"The Informant!" Movie Review

Steven Soderbergh’s latest film is the comical farce, The Informant! (R). Based on actual events, Matt Damon stars as a VP of an agricultural business who creates quite a mess involving his company and the FBI. Melanie Lyndskey, Scott Bakula and Joel McHale co-star in the movie.

Ryan: The Informant is one of those movies that isn’t necessarily going to blow moviegoers away but it is a well-made movie that is genuinely entertaining. It’s a film —and I don’t mean this in a negative way—that has the feel of a made-for-TV-movie so consequently it’s a movie with a low-key sensibility. It isn’t flashy but it’s a well-told story presented in a satisfying manner.

Andy: The made-for-TV-movie comparison is an apt one, but it should be clear that this is done intentionally. Soderbergh is still one of the most talented directors out there, and he definitely gives the film a goofy feel that helps paint our image of Damon’s character. What may turn off some moviegoers is that the movie isn’t consistently laugh-out-loud funny even though it plays like a comedy. That dance between serious subject matter and comedic attitude can leave the audience unsure of how they should feel.

Ryan: Steven Soderbergh has had an interesting career since scoring his Oscar for 2000’s Traffic. Soderbergh has always done his own thing but in this decade he’s made an even more concerted effort to make the kind of films that he wants to make. His efforts have included some misses (Full Frontal and The Good German) but there’s no denying that he’s still one of the more talented filmmakers currently working. If anything, The Informant shows that Soderbergh can take a literal, unconventional story and create a movie that fits the atypical tone of the story and of the characters involved.

Andy: Not surprisingly, Matt Damon does an outstanding job as the goofy, deceptive lead character. Much has been made about his weight gain and mustache for this role, but it’s really all about his earnest mixture of intelligence, ability, and naivety that propels the character and therefore the entire movie. I found the movie interesting and entertaining, but without Damon’s performance it would have been neither of these things.

Ryan: Matt Damon really pulls off an impressive performance in this movie. At the core, the character that Damon plays is quite despicable. But he plays him with such an oblivious charm that one is drawn to him to the degree that one just wants to see what his character will do next. His character does so many asinine things in the film that it’s hard to not keep interested in his next move. Props to Damon for adding a degree of comedy to his resume.

Andy: Another intriguing aspect of the movie is that it is in some ways a period piece. The movie takes place in the mid 1990s, a time that is still fresh in America’s conscience, even though it is now 15 years ago. Seeing the sinister nature of the corporate culture and the flailing attempts of the FBI to get a handle on it are at times amusing, but it also forces us to ask ourselves if any of that has changed in the past 15 years.

The Informant! is a well crafted movie that does not wow the audience, but does adequately entertain. Final grade: B.

Colts Week 3 Recap

On Sunday night the Colts dominated the Arizona Cardinals defeating them 31-10. It was a slow starting game and it looked like the Cardinals were going to go up 10-0 in the first quarter. . .and then all of sudden it was 21-3 and the Colts were in control.

The Good:

Where does one start. This was the Colts best all around effort to date for the season. The offense sputtered at first (and that was disconcerting) but like I mentioned earlier they got their act together and before one knew it. . .they had an eighteen point lead. Manning was at the top of his game and I liked how they sped up the no-huddle in the second quarter. That really caught Arizona off guard and seemed to get the offense rolling. Reggie Wayne proved once again that he's an elite WR in the league. Dallas was being Dallas. But furthermore. . .It's promising that Garcon is proving to be a player that can make big plays. He did get caught up in the moment but I don't think having a little flair is all that bad. I don't see him going all TO on us.

On the other side of the ball the defense looked entirely better than the previous week. I had thought this, but did not express it to anyone, but I felt that the way Arizona's offense works suits the Colts defense. They don't run the ball (actually worse than we are). Kurt Warner is an immobile QB and they like big pass plays. And the thing about big pass plays is that they take a while to develop and with our pass rush that is something that our defense can exploit. I just thought Freeney and Mathis and company did a superb job of getting in Warner's head, both literally and figuratively. This was a vintage Colts game. Manning and the offense get a big lead and the defense does it's job to get after the quarterback.

The Bad:

When one hears something pop in their leg, that is not a good sign. And when one is an elite pass rushing defensive end, that's an even worse sign. As of this post, there's no official status update of Dwight Freeney (who left the game with a leg injury) but I think it's safe to say that he's going to miss some time. And there's no easy way to say this. . .but that sucks.


The (not so) Ugly:

The Colts actually had some success running ball. As a team they actually had over a hundred yards rushing. . .126 to be exact. That's definitely a good sign for the offense. . .the offensive line . . .and for Addai and Brown. As one can see that opened up the offense to their full back of tricks.

"Extract" Movie Review

As Hollywood enters a down period, we take a look at the new Mike Judge film, Extract (R). Jason Bateman stars as an extract factory owner who is having trouble connecting with his wife (Kristin Wiig), so he confides in his bartender friend (Ben Affleck) while lusting after a new temp (Mila Kunis) in his factory.

Ryan: Extract is Mike Judge’s third feature film. His first movie Office Space evolved into a comedic classic while his second movie, Idiocracy left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately Extract is more Idiocracy than Office Space. Regrettably those people hoping for a comedy on the same high level of Office Space are going to be disappointed. At its best Extract is simply a mediocre movie.

Andy: In all fairness, it would do well to remember that Office Space was not very highly regarded until over a year after its original release. That said, it seems unlikely that Extract will ever live up to that level. It is in the same spirit as Office Space, as the scenes inside the factory resonate with anyone who has ever worked in that environment. Unfortunately, those scenes are only scattered throughout the film. That would be fine if the rest of the movie was compelling, but it’s not. The result is a mediocre movie that had potential to make a lasting impact while being legitimately funny.

Ryan: Extract is an uneventful movie. It doesn’t take a lot of analysis to figure out why. It’s boring. It’s a ninety-minute movie that feels like a two and a half hour long marathon. There are a few funny moments but overall the movie fails to generate consistent laughs on any level. It’s not a train wreck of a movie, like this summer’s Year One, but it certainly fails to deliver the laughs and social commentary that Judge has captured in the past with some of his work.

Andy: While there are certainly too many down moments of Extract, I think it’s a little unfair to say that it feels like two and a half hours. The major problem is that none of the characters are dynamic enough to capture the attention of the audience. Bateman’s character is the only one based in reality enough for us to relate to, and he ends up being, literally, too boring to root for. The other characters are extremely ridiculous, which does translate to some laughs, but not enough to make up for the lack of a connection.

Ryan: Extract is also one of those movies that is a missed opportunity. The cast that was assembled for this movie had the chops to deliver a strong comedic film. Unfortunately their talents are wasted. I don't assess much of the blame to the cast members because they didn't have much to work with. But it's also true that nobody rises above the material either. No matter how one looks at it Extract is an all-around lackluster effort.

Andy: Extract has an impressive cast that fails to impress. Ben Affleck seems to be having fun playing his role as a drug obsessed bartender, but his character does little for the movie. Kristen Wiig is solid but underused. The real highlight is, of all people, Gene Simmons, whose turn as a back-of-the-phone-book injury attorney is outstanding. Simmons is quite funny, but his character, by design, is barely in the movie. That leaves a lot of laughter-free time that is hard to overcome.

Extract is a comedy that fails to consistently make the audience laugh. Final grade: C.

Colts recap Week 2

I was going to do this last week but dropped the ball.

The Colts beat the Dolphins last night on Monday Night Football, 27-23. Needless to say it was a pretty exciting, nail-biting game. With that said. . .here's my good, bad and ugly takes of the game.

The Good:

Peyton Manning. His numbers aren't as sexy as some other quarterbacks this year (Drew Brees) but I'm beating the drum for Manning's MVP case already. He just gets it done. The offense was not without its faults (to many three-outs) but when they had to score they did. It's mind blowing to think that we only had the ball for less than 15 minutes (14:53 to be exact) and not only were in the the game but won the game. It defies logic.

Dallas Clark: Simply one of the best tight ends in the game. That opening play was a thing of beauty.

The Bad:

Three and Outs: The Colts simply cannot live with three and outs. I'm not saying they should score every time they have the ball but they have to at the very least get a first down or too. The bend but don't break defense still seems to be what the Colts are so the offense has to give the defense a break. Additionally. . .it happened last year and I was hoping that it would end this year but the Colts offense sputters at times and that's just not something that the Colts can afford to do if they plan on making a deep playoff run.

The Ugly:

I don't want to rip the defense because the effort was there and they stepped up when they had too (although Miami looked pretty inept at running the two minute drill) but the defense has to do something on third down. Miami was 15 of 21 on third downs. That is simply unacceptable. I know the Colts won the game but that's playing with fire to continue that trend. And it's not just the Colts run defense. I don't know how many times Pennington hit Ted Ginn on third down conversions. The soft coverage is just nauseating to watch. I don't want to get to down on them to much because the defensive unit played so well last week but. . .man. . .somebody needs to make a play on third down.

It's cliche to say but a win is a win. So I'll take it.

Reenactment of Stokley's TD Catch

"(500) Days of Summer" Movie Review

We close out the summer movie season with the unconventional indie romance movie, (500) Days of Summer (PG-13). In the film Joseph Gordon-Levitt falls hard for the new girl in the office (Zooey Deschanel). Unfortunately her feelings are not fully reciprocated and they struggle to find common ground with their budding romantic relationship. Marc Webb directs.

Ryan: (500) Days of Summer is a really good movie. It’s not a typical romantic comedy (light-hearted and whimsical) and in fact it’s not really a typical indie romance either (dark and angst ridden). It strikes a suitable balance between those polar opposites and the result is a film that is genuinely entertaining and has a little bit of depth to it as well. (500) Days of Summer is definitely one of the highlights of not only the summer but the year as well.

Andy: One of the aspects of (500) Days of Summer that makes it such an interesting movie is the mixed up narrative structure. Rather than presenting a linear romance, the audience is shown the relationship in all of its different stages right from the beginning. This allows us to focus on how the characters are behaving rather than getting lost in arc of the relationship. It highlights the emotion of individual moments rather than the culmination of their feelings. The technique probably turns off some viewers, but I found it to be an inventive way to have a character study of a guy messing up a relationship.

Ryan: Major props should go out to the director, Marc Webb, for crafting such a delightful movie. The ideas of true love, love at first sight and finding one’s soul mate are as old as storytelling itself. The brilliance with the movie is how it takes these familiar (arguably clichéd notions) and presents them in a way that feels fresh, that feels contemporary and that feels relevant. Further enhancing the story is how Webb chooses to film the movie in a non-linear fashion thus adding a sense of emotional resonance that would have been lacking by telling the story in a traditional straightforward manner.

Andy: Another possible pitfall for viewers is the lack of development of Zooey Deschanel’s character. It is true that she comes across as a little shallow, but that is part of the point. The male version of the relationship is all we are seeing, and that is a self-important and selfish view of the relationship that keeps the audience from ever really getting to know the woman. That ultimately dooms the relationship, and is a major part of the whole point of the movie.

Ryan: (500) Days of Summer provides a breakthrough role for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Gordan-Levitt plays the part with a believable sense of vulnerability and charm that vividly shows up on screen. It would not be out-of-the-question to add him to the short list with Michael Cera and Jessie Eisenberg as up-and-coming leading men. Not to be out-done is the performance by Zooey Deschanel. The role is tailored made for her but one still has to hit the right notes with the performance. But rest assured, she delivers a credible performance.

Andy: There is no doubt that Gordon-Levitt carries this movie. His character acts despicably for large portions of the movie, yet he has a cool charm that makes him likeable even as we pity the mess he’s made of his relationship. As an actor, he pulls this off in a way that not many young leading men could or would. It is a treat to see him perform here. Deschanel also does a nice job, but so much of her character must be more cute than complex (or at least as we see her through Gordon-Levitt’s eyes) that it’s hard to give her credit beyond knowing the limitations of her character.

(500) Days of Summer is interesting as a romantic comedy that is neither consistently romantic nor comedic, yet it still interesting and entertaining. Final grade: A-.

News Flash. . .The Beatles Rule.

With the onset of Beatles Rock Band hitting stores in a few days, a varying degree of Beatlemania has once again moved to the forefront.

--Rolling Stone Magazine has interesting take on why The Beatles really broke up.

--And the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly also has The Beatles on the cover and also attempts to rank the 50 Best Beatles tunes of all-time.

So since I love The Beatles (and lists for that matter) that's where this post is going.


It's interesting and telling that EW's list goes all the way to 50 in coming up with the best Beatles songs. That speaks to the quantity and quality of their music. Think about other classic rock bands and their respected catalogs in coming up with a list of their 50 greatest songs. After about 20-25 songs the list becomes interchangeable and negligible. But not with The Beatles.

Just look at the songs that didn't even make their cut. . .Two of Us, The Fool on the Hill, Mother Nature's Son, Fixing a Hole, No Reply, Any Time at All, Things We Said Today, I've Just Seen a Face, Don't Let Me Down, Yes It Is, The Inner Light, Here There and Everywhere, And Your Bird Can Sing, For No One, I'm Looking Through You, It's All Too Much. . .it just goes on and on.

I'm not going to be overly critical of the list because it's tough. I've attempted to come up with my favorite 10. . .20. . .50. . .Beatles songs and it's no easy task. And when it comes to ranking them. . .it becomes even more difficult. I do completely empathize with the writers of the EW article. It's almost too much of an endeavor. It really just makes your brain hurt.

That's why The Beatles are second to none.

"Taking Woodstock" Movie Review

This week we take a look at director Ang Lee’s film Taking Woodstock (R). Demetri Martin stars as a small town man with big plans for his parents’ motel in 1969 upstate New York. When the opportunity to host the music festival Woodstock presents itself, he takes it. Emile Hirsch and Eugene Levy costar.


Ryan: Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock is an interesting take on a subject most people are familiar with. I give Lee credit (because it was risky) for putting the iconic concert as the backdrop for an intimate look at a coming-of-age story. At the onset Lee does a strong job in setting up the conflict of the main character not only within himself but in dealing with the drama of trying to pull off a concert as ambitious as Woodstock. Unfortunately Taking Woodstock meanders through its second hour and struggles at the end to generate a satisfying conclusion. It's not a bad film but it's certainly not a memorable film either.

Andy: The risk of basing a movie around Woodstock without actually showing any of the concert is a risk that ultimately doesn’t pay off. The film is entirely about Martin’s character and his struggles with his parents and his ambitions. The fact that the concert is an ancillary piece of the story is both awkward and partly responsible for the film’s lacking heart. Something is missing from this movie, and the fact that the concert itself was somewhat ignored has to be considered a factor in that.

Ryan: Again I admire, from a cinematic standpoint, how Lee put the actual concert on the back burner and focused on the struggles of the main character and his family. But with that said, a movie even with Woodstock in the background, still needs the music of the historical concert to be an important factor. The legacy of Woodstock extends far beyond the music but a film with Woodstock in its title needs to have the music as more than just an afterthought. It's almost like the filmmakers went too far in the other direction in stating that this isn't a typical Woodstock-inspired film. Consequently it doesn't work.

Andy: Taking Woodstock is somewhat entertaining, but it is also lacking in many areas. One of thos areas is the performance of the lead, Demetri Martin. I am a pretty big fan of Martin’s television show Important Things. I think it is a brand of comedy that is different from anything else on TV right now, and I was excited to see how he did on the big screen. Unfortunately, he left a lot to be desired. His characters is absolutely central to the success of the movie, and the performance does not have enough gravitas to really bring the audience in.

Ryan: There seems to be a tragic flaw among a great many of today's talented filmmakers. More-often- than-not a good or even great film suffers from a puzzling climax and/or resolution. Taking Woodstock is a prime example of this. The first act and a half is well established but the movie falters in reaching its narrative climax and conclusion. Furthering exacerbating that problem is how the movie stumbles into familiar sixties cliches and narrative sequences. The original premise of the film is not so unique by the end of the picture.

Andy: Ang Lee is a very accomplished director, but he has had misses in the past (2003’s Hulk, for example). This movie is a bit of a departure for Lee, but the exploration did not result in a very high quality movie. Taking Woodstock is not bad, but for the talent involved it seems poorly executed and at times even tedious. I would anticipate Lee bouncing back with something more rich and innovative for his next project.

Taking Woodstock was an interesting idea that turned into a mediocre movie. Final grade: C.