As a big time baseball fan, I thoroughly enjoyed Moneyball. If I were not a fan, would have I appreciated it just the same? Probably not. It speaks a lot of baseball language, it gets into the nuances of baseball management, strategy, politics, etc., and it is utterly fascinating. A movie like this is a gift for baseball fans, but at the same time, it begs the question - would a non-baseball fan watch it? I can't imagine why...unless the viewer is a big Brad Pitt fan, or they take a liking to Jonah Hill (who is subtle, and reserved, and plays the part very well). In any case, I consider it a great movie - it has a bright even look to it, it probes the depths of its characters, it speaks a very clear, understandable baseball language, and it has incredible dialogue.

     As for the dialogue, I love hearing this movie talk. It is quick, and sharp. It comfortably speaks and conveys the complicated language of baseball and the art of negotiation, and it also makes the more emotionally heavy scenes believable as well. Nothing wooden, nothing phony, nothing corny or tacky - it is just a very well-written film.

     The journey of Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane is a truly interesting one. The film uses the framework of baseball to explain the main characters thought process and motivation for his actions - so even a non-baseball person can appreciate the way things clash and mesh throughout his life. It's on that level, and many other levels, why I loved this movie.

     When Moneyball concluded, I ultimately felt that I could have seen more. Was there enough said? Sure. Was it too short? No. But the ride was so captivating, I did not want it to end. And that is the sign of a great movie. A great baseball movie, and a great movie.

-Kurt L.

____________________________________________________

     Queintin Tarantino has made some stellar movies in his illustrious career - from the ground-breaking and historic Pulp Fiction, to the rough and tough Reservoir Dogs, to the underrated classic Jackie Brown, QT has made a household name out of himself, and made his indelible mark on the film industry. He is known for having a terrific ear for dialogue, a great knack for an avant-garde and innovative directing style (often bringing out the best in actors), and also for numerous homages to films of the yesteryear. QT can also be rather quirky as well, often making odd, jarring choices in his films, which necessarily isn't a bad thing. In fact, some of these chocies are rather charming, and very striking, in a positive fashion. He is a fantastic film-maker, and he has a huge following of fans, but also some naysayers who don't like his unique style. I for one enjoy his films very much, and after seeing Inglourious Basterds, I am even more of a fan now than I ever was.

     Say what you want about his unusual style, whether you like it or not, but boy can he tell a story. He is so skilled at spinning a good yarn - and that is ever so true with his newest film Inglourious Basterds. It is Tarantino's first picture to take place in a historical period; which in this case happens to be World War II. It is also his first true war film, but it isn't necessarily your traditional "war movie", however, it is heavily involved in the intricacies of it. It is new territory for QT, but told in his trademark style. The film stars Brad Pitt as Lieutenant Aldo Raine, who has formed a group of mercenaries to kill off as many Nazi soldiers and officers as they possibly can - as they believe the only good Nazi is a dead one. Aldo Raine heads a band of personally selected Nazi killers and this is a story about their exploits. However, like any Tarantino film, so many more elements are weaved into it, and take it from me, they are all brilliantly done.

     The three main storyline arcs all of course intertwine at one point or another, much like the lives of the Pulp Fiction characters did. It's a great way to tell a story, and it is told supremely here. I don't want to go into details about the story itself or how things develop, or don't, for I want you the reader to see it for yourself and experience a great story told by a master storyteller. And like most QT films, it also features numerous violent sequences, some of which are quite graphic, but it's not the primary focus by any stretch. The best parts of his films are his dialogue, and here he has written some of his best. All the characters are quite lively, very believable, and have some genuinely interesting things to say. Indeed, the actors and actresses themselves add tremendeous depth to the already-deep and well-written roles. Brad Pitt may have been the star of the film, and he surely did a very, very good job, but Christoph Waltz steals the show - he was remarkable.

     While there is a great variety of things to see in this film, it's also worth pointing out that there a few humerous moments in it as well - another Tarantino tradition. There is a moment where Adolf Hitler asks for a stick of gum from one of his soldiers, which just seems so strange. Another moment where Brad Pitt's character tries to speak Italian, and that is actually quite funny. Also, Mike Myers (of Austin Powers fame) makes a brief cameo as a British military strategist, and while always been a hoot in everything else he's done, he actually showcases a legitimate dramatic performance here. Aside from the lighter moments, and some others I haven't mentioned, there are also some tremendously tense scenes as well - and these are easily the best scenes. Take the first scene of the movie itself, and how carefully Tarantino pieces it together, the tension is so thick and omni-present, it is stunning. My personal favorite scene is where a British officer goes undercover as a Nazi officer as he has a rendevous with undercover members of the Aldo Raine's Basterds. It is perhaps the finest sequence in the film.

     It is indeed often a chilling work of fiction set within the framework of a realistic setting. There were some startling turns at the end of the film that certainly made this movie a bit unbelievable, and when you see it, you'll know. I couldn't help but think of the fine film Valkyrie when I saw these moments, and I'll leave it at that I suppose, for you should see for yourself. I definitely liked the ending of the film, and had the events of Inglourious Basterds been indeed real, it'd be perhaps even more compelling. In any case, it is a excellent film to behold. There is a sort of triumph at the end, but, it also ends on an abrupt note as well, but, like any QT film, it makes you think.

     Overall, Inglourious Basterds is a great film. And personally, it is only second to Pulp Fiction in my book as his best film. I was completely entertained by this dynamic piece of film making, and I definitely reccomend it. It will surely satisfy any Tarantino fan, but for anyone not familiar with his work, I'll say again what I mentioned earlier - you are going to be told a great story by a great storyteller.

-Kurt L.

     After a brief absence from the silver-screen that lasted approximately four years, actor Al Pacino returned in the terrifically taut thriller, Sea of Love. Directed by Harold Becker in 1989, co-starring Ellen Barkin and John Goodman, the great Pacino stars as Frank Keller; a New York detective with an ex-wife, an alcohol problem, and a very lonely, and sometimes self-destructive disposition. He seems very committed to his work but continuously battles inner demons as he goes about his daily life. Some of this may sound a bit clichéd; however, Pacino is truly convincing and makes the role all the more dynamic through his portrayal. From subtleties in how he speaks and delivers certain lines, to the way his eyes have that great miles-deep sadness, to the ebbs and flows of real intensity, anguish, and heartbreak – we indeed get to see a real person on screen. Pacino is so gifted in conveying such real emotions.

        The film itself is indeed a crime drama infused with plenty of provocative romance, and some genuine thrills. The plot involves Frank Keller’s investigation of a serial killer who is believed to have found his victims through personal ads placed in the newspaper. What is interesting and certainly so compelling is that Pacino, after placing his own ad in attempt to lure the killer, starts to fall for one of the suspects – Helen Cruger (Ellen Barkin). Their romance together certainly embodied “forbidden love” because she is indeed a suspect in Keller’s case, and of course compromises the investigation, and could ultimately not bode well for him or any other potential victims out there. The film keeps us guessing for a long time whether or not she really is the one, as Frank fights with himself on the ethical issues with his relationship with Helen.

        It is this ethical question that haunts the entire film, and provides for some very intense scenes, especially this one scene early on where he finds something rather revealing in her purse (but I shan’t say for you must see it for yourself). In any case, I am a big fan of this film because, yes, it is a crime drama, but it does so much more than that. It is an impressive thriller, it is a romance, a character study, and it even has some rather clever, humorous moments, as well as some tight action sequences. It is by all means, a modern day film-noir, where there is that underlying sense that danger around every corner.

        Overall, this film is a testament to Al Pacino’s ability to bring life, genuine realism, and intensity to the screen. It is a finely-written and intricate crime story but its primary focus is on its main characters. Ellen Barkin is superb as the femme fatale, and I can’t stress enough how brilliant Pacino is in this film. Considering it was released twenty years ago, it doesn’t seem dated by any stretch. It pays a certain homage to the classic film-noir style, while maintaining a relevance and gritty realism of today’s age. Any fan of the genre, and of course any Pacino fan, should absolutely see it.

-Kurt L.