Real Steel

Either the prospect of Rock-Em-Sock-Em Robots the Movie makes you smile, or it doesn't. If it doesn't there's no way Real Steel has any chance of entertaining you so I wouldn't even bother going to see it. For me though, well I sort of enjoy the over the top ridiculousness of the premise and felt that, if executed correctly, the film could be a successfully 'dumb' action movie. It sort of succeeds.

The plot is pretty basic. In the future people have decided they'd rather watch robot's fight than actual people (why this is, is never adequately explained. Its difficult for me to believe that watching guys play video games will ever replace a real live fight, Its not like battle bots was tremendously popular, but whatever). Hugh Jackman is a washed up boxer, fighting robots around the country with the occasional help of Kate From Lost (Note, the actress who plays her will always be Kate from lost. She's not quite good enough to ever escape the role so I hope she just accepts it). Eventually a son he never knew shows up, they fight, they bond, they find an old robot and turn it into a fighter, etc. Nothing new here, all that matters is whether or not there's enough Robot on Robot action. There is, and its much better executed than say, Transformers (i.e. I could actually tell what was going on), and that's good. But man is the film too long. Over two hours. They should have chopped a half an hour out (anything involving the Robot dancing would have been fine) and it would have been so much better. Also, as much as they tried, I couldn't get that emotionally involved in what robot won the fight. I mean I love my quesadilla as much as the next guy, but if it suddenly got beat up by the neighbor's Cuisinart I can't say I'd be that broken up (not as much as the quesadilla maker at least - zing).

But whatever, its more watchable than you think, and features some of the most blatantly self-aware product placement I've ever seen. And if there's one thing I can always appreciate, its wholesale selling out.

Moneyball/Contagion

Its appropriate that I saw these films back to back since Steven Sodenbergh was two weeks away from shooting the former, before production was stopped, and ended up directing the latter instead. So that's something, and shows what an informed blogger I am.

Anyway Moneyball first. I'm a fan of the Michael Lewis book, and was definitely curious about how the film would get a conventional narrative out of the story of a small market baseball team that initiates a statistical revolution, but doesn't end up winning the big game. They get around this issue by focusing on the triumph of an idea rather than a team, and focusing a character who had no more than a passing mention in the book (Billy Beane's daughter). Overall the approach works. I wouldn't watch this film for a 100% accurate representation of the Billy Beane (just like I wouldn't watch the Social Network to learn about Facebook), but its entertaining, well-acted, and moves along at a nice pace. Its radically simplifies the basic idea, but in general captures the spirit of the book, which is more than I can say about The Blind Side (which in the interest of full disclosure I haven't been able to bring myself to watch even though somebody gave me a copy that is sitting on my floor. If I want to see a film about a brave white woman whose gumption helps her save an under appreciated black child I'll just watch the help. No I won't).

Contagion on the other hand attempts to show how a pandemic would affect the world, but in the most clinical, non-thrilling manner possible. Really for most of the film its almost as if Sodenbergh wanted to just do a meticulous live-action simulation of the mechanics of a pandemic. This isn't necessarily a bad thing. By stripping out most of the normal gyrations of this genre (namely worrying about who's going to die), you're able to really just focus on the effects of the disease and consider its implications. Really the only times the film doesn't work is when it jumps away from this approach and focuses on a completely unnecessary side plot involving a paranoid blogger (Jude Law). Still overall its engaging (if a bit draggy at times) and will make you try to avoid physical contact with other people (thankfully I'm already way ahead of them on that count).

Note: Two girls in front of me thought they were going to see The Ides of March (playing in the next theater). When they realized there was no Baby Goose in this one there was much consternation for a few minutes, but I'll give them credit that they actually sat through the whole thing.

The Ides of March

This is a film that wants you to understand that it is important. Every scene is crafted to show the weight of what the characters are going through, every speech meant to either make an impassioned plea or show you how screwed up and full of compromise the political system really is (what a new and radical sentiment). Its kind of like the West Wing only without the sense of humor or likable characters.

Now given the film's cast (George Clooney, Ryan Gosling, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, and Geoffrey Wright) this is all executed competently and in a reasonably engaging matter. However I couldn't help but feel the entire thing was all surface, and not doing anything new. Its almost as if Clooney got so tied up in trying to make something momentous he ended up drowning in it. Its not worthless by any stretch of the imagination, just no where near as insightful or important as it thinks it is.

Postscript: I now remember why the film felt so familiar. Its really just a remake of Primary Colors, except not as good. Its lacking that films sense of humor, and identifiable characters, so its unsurprising this film ended up just leaving me blase.