It sure has been a while since I have written anything on here and I have seen many films that I would like to review. The first of these is going to be about the film Moneyball (2011). I'm sure plenty of you have heard of it or possibly even went to go see it since Brad Pitt teamed with Jonah Hill which no doubt intrigued many viewers.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS

I suppose I should start with the good since I have plenty bad to say and I may forget about this section.

The best part of the movie is definitely the casting. Not only was it unexpected but the choice of pairing Pitt with Hill was perfect. They both embody their characters wonderfully and extremely believably through 95% of the film and the other 5% is the director's fault so the reputation of Pitt and Hill can only grow after watching Moneyball. The compliments on casting doesn't stop with just these two though. Many of the players for the team had flushed out characters that responded to many of the situations and dialogue in expert fashion. I cannot recall any acting (save Kerris Dorsey's) that I wasn't pleased with.

That's about all the good stuff I have to say.

The aspect I probably disliked the most was the cinematography which kills me because I really love Wally Pfister's work on every collaboration with Chris Nolan. However I am sure that Bennet Miller (the director) was the cause of this dirty, documentary style cinematography so I'll blame him instead of Pfister. When the film started I thought they were using the world's first home video camera and possibly the world's first home cameraman because of all of the grain and terribly jagged rack focusing that happens. Half of the time that more than two people are in a scene the focus puller decides to focus on the person who isn't talking rather that have the audience actually look at the person who is. That kind of stuff doesn't make sense to me. Why wouldn't we want to look at the speaker? They become the focus the second their voice pierces the speaker. This problem was not just with dialogue. Towards the end of the film the audience is watching as Pitt is driving alone. It would make sense to be able to focus on him since he was in every scene of the film but instead we look outside his window to trains and factories. Why? I don't get it. Those things had no place in the film and don't add anything to the scene or beat of that moment.

Next I have to talk about the music. I am positive that if I were cruising by myself and I had this score playing that I would have no issue with it but the cues and cuts are what catch me off-guard. This gave me the same impression the camerawork did; amateur. The music cuts at the wrong moments resulting in awkward sittings when the moment isn't awkward at all. Luckily this problem didn't persist but I have to lump the daughter's singing into this category. Her voice wasn't too terrible and I understand that the song had a metaphorical meaning to the situations Pitt's character found himself in but it is a dumb song that seemed like a last resort fallback decision. It may just be my aversion to child actors and musical numbers but I felt this just didn't work for the film in any regards. 

Sadly the writing was also an issue. I expected a complete knock out result from two brilliant writers but the collaboration of Aaron Sorkin and Steve Zaillian proved to be less that adequate. It was clear to me which scenes Sorkin wrote most of and which scenes Zaillian wrote most of and I hate to say it but it played against the film. Sorkin's wit outweighed Zaillian's heart because...well...the heart was barely there. It seemed as if Sorkin ramped the pace up to a good moment and Zaillian failed to follow through and this happened more than once. I kept getting excited and then let down and I got tired of it. This repetition also made me question how strong of a character arch there really was. We don't even really find out what Pitt's true goal is until near the end. This could have been a very interesting way to get the audience to look back on the whole film and force them to analyze it but there isn't much to analyze. Pitt's arch is a knoll at best. Hill's arch is also nonexistent. He is the same person at the end of the film as he is at the beginning, the only difference is that someone listens to him now. That also could have been a very interesting arch which made the audience cheer but instead we leave with, "oh.....that's nice." I am a big fan of both Sorkin and Zaillian (who couldn't be with their track records) but this script is a let down that pushes and pulls in all the wrong places, glued together by hope, and torn apart by the naked eye. I loved Pitt's and Hill's characters but their journey is a let down at best.

In the end this film CAN entertain but when looked at through a magnifying glass it falls apart. If your friend owns it then give it a watch, I'm not saying you will not like it at all. Somehow this film has pleased a lot of people so there's statistically a good chance of you liking it. But when this film is broken down it does not hold together.

5/10 on my scale.

This post is all about the 2011 Nicolas Winding Refn film 'Drive.' More specifically the aspect of 'love' in the film. I was talking to my girlfriend the other day about the best love films (or arcs) of all time; I named 'Forrest Gump,' 'Casablanca,' 'Inception,' and 'Schindler's List.' In these cases I am speaking only of my own opinion and knowledge because I am sure I missed some of the greatest stories of all time but for me these are great films for studying how love can change someone's life. After a little bit more thinking my wonderful girlfriend mentioned 'Drive' and I quickly said, "No, it's not the same. I am talking about arc and love being a main theme of the film." The night ended but I kept thinking about the aspect of Love in 'Drive.' The more I thought about it the more I thought about how purely loving someone and the actions one takes because they love are different and I think that applies greatly for 'Drive.'

Fair Warning: If you have not seen this film, some if not all of this may not make sense to you and there may be spoilers, so read at your own risk.

Roger Ebert wrote this about Ryan Gosling's character Driver, "Whatever happened to him drove any personality deep beneath the surface. He is an existential hero, I suppose, defined entirely by his behavior." This is the prime reason 'Drive' is put under the category of "Loving someone and the actions taken because of that love" and not "The pure loving of another person." It is because Driver keeps his emotions so well hidden until we see him act. Never once in the film do we hear him say, "I love Irene to death and I will kill anyone who stands in my way of helping her." No Driver is a man of very few words and of strong, meaningful action; when he does something it has purpose and he does it wholeheartedly. And the fact that he does anything for Irene shows a strange but strong connection between them because the audience should already be able to tell that Drive connects to no one quickly. In the film Shannon tells Irene that Driver has been around for about five or six years and we can see that he has connected with no one. His apartment is empty, he eats pie by himself, and he drives around town at night just listening to music. That is where we see his one and only connection with anything other than himself; driving. Even on his dates with Irene he takes her driving at night, though he also takes her some other places but that is mainly a sidebar in this discussion. Their connections builds rather quickly as Irene's husband, Standard, comes home from prison in a week and the audience knows that chemistry has already been settled between Driver and Irene; Driver even becomes rather friendly with Irene's son Benicio. From there Driver agrees to help Standard with some money/crime trouble solely to keep Irene and Benicio safe. (I must say I love the scene where Standard is lying beaten on the ground and Driver simply retrieves Benicio and leaves Standard where he was.) That scene only goes to show that Driver's main concern is for Irene and her little boy.

The movie continues and we are shown a beautiful scene where Driver finally kisses Irene and then immediately protects her while losing control on a hitman's face in the corner of an elevator. (Again I must say I love this scene. Ryan Gosling's acting at this point was absolutely phenomenal.) Unfortunately this was kind of a mistake for Driver. Irene pushes away because she does not want to be involved Driver anymore now that Standard has died and Driver has fallen into the same problem that Standard had. However this does not stop Driver from finishing what he started. He knows Irene is in trouble and so do we via the scene where Driver yells at Shannon saying, "YOU TOLD THEM ABOUT IRENE!?" (Another great performance and scene. Thank you Ryan Gosling.) Driver knows Irene won't run away with him or take the money so he uses the money as leverage to aim as high as he can on the crime ladder responsible for killing Standard and coming after Driver's woman. A beautifully shot scene at the end shows us Driver putting his life on the line, once again, to ultimately protect Irene. If you think about this film you will see that the only benefit of Driver's actions was the betterment of Irene's life, never anything for himself. We see this epitomized at the very end once Driver has killed Bernie.

Driver sits in his car silently after the knife fight and music slowly fades in as the camera focuses on Driver's face. Some audience members probably thought he was dead the first time they saw this, I know I did for a minute but thankfully Ryan Gosling finally blinks after what felt like an eternity. What was he doing all that time you ask? Was he thinking about his next move? How his life would fair without Irene? Whether or not he should chase after her? We don't know. What we do know is that he left the money by Bernie's corpse, solidifying that Driver's motivation was never himself but Irene. And at the end of the film the audience never sees Driver attain the one thing he fought so adamantly for: Irene. Though seemingly tragic one may see the ending as open to speculation. Maybe he did find Irene and they did live happily ever after; who knows for sure. One thing I know for sure is that the aspect of love shown in the film was masterfully crafted in development, pre-production, principle photography, and post-production. Ryan Gosling's character is worth studying because there is so much beneath the surface that influences his decisions and lifestyle in the film and that, in my opinion, is what makes a great film. We don't need to see every piece of information. An audience should be smart enough to see a movie and realize that characters are breathing, living things. They are fueled by emotion and logic just as we are. They make decisions for reasons and a good film shouldn't have to explain every reason for us.

At the end of the day there are parallels to each of the films I mentioned before and 'Drive.' Driver knows what true is and means just as Forrest Gump did. Driver knows how to sacrifice for a loved one just as Rick did in 'Casablanca.' Driver has unseen layers that influence his decisions the same as Cobb and at the end of the day we are open to speculate the ending of the film just as 'Inception' led us to do. And Driver exemplified unconditional love just as Oscar Schindler so masterfully did in 'Schindler's List.' Sadly I cannot say that 'Drive' is better than any of the aforementioned films but it is definitely a master piece that deserves more than one viewing.

P.S. If anyone has any questions as to why 'Inception' was on the list I will be happy to give my opinion on why I included it. Thank you for reading.

Hello all, this is my first blog and it is dedicated to my opinions and such; hence the title 'Freeform Thinking.' I hope I can provide insight to random things that you may or may not have ever thought about (fair warning, most of it will be about film). Stay tuned for more posts that are much more in depth than this one!