Sugar

"The BEST film OF THE YEAR!"
--Me

On a recent trip to SoFla, I had the chance to catch Sugar at one of those cheap arty theaters -- the ones which, in a perfect world, would be prolific and flush with people*. This one, well, wasn't. Which is too bad, because it was well worth the $5 to see this muted film about a Dominican baseball player (Algenis Perez Soto) trying to hack it as a minor-league prospect.

*Strangely, despite a decent amount of theaters that actually show real films sometimes, the whole Palm Beach/Broward/Dade area only had one theater showing Sugar. Strange.


(Hollywood.com with the pic)

Two things about Sugar -- 1) In a (very) small sample, it really is the best film I've seen in 2009 ... but here's hoping it gets passed. A lot. Because 2) It's little more than a nice movie, a well-made, realistic depiction of a story that, honestly, isn't earth-shatteringly compelling.

It follows the emotional journey, not so much the baseball one (although the two certainly are interlocked), of Miguel "Azucar" (Sugar) Santos, born into Dominican squalor but also born with an electric* right arm. He spends time at a local baseball academy, heads to Phoenix for spring training, then earns a spot in his club's (the fictional Kansas City Knights) system, on a Single-A team in ... rural Iowa. Obviously, a culture clash ensues -- Azucar barely speaks English -- although the clash is not of the cliched variety. Same thing when an injury temporarily sidelines our hero -- it's not as if his career is over, as would be the case in a formula-driven piece.

*Not literally. Now THAT would be -- wait, I'm gonna stop here before we really do get another one of those stupid comic book/superhero movies: The Electric Arm -- "Shockingly good!"

Really, this film sidesteps most cliches (although it does feature a cameo from everyone's favorite baseball bit player, the Performance Enhancing Drug). It's made very quietly, not bludgeoning us with backstory or unnecessary expository dialogue. Kudos to filmmakers Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck for being hugely realistic here.

And yet ...

That realism almost gets Sugar in trouble. Because as the story unfolds (I could explain, but that would be spoiler-tastic), some of the events become decreasingly interesting. Non-fantasies/fairy tales/comedies should be realistic, but some things can be omitted. Sugar just doesn't seem to leave out much as it goes for the true-to-life thing. Which makes it drag a bit, dampening the end result.

Would I rather have this than some piece of formula fluff? Especially from a movie about sports? Absolutely. Still, for a film to reach true greatness, there must be more. Sugar the movie is a little -- not totally, but somewhat -- like sugar the substance: Empty.

Random Cinco de Mayo thoughts

*Note: This post has absolutely nothing to do with Cinco de Mayo.

Randomly, some thoughts, brought to you by the free wireless internet at FLL:

-Roman Polanski is in the news again. Idea: How about if he doesn't show up at the hearing, his Oscar (for the underwhelming The Pianist) is revoked and passed on to its rightful owner. Or at least this guy. Or even this one.
(Exclusive: The last known rendering of Polanski in the U.S.)

-From the world of music: Concept albums haven't really translated well into film -- see Tommy and Pink Floyd: The Wall -- but I'm at least a little intrigued by a supposed screenplay based on progressive rock/metal outfit Mastodon's latest epic, Crack the Skye.

(Would this make a good movie poster?)

-From the world of sports: I thought my initial thoughts on this movie were all original, then I read that ESPN writer Bill Simmons made essentially the same claim in his latest column. Damn. Still, Spike Lee's latest documentary, Kobe Doin' Work, might be less based in reality than, say, the latest P.O.S. comic book movie. If you think politicians are full of it when they speak publicly, you ain't heard much Kobe Bryant.

O/T: Have you seen my baseball (predictions)?

Warning: The Film Official has been hijacked by a baseball nerd, who will give you his or her semi-informed (based on a lot of reading and scouring several projection systems) predictions as to the coming Major League Baseball season, which begins tonight.


"Listen, kids -- you know these predictions are gonna be wrong, right?"

NL EAST
Baseball Movie Equivalent: Bull Durham
Why Bull Durham?: Most overrated.
The breakdown: The Mets aren't locks to win here (shaky rotation after Santana; no, not this Santana), but they seem to be solid favorites, especially with the improved bullpen ... The Braves are strong bounce-back candidates, and could win here if they stay healthy and NYM slips ... The defending Series champion Phillies, though, have some issues; remember, winning the title last year counts for exactly zero wins this year -- the whole "they're champions until someone unseats them" thing is pure nonsense ... The Marlins' defense stinks and their lineup is OK, but they have four intriguing young SPs that just need to stay healthy ... The Nationals won't win the division, but they won't be a joke this year.

NL CENTRAL
Baseball Movie Equivalent: Angels in the Outfield ('94 version)
Why Angels?: No reason. I just wanted to mention that it JUST occurred to me that Joseph Gordon-Levitt starred in this movie. Incredible! Another kid actor who has gone on to be quite good (here's an example of what I mean).
The breakdown: This is the Cubs' division to lose, although injuries and bad luck are the great equalizers ... The Cardinals could surprise some people, and not just because they have the best player in baseball ... The Brewers are close but a little more questionable; good lineup, highly iffy pitching ... The Reds could be solid if their young players develop as expected ... The Pirates are the Pirates ... The Astros sure will be an expensive fifth/sixth-place team.

NL WEST
Baseball Movie Equivalent: Sugar
Why Sugar?: They have considerable promise, but who knows if they'll fulfill it?
The Breakdown: With some development and a little luck, the Dodgers could be the best team in the NL ... The Diamondbacks might be close behind -- but they need a LOT of young player development to reach those heights ... The Giants' staff is scary; their lineup is scary, too, but for very different reasons ... The Rockies are highly eh ... The Padres stink, but don't feel sorry for them -- they reside in the Greatest City in the History of Mankind.

AL EAST
Baseball Movie Equivalent: The Bad News Bears ('76 version)
Why Bad News Bears?: Because both are the best in baseball.
The Breakdown: Flip a coin between the Red Sox and Yankees for the winner, with the Rays close behind (and able to overtake the other two, if things go right) ... My coin came up Red Sox, in part because of A-Rod's injury ... The Blue Jays and Orioles will hang around in the background, battling for the fourth spot -- but watch out for Matt Bleeping Wieters.

AL CENTRAL
Baseball Movie Equivalent: Eight Men Out
Why Eight Men Out?: They're both aight.
The Breakdown: Flip a five-sided coin, only weight it a bit in the Indians' favor, and don't allow for any of the other teams (Tigers, Twins, White Sox, Royals) to sneak into Wild Card consideration.

AL WEST
Baseball Movie Equivalent: The Fan
Why The Fan?: Ugh.
The Breakdown: This division wouldn't be so ugh if A's fans hadn't sold their collective soul (isn't that a band?) to the devil in exchange for injuring nearly every Angels pitcher possible ... Only problem is the A's have all these injury/pitching problems of their own ... The Rangers, meanwhile, breath a sigh of relief and exclaim: "Good thing we haven't got the pitching to put a curse on!" ... The Mariners, well, is it 2011 yet?

SO ... DIVISION WINNERS
NL: Mets, Cubs, Dodgers
AL: Red Sox, Indians, Angels

WILD CARD PICKS
NL: Bold prediction -- Diamondbacks narrowly edge Braves, Cardinals and Phillies.
AL: The Sox/Yankees loser wins (my pick -- Yankees), unless one of those teams underperforms slightly and the Rays overperform slightly.

PLAYOFF PICKS
I don't make playoff picks, because the baseball playoff -- for the most part -- is an exercise in randomness. The sample of games (best of five/seven) isn't remotely large enough to make accurate predictions*.

*Q: Does this mean your regular-season picks should be considered accurate?

A: No.

When interests collide

No idea if Sugar will be any good (although the early returns say yes), or if it will be typically sports-movie sweet, like ... well ... sugar. But anyone who knows anything about anything* will understand why I'm mentioning this story of a Dominican baseball player trying to snag a roster spot in Spring Training**.

*Literally: Anyone who knows anything about me.

**I wonder if the film will mention anything relating to this.

It involves sports* ...





... plus, the title itself has me humming this (and, briefly, this):


Watch SYSTEM OF A DOWN-SUGAR in Music | View More Free Videos Online at Veoh.com

*Note: The preceding has not been in any way an endorsement of sugar as food. Down with refined sugar!

The Wilt Chamberlain (circa '62) of Filmmaking

OK, confession time*:

*First, let's hope the confession doesn't end up like the one at the beginning of this.

1) I'm not old enough to remember seeing basketball great Wilt Chamberlain play.

2) I'm not old enough to remember Wilt Chamberlain live (much)*.

*Aside: Although we're referencing Chamberlain, we won't talk much about this little detail.

3) Repeat 1 and 2, only in 1 replace "basketball great" with "filmmaking legend" and "Wilt Chamberlain" with this guy:


Yeah, so it's not exactly an original position for some film nerd to admire Orson Welles. But my point is this:

Welles' pre-1960s work wasn't just good for its era. Films such as Touch of Evil (the re-done 1998 version ... wow) and Citizen Kane are still good now. Like legitimate good, not "influential" good.

Which brings us to our Wilt Chamberlain/1962 analogy. Sure, during the 1961-62 season, the 7-foot-1 Chamberlain played alongside Hall of Famers like Oscar Robertson (Billy Wilder), Bill Russell (Alfred Hitchcock), Jerry West (Frank Capra) and Elgin Baylor (Elia Kazan). But come on. In '61-'62, Chamberlain averaged a league-record 50.4 points per game (Citizen Kane) and added 25.7 rebounds per (Touch of Evil). He was simply better than everybody else, even if he didn't win the MVP Award (Best Director Oscar) that year (during his career).

That all makes sense, right?

The Judd

*Note: The title of this post was brought to you in a very NSFW way by "Hey Now!" Hank Kingsley.

So in another one of my lives I'm into sports or something. Guess you might be able to pick that up considering the referee pic on the right side of this blog.

Anyway, as a sports junkie, I frequent this one little website from time to time, and often read this humor columnist named Bill Simmons. In a recent e-mail exchange with readers, Simmons (a regular pop-culture in-joke machine) talked movie bromance (he declared Shawshank's Red and Andy the "greatest bromance ever"), and he discussed many, many other things of varying topics.

One topic was bold predictions. One prediction was this:

"America will turn against Judd Apatow."

I agree.

Not that Apatow didn't bring us one of the most likable gross-out comedies imaginable in The 40 Year Old Virgin -- which also pretty much resurrected the genre -- but I think we're nearing the saturation point. Too much, too fast.

It seems each passing Apatow film -- or at least each one that features members of The Judd Apatow Troupe (Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, Jason Segal, Jonah Hill, et al) -- gets a little less hilarious, and a little more derivative. Not to say films like Forgetting Sarah Marshall and Pineapple Express weren't laugh-out-loud funny at times ... it's just, ya know, the shtick isn't as good as it was four years ago.

Now there's this:



Funny, sure. But a Deer Hunter joke?

And one more thing: Let's hope Funny People avoids the forced (and mostly unbelievable) ending that turned Knocked Up into a "grown-up" movie with "values" (or something like that). Less maturity, more (incredibly NSFW) Mooj.