 8/10



*I don't know that he had any faults worth depicting, but his politics and thoughts on race in America post-baseball career are apparently a different dimension worthy of a look.

**I realize that Jackie Robinson and his achievements (both as a the first black baseball player and as a great player in general) are well known and well remembered by many familiar with American culture, but for generations born after Robinson's time in the sun (and for those of us who aren't baseball historians), there haven't been many mainstream portrayals, or presentations, of this man. I've always known him as a pioneer ballplayer, but that's the same as knowing Lincoln was president, and nothing more. People should know a little more about their legends.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

By Harry Mcphaul

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was a classic action adventure film.  Within the first 15 minutes of it I felt that this one original films to have this storyline.  Should it have won best picture, no but it was almost equally as important as a best picture winner.  Although I have not seen every one of his adventures, I thought it was a good idea to have some backstory about Jr. (Indiana Jones).

The dates in the beginning threw me off because I was wondering how he could still be alive to do the latest film.   I was thinking that was one major hole in the story.  You do not really find out how he has lived for so long until the end film.  The possibility of immortality never was the outcome Indy was looking for which caused me to forget about it.  You could tell that that all Indy was thinking about was rescuing his dad (Sean Connery).

The relationship between Indy and his father was excellent.  It was confusing trying to figure out what type of father Professor Henry Jones was to Indy.  During several scenes Henry Jones’ work came before Indy.  I was not sure if this was just for comedy or he actually thought that work was more important.  Overall they had great chemistry together because of how they were so believable as father and son.

The relationship between Henry and Indy was a little bit cheesy at sometimes just like other parts of the film.  The whole film just seemed more relaxed.  It definitely was funnier than the Temple of Doom.  One of the only flaws I had with this film was that it lacked a truly memorable scene.  For instance in the Temple of doom when a heart is ripped right out a person’s chest. Other than that it was well done film.  I would highly recommend it.  8.5/10

Thanks for reading.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

Last, but certainly not least.

by Hunter Isham

        Steven Spielberg and George Lucas' Indiana Jones adventure series is collectively my favorite movie, but I know that's cheating just a little bit. I love all four of the films, some more than others, and perhaps in time I will write about each of them for the blog. For now, I'll keep my bursting admiration to the one film I'd likely pick to have on a desert island for eternity: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Most film series can't manage to make a good sequel, let alone a great "threequel," but then again the Indy series has long stood as one of the great cinematic sagas. The original 1981 adventure, Raiders of the Lost Ark, is often cited as the best of the bunch, as well as one of the best films of all time, and I have often agreed with that assessment, but 1989's The Last Crusade is an unbelievably fun, heartfelt thrill ride.

        Like no other Jones film before it, Last Crusade aims to give the audience more of a personal story for Indy. Opening the film in 1912, a teenaged, boy scout Indiana (well played by River Phoenix) decides to rescue an, "important artifact [that] belongs in a museum," from some robbers, a sequence that provides a great deal of background on Jones' character, with everything from his aversion to snakes to how he acquired his iconic brown fedora played out with just the right mix of gleeful action. We get a brief, off-camera introduction to the elder Dr. Jones, and then we flash forward, setting the rest of the film in motion. As with all Indy adventures, Jones is out to find what Spielberg and Lucas call a certain "McGuffin," an object that moves the story along, and as the titular crusade implies, he's on the hunt for the Holy Grail. Indy's father Henry is the family Grail expert, but he's been kidnapped, so Indiana himself must pick up where the trail went cold, all the while searching for the only family he has left.

        Last Crusade, rather than giving Indy another leading, romantic interest, focuses the heart of the film on the near-estranged relationship between the doctors Jones, exploring Henry's obsession with the Grail and his son's resentment for that life-long work. Having already appeared in Raiders and 1984's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, there is simply no question that Harrison Ford is perfectly suited to what has arguably become his most beloved and iconic role, and one would think that casting Sean Connery, James Bond himself, as the daring archeologist's father would be a no-brainer. It is indeed brilliant casting, but not because Connery delivers the same charm and panache he brought to Bond, but rather because he makes Dr. Henry Jones a stuffy, bumbling fellow who is more at home with a book than with a bullwhip. He turns out to be the perfect cinematic companion for Indy, providing constant comic relief as they bicker and attempt to fight off the Nazis (this is, after all, an Indiana Jones film), as well as often imparting deep hurt and regret, both for not having been there for his son and for not being appreciated as the father he managed to be. Ford, given a character from his past to play off of (something not seen since Karen Allen's Marion in Raiders), makes the already human character of Indiana more vulnerable and relatable than ever before. Anytime these two icons share the screen, the result is simply cinematic magic.

        As much as Ford and Connery make Last Crusade the great film that it is, the rest of the cast is equally excellent. Denholm Elliott and John Rhys-Davies, both returning to their respective roles of Marcus Brody and Sallah from Raiders, provide a good deal of comedy as friends and accomplices to the Jones boys, especially as the film heads into its final act, and the two become key players in a wonderful action sequence. Brody in particular becomes hilariously incompetent at times as this film frees him from his university-bound part in the earlier film, giving the audience a glimpse at an academic even less-suited to raucous field work than Henry. The rest of the cast is filled out with fine performances by Allison Doody, the initial love interest for Indy when he travels to Venice, and Julian Glover as the man who hires the Joneses. The villainous Nazis are portrayed with the proper pulpy evil and occasional daftness that a film such as this requires of them.

        The Indiana Jones franchise is one that's always given the audience some great characters to join for adventures, but of course these films wouldn't be the blockbusters they are without fantastic action, and Spielberg once more does not disappoint. From the prologue's playful chase, moving from horseback to a circus train, to the final tricks and traps of the Grail's resting place, every bit of spectacle is top-notch. We get boat chases through Venice, a bi-plane dogfight, and a masterful duel between Indy and a tank, among so many other heart-racing set-pieces. That episode with the tank remains one of the more ambitious moments of the entire franchise, following several characters moving from place to place in constantly changing circumstances, yet Spielberg never once loses the audience, keeping everything important on the screen and easy to follow. The director has a great story by Lucas and Menno Meyjes to work with, and an even better screenplay that provides the tender character moments. Jeffrey Boam, a writer on a couple of the Lethal Weapon movies, is the film's only credited writer, although Spielberg has stated that an uncredited Tom Stoppard is responsible for nearly all of the film's dialogue. Whether one wrote the characters while the other handled the action is unimportant, because no matter how it was accomplished, they achieved a perfect balance between emotion and excitement.

        Although Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford are considered the Indiana Jones brain trust of writer, director, and actor that is key to making these films possible (and there's no denying that), the one other individual whose contributions to the series are just as significant and incomparable is none other than composer John Williams. With Raiders, Williams established yet another classic theme for a franchise-to-be, and the globe-trotting nature of the films has allowed him to bring new sounds and themes into each installment, creating a definite musical DNA that connects the three (and eventually four) films whose locations and plots are essentially isolated from each other, but are undoubtedly part of the same universe. Aside from the usually great themes for different locales and villains, Williams provides a father and son theme, doubling as a theme for the Grail, that completes the bond between Indiana and Henry, and which makes the heart-tugging finale a truly moving moment on film.

        I didn't warn you at the beginning of this review as I have done in the past that my zeal for certain movies, as well as their respective casts and crews, can spawn a long and winding road of admiration. As our About the Authors page notes, action/adventure is my favorite genre, Harrison Ford is my favorite actor, and as pointed out when I began this review, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is my favorite movie of all-time. I've stated the more "professional" reasons for this film's excellence, but my love of this movie is more deeply rooted. George Lucas' original Star Wars trilogy is what first made me consider a career in filmmaking may be something I'd like, but Lucas' collaboration with Steven Spielberg (who as you may know has become may favorite director since that time) is what made me fall for movies. Hard. Here were action/adventure spectacles populated with charming, funny, romantic, vile, and evil characters, people who seemed as real as anyone despite the fantastical stories to which they belonged.

        My favorite of this series has changed over the years, but I eventually settled on The Last Crusade because of its undeniably moving story. Although the other Indiana Jones films have given us characters we can see, and feel for, as real people, this third installment is the most human. Others may consider Raiders of the Lost Ark the true masterpiece of the series, and it is a film I consider to be flawless, meanwhile viewing Last Crusade as great, but perhaps just a little bit of a retread. To be inventive three films in can be a daunting task, but I think Last Crusade's luster may only be diminished when viewed in the shadow of its earlier counterpart. Standing on its own, and as a worthy successor, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is the thrilling, heartfelt film to which all blockbusters should aspire. Go ahead and, as the film's tagline declares, "have the adventure of your life keeping up with the Jonses." I promise you won't regret it; I know I haven't. 10/10

R.I.P. Roger Ebert

The Balcony Forever Closed

by Hunter Isham

        For as long as I can remember, Roger Ebert's always been there. I didn't really start watching his At the Movies television program until very late in its run, but "Two Thumbs Up!" was as present in my childhood as were Mickey Mouse and Bugs Bunny. That summary of sentiment could be found on the TV spots, posters, and (most nostalgic of all) VHS boxes of some of my favorite films. Ebert, along with Gene Siskel and Richard Roeper, entered the national consciousness as a harbinger of smart film criticism available to the masses, forever leaving his mark on the cinematic landscape. Although likely to be remembered for his work on television, Ebert was certainly a prolific writer, and it became a joyous routine for me to check in on his site to see what he thought of the latest blockbusters, indies, and everything else in between.
        I grew interested in (and thoroughly enjoyed) Ebert's presence on the small screen around 2006, not long before one of his bouts with cancer left him speechless and absent from his show. I continued to watch on and off until Richard Roeper left, and resumed once more a year later (following questionable choices on the part of show-owner Disney) when The New York Times' A.O. Scott and the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips took over hosting duties. A few months later, after feeling sad about the once-more intelligent (if Ebert-less) show's cancellation, a new incarnation of the old program was launched on public broadcasting. Ebert Presents At the Movies was a return to form featuring hand-picked critics, the Associated Press' Christy Lemire and MUBI.com's Ignatiy Vishnevetsky, and even Ebert himself, handily voiced by a rotating repertoire. I nary missed an episode, leading to further devastation when a year later, Roger and his wife (and producer) Chaz announced an indefinite hiatus. As it turned out, they had been funding the program themselves, an act of kindness and dedication that afforded movie-lovers like myself another chance to hear intelligent debate about our favorite form of art, however short lived.
         Through all the many incarnations of At the Movies of which I was a fan (including archived segments with Siskel dating back to 1985 on the original show's now-defunct website), I could always have faith that Ebert would be there on the page, if not on the screen. His ability to view films on a level playing field, a method that can allow both pictures like Iron Man and Michael Clayton to receive four stars each, has helped me see films on their own terms. A great action adventure yarn, as shallow as it may be, can still be a great film, just as a serious drama can be great without trying to compete with the works of Orson Welles. A recent and vivid example of Roger Ebert simply enjoying the giddy fun of a film is evident in his review of Pixar's Cars 2. Many consider it the prolific studio's worst film, but Roger gave it three and a half out of four stars, marveling at the fun John Lasseter has playing with his toys, and reminiscing about such fun he once had as a boy. It's a unique approach to film criticism, and one that can remove some of the unnecessary snark and jaded convictions directed at many films, particularly big blockbusters and sequels. Of course, he wasn't always nice to films and their creators, sometimes explicitly disliking every aspect of a production, and reminding readers that his pen was the mightiest sword of them all.
        The final, non-written frontier Ebert conquered, though only on occasion, was that of the DVD audio commentary. He recorded commentary tracks for a handful of films, including the classics Casablanca and Citizen Kane, the latter being a particular favorite of Mr. Ebert's if my memory serves me correctly. His tracks on both films are non-stop, hugely informative, and genuinely interesting, providing tricks of the trade and anecdotes made even better by his evident passion for film. I have no doubt that his other commentary work is similarly outstanding, giving the viewer the wholly unique opportunity to watch a movie with Roger Ebert. His reviews always let the reader know he was a true fan and student of film, and these tracks are a joyously relentless demonstration of that knowledge.
        Roger Ebert quite simply changed the movies. Alongside Gene Siskel, he became a symbol of how film is a medium worth discussing and debating, regardless of if you liked a movie, hated it, or were just plain indifferent. The movies should makes us feel something, so why not express those feelings? Critics can appear a prickly bunch, no matter their target, yet Roger seems to have been one of the first who put his status as an audience member before that of a critic. He could cite the influence of Fellini or Bergman, but he might also just tell you why Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is simply a good bit of fun. They say that everyone's a critic, and on some level that may be true, but there was only one Roger Ebert. We'll miss you at the movies, Roger, and it'll never be quite the same without you, but now I suppose it's time to close the balcony one last time.

The DMI Review Podcast: Episode 4

...And we're back.

by Hunter Isham

        It's been a while since our last episode of the Darke, McPhaul, and Isham Review Podcast, but we're back now with our fourth episode! On this installment we begin by remembering the late, great Roger Ebert, and then continue with an in-depth discussion about Robert Zemeckis' Flight, and Harry and Tyler's favorite films, The Usual Suspects and Crash, respectively. I'll issue a heavy spoiler warning upfront, especially for The Usual Suspects, as we talk about how these films' stories develop and end. As always, feel free to listen from the link below, or check out the show on iTunes. Happy listening!

The DMI Review Podcast: Episode 4