Now Playing

Here's a look at the new movies I've seen this week.

Abduction

Starring: Taylor Lautner, Lily Collins, Alfred Molina, and Sigourney Weaver

Synopsis: The quest to turn Taylor Lautner into a star continues with this film. It boasts a ridiculous plot and some questionable action sequences. On the up side, it probably provided the most relevant moment for PNC Park, home of the Pittsburgh Pirates, this year. But that's not saying much. This is a by-the-numbers action film, and it's not that great. Director John Singleton has made some interesting films, but this isn't one of them. Lautner just doesn't have a lot to offer and Collins ("The Blind Side") didn't do a lot to help matters. There are some decent veteran actors in the film — Maria Bello, Jason Issacs, Molina and Weaver, among them — but they are given little to do. The story isn't that compelling or believable, and neither is the screen action.

Rating: PG-13 for sequences of intense violence and action, brief language, some sexual content and teen partying.

Verdict: Two stars out of four.

Killer Elite

Starring: Jason Statham, Clive Owen, and Robert DeNiro

Synopsis: This film was advertised like a poor man's "Transporter 4," but it actually has a little more story than that. The performances weren't awful, and the action sequences worked fairly well. The plot was a little too convoluted to be great, but this movie defied a lot of my fairly negative expectations. All that's to say I didn't think I would like this movie and I liked it a little more than I expected. DeNiro gives a better performance than some of his recent films, and this was actually kind of a cinematic step up for Statham. There is plenty to be luke warm about with this film, which is about the kindest thing I can say. If you like these kind of action films, you'll be pleased with this effort.

Rating: R for strong violence, language and some sexuality/nudity.

Verdict: Two stars out of four

Moneyball

Starring: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and Chris Pratt

Synopsis: Baseball is the major modern sport that most lacks competitive balance. Michael Lewis tackled this subject with his book, “Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game.” That book — which is largely about player acquisition strategies, economics, and the statistical measure of baseball — serves as the basis for the new film “Moneyball.” It’s hard to imagine how a book about strategies and statistics could be a compelling film. But screenwriters Steve Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin, director Bennett Miller and star Brad Pitt accomplished just that. It’s a moving and engrossing film that will appeal to fans of the game and those that don’t know anything about the game. Though the moneyball concept is a stats-driven exercise, “Moneyball” is about the people and the passion that go into creating a championship team. “Moneyball” is an interesting movie and one that requires a little bit of thought and consideration. From a purely sports and baseball perspective, the film is a bit flawed. One of the big arguments is that the moneyball philosophy, though it did change the way all teams perceived the role of statistics in player evaluation, didn’t result in a title. In fact, the A’s didn’t get any further than they did the year before. You could also argue that it wasn’t just moneyball, but moneyball in combination with young talent up through the system that allowed the A’s to achieve that record in 2002. The film also makes the assertion that the Boston Red Sox won the 2004 World Series thanks to the moneyball concepts. While that might have played a role in some evaluations of players, it is a factual stretch to say a team with one of the highest payrolls in baseball won using a technique designed to help poor, small-market organizations build contending teams. That being said, I loved this movie from a purely film standpoint. You can argue the thesis of the film and the accuracy of what it has to say about baseball, but you can’t argue the quality of the production. Miller, who directed the Academy Award nominated film “Capote,” does a great job of building the human drama into the story. The film centers on Beane, his past life experiences, his internal desires, and how all those things play into the way he puts together this team. It’s a fascinating personal exploration, and Pitt does a great job of centering the film in the lead role. Pitt and Hill have a great chemistry on screen, working side-by-side as they stand against the world in employing a new method of picking a team. Both have very different backgrounds and approaches to life and the game of baseball, but both strongly believe in their method and in their ability to get the pieces of a successful team. Writers Sorkin and Zaillian do a great job of getting to the personal story and conveying a narrative that could have been overly technical as something universally human. The highs and lows that Beane goes through give an emotional connection to the process, and the script does a good job of interjecting some humor and a central narrative to the journey. Some might worry that “Moneyball” would be a technical film about a technical approach to building a contending team. But the writers do a good job of making “Moneyball” a human story, and a likeable and engrossing one at that. A purist might quibble with the accuracy of the message as it pertains to baseball, but there’s no denying that “Moneyball” is a fantastic film.

Rating: PG-13 for some strong language.

Verdict: Four stars out of four.