Search
Search results
FarFaria Stories To Read Along
Education and Book
App
- “Brain Expander” –Parenting Magazine - “Netflix for Children's Books!” –USA Today -...
My First Bible Stories for Family & Sunday School
Book and Education
App
Favourite Bible Stories in simple words & bright pictures to introduce your kids to the Lord. • A...
365 Bible Stories | Daily Short Stories for Kids
Book and Education
App
365 Bible Short Stories to enjoy sharing the Bible with your kids. • An easy way to talk about...
Catholic New American Bible Revised Edition
Reference
App
This iPhone/iPad app has been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). ...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Booksmart (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A raunchy but extremely funny teen-sex comedy.
A panda’s eye view of teenage life.
I tend to struggle to find a really good comedy to add to my top 10 of the year. Last year it was “Game Night” that made my list. One that is definitely heading there this year is “Booksmart”.
A retread on a well-travelled tyre.
The coming of age school comedy has been rehashed multiple times. These include films as varied as “Napoleon Dynamite”, “Superbad”, “Easy A”, “Mean Girls”, “Never Been Kissed” and “10 Things I Hate About You”. In tone, “Booksmart” is probably closest to “Superbad”, but it manages – under the direction of actress Olivia Wilde, in her debut feature – to establish a quirky likeability all of its own. An instant classic in the making.
Not for the prudish.
The story concerns two BFF’s – Molly (Beanie Feldstein, sister of Jonah Hill) and Amy (Kaitlyn Dever). They have both spent their young lives trying to score A’s at school in lieu of all other distractions. On the eve of their graduation, Molly realises that this was not a binary option. Her school companions have managed to get all of the success without any of the self-sacrifice! She calls “Malala”! And the duo proceed on a drink and drug-fuelled night to catch up on all the school social life they have missed out on!
Part of this catching up includes sex, and with Amy as a naive wannabe lesbian, in awe of tom-boy skateboarder Ryan (Victoria Ruesga), coming out has never seemed so painful.
I first saw this on a plane and guffawed so much that I went out to buy the DVD for a family viewing. Watching it again though, it is really very, very rude. If you were to categorize it, I think “sex comedy” would be a primary tag. A clumsy but realistic scene between Amy and the “hot girl” Hope (Diana Silvers… who really is) is excruciatingly hard to watch. This can therefore prove an uncomfortable co-watch for ‘young folks’ who – despite all the obvious evidence! – assume their parents / in-laws have done nothing in the past other than hold hands!! 🙂
In a great ensemble cast, Kaitlyn Dever is a revelation.
Kaitlyn Dever has cut her teeth with supporting roles on a few B-grade movies this year including “Beautiful Boy” and “The Front Runner“. But here she takes centre stage and is an absolute revelation as the sexually bemused teen. While Beanie Feldstein has the more obvious comic lead role, it is Dever who continually grabbed my attention with her acting skills. This young lady is added to my “one to watch” list.
This is not to decry the rest of the cast. For this is a great ensemble performance from a pretty unknown cast. The only familiar faces are Lisa Kudrow and Jason Sudeikis, but they only have bit parts.
The only role that didn’t quite work for me was that of the kooky drugged out hippie Gigi (Billie Lourd). It was all a bit too over-the-top for me in a movie that didn’t really need that sort of manic angle. (However, this did set up a Marwen-style drug scene that made me snort… with laughter).
As a comedy, will this by the whole you think it is?
I think this will prove to be a firm young person’s favourite for many years to come. Whether you will find it funny or not will probably depend on the setting of your ‘crudometer’ and your resilience to bad language on screen.
For me, personally, I am clearly still 17 on the inside! I loved it. Not only do I think it a good comedy. It is also a feel-good movie about best friends; a coming of age lesbian adventure; and a film that treats the multi-coloured spectrum of modern sexual variety as something entirely normal and to be celebrated.
I tend to struggle to find a really good comedy to add to my top 10 of the year. Last year it was “Game Night” that made my list. One that is definitely heading there this year is “Booksmart”.
A retread on a well-travelled tyre.
The coming of age school comedy has been rehashed multiple times. These include films as varied as “Napoleon Dynamite”, “Superbad”, “Easy A”, “Mean Girls”, “Never Been Kissed” and “10 Things I Hate About You”. In tone, “Booksmart” is probably closest to “Superbad”, but it manages – under the direction of actress Olivia Wilde, in her debut feature – to establish a quirky likeability all of its own. An instant classic in the making.
Not for the prudish.
The story concerns two BFF’s – Molly (Beanie Feldstein, sister of Jonah Hill) and Amy (Kaitlyn Dever). They have both spent their young lives trying to score A’s at school in lieu of all other distractions. On the eve of their graduation, Molly realises that this was not a binary option. Her school companions have managed to get all of the success without any of the self-sacrifice! She calls “Malala”! And the duo proceed on a drink and drug-fuelled night to catch up on all the school social life they have missed out on!
Part of this catching up includes sex, and with Amy as a naive wannabe lesbian, in awe of tom-boy skateboarder Ryan (Victoria Ruesga), coming out has never seemed so painful.
I first saw this on a plane and guffawed so much that I went out to buy the DVD for a family viewing. Watching it again though, it is really very, very rude. If you were to categorize it, I think “sex comedy” would be a primary tag. A clumsy but realistic scene between Amy and the “hot girl” Hope (Diana Silvers… who really is) is excruciatingly hard to watch. This can therefore prove an uncomfortable co-watch for ‘young folks’ who – despite all the obvious evidence! – assume their parents / in-laws have done nothing in the past other than hold hands!! 🙂
In a great ensemble cast, Kaitlyn Dever is a revelation.
Kaitlyn Dever has cut her teeth with supporting roles on a few B-grade movies this year including “Beautiful Boy” and “The Front Runner“. But here she takes centre stage and is an absolute revelation as the sexually bemused teen. While Beanie Feldstein has the more obvious comic lead role, it is Dever who continually grabbed my attention with her acting skills. This young lady is added to my “one to watch” list.
This is not to decry the rest of the cast. For this is a great ensemble performance from a pretty unknown cast. The only familiar faces are Lisa Kudrow and Jason Sudeikis, but they only have bit parts.
The only role that didn’t quite work for me was that of the kooky drugged out hippie Gigi (Billie Lourd). It was all a bit too over-the-top for me in a movie that didn’t really need that sort of manic angle. (However, this did set up a Marwen-style drug scene that made me snort… with laughter).
As a comedy, will this by the whole you think it is?
I think this will prove to be a firm young person’s favourite for many years to come. Whether you will find it funny or not will probably depend on the setting of your ‘crudometer’ and your resilience to bad language on screen.
For me, personally, I am clearly still 17 on the inside! I loved it. Not only do I think it a good comedy. It is also a feel-good movie about best friends; a coming of age lesbian adventure; and a film that treats the multi-coloured spectrum of modern sexual variety as something entirely normal and to be celebrated.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Last Song in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Ronnie does not want to spend the summer with her dad. Her dad left them three years ago, and she hasn’t really forgiven him for it. She hated him for it so much, that she refused to take his calls, quit playing the piano, and never read the letters he sent her. What is she going to do all summer stuck with a dad she hates in a small town with nothing but sand on every side of her, no clubs, no friends…
When she finds Will, the cutest volley-ball players slash aquarium volunteer in her back yard helping her protect un-hatched sea turtles from being eaten by raccoons, she judged him as not-her-type. She doesn’t expect to find a friend in a jock-rich-perfect-family boy, nor does she expect that this will be the best—most exciting, most scary, most fun, most painful—summer of her lifetime.
My Review: I’m not really sure where to start here, other than I am so utterly pleased with The Last Song, I cannot begin to find words to describe it.
Ronnie, Jonah (her brother), Her dad Steve, Will… all the characters really, were such real characters. I felt everything they felt, I laughed when they laughed, and I (nearly) cried when they cried.
I hate it when books suffer from "happy-land syndrome—" where everything works out just too perfectly that it seems silly. The Last Song seemed to work perfectly, but it didn’t have that plot-manipulated feel to it. It didn’t feel like Sparks was just trying to move the story along and causing things to line up too perfectly to be realistic—it felt like the story was writing itself, and it was perfect. The pacing didn’t feel rushed or slow. It was not a thriller, but I did find myself sitting on the edge of my seat dying to find out what happens. I read it through in two or three days (which is fast for me right now, what with school the way it is!). There are twists, there are surprises—some beautiful, some painful, but all wonderful.
The writing was contemporary. It was easy reading and it wasn’t Dostoevsky, but it wasn’t bad either. The humor was light and witty and sarcastic, sometimes laugh out loud, and more times than I can count my sister would look up from her homework and say “Haley. What is so funny?” The perspective alternated between several different characters, but it wasn’t disorientating. It was all from third person perspective, but I still felt like I could get inside the character’s head.
The end was perfect. That’s all I can really say about it because any information would totally ruin the story. All the loose ends were tied, all the questions were answered, and the ending was open to the future but closed in a wonderful conclusion. Suffice to say I grinned so wide I couldn’t see, and my cheeks are still sore.
Audio Review: Let’s just say that I almost gave up reading The Last Song when I started listening to the audio. Pepper Binkley read Ronnie’s perspective and had a high pitched voice, she read a little too fast (which is rare. Most of the time readers are way too slow), there was no differentiating between voices of characters so you couldn’t tell who was talking, and she seemed up tight and nervous. Scott Sowers read the various men’s perspectives, and he read alright. He was a little slow and his voice took some getting used to but he was otherwise ok. I did get too frustrated to get far in the audio book though. I ended up quitting and reading the paperback. I recommend reading The Last Song over listening to it.
Content: blissfully clean. There was romance between Will and Ronnie, but no sex. It wasn’t needed, either. I feel like the fact that they didn’t sleep together added to the book rather than took away from it. It was also clean of foul language. There was some mention of God and the Bible, but never did it feel like Sparks was preaching.
Recommendation: Ages 14+
When she finds Will, the cutest volley-ball players slash aquarium volunteer in her back yard helping her protect un-hatched sea turtles from being eaten by raccoons, she judged him as not-her-type. She doesn’t expect to find a friend in a jock-rich-perfect-family boy, nor does she expect that this will be the best—most exciting, most scary, most fun, most painful—summer of her lifetime.
My Review: I’m not really sure where to start here, other than I am so utterly pleased with The Last Song, I cannot begin to find words to describe it.
Ronnie, Jonah (her brother), Her dad Steve, Will… all the characters really, were such real characters. I felt everything they felt, I laughed when they laughed, and I (nearly) cried when they cried.
I hate it when books suffer from "happy-land syndrome—" where everything works out just too perfectly that it seems silly. The Last Song seemed to work perfectly, but it didn’t have that plot-manipulated feel to it. It didn’t feel like Sparks was just trying to move the story along and causing things to line up too perfectly to be realistic—it felt like the story was writing itself, and it was perfect. The pacing didn’t feel rushed or slow. It was not a thriller, but I did find myself sitting on the edge of my seat dying to find out what happens. I read it through in two or three days (which is fast for me right now, what with school the way it is!). There are twists, there are surprises—some beautiful, some painful, but all wonderful.
The writing was contemporary. It was easy reading and it wasn’t Dostoevsky, but it wasn’t bad either. The humor was light and witty and sarcastic, sometimes laugh out loud, and more times than I can count my sister would look up from her homework and say “Haley. What is so funny?” The perspective alternated between several different characters, but it wasn’t disorientating. It was all from third person perspective, but I still felt like I could get inside the character’s head.
The end was perfect. That’s all I can really say about it because any information would totally ruin the story. All the loose ends were tied, all the questions were answered, and the ending was open to the future but closed in a wonderful conclusion. Suffice to say I grinned so wide I couldn’t see, and my cheeks are still sore.
Audio Review: Let’s just say that I almost gave up reading The Last Song when I started listening to the audio. Pepper Binkley read Ronnie’s perspective and had a high pitched voice, she read a little too fast (which is rare. Most of the time readers are way too slow), there was no differentiating between voices of characters so you couldn’t tell who was talking, and she seemed up tight and nervous. Scott Sowers read the various men’s perspectives, and he read alright. He was a little slow and his voice took some getting used to but he was otherwise ok. I did get too frustrated to get far in the audio book though. I ended up quitting and reading the paperback. I recommend reading The Last Song over listening to it.
Content: blissfully clean. There was romance between Will and Ronnie, but no sex. It wasn’t needed, either. I feel like the fact that they didn’t sleep together added to the book rather than took away from it. It was also clean of foul language. There was some mention of God and the Bible, but never did it feel like Sparks was preaching.
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 2 (2004) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
"There's a hero in all of us"
One of the finest sequels ever made and still counted amongst the greatest superhero flicks in existence, Spider-Man 2 is a remarkable follow-up to its already-impressive predecessor that skilfully builds upon the solid foundation provided by the first film, presents significant upgrades in each filmmaking aspect and beautifully balances all its elements to succeed as not just a de-facto standard of its genre but also as one of the best films of its year.
Set two years after the events of the first film, the story of Spider-Man 2 finds Peter Parker struggling to balance his personal life & his obligations as Spider-Man. His love interest is engaged to someone else, his grades have been steadily declining and he also seems to be losing his powers. Meanwhile, a brilliant scientist named Dr. Otto Octavius transforms into a supervillain with four robotic tentacles fused to his spine after his effort to sustain a nuclear fusion reaction goes horribly wrong.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man 2 is a far more mature effort from him in comparison to his previous venture and presents the director in sublime form for this sequel picks up the story right where it was left off the last time despite the 2 years span, progresses the arc of its reprising characters amazingly well while giving a proper introduction to the new ones, and also does an outstanding job in balancing its storytelling elements with moments of action in a seamless manner, due to which everything about this sequel just works.
Alvin Sargent's screenplay is worthy of praise as well for the story takes a darker approach than the last time yet packs in enough humour to prevent it from becoming too bleak, and although the cheesiness of the first chapter isn't reduced, the narrative flow is much more stream-lined than before. Production design team comes up with bigger, more refined set pieces, Cinematography preserves the vibrant camerawork but has a firmer grip on it this time while Editing is definitely one of its strongest aspects for there isn't a dull moment in the picture.
Visual effects is much improved as well and by not overdoing its CGI elements, it keeps the artificiality of its universe at bay for the most part. Sure a number of moments are over-the-top but most of them still fall under the realm of on-screen believability. Last but not the least, Danny Elfman delivers again with a splendid soundtrack that stays true to the original film's score, works as a wonderfully evolved successor, and captures the darker tone with finesse just like it did the last time. Even the existing songs used in the picture are nicely chosen & help compliment the respective sequences.
Coming to the performances, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco & J.K. Simmons return to reprise their respective roles of Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborn & J. Jonah Jameson and do a better job than before. Maguire builds up on his earlier input to impress once again and what he lacks in star presence, he makes up for it by chipping in a complex performance. Simmons is hilarious as before, Dunst & Franco are still on base level but it's Alfred Molina who impresses the most in what is a sympathetic rendition of Doc Ock, thus making him a classic foe in every way.
On an overall scale, Spider-Man 2 delivers everything one can expect from a sequel. It goes bigger, better & more action-packed than before yet stays completely true to its origin, plus finishes on a high with enough open choices for where it can be headed in later instalments, something that Sony failed to take advantage of. Sam Raimi has weaved a magical web yet again that tightly grasps on to every necessary ingredient to come up with an incredibly fun, highly enjoyable, wildly entertaining & thoroughly satisfying extravaganza that promises yet another high-flying, web-sligning roller-coaster ride and effortlessly delivers it.
Set two years after the events of the first film, the story of Spider-Man 2 finds Peter Parker struggling to balance his personal life & his obligations as Spider-Man. His love interest is engaged to someone else, his grades have been steadily declining and he also seems to be losing his powers. Meanwhile, a brilliant scientist named Dr. Otto Octavius transforms into a supervillain with four robotic tentacles fused to his spine after his effort to sustain a nuclear fusion reaction goes horribly wrong.
Directed by Sam Raimi, Spider-Man 2 is a far more mature effort from him in comparison to his previous venture and presents the director in sublime form for this sequel picks up the story right where it was left off the last time despite the 2 years span, progresses the arc of its reprising characters amazingly well while giving a proper introduction to the new ones, and also does an outstanding job in balancing its storytelling elements with moments of action in a seamless manner, due to which everything about this sequel just works.
Alvin Sargent's screenplay is worthy of praise as well for the story takes a darker approach than the last time yet packs in enough humour to prevent it from becoming too bleak, and although the cheesiness of the first chapter isn't reduced, the narrative flow is much more stream-lined than before. Production design team comes up with bigger, more refined set pieces, Cinematography preserves the vibrant camerawork but has a firmer grip on it this time while Editing is definitely one of its strongest aspects for there isn't a dull moment in the picture.
Visual effects is much improved as well and by not overdoing its CGI elements, it keeps the artificiality of its universe at bay for the most part. Sure a number of moments are over-the-top but most of them still fall under the realm of on-screen believability. Last but not the least, Danny Elfman delivers again with a splendid soundtrack that stays true to the original film's score, works as a wonderfully evolved successor, and captures the darker tone with finesse just like it did the last time. Even the existing songs used in the picture are nicely chosen & help compliment the respective sequences.
Coming to the performances, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco & J.K. Simmons return to reprise their respective roles of Peter Parker, Mary Jane Watson, Harry Osborn & J. Jonah Jameson and do a better job than before. Maguire builds up on his earlier input to impress once again and what he lacks in star presence, he makes up for it by chipping in a complex performance. Simmons is hilarious as before, Dunst & Franco are still on base level but it's Alfred Molina who impresses the most in what is a sympathetic rendition of Doc Ock, thus making him a classic foe in every way.
On an overall scale, Spider-Man 2 delivers everything one can expect from a sequel. It goes bigger, better & more action-packed than before yet stays completely true to its origin, plus finishes on a high with enough open choices for where it can be headed in later instalments, something that Sony failed to take advantage of. Sam Raimi has weaved a magical web yet again that tightly grasps on to every necessary ingredient to come up with an incredibly fun, highly enjoyable, wildly entertaining & thoroughly satisfying extravaganza that promises yet another high-flying, web-sligning roller-coaster ride and effortlessly delivers it.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Mid90s (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
At 1 hour 25 minutes you'd be forgiven for thinking this would be a brief affair, but if you're not into it then this 85-minute film is agonisingly long.
Going into this the only thing I knew about this film was that it was directed by Jonah Hill, and I like him so that felt like something positive.
31 people had booked to see this preview at my Cineworld, I think there were maybe 10 of us that showed up. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm from any of us until it was time to leave.
Kudos on going with the 4:3 look on the screen and the grainier quality on the filming (I'm sure there are technical terms for that but I don't know them!) That combined with accurate costumes and settings to really take you back to the 90s. I found the smaller aspect to be rather distracting on the big screen though. I watch 4:3 a lot at home on my widescreen TV without it seeming odd, perhaps this is just one of those things, I go so often that I'm probably just expecting it to fill the whole screen.
The film starts with a particularly jarring scene, and while I don't have an issue with that shock impact I don't like that there's no context. You can infer things later on, but at no point do you explicitly find out the reason behind some of the shocking scenes. The film feels much more like we've been plonked down into his life rather than learning about it.
It's difficult to sum up how I feel about the characters.
Sunny Suljic is fine in the main role but there wasn't anything that wowed me from the role. That's no slur on the acting, I just didn't feel that the dialogue or story gave us more than a glance at his life.
Ray came across as the strongest out of all the skaters, we see a few different aspects of him and he gets a proper chance to open up. Had all the characters had this opportunity then I think we'd have had something much more interesting... but then teenage boys aren't notoriously fans of opening up emotionally on screen unless we're in a romantic film.
Those of you who read my reviews will know how I feel about Lucas Hedges, that is to say, I don't really get it. This role offers little backstory apart from the fact that he clearly has a long passion for beating the crap out of his brother, Stevie. Despite my growing indifference for him I feel like Hedges wasn't given enough time in the movie. I can see why he wasn't, Ian is hyper-aggressive and a very threatening presence so having more of him would have changed the dynamic a lot. Having more of him though might have allowed us to understand him a little bit more and take away some of the unanswered questions at the end of the film.
There are a lot of scenes with drug use and alcohol, and I can see those being relevant to the story, but the "sex" scene was uncomfortable and really didn't feel like it fit in at all. From the moment you see it coming to the point where the boys are prying out details of the encounter I sat there wondering why. Why it needed to be there and why the script was just so bad through it.
The ending was the only part of the film that actually made me feel anything for the characters and the events. That in itself is quite an achievement being that you can tell exactly what is coming. The way the final event is handled was visually striking and leads us into a moment where all the characters get to show something that finally feels like genuine emotion. I think it says a lot that the most effective bits of the film had no dialogue in them. The events at the end of this film saved Mid90s from getting one of the lowest ratings in my reviewing history.
I'd say that had they given over an extra 20 minutes to better character development then this would have been better, but I worry that an extra 20 minutes would just have made the event even more excruciating.
What you should do
I'm sure this has it's audience somewhere, after all, people seem to be raving about it. Sadly I am not that audience and I really can't recommend this to anyone.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I love the idea of making customer skateboards.
Going into this the only thing I knew about this film was that it was directed by Jonah Hill, and I like him so that felt like something positive.
31 people had booked to see this preview at my Cineworld, I think there were maybe 10 of us that showed up. I have to say that there wasn't a lot of enthusiasm from any of us until it was time to leave.
Kudos on going with the 4:3 look on the screen and the grainier quality on the filming (I'm sure there are technical terms for that but I don't know them!) That combined with accurate costumes and settings to really take you back to the 90s. I found the smaller aspect to be rather distracting on the big screen though. I watch 4:3 a lot at home on my widescreen TV without it seeming odd, perhaps this is just one of those things, I go so often that I'm probably just expecting it to fill the whole screen.
The film starts with a particularly jarring scene, and while I don't have an issue with that shock impact I don't like that there's no context. You can infer things later on, but at no point do you explicitly find out the reason behind some of the shocking scenes. The film feels much more like we've been plonked down into his life rather than learning about it.
It's difficult to sum up how I feel about the characters.
Sunny Suljic is fine in the main role but there wasn't anything that wowed me from the role. That's no slur on the acting, I just didn't feel that the dialogue or story gave us more than a glance at his life.
Ray came across as the strongest out of all the skaters, we see a few different aspects of him and he gets a proper chance to open up. Had all the characters had this opportunity then I think we'd have had something much more interesting... but then teenage boys aren't notoriously fans of opening up emotionally on screen unless we're in a romantic film.
Those of you who read my reviews will know how I feel about Lucas Hedges, that is to say, I don't really get it. This role offers little backstory apart from the fact that he clearly has a long passion for beating the crap out of his brother, Stevie. Despite my growing indifference for him I feel like Hedges wasn't given enough time in the movie. I can see why he wasn't, Ian is hyper-aggressive and a very threatening presence so having more of him would have changed the dynamic a lot. Having more of him though might have allowed us to understand him a little bit more and take away some of the unanswered questions at the end of the film.
There are a lot of scenes with drug use and alcohol, and I can see those being relevant to the story, but the "sex" scene was uncomfortable and really didn't feel like it fit in at all. From the moment you see it coming to the point where the boys are prying out details of the encounter I sat there wondering why. Why it needed to be there and why the script was just so bad through it.
The ending was the only part of the film that actually made me feel anything for the characters and the events. That in itself is quite an achievement being that you can tell exactly what is coming. The way the final event is handled was visually striking and leads us into a moment where all the characters get to show something that finally feels like genuine emotion. I think it says a lot that the most effective bits of the film had no dialogue in them. The events at the end of this film saved Mid90s from getting one of the lowest ratings in my reviewing history.
I'd say that had they given over an extra 20 minutes to better character development then this would have been better, but I worry that an extra 20 minutes would just have made the event even more excruciating.
What you should do
I'm sure this has it's audience somewhere, after all, people seem to be raving about it. Sadly I am not that audience and I really can't recommend this to anyone.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I love the idea of making customer skateboards.
Gareth von Kallenbach (977 KP) rated Moneyball (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
Baseball economics has long a source of serious debate amongst fans, players, and teams. The contentious issues of how to divide the revenue in an equitable manner led to the cancellation of the playoffs and World Series in 1994 and is still largely unresolved today. While smaller market teams are given funds from a luxury tax imposed on larger payroll teams, it still fails to provide an even competitive playing field when large market teams, such as the New York Yankees, can field teams with a $225 million-plus payroll while the smaller market teams have to make do with budgets often under $40 million.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.
Naturally, this has put many teams at a competitive disadvantage and most feel that they have no chance to win long-term, even as they develop cheap homegrown talent in their minor-league systems. They lose said talent to the larger market clubs once players become eligible for free agency. It is against this backdrop that the new film “Moneyball” starring Brad Pitt is set.
The film was based on the book of the same name which tells the story and philosophy of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. Beane was a highly recruited baseball player at a high school who turned down a scholarship to Stanford for his shot at the major leagues. Unfortunately for Beane, his career was a major disappointment punctuated with numerous stops between the pros and the minor leagues which resulted in a very mediocre and forgettable career.
Beane got himself a job as a scout and in time worked his way to being the general manager of the Oakland A’s. As the film opens, Oakland has just lost a deciding Game 5 the New York Yankees, whose payroll at the time was almost $120 million greater than Oaklands. Adding further insult to injury, Oakland is unable to re-sign its three biggest stars as they accept large contracts with the Yankees, Red Sox, and other large market teams.
Unable to get any additional funds from his owner, Beane travels to Cleveland in an attempt to find affordable talent via trades. Beane is categorically rebuffed and told that he couldn’t afford many of the players that he’s asking about and that the ones he can afford are not be available to him.
Beane notices a young man, Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) during the negotiations, whose quiet input was heeded by the Indians, even though this is Peter’s first job since graduating from Yale with an economics degree. Beane gets Peter to confide in him about his beliefs that the traditional baseball method for evaluating talent is all wrong and that there is a better way to do it.
Intrigued, Beane hires Brand to be his assistant general manager and the two set out to rebuild the Oakland A’s on a budget. Needless to say this does not sit well with many of the talent scouts or manager Art Howe (a very believable Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who sees the recruiting of washed-up has-beens and never-weres by Beane as misguided and ridiculous.
But Beane and Brand are determined, and using statistical formula that looks at such things as on-base percentages and runs scored as opposed to batting average, home runs, and RBIs, the A’s quickly put together an unlikely team. It doesn’t immediately play out well for the hopeful general manager because Howe is unwilling to play many of the new players that have been brought on. Oakland quickly sinks to the bottom of the league, and many begin to question the sanity of Bean’s approach, to the point that even his young daughter worries that his days as a general manager are numbered.
The film does a good job at showing the inner workings of baseball and Pitt does an amazing job showing the complex nature of Beane. He is a single father dealing with the failure of his playing career, and his inability to get Oakland to be a consistant winner. He puts everything he has into this so-called outrageous scheme and is willing to see it through no matter the cost. Chris Pratt does great supporting work as Scott Hatteberg, one of Beane’s reclamation projects as does Stephen Bisop as aging major-league slugger David Justice.
The film stays very true to historical events and shows the characters as they are, flaws and all. While a true story, Peter Brand, is a fictional charcter based on Paul DePodesta who introduced Beane to the analytical principles of sabermetrics. The movie remains a very interesting character study as well as an examination of the delicate relationships between players, front offices, and ownership where wins and dollars are paramount even when many teams are struggling to make do with less.
That being said the film was a very enjoyable and realistic look at the inner workings of baseball that should not be missed.
It’s about 6 weeks since I finished season 3 of this incredible show from Netflix. I have been putting off writing about it, because I wanted to let it settle. And also because I have a hell of a lot to say about it. I am gonna try and be comprehensive, without giving too much away in terms of spoilers. I am going to assume you have seen some of it, or have heard the hype, at least. If you haven’t got around to it yet, then all I can say is: what are you doing with your entertainment life? Get on it, now! It is as ubiquitous as Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, or The Wire, and sits comfortably in that group for consistent quality and lasting impressions.
Season one first aired in July 2017. I heard good things very quickly, albeit with some hesitation. It was dark, sometimes literally, utilising a trademark washed-out effect visually, that instantly gave it a bleak feel, which was not to everyone’s taste, but I loved. General consensus had it that the writing was great; the situation and concept drew you in from minute one. In fact, I believe the first episode is one of the best pilots seen in the last decade, bar none. It made no bones about what we were to expect from the start: intelligent dialogue, a lot of tension and a hefty chunk of jaw-dropping brutality.
Jason Bateman has enjoyed a remarkable career in the last ten years, putting behind him a patchy child-star and B actor tag, to emerge as the go to guy for deadpan comedy pathos, rivalled only, perhaps by Paul Rudd. Ozark is Bateman’s show in many regards, fulfilling his ambition to produce and direct as well as act, and he is a superb central pivot to the show, as hard nosed accountant turned drug cartel puppet, Marty Byrde. He excels in all three roles on every level, and if you are a fan of his lighter work, chances are you will fall head over heels for his dubious charm in Ozark.
But, whilst he is the lynchpin of the show, and a compelling character in every subtley drawn way, there is so much more to the show than him. Laura Linney, as his initially timid wife, Wendy, is never less than interesting. Perfectly cast, utilising her skill for portraying strong yet flawed women at every turn; she grows into a character so full of contradictions and conflicts, that you change your mind whether you like her or not almost episode to episode. Time will tell, but she may yet emerge in season 4 as the most fully realised character in the show, depending on how her arc ends. The potential is huge, and despite a CV of solid roles over the years, this could be the defining work of her career. It’s already close.
Then there are the kids in this very modern nuclear family, Charlotte and Jonah, played by Sofia Hublitz and Skylar Gaetner. These characters could have been set decoration in lesser hands, but in this show they are given the chance to grow and become pivotal to the ongoing story in remarkable ways. There is nothing stereotypical about either of them, and the two young actors more than rise to the challenge of matching the more experienced pros. Many a show has been ruined by miscast youths that can’t match the more sophisticated adult content, but I remain impressed by these two, both as characters and actors. Again, they have the scope to go into very fascinating places within the story when season four emerges.
The true strength of the show, however, may lie in its consistently solid output of great supporting characters. Julia Gartner, as older than her years redneck with ambitions to rise above it, Ruth, has garnered all the plaudits, quite rightly. You grow to like her in usual ways. At first mistrusting her and then ended up 100% on her side. At times, she is the only one making sense and making the right decisions. The continual ways she is forced to grow up fast and bounce back from traumatic situations is so beautifully handled, that when she does show her vulnerable side it is at once shocking and heart- rending.
A lot of characters come and go; some forever, much quicker than you anticipated… for the sake of non spoilers, I won’t go into a who’s who here, but many meet a very sticky end, and it isn’t always who you think it will be. Especially by season 3, which largely drops the dark filter on the camera lens, but cranks up the body count exponentially, you start to feel that no one is safe, and anyone can go at any minute. Except, when they do, and why they do, is so well interwoven into the plot that you forget to look for the sucker punch and are still left with your jaw hitting the floor.
There were moments on season three where I was actually talking to the screen, begging certain characters not to do what they were doing; a sure sign of complete emotional investment. A big part of that was the addition of Tom Pelphrey as Wendy’s brother, who from the start puts a genius new spin on the family dynamic, becoming intertwined in interesting and ultimately devastating ways. His character takes a while to warm up, but by mid-season he is guaranteed to be your favourite person in it. And in episode 9, he delivers a monologue and a performance that I would quite honestly say is one of the absolute best things I’ve ever seen in a TV show.
I was moderately outraged then, to see he wasn’t rewarded with at least a nomination for the 2020 Emmy Awards. An oversight rather than a snub, for sure, but when Bateman, Linney and Garner all got nominated and he didn’t it felt like a real injustice, and a lot of online vitriol reflected that. Such a shame, especially if it turns out to be the best work he ever does – and I can’t imagine anything better, but who knows where he will go from here.
By the end of season 3 I felt exhausted. Each episode is slightly over an hour long, but can feel like you just watched a self contained movie. The quality certainly feels that way. I was both elated and shocked by the way it was left on a cliff edge, and relieved that I could take a break from it now. Although, waiting potentially up to two years to see how the story ends now seems like a long wait.
And it will be the end, one way or another, as the production announced season four will be the last, however stretching from 10 to 14 episodes, divided into 2 halves of 7; a trick Breaking Bad also did in its fifth and final season. I love that idea. Knowing the finish line is coming, rather than having it stretch out for years until the ideas and the momentum have long run out. Dexter springs to mind: a show that should have ended two seasons earlier, for sure.
I can really only see two ways it can go from here: either everyone dies, and that seems quite likely right now, or they win big. There simply is no inbetween I can imagine that would be satisfying. And I’m on the fence which I will prefer… The only certainty is that I will be very excited indeed when it comes around. And shows that make you feel that way are rare. In the meantime, I’m gonna watch a lot of comedies. I need a laugh after this…
Season one first aired in July 2017. I heard good things very quickly, albeit with some hesitation. It was dark, sometimes literally, utilising a trademark washed-out effect visually, that instantly gave it a bleak feel, which was not to everyone’s taste, but I loved. General consensus had it that the writing was great; the situation and concept drew you in from minute one. In fact, I believe the first episode is one of the best pilots seen in the last decade, bar none. It made no bones about what we were to expect from the start: intelligent dialogue, a lot of tension and a hefty chunk of jaw-dropping brutality.
Jason Bateman has enjoyed a remarkable career in the last ten years, putting behind him a patchy child-star and B actor tag, to emerge as the go to guy for deadpan comedy pathos, rivalled only, perhaps by Paul Rudd. Ozark is Bateman’s show in many regards, fulfilling his ambition to produce and direct as well as act, and he is a superb central pivot to the show, as hard nosed accountant turned drug cartel puppet, Marty Byrde. He excels in all three roles on every level, and if you are a fan of his lighter work, chances are you will fall head over heels for his dubious charm in Ozark.
But, whilst he is the lynchpin of the show, and a compelling character in every subtley drawn way, there is so much more to the show than him. Laura Linney, as his initially timid wife, Wendy, is never less than interesting. Perfectly cast, utilising her skill for portraying strong yet flawed women at every turn; she grows into a character so full of contradictions and conflicts, that you change your mind whether you like her or not almost episode to episode. Time will tell, but she may yet emerge in season 4 as the most fully realised character in the show, depending on how her arc ends. The potential is huge, and despite a CV of solid roles over the years, this could be the defining work of her career. It’s already close.
Then there are the kids in this very modern nuclear family, Charlotte and Jonah, played by Sofia Hublitz and Skylar Gaetner. These characters could have been set decoration in lesser hands, but in this show they are given the chance to grow and become pivotal to the ongoing story in remarkable ways. There is nothing stereotypical about either of them, and the two young actors more than rise to the challenge of matching the more experienced pros. Many a show has been ruined by miscast youths that can’t match the more sophisticated adult content, but I remain impressed by these two, both as characters and actors. Again, they have the scope to go into very fascinating places within the story when season four emerges.
The true strength of the show, however, may lie in its consistently solid output of great supporting characters. Julia Gartner, as older than her years redneck with ambitions to rise above it, Ruth, has garnered all the plaudits, quite rightly. You grow to like her in usual ways. At first mistrusting her and then ended up 100% on her side. At times, she is the only one making sense and making the right decisions. The continual ways she is forced to grow up fast and bounce back from traumatic situations is so beautifully handled, that when she does show her vulnerable side it is at once shocking and heart- rending.
A lot of characters come and go; some forever, much quicker than you anticipated… for the sake of non spoilers, I won’t go into a who’s who here, but many meet a very sticky end, and it isn’t always who you think it will be. Especially by season 3, which largely drops the dark filter on the camera lens, but cranks up the body count exponentially, you start to feel that no one is safe, and anyone can go at any minute. Except, when they do, and why they do, is so well interwoven into the plot that you forget to look for the sucker punch and are still left with your jaw hitting the floor.
There were moments on season three where I was actually talking to the screen, begging certain characters not to do what they were doing; a sure sign of complete emotional investment. A big part of that was the addition of Tom Pelphrey as Wendy’s brother, who from the start puts a genius new spin on the family dynamic, becoming intertwined in interesting and ultimately devastating ways. His character takes a while to warm up, but by mid-season he is guaranteed to be your favourite person in it. And in episode 9, he delivers a monologue and a performance that I would quite honestly say is one of the absolute best things I’ve ever seen in a TV show.
I was moderately outraged then, to see he wasn’t rewarded with at least a nomination for the 2020 Emmy Awards. An oversight rather than a snub, for sure, but when Bateman, Linney and Garner all got nominated and he didn’t it felt like a real injustice, and a lot of online vitriol reflected that. Such a shame, especially if it turns out to be the best work he ever does – and I can’t imagine anything better, but who knows where he will go from here.
By the end of season 3 I felt exhausted. Each episode is slightly over an hour long, but can feel like you just watched a self contained movie. The quality certainly feels that way. I was both elated and shocked by the way it was left on a cliff edge, and relieved that I could take a break from it now. Although, waiting potentially up to two years to see how the story ends now seems like a long wait.
And it will be the end, one way or another, as the production announced season four will be the last, however stretching from 10 to 14 episodes, divided into 2 halves of 7; a trick Breaking Bad also did in its fifth and final season. I love that idea. Knowing the finish line is coming, rather than having it stretch out for years until the ideas and the momentum have long run out. Dexter springs to mind: a show that should have ended two seasons earlier, for sure.
I can really only see two ways it can go from here: either everyone dies, and that seems quite likely right now, or they win big. There simply is no inbetween I can imagine that would be satisfying. And I’m on the fence which I will prefer… The only certainty is that I will be very excited indeed when it comes around. And shows that make you feel that way are rare. In the meantime, I’m gonna watch a lot of comedies. I need a laugh after this…