Unbroken (2014): After a near-fatal plane crash in WWII, Olympian Louis Zamperini spends a harrowing 47 days in a raft with two fellow crewmen before he's caught by the Japanese navy and sent to a prisoner-of-war camp.

Poor Angelina Jolie. She is really trying to be a good director. But she's not. And it may be about time for her to realize she needs more than a script from the legendary Coen brothers and her own recognizability to make a movie good. First off, does it matter that Unbroken is merely an average film? No. The folks at Universal marketed the hell out of this war epic and as a result it was the big Christmas Day release of 2014. And I've got news for you....when you're the big Christmas Day release for that year....you're gonna make a lot of money. And hey! Unbroken made a lot of money, but at the end of the day, was it worth it? Sorry folks, but I say no. So, let's dive into why not shall we?

So, first off, the acting. A movie that features one character throughout and borders on a biopic gets the "official" rule of a biopic which is this: the movie is only as good as its lead. And, sadly, Jack O'Connell is simply asked to do too much as the lead Louis Zamperini. I'm not saying he was bad, but he was merely....average. In a role that required him to be exceptional. O'Connell was very bland as our lead character, and put in a rather forgettable performance. Which you simply can. Not. Do. In a movie like this. Honestly I wish they had cast Domhnall Gleeson as Zamperini over O'Connell. His performance as Phil was easily the best performance of the film. Don't know who I'm talking about? Well...you will. He's the top-billed actor for a little film called Star Wars: The Force Awakens. There were also a few cool moments from a technical standpoint, particularly with the initial plane crash, but after that (and I feel like I've been saying this a lot recently) the movie played things very safe and predictable, with very VERY easy-to-see-coming flashbacks to Zamperini's former life as an Olympian and typical invisible wall adhering cinematography. The lighting was also very bland. But then again why should I expect a movie to, you know, mix it up from a technical standpoint? These standard movie-making formulas do work for most people. But you know what? It matters to me. I am being spoiled by movies like Wild and Whiplash that take risks from an editing/cinematography standpoint and work. These movies benefit sooooo much when they are creative from a technical standpoint. Sure, sometimes it doesn't. Like in the instance of Annie. Boy was that editing bad. But, more often then not, it works! And it's creative! WHOA...creativity in movies??? No, I shouldn't expect that...

And here's my biggest fault with Unbroken: it has a theme (if you can't guess what it is, I'll give you a hint: it's in the title of the movie) and it wants to bash you over the head with this theme until you are exhausted and borderline frustrated. Unbroken is definitely 2014's Secret Life of Walter Mitty. It is (or was now, I guess) the "official" feel-good movie of the holiday season. And that's all it ever is. It never strives to be anything more than this, which, and I can't emphasize this enough, is OK. It's fine to be predictable and not tense in any way, shape, or form throughout its rather overlong 137 minute runtime. After all, a large chunk of Hollywood seems to think you can't make a feel-good movie with any sort of drama attached to it at all for some reason. But that's ok. I would much rather watch this predictable, feel-good movie over a Michael Bay film any day of the week. But, at the end of the day, a feel-good film is not a good film. You need more than one note to make a symphony just like you need more than one element to make a good movie. So, at the end of the day, while Unbroken is a feel-good movie about a hero who absolutely deserved a movie made by him by a high-profile Hollywood figure, it is not a good movie. It is merely...average. Better luck next time, Mrs. Jolie. Maybe mix it up and pick a not-so-feel-good subject for your next film. 

The Critique: A one-note feel-good story about a man who deserves it. However due to a subpar performance from its lead, it is merely an average film.

The Recommendation: I think its safe to say that if you had any desire to see this movie you would have seen it already. If you haven't....go watch Saving Private Ryan again instead.

Rewatchability: Moderately Low

The Verdict: 5.5/10 Slightly Above Average. So I decided to bump this up half a point at the last second strictly out of respect for Louis Zamperini. This man was a great man, and I am glad I know more about him now. Though I have no intention of seeing this film again anytime soon.



Photo Credit
http://cdn.wallstcheatsheet.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/unbroken.png

A Most Violent Year (2014): In New York City 1981, an ambitious immigrant fights to protect his business and family during the most dangerous year in the city's history.

What a marvelous piece of cinema. You know, I kind of feel bad, because I am going to be comparing this movie to American Sniper throughout the review. Which is unfair to this movie. But this....this is what American Sniper should have been. A Most Violent Year deals with several (very) adult themes throughout its 125 minute runtime. It also brings up several (very) adult dilemmas during this time. And you know what else? It brings up several of these themes....simultaneously. WHOA. This movie has the audacity to think that a moviegoer doesn't have to be spoon fed events in order to follow them and understand what is going on! What nerve, right? The movie wastes no time throwing you right into the middle of the story, and you are left expected to figure out what is going on on your own without any exposition or anything to explain it. You just have to pick up on some throwaway lines to get the backstory you need on these characters. More movies need to be filmed like this. (I was obviously being sarcastic before when I used the word audacity.)

Oscar. Isaac. And. Jessica. Chastain. And! David Oyelowo. (It's crazy to watch Selma and see Oyelowo as MLK then to watch how different he is here. Really makes you realize just how snubbed he was for that performance.) It's a shame that history will only remember Chastain's performance in Interstellar from this year. Because she is freaking great in this. Faaaaar better than she was in Interstellar. The same goes to Oscar Isaac. I was kind of on the Oscar Isaac bandwagon after watching Inside Llewyn Davis in 2013, however now I am squarely in the middle of it. Oscar Isaac is one of Hollywood's most underrated actors, and we'll have to wait until Star Wars: The Force Awakens for Isaac to be thrusted into Hollywood's mainstream pool. But don't worry guys. He will be. He has a knack for not only being completely absorbed into his character, but to also keep his character very grounded and humanized. Actually, this is something this whole movie did better than virtually any other movie I've seen this year.

The strong point of A Most Violent Year, without a doubt, is how human its characters are. These characters are grounded, and incredibly relatable to. There's no stereotypical greased-up Italian guy who's the mafia gangster. There's none of that. All of these characters are driven, and you can understand why they fight the way they do, but there is a certain amount of humanization with them that makes you connect with them. Particularly with Oscar Isaac. As a result I found myself rooting like hell for Oscar Isaac's character throughout this movie. I also loved the set design. This movie is set in 1981, and it does a phenomenal job of creating a set worthy of the time period. From fashion scarfs to boxy cars, this movie is the pinnacle of what a period piece should be. I also really enjoyed the fact that, even though it is a gangster film, it's not. Does that make any sense? No? Well, even though the companies dealt with here are heating companies, (including Oscar Isaac's) there is a certain amount of gangster-ness with them and how they do business. And yet....despite this gangster-ness, there's a very restrained aspect to them that you would not expect from gangsters. Here's an example that doesn't really have to do with the overall plot. At one point there is a "big" shootout with a few people on a bridge, and you can tell immediately as soon as shots are fired that these guys are terrified that they are having a shootout in a public place. This isn't a stereotypical gangster movie where the one guy kills the other guy in plain sight and no one notices! This is a scene where all parties involved, both attacking and defending, are terrified because they know that their shots they're taking at each other....well, they don't know where they're going! It adds an incredible amount of realism to the flick. Something that American Sniper forgot to do as our hero kills massive amounts of bad guys without rhyme or reason in the third act.

While I do love this movie, there are a few flaws. For example, there's some funky business going on with the lighting. While the movie is well shot from a cinematography perspective, the movie had a certain darkness to it from start to finish, which made the movie very (and I can't believe I'm about to say this in 2015) hard to see at points. I also wanted more. Which is almost a good problem, but still. There were a couple very interesting things that were mentioned in passing throughout the movie that was never followed up on later on that I would've liked to have seen. (Trying to say this without spoiling, guys.) But these are minor complaints. Just keep in mind one last thing: this movie is very much for adults. The themes introduced here of winning at all costs (among many others) are not for children. You do not want them identifying with Oscar Isaac's character. Do not. Even think about. Showing your kids this movie. But this would make for a phenomenal date movie for an adult couple who does not like stereotypical romance movies. You will not be disappointed.

The Critique: Another great installment from J.C. Chandor (Margin Call, All is Lost) and budding stars Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis, Star Wars: The Force Awakens) and Jessica Chastain. (Interstellar, Zero Dark Thirty) Phenomenal human performances makes it one of the grittier movies of the year.

The Recommendation: A great movie for adults. (No kids please) Especially that middle-age couple who wants to have a date night but not watch Ghost or something. Yes. Ghost.

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Verdict: 8.5/10 Almost Awesome



Photo Credit
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2014/05/06/A-Most-Violent-Year_612x380.jpg

Breathless (1960): A small-time thief steals a car and impulsively murders a motorcycle policeman. Wanted by the authorities, he reunites with a hip American journalism student and attempts to persuade her to run away with him to Italy.

Breathless is a very unusual movie. The movie has a plot, but the plot never once feels very coherent. To me, this movie appears to be very abrupt and scattershot throughout its 90-minute runtime. There is one aspect of the movie that is great, however. That is the cinematography. The cinematography of Breathless was very unique and innovative in style, using spectacular long shots that would alternate between close-ups, medium-shots, and even some wide shots. One scene that stuck out to me in particular was towards the end of the film between the two leads. The scene involved both characters talking to themselves, and whenever they did the camera would follow them around the room directly in front of them and then seamlessly change to the other character, as they would begin to talk to themselves. To compare it to a modern film, I believe the cinematography of the movie Birdman almost certainly took some inspiration from the cinematography of Breathless, as there are many seamless wide shots involving Michael Keaton’s character with the camera placed directly in front of him during a self-dialogue.

Sadly though, other than this cinematography, Breathless was not my style of movie. The editing was either great or too awful to follow as we had a great use of the crosscutting style. However, there were also certain scenes that happened so suddenly it took me couple minutes to understand what had just happened. An example of this was when the cop was being shot at the beginning of the film. This may have been the intention of director Jean-Luc Godard, but I could not tell. At the end of the day, I’m glad I saw this movie, however I have no plans on seeing it again. To me, it was an average film.


The Verdict: 5/10 Average.

American Sniper (2014): Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle's pinpoint accuracy saves countless lives on the battlefield and turns him into a legend. Back home to his wife and kids after four tours of duty, however, Chris finds that it is the war he can't leave behind.

Ok, guys. I'm about to take an unpopular opinion here. American Sniper is not good. I'm really worried that it's gonna win Best Picture because of its massive (and very undeserved) commercial success. If American Sniper does win Best Picture, this would be the perfect case study as to how successful a marketing campaign can be for a movie. Warner Brothers has spent a crapload of money on marketing this, both to consumers and the Academy, which is why this movie just beat out Avatar for best January release and got 6 Academy Award nominations. Cause, I got news for you, American Sniper deserves a nomination for, well, nothing. There were better acting performances this year and from a technical standpoint this movie is average. But America, f*ck ya am I right? If this movie doesn't sweep the Oscars then THE TERRORISTS WIN. If you don't see this movie then THE TERRORISTS WIN. I know there are some people that will come to the defense of this movie, even though they shouldn't, but here's its main problem: it's propaganda. It's the very definition of that. And it drove me somewhat insane. The movie has an good story with Bradley Cooper. He's great as Chris Kyle, yes. But the movie honestly doesn't offer a whole lot else. The movie is incredibly INCREDIBLY simplistic in nature, baby-feeding us its morals one issue at a time. There should've been a lot more moral dilemmas. There should've been a lot more issues at home with the family. And there should've been A WHOLE HECK OF A LOT MORE investigating into Kyle's time after the war and his issues with PTSD. But no. The movie is 132 minutes long, and we sure as hell can't have this movie any longer cause, you know, American attention spans suck so we can't have any of this stuff. Just unjustifiably small portions of each/

As for the acting, there are really only two performances in the movie worth noting. Actually, this is another problem I have with this movie. There is a large supporting cast, but nobody else even remotely stood out other than Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller. Who were both great. If I had seen this movie before the Oscar nominations list was unveiled, I would've said that maybe Cooper gets a nomination for Best Actor, but upon seeing Selma David Oyelowo absolutely deserved the nomination over Cooper. That said, he is still excellent here. And I love Bradley Cooper in everything he does, so there's that too. I'm happy he's received another nomination, but he by no means actually deserves the award. 

Gosh. These modern military movies are like....they're like Call of Duty. A lot of people buy the games, but they offer very little in terms of advancement within the genre they are in. And yet everyone always thinks Call of Duty is the best shooting game every year. Cause it's the only game within the genre they've played. That's the thing I'm really worried about, here: people are going to only see this movie from the Best Picture list and automatically assumes it deserves the award. It does not. Not even remotely. And honestly, as I've let this movie sit with me longer and longer, I'm becoming more and more pissed off at it. This movie had a real opportunity to question the ethics of war and the morality that comes with having a man's life in your trigger finger and raise the question of how far is too far to save your fellow soldiers that, in my opinion, it dropped the ball on in a pretty spectacular manner. To me that question of morality is only effectively brought up once-when a kid picks up an RPG and considers firing it on an American convoy-but other than that it really sums up the war in a clear-cut us vs. them fashion. And even here it was obvious what the kid was thinking about in killing Americans, he just decided not to do it. There was never a moment in the film where Kyle has to decide if a kid holding a grenade running at a marine is trying to blow them up or simply, you know, hand them a grenade they found somewhere. This black-and-white approach culminated with a terrible third act and a fight in a sandstorm which, while tense, turned the movie into essentially a mindless popcorn flick. As a result, this movie felt like propaganda to me and nothing more. Yes, it is a movie, but it is marketing itself as a movie with a heavy dose of morality attached to it. It is not this to an almost criminal extent.  The movie has barely resonated with me at all, as it has been thrown into the rest of these modern military "propaganda" pieces that make way more money than they should. And yet....it's about America. How can I hate it right? How can anyone hate it? 'MURICA.

The Critique: I'm going to defer to a Family Guy joke for this one. 9/11 WAS BAD. (Cheers)

The Recommendation: IF YOU DON'T SEE THIS MOVIE, THE TERRORISTS WIN. (Sarcasm-watch Selma instead PLEASE)

Rewatchability: NINE. (gasps) ELEVEN. (cheers)

The Verdict: 4/10 Below Average.

Aaaaaaand cue the "I hate America" responses....



Photo Credit
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/modal_800/2014/10/american_sniper_still.jpg

The Gambler (2014): Lit professor and gambler Jim Bennett's debt causes him to borrow money from his mother and a loan shark. Further complicating his situation is his relationship with one of his students. Will Bennett risk his life for a second chance?

God this movie sucks. Ok what is with Mark Whalberg and bad movies in 2014? I love this guy, but these two movies he's led in 2014 may very well end up in my bottom 10 worst movies of the year. STOP IT WHALBERG. PLEASE. FIND SETH MACFARLANE AGAIN. How do I not simply just rip this movie apart? Hm....nope. Nope. Can't do it. Ok, here we go then! So when I started this 111 minute film, I was looking forward to an interesting story of a man attempting to overcome his addiction to gambling while simultaneously having an interesting romance with Brie Larson. (This is how the movie is marketed, by the way.) I got neither of these. You want to know what Whalberg's version of gambling is? Hm? Going to blackjack (which they don't explain or really even show all that well, so if you don't know the finer rules of blackjack you're screwed) tables and betting everything he has on the hand. Then, if he wins, betting everything he now has on that hand. And again. And again. And again. You do the math...anyone with a brain can figure out that THIS STRATEGY DOESN'T F*CKING WORK. So, the "drama' of the actual card game is completely removed because YOU KNOW HE'S GOING TO LOSE. Ok where's Jason Bateman when you need him?

I know I just used this picture a few reviews ago, but I don't care. YOU CAN'T CREATE ANY TENSION WITH THE CARD GAME WHEN YOUR STRATEGY AS A PLAYER IS TO JUST KEEP BETTING EVERYTHING YOU HAVE ON THE HAND. YOU CANNOT WIN. And when that's where the majority of your movie's tension is supposed to come from, that's....that's not good. Can we also take a moment to talk about how bad the writing is? This movie honestly feels like one monologue after another. Just all in a row. First it's Mark Whalberg. Then it's Michael Kenneth Williams (from Boardwalk Empire-who also happens to be the best part of this movie) giving some big monologue. Then it's John Goodman. Then it's Mark Whalberg again. Then it's Brie Larson. Then it's Jessica Lange. Then it's...GOD THEN IT'S MARK WHALBERG AGAIN. GOD D*MNIT. You cannot create a good movie that is nothing but monologue after monologue. Even if you have a very good cast. Who are all far more interesting that Whalberg's character, I might add. I wish the movie had been entirely about John Goodman's character rather than Whalberg's. Would've been a lot better. 

There really isn't that many good things to talk about here. The music supervisor must've been on drugs or something because the song selection was all over the place. The production value was horrible. We had this very tense moment involving a college basketball game, and the team's playing each other were State and Wildcats. It felt like something out of an Allstate commercial. The movie did have some cool M83 music in it! Always gotta give a point to a movie when they use my favorite band. A lot of movies have recently actually...also it took me forever to figure out the movie was taking place in LA because the wide, establishing shots of the movie were crap. Only when there was a scene between Brie and Mark OH! I need to talk about that. Ok so there's this scene between Mark and Brie where they are in the desert all of the sudden and that's when I figured out the movie must be taking place in LA because there really isn't another tropical city in the country so close to the desert. YA. FIGURING SH*T OUT ON MY OWN CAUSE THE MOVIE REFUSES TO TELL ME ALRIGHT.

So can we talk about this "romance" between Brie and Mark? I can't even put romance in caps there. That's how bad it is. So it's a 111 minute film, right? With a whole lot of various scenes. Ya. There's my quick lesson on moviemaking: unless you're Birdman, you shoot your movie with a lot of different scenes. You want to know how many scenes of The Gambler even have Brie Larson and Mark Whalberg? Huh? 10? 15? Half the movie? Nope. 3. Ok maybe 4. But still. 3 or 4. There's supposed to be this big romance that changes Whalberg as a gambler because now he has something to loose, but it's set up with 4 whole scenes. And then he forces Brie to not help him in the third act as he tries to fix everything. Look. Every action movie knows that when you have a female character the main character falls for, YOU HAVE HER JOIN THE MAIN CHARACTER IN THE CLIMAX. That's how most of these movies establish a legitimate relationship between the two characters! Nope. Not here. "Wait for me. I'll be back." He might as well've just said that. Actually, I think he did. Just with a not-so-dramatic "I'll be back if I'm still alive." Moment. Yup. 10/10. 

God this movie sucks. And you know what's worse? This movie had the audacity to release on December 25. On Christmas Day. With the biggest releases of the year like Unbroken, American Sniper, Big Eyes, Into the Woods, and Selma, here's The Gambler being released because they thought they had a legitimate chance at some Oscar nominations. Shame on you. Look, I love Paramount. Hell, I might even work there someday, (hopefully they don't read this....) but why did the execs watch this movie and think it was a good idea to not push this movie into the black hole that is January? WHY DIDN'T YOU DO THIS? YOUR LOGIC MAKES NO SENSE. IT WAS A LIMITED RELEASE TOO. You actually thought you had a chance at some Oscar nominations? Wow. I'm done here. I guess the Paramount execs can make mistakes sometimes. It's ok. Nobody's perfect. I still love you....

The Critique: MONOLOGUE. Some transition shots. ANOTHER MONOLOGUE. There. Just summed up The Gambler for you. Go watch the original before you watch this. Or Leaving Las Vegas if you want gambling addiction done right.

The Recommendation: AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE (I must say I look forward to this moment of a bad movie review. I like giving that as my recommendation.)

Rewatchability: 1.5/10 Basically Unwatchable. Just for John Goodman, Michael Kenneth Williams, and M83. That's the only enjoyment here.




Photo Credit
http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/the-gambler-mark-wahlberg-brie-larson1.jpg (top)
https://cmga360movies.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/enter_gambler-movie-review_-1.jpg (bottom)
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/4b/4b58b7142beeb920148b985a66340c73b2d2d74481904fd204c4504422e1d2ed.jpg (Dodgeball)

Whiplash (2014): A promising young drummer enrolls at a cutthroat music conservatory where his dreams of greatness are mentored by an instructor who will stop at nothing to realize a student's potential.

I.....I....wow. This is...far and away the best movie of 2014. Not only is it the best movie of 2014, it is the best film I have ever EVER had the privilege of reviewing here on Enter the Movies. This movie is a complete and total masterpiece of cinema. Flawless. Perfection. I cannot recommend enough that you go and see this movie as soon as humanely possible. The theme set up here is a very thought-provoking theme, and it is sheer and utter genius on behalf of the filmmaker Damien Chazelle to leave the question this movie presents with this theme...unanswered. You don't see that nowadays. Now I know some of you may say, "Of course Joe likes this movie, he's a freaking music nerd!" But no. This movie is as dramatically intense as it is musically intense, if not more so! Never have I been on the edge of my seat more than when I was watching this 107 minute marvel. For the love of God, go see it.

So. This movie does everything right, and nothing wrong. But I'll just focus on a few of the highlights. First off, the acting. J.K. Simmons is nominated for Best Supporting Actor, and likely the favorite to win it. This performance of his is the best I've ever seen from him, which is saying something. Easily one of the best performances of the year, Simmons is entrancing and intimidating as Fletcher, the instructor, creating one of the most unique characters I have ever seen. While Simmons is the performance everyone is talking about, we cannot forget to mention Miles Teller. His performance is extraordinary enough as is, but then when you take into account the fact that he's also doing the actual drumming in the film? He blew me away just as much as Simmons did. There's also an incredible and undeniable chemistry between these two characters from the first moment they interact all the way through the incredible and climatic finish. And the supporting cast is great too! Paul Reiser is excellent as Teller's father, despite only being in a few scenes. Actually his few scenes are incredibly powerful as he watches his son strive to be one of the greats and goes through a wide array of emotions during this journey.

And then there's the rest of the movie. The editing. The freaking editing! Some of the best editing I've seen in a long time. The editing just screams jazz. And the cinematography, too. The scenes involving drumming were shot beautifully, and will become synonymous with jazz. From closeups of the individual pieces of the drum set to crazy cuts between the pieces to symbolize the frantic pace of the solo, Chazelle and company simply left me breathless with these scenes. The story, also written by Director Chazelle, is obviously phenomenal. I would really love to know how much of this movie was improv'd between Simmons and Teller, because their interactions are so damn organic! But I will probably never know. Additionally, the character portrayed by Simmons is portrayed in such a relatable way. Everyone has, at some point, had a boss like Simmons who will stop at nothing to obtain greatness out of their employees. I know I have. And that's the incredible theme this movie has. With the right incentive, those who are good can achieve greatness. But the question is....at what cost? When does achieving greatness cost too much? That's the question this movie leaves you with. Unanswered. And that is why it is a masterpiece and the best film I have ever reviewed. Please. I know I say go see movies, but please. Go. See. This. Movie.

The Critique: One of the greatest movies of this decade. Whiplash is the definition of a masterpiece in its truest sense. The best film I've ever reviewed.

The Recommendation: An absolute must-watch for anyone. Even more so for those who love music, but everyone should see this movie at this point.

Rewatchability: Infinite (I've already seen this movie twice at the time of this writing, and I watched it for the first time less than a week ago)

The Verdict: 10/10 Perfect

Oscar Talk: So the movie did receive several nominations (six!) and I think it deserves to win all six. However, realistically, I think this movie will win Best Editing and Best Supporting Actor. Seriously, though. Please go see this movie. PLEASE.




Photo Credit
http://www.ashvegas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/whiplash_movie.jpg

Big Eyes (2014): A drama about the awakening of the painter Margaret Keane, her phenomenal success in the 1950s, and the subsequent legal difficulties she had with her husband, who claimed credit for her works in the 1960s.

Well, it has happened again. I don't really know what to say about this movie. Hm....Big Eyes is a very mixed bag of goodies. On one hand, you have a very interesting story concerning the Big Eyes saga, which did garner a rather significant amount of attention back in the 60s and 70s. The story is a very dramatic one, and as a result some of my favorite scenes in film this year thus far occur here, particularly surrounding the third act and Christoph Waltz. One of these scenes from this third act in my five favorite movie moments of 2014. But....on the other hand...the Tim Burton elements of the movie were unnecessary and unwelcome, and Christoph Waltz outperforms Amy Adams by such a wide margin it legitimately made me depressed. Ya. I know. I love Amy Adams. She's one of my favorite actresses in Hollywood, putting in my favorite performance by an actress last year for her performance in American Hustle. And she's good here still! But here is an instance where the screen-hogging of the co-lead was not welcome, and, despite Christoph Waltz being exceptional, he is screen-hogging, and it really diminishes the performance of Amy Adams. Anyway, let's begin.

So...I should preface this section with an unpopular opinion: I am not the biggest fan of Tim Burton. To all those who wish to lynch me now, I am sorry. But you can't deny Burton has a little streak of sh*tty movie going for him right now. I mean Dark Shadows? C'mon. Frankenweenie? Awful. So with his movie I feel like corporate might of told Tim Burton to make a bit more of a "normal" film. A lot of the Burton elements that make Tim Burton...uh...Tim Burton where removed, and the elements that still were there, like a really over-dramatic voiceover, was not very welcomed. Seriously. Why couldn't Tim Burton have watched Wolf of Wall Street and then model his voiceover after that? Nope, the voiceover here is trying to screen-hog, even though he's not even on the bloody screen. Also there were other Burton elements, particularly surrounding a character played by the great Terence Stamp, that were unwelcome as well. Actually, this character was overall very poorly written, which was a shame given the fact that its a very essential character to the story.

And yet....there were some truly great moments here. The story is very dramatic, and the writers (Scot Alexander and Larry Karaszewski) decided to focus primarily on the story itself and not the characters which I personally enjoyed. While it did make some of the decisions Amy Adams would make a little hard to follow, there was so much ground to cover in 106 minutes that I'm kind of glad that they covered the story. This made the events themselves much easier to understand. Additionally, Chirstoph Waltz decent into madness was fantastic to watch. This lead to a payoff that is one of my favorite scenes in a film this year. Amy Adams is good too, even though she is dominated by Waltz. Already had me thing on that so I won't go into it again. Um....what else....I guess the production value is pretty good! You need good production value when you do a period piece and it is solid, but not great.

I really don't know what else to say about this movie. I was a little disappointed by this movie. It's sadly just average, however it is one of the better average movies I've seen. Does that make any sense? No? Well, sorry. If you like art, or the big eye movement, or Christoph Waltz, go see this movie. If not, your time is better spent elsewhere I promise. 

The Critique: An oddly average movie featuring a fascinating story and many poorly executed elements. A mixed bag.

The Recommendation: You know what I just said before? I'm gonna say it again. If you like art, or the big eye movement, or Christoph Waltz, go see this movie. If not, your time is better spent elsewhere I promise. 

Rewatchability: Moderate

The Verdict: 5.5/10 Slightly Above Average




Photo Credit
http://mauiwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/big-eyes-2-660x330.jpg

WRITER'S NOTE: 
If you're looking for my thoughts on the controversy surrounding the snubbing of this film, scroll down towards the bottom. I'm gonna do the review first and that discussion second. 


Movie Review:
Selma (2014): A chronicle of Martin Luther King's campaign to secure equal voting rights via an epic march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama in 1965.

What a powerful piece of American cinema. While not without a few flaws, Selma is one of the best films of the year. It showcases a brief part of MLK's Civil Rights Movement that took place in Selma from 1964 to 1965. And it does this in spectacular fashion. Director Ava DuVernay creates a fantastic 128 minute movie that will, at several occasions, move you to tears. Without a doubt. I love this movie. David Oyelowo shines as the great Martin Luther King, Jr., and the rest of the huge supporting cast all bring their A games. The music is fantastic, the set design is perfect, and the cinematography is incredible. I honestly have one problem with this movie. However, it is a big one. The one problem I have with this movie is its depiction of President Lyndon B. Johnson. I will go much more into depth with this in the discussion, but I will say here that it is a very inaccurate portrayal of the president, and it honestly left me with a rather poor taste in my mouth. Yes, all history-based movies are allowed (and often do) take liberties with its source material to make the movie more dramatic. But, this movie goes VERY out of its way to tell you that LBJ was an incredibly racist president, and that he wanted to dismantle MLK, when in fact the exact opposite is true. That said, I want you to realize (before you go crazy on me) that this is only affecting my overall score by half a point. That's it. While the movie is not 100% perfect, it's damn close. So let's talk about how great Selma is, shall we?

First off, the acting. David Oyelowo. David. Oyelowo. He absolutely was snubbed for Best Actor even more so than Jake Gyllenhaal was for the spot. It's tough for a recognizable actor to play someone as recognizable as MLK and be completely absorbed into the role. But to say Oyelowo is absorbed playing MLK is an understatement. This performance of his is on the same level as the performance of Daniel Day Lewis as Lincoln in Lincoln from 2012. It's that good. Then you have the supporting cast. Ready for this? (Deep breath) Carmen Ejogo. Oprah Winfrey. Tom Wilkinson. Giovani Ribisi. Andre Holland. Colman Domingo. Common. Dylan Baker. Wendell Pierce. Nigel Thatch. Cuba Gooding, Jr. Tim Roth. Martin Sheen. FREAKING MARTIN SHEEN. He's in two scenes! That's how amazing this film is. Someone as legendary as Martin Sheen is willing to come on the set for two days or something and say 5 lines just to be in this movie! And Tim Roth is great, too. You wanna talk about a tough, tough role to play as the racist and deplorable Governor Wallace. But Tim Roth fully embraces his responsibility and does not hold back in the slightest. Kudos to him. Not to mention the incredible African American supporting cast. Carmen Ejogo is awesome as Coretta King, MLK's wife. Her scenes with King in the privacy of their own home is just as powerful and gripping as the grand march on Selma itself. Truly inspiring work here in the acting department.

The rest of the movie is on point, as well. The music was fantastic. Common's Glory single over the end-credits is likely the favorite to win Best Original Song at the Oscars, similar to the Globes. The editing and cinematography were fantastic, as well. Though nothing to write home about, the cinematography mixes in an appropriate amount of wide pans and closeups to build tension while allowing you to understand where everything is. This is how every drama should be shoot. I also must talk about makeup. The makeup absolutely got snubbed. You could see every actor and actress had a very specific style for their makeup, including the makeup on MLK himself. I say the makeup and hairstyling had just as much to do with Oyelowo being absorbed into MLK as the performance itself did. Finally, I want to talk about lighting. This is something that I've really started noticing in the last few months, but the lighting here is some of the best I've seen. There was one specific scene involving a night march in Selma where the placing of the lighting did an incredible job of really setting the mood of the march. Kudos to the lighting department.

So, at the end of the day, you should see Selma. Despite some major historical inaccuracies. Because of these inaccuracies, I'm not going to predict that this movie will one day be shown in our children's high school American History classroom like I did with 12 Years a Slave, (which will absolutely still happen) but I will say that everyone who is connected to that time in American history should go out of their way to see this movie. It is an incredibly powerful piece on the Civil Rights movement. Easily one of the best movies of the year. Go see it.

The Critique: One of the best films of the year, Selma delivers a powerful and moving drama on the Civil Rights movement, despite some historical inaccuracies.

The Recommendation: A must-watch for all American history buffs and everyone who is connected to the Civil Rights movement in some way.

Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 9.5/10 Damn Near Perfect



Ok ready? Let's talk about all controversy surrounding the film.



Discussion:
Ok. So I wasn't sure I was going to talk about this or not, but after actually watching the movie I feel like it must be addressed. Yes. The Academy did snub Selma. Yes. The Academy absolutely should've nominated Ava DuVernay to the Best Director category (she would've been the first ever female African American to be nominated to this category) and David Oyelowo to the Best Actor category. To me these are as big a snubs as The Lego Movie not being nominated to Best Animated Feature and Jake Gyllenhaal also being overlooked for Best Actor. I'm sure we've all heard the stats at some point over the last week or so. In 2012, the Academy was 94% White, over 65% male, and the median age was 62. YA! OLD WHITE PEOPLE WOOT WOOT. We've heard this. You want to go ahead and say that the Academy is racist because of this and with no other evidence in mind, be my guest. That is your right. However personally, I am not as furious about the situation. I am upset, yes, but I believe there are a few other factors we should keep in mind when thinking about this situation that I would like to point out here. I hope you have stayed this long and will listen to the other side of the argument as well and then make your opinion based on all the information from both sides. (This is what our media should be doing but that is for another conversation at another time.) Two main things to think about. (I will include the direct links to the sources I'm about to quote down at the bottom) One: according to my favorite movie review show, What the Flick?!, which consists of some of the highest ranking movie critics in Hollywood as well as the Founder and CEO of Rotten Tomatoes, points out that the producers of Selma sadly dropped the ball in pushing this movie to the Academy. (Jump to 3:30 in the WTF video if you want to hear it straight from them.) The movie wasn't sent to everyone in the Academy in the weeks proceeding the nominations, and, combined with its very limited release at the very end of December and the fact that there weren't that many screenings of the movie made available in Hollywood, could very easily have led to a large amount of the Academy not seeing this movie before January 15. Cause sadly, I've got news for you: the people in the actor's guild and the director's guild and all the other guilds composing the 6,000+ members of the Academy are very busy during Oscar season. This is a perfect example of a movie showing up to the party entirely too late and nobody noticing that they're there.

Another thing that I want to bring up is how the movie portrays LBJ. I know I mentioned it briefly earlier, but I want to go more in depth into it now. The portrayal of LBJ sucks. It's not just historically inaccurate, it's flat-out untrue. To the point that I might not even recommend history teachers showing this movie to their classrooms. Here. Let me show a few viewpoints I found in researching this part of the article. This is from Bill Moyer, who, in 1964 and '65 was LBJ's Domestic Policy Advisor.

On the historical depiction of LBJ opposing MLK's march in Selma in the movie:
So he asked King to give him more time to bring Southern ‘moderates’ and the rest of the country over to the cause, but once King made the case that blacks had waited too long for too little, Johnson told him: “Then go out there and make it possible for me to do the right thing.” [March on Selma]

On LBJ ordering J. Edgar Hoover to send a sex tape to the King's house:
There’s one egregious and outrageous portrayal that is the worst kind of creative license because it suggests the very opposite of the truth, in this case, that the president was behind J. Edgar Hoover’s sending the ‘sex tape’ to Coretta King. Some of our most scrupulous historians have denounced that one. And even if you want to think of Lyndon B. Johnson as vile enough to want to do that, he was way too smart to hand Hoover the means of blackmailing him.

On LBJ's speech proposing the Voter's Rights legislation:
Here the film is [also] very disappointing. The director [DuVernay] has a limpid president speaking in the Senate chamber to a normal number of senators as if it were a “ho hum” event. In fact, he made that speech where State of the Union addresses are delivered—in a packed House of Representatives. I was standing very near him, off to his right, and he was more emotionally and bodily into that speech than I had seen him in months. The nation was electrified. Watching on television, Martin Luther King Jr. wept. This is the moment when the film blows the possibility for true drama—of history happening right before our eyes.

Additionally, I came across another article confirming the first point made by Moyer from the viewpoint of Julian Bond, one of the main organizers of the Selma march. He also confirmed that LBJ encouraged Dr. King to go out there and march on Selma so he could get legislation going in Congress. (Skip to 0:52 in the video for his exact quote.) The impression this film gives off is the exact opposite of this.

One final point that I will make is this: both of my parents were alive and old enough to remember the heart of the Civil Rights Movement and the Selma march specifically, and they both agreed that LBJ was a major supporter of MLK from start-to-finish, as he was the one proposing many of these bills as soon as the country was ready for them. He did this from the view of being a "politician's politician" (which is sort of mentioned in the film) which meant keeping everyone in the room happy. He didn't want to propose new voter's registration sooner than Selma because he needed the Southern moderates to come on board, not because he was a horrible racist as the movie portrays.

Sadly, at the end of the day, Selma was snubbed at the Oscars. But I think this is more out of a series of unfortunate circumstances of the lack of an Oscar campaign for the movie from Paramount. The fact that they hadn't seen the movie by January 14, combined with the immediate controversy that came out back in December of the film concerning their very historically inaccurate portrayal of LBJ likely made the voters at the Academy shy away from giving the film more nominations. Not because they're a bunch of old racist White people. I hope I have helped to enlighten some of you reading/watching this so you will now have an informed opinion on this issue, before you jump to an immediate conclusion and start with the #OscarSoWhite stuff. Oh, and despite all of this, I am sticking with my prediction made back in November when I said Selma wins Best Picture. Because it absolutely still will. But I'll leave you with a great quote from my favorite film critic Alonso Duralde: "I think there are...[a few] things to keep in mind here. One, these [nominations] don't mean a f*cking thing.This is an annual Hollywood circle-jerk, and we will all forget who won in 6 months. It makes them [the Academy] feel better as it's this thing that's been hyped and we all talk about it all year long. But ultimately, it doesn't matter." 



Peace out mofos.



Sources Used in Discussion
Ron Kathmann (18-19 in 1964-65) and Jean Kathmann (we'll keep her age private)
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/is-selmas-portrayal-of-lbj-historically-accurate/ (viewpoints of LBJ and Julian Bond viewpoint)
http://inthesetimes.com/article/17537/bill_moyers_lbj_selma (Bill Moyer, LBJ's Domestic Policy Advisor and White House Press Secretary viewpoint)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwnvXTZdRYY (What the Flick?! Discussion on nominations)

Photo Credits
http://www.trbimg.com/img-5463c377/turbine/la-et-mn-afi-fest-selma-20141111 (cover photo)

Into the Woods (2014): A witch tasks a childless baker and his wife with procuring magical items from classic fairy tales to reverse the curse put on their family tree.

WRITER’S NOTE

Before I start this review, I should mention that I saw this movie at the fantastic El Capitan in Hollywood. The El Capitan is owned by Disney, and they put a lot of money into ensuring that the movie experience was one of the best I’ve ever had. Into the Woods is a Disney movie. While I do not believe that has influenced my review in any way, I do want to make that known to you, the reader. If you feel that this creates a conflict of interest, then you are absolutely entitled to ignore my review. I won’t feel bad I promise. Up to you. Anyway…


So this movie is…interesting. Its source material is a bold undertaking as it mashes five classic fairy tales into one giant musical in the woods. (WHOA IN THE WOODS???) Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Jack and the Giant Beanstalk, Cinderella, and Little Red Riding Hood all get featured in this musical. And for the most part this movie stays loyal to its source material. With two major exceptions. Snow White and Sleeping Beauty are both left in the dust in this movie, likely per corporate directive. While personally I did not miss these two stories as much as others might, those who want to see those stories meshed in here will be sorely disappointed. However, my biggest issue with this movie involves what happens after happily ever after, aka the third act. Hey! We have yet another third act screwup! Woot woot! I’ll get into that in a bit. That said, this is still a good movie. But that’s all it is. Good. So, let’s jump into it yes?

So, let’s talk about what the movie does right. It’s a musical, surprise surprise, and guess what? The music is awesome. To watch Annie just a few weeks back and see how terrible that movie was, it is really nice to see a musical done right. All the actors can sing well, thank GOD. With the exception of Chris Pine, but fortunately he knows he cant sing so he makes up for it by overacting the crap out of his role. But here it is very welcome because he is ridiculous and he knows he’s ridiculous. He’s just having fun! That’s when overacting is acceptable. Actually that’s the thing with most of these actors: they are having an absolute blast with their roles. Meryl Streep is absolutely having the time of his life in this movie, and it is great to watch. But above all of that, yes above the legendary Meryl Streep, we have Emily Blunt. Finally. This is the role that will blow her into the mainstream of Hollywood. She blew me away as the Baker’s Wife, from her phenomenal voice to her phenomenal acting while singing, Blunt just shocked even me, one of her biggest fans, and put in one of the best acting performances I’ve seen all year. While it likely won’t be nominated for anything, (especially over Meryl Streep) and it likely won’t make my top ten performances of the year, Blunt will be remembered for this performance for years to come when we see here become a staple A-lister in Hollywood. You heard it here first, folks.

Let’s see what else does this movie do right? Um…the first two acts are great, story wise. The writing is excellent, thanks to the source material. The musical and movie does a great job mashing the stories of Cinderella, Jack and the Giant Beanstalk, and Red Riding Hood together with the witch of Snow White. Until happily ever after. Then corporate directive takes the day.

Here’s the main problem with the third act. The story gets so scattershot as the movie delves away from the musical in order to avoid the adult themes brought up in it because, you know, this is a Disney movie. We can’t talk about anything adult-related. We can’t set up a love story between Riding Hood and Jack because they’re young! And the idea of young people having feelings for each other is…oh no we can’t have that! Absolutely not. Additionally, Lilla Crawford, who played Riding Hood sucks. She couldn't sing, and she couldn't act. But it’s ok! Not the end of the world to see a child actor who can’t act. Jack is ok, but he was faaaaar better in Les Miserables. Oh ya. Look up who he is in Les Mis and you’ll get a kick out of it. Promise! I’ll even leave it up to you as a surprise. Another thing going on here is that the movie never really gives you any understanding of just how big these woods that they are in actually are. Characters run into each other left and right, but yet it still takes hours to walk from one spot to the other? There was absolutely no sense of direction whatsoever. But ya, that’s basically it. The movie is good, but because of a very scattershot third act that has too many things happening at once as the movie becomes too big for its own good keeps it from being great. That’s all I got. If you don’t like it, too bad. I still love you. I will always love you. AND IIIIIIIIIIII WILLL ALWAYS LOVE YOUUUUUUU. I’m….I’m sorry about that.

The Critique: A good musical that sadly becomes too big for its own good as corporate runs its hands over the final act. Emily Blunt shines, though.

The Recommendation: If you like musicals, check this one out. It is probably the best musical of 2014. Also if you like these stories check it out too.

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Verdict: 7/10 Good.

Oscar Talk: Here’s another negative: while the music is good, there is no outstanding single. There is no Let It Go. There is no Skyfall. So, while I’m sure some song will be nominated for Original Song, it is not a sure-thing for this movie, despite being the best musical of the year. However I foresee nods for both original song and score. I also predict a nod for costumes at least. The costumes were amazing. Some of the best I’ve seen all year.
EDIT: WOW. No music at all. But I was right on the costumes! 1/2 right? In baseball terms I'd be a legend!




Photo Credit
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--FDrZuMrQ--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/jwyb8l9o3kgenjzqzriw.jpg

Foxcatcher (2014): The greatest Olympic Wrestling Champion brother team joins Team Foxcatcher led by multimillionaire sponsor John E. du Pont as they train for the 1988 games in Seoul - a union that leads to unlikely circumstances.

2014’s official acting clinic of the Oscar season, Foxcatcher is an interesting movie. On the one hand, it features three incredible performances from Mark Ruffalo, Channing Tatum, and Steve Carell. However, on the other hand, the story to me really missed the mark. Bennett Miller and company definitely bit off more than they could chew when they condensed this story into 128 minutes. However the performances from these three great actors still make the movie worth seeing. So, let’s dive into it shall we?

Let’s talk about the acting. There are three phenomenal performances here from Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, and Steve Carell. It’s both impossible and unfair to these three actors for me to pick a least favorite, but I will say that the best performance of the three in my opinion was Steve Carell. Barely recognizable because of his extensive makeup, Carell is asked to do so much in the role of philanthropist John du Pont. But boy does he hit it out of the park. The very demeanor of du Pont is captured by Carell, from how he walks to even how he slouches when he sits. It’s a clinic on how to effectively immerse yourself into a character, and most certainly worth the price of admission alone. Likely the heavy favorite at this year’s Oscars for supporting actor, (if they actually put him in this category, which I think they should over lead) this is easily one of the best performances I’ve seen from an actor all year. And then there’s Ruffalo and Tatum. They were equally as amazing as the Scholz wrestling brothers, even though I did feel their chemistry as brothers could’ve been a bit better. But that’s just me being way too picky. Anyway, I will say that there are only a few other actors in this movie, and none of them really get much of anything to do here. This movie is essentially just Carell, Tatum, and Ruffalo.

And that’s kind of the biggest problem with this movie. It is way too big for its own good. It brings up so many things that could’ve practically been its own movie, and then doesn’t even resolve half of them. Far and away the biggest example of this is right around the middle of the movie involving Tatum’s character, Mark, and du Pont. It was a very quick scene that definitely implied something that the movie could not be less interested in talking about afterwards, despite the fact that it changes the whole dynamic of the whole movie. It’s one of those moments where, if you zone out for 30 seconds or go to the bathroom at a certain point, you’ll miss the most important moment of the whole movie that really should’ve been talked about more. To me this was a major oversight that might’ve occurred because, as one of my favorite movie critics Alonso Duralde pointed out, the real Mark Scholz (Tatum’s character) was a producer for this movie. It is very likely that he didn’t want this dynamic between him and du Pont investigated any further than it had to be, even if it ultimately defined the entire friendship. Also it’s harder than you think to talk about specific points of these stories without actually spoiling anything. That’s my best shot at it. But there were also other points that were brought up, like the fact that at one point Tatum’s character lost 12 pounds in 90 minutes (which isn’t really a spoiler cause it’s not a major plot point in the movie, just an ‘oh by the way’ type of moment) that really should’ve been delved into further than they actually were. I mean, is it even physically possible to lose that much weight in that short a period of time? How does a man push himself that much without passing out? Don’t look to find the answers to these questions and many others in this movie. I’d throw it into the Oscar bait category because it, much like The Theory of Everything, does everything it can to avoid talking about things that we might consider controversial. Lo and behold a movie attempting to make it to the Oscars should talk about something controversial!

Oh well. In terms of a wrestling story, this movie is above average. However the masterful acting is why this movie exists, and why you should go see it. I fully expect this movie receive several nominations from an acting standpoint, as well as a few other categories too. Just…don’t expect to learn as much from a based-on-a-true-story story as you should.

The Critique: What do you get when you mix spectacular acting with a mediocre story? A good movie. ‘Nuff said.

The Recommendation: If you want to agree with the Academy when they hand Steve Carell the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, go see this movie. Or if you care about wrestling. Otherwise, your time is better spent elsewhere.

Rewatchability: Moderately Low

The Verdict: 7/10 Good

Oscar Talk: Carell is the likely favorite to win Best Supporting Actor, however Ruffalo and Tatum deserve nominations as well. Also expect a nomination for Best Makeup for the work done on these actors.




Photo Credits
http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/ed/89/eac200954a11a9c45be179489e58/foxcatcher.jpg (top)
http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2014/moviereview/foxcatcher-20141113/174506/medium_rect/1415895875/720x405-5.jpg (bottom)

Before I Disappear (2014): At the lowest point of his life, Richie gets a call from his estranged sister, asking him to look after his eleven-year old niece, Sophia, for a few hours.

Ok. I’m torn about this movie. On the one hand, it sucks. It’s an indie movie that is way too full of itself and thinks it’s a way bigger deal than it actually is. It is very much a movie that the bro in filmmaking class who thinks he’s the next big thing would make. In this case that bro is Shawn Christensen. Sadly Christensen’s feature-length debut as a director could not have been a whole lot worse than this. Additionally, he wrote and was the lead in this 98 minute flick. Because that's always a good idea. And yet…there is one great storyline between a brother and sister rekindling a long lost friendship that had such a satisfying payoff. It almost made watching the rest of the movie worth it.

So, here’s what the movie does wrong. First off, it isn’t really grounded in anything. This may be the biggest fault of the movie. From completely losing a sense of time throughout the second act to thinking that a bowling alley could be the hottest place in town (there’s a speech the owner of the alley goes on at one point where he proclaims he’s created the hottest place in town that I couldn’t help but laugh at-I mean nothing against bowling alleys they are fun places but the place to go in a city in terms of nightlife it is not) the movie really seems to not have any basis in reality. Not to mention the kid in this movie, who is in the fifth grade and being raised by a 16-and-pregnant single mom is not believable in the slightest. In fact it is pretty unbelievable honestly. As awesome as the actress playing the kid was, Fatima Ptacek, who I also really look forward to what she has to offer next, I didn’t even remotely buy that her character would exist. And when she plays such a pivotal role in the main storyline…well, as someone might say…

Hm what else….the cinematography was TERRIBLE. There were all these uncomfortable close-ups of character’s faces with a lot of unnecessary hand-cam pans. It really felt like what a bro would shoot for his college thesis or something. It was quite painful and rudimentary. At least the production value was decent. Not good. Just decent. There was some detail put into the clubs and such to make them look gritty and somewhat real, (which counteracted a lot of other things that weren’t real) but then there were a lot of very generic choices done for the characters. Particularly from a costume standpoint. Oh can I also bring up the fact that Ron Perlman is in this? The same guy that was the ridiculously badass mafia boss in Pacific Rim with that awesome outfit and those kickass boots and everything? Ya I wish that he could’ve worn that costume here…

There really was only one thing this movie got right. The awesome payoff between the brother and sister. Were it not for this, this movie would be like a 2 on my scale. But it exists, and it made the third act pretty awesome, in my opinion. However many will likely be so done with the movie by then that they won’t care about this payoff. Can’t say I would blame you. 

The Critique: Hi I’m meathead Rob Lowe, and I watched this movie. I saw it to support my college bro Shawn Christensen. It is a masterpiece of filmmaking, bro. You should go see it. Bro. (Translation: a pretty crappy directorial debut for Shawn Christensen. While there is a nice brother-sister payoff, it is nowhere near enough to save the rest of this below average movie.)

The Recommendation: Meathead Rob Lowe: Oh my God bro if you don’t go see this movie I’ll stop lifting weights while staring at myself in the mirror! You wouldn’t want that would you? Bro? (Translation: Don’t bother, unless if you want to have some bonding with your brother/sister that involves a lot of drinking through the first two acts then a nice awwwwww moment at the end)

Rewatchability: Meathead Rob Lowe: Wait what does this even mean? I don’t know I’m gonna go back to lifting weights, bro. (Translation: Low)

The Verdict: Meathead Rob Lowe: 17/10 (What the hell is that? I don’t even know what this means! Translation: 4/10 Below Average)





Photo Credits
http://apnatimepass.com/fatima-ptacek-in-before-i-disappear-movie/fatima-ptacek-in-before-i-disappear-movie-8.jpg (Before I Disappear)
http://www.quickmeme.com/img/27/272b82c92c10ec2d9bde7406edb3077811b29ef205a7c5432a51f77c0665f840.jpg (Bold Strategy)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6dptWrCYAAmwMZ.jpg:large (Meathead Rob Lowe)
http://img.pandawhale.com/91149-Hannibal-Chau-Pacific-Rim-gif-WOeQ.gif (Ron Perlman Gif)

The Drop (2014): Bob Saginowski finds himself at the center of a robbery gone awry and entwined in an investigation that digs deep into the neighborhood's past where friends, families, and foes all work together to make a living - no matter the cost.

Oh how I love this movie. The Drop came out way back in September. It hasn’t received much of any buzz right around now so it likely won’t get nominated for any Oscars. It will disappear into the veils of time as the years go on, and yet…it is a truly beautiful movie. It is beautifully shot (especially after watching Still Alice holy crap does The Drop excel in the cinematography and set design) its story has an extremely satisfying payoff, and it is masterfully acted. In short, The Drop is 106 minutes of good ol’ fashioned gangster goodness.

Directed by Michael Roskam, The Drop stars Tom Hardy, who has been on a roll for the last few years really. It’s really a shame that his worst role in the last 3-4 years is Dark Knight Rises, his largest commercial success in that span, and that was primarily because he couldn’t use half his face to act. And even there he was still pretty good! But Tom Hardy is once again spectacular here, donning a convincing Brooklyn accent for the entire movie and leading us through a wonderfully written story arc of his character. Oh ya, the scrennplay is great. Written by one of Hollywood’s current bests, Dennis Lehane, (writer of Shutter Island, Gone Baby Gone, and Mystic River acclaim) the story does take a while to develop, but the payoff is fantastic. Just…keep that in mind. There is a lot of development as we have several storylines all develop throughout the movie, but then when they all come together, it is beautiful. One of the better payoffs of the year. And I haven’t even mentioned the supporting cast! While there are a lot of members of this supporting cast, I’ll just highlight the two main members. Noomi Repace has made a respectable living over the last few years in these sort of movies, and once again is solid here. However, the main storyline of this movie and what makes it worth seeing if nothing else is James Gandolfini. The last performance from this late, great actor, Gandolfini once again reminds us why he was one of the best actors the gangster genre has ever seen. This is as appropriate a sendoff as one could ask for from this superb actor. You will be missed Mr. Gandolfini. Oh and actually, my favorite scene of the movie was James Gandolfini’s monologue about how back in the day he was respected. He was feared. Gave me all the feels.

There really isn’t a whole lot of negative things to talk about here. The setup is a little generic, I guess. Some may see the payoff coming, and if you do, the movie will be much worse to you. So don’t think about it! Just let it happen. You’ll thank me later. The set design is also fantastic. Roskam and company did a phenomenal job paying great attention to detail creating a believable life for these characters with all the little things in their homes and in the bar where the majority of this film takes place. If nothing else, The Drop puts on a clinic on how to have an AAA level budget production value on an AA budget.

To sum up, I would definitely recommend seeing this movie just because of James Gandolfini alone. It really is a nostalgic trip back in time for the actor in this movie, as his last few roles he had strayed a bit from the gangster genre. While he was great in those movies as well, (like his last starring role in Enough Said in 2013) I think the best way for Gandolfini to go out is here. On his home field. I’m happy I saw this movie, and I hope you see it too.

The Critique: Hardy and Gandolfini shine in an excellent screenplay from Dennis Lehane. A satisfying payoff makes this an awesome gangster movie.

The Recommendation: If you liked The Sopranos, or James Gandolfini in general, or gangster movies, this is an absolutely must-watch.

Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 9/10 Awesome






Photo Credit
http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/2014/moviereview/the-drop-20140911/167269/medium_rect/720x405-013_TheDrop022.JPG

Boyhood (2014): The life of a young man, Mason, from age 5 to age 18.

Wow. I don’t even know where to begin. Boyhood is not just the best movie I’ve seen in 2014, it’s one of the best movies I’ve ever seen. Period. A masterpiece from Richard Linklater, the story of the filming of Boyhood is just as incredible as the movie itself. The film began production back in 2002, with the cast and crew meeting a few weeks every year to film the next segment of the movie. It is a marvel of a screenplay, and required a significant amount of risk-taking from Linklater, particularly with the casting of the brother and sister that we would watch grow up over the course of the flick. There were also several subtle pop culture references throughout the movie that, while you wouldn't think about it during the movie, were filmed as they were happening. I want you to take a minute to think about the difficulty that comes with trying to realize what would still be relevant 10 years later while it’s happening in the moment. Think you can do it? BS. You can't do it. These and many others are daunting tasks that are undertaken by Linklater in this very simple premise, and he nails it. Boyhood is this year’s Gravity. Except whereas Gravity was a masterpiece of visual achievement, Boyhood is a masterpiece of written achievement.

So, first off, the acting. Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke are casted as the parents, and they do a great job to help navigate our child-turned-teenager actors along whenever it’s needed. But, of course, the leads of the movie deserve just as much credit for creating a believable story with these characters, despite only having to use these characters a few weeks a year. Can you imagine how difficult it would be for an actor to only reprise a role a week or two a year? I mean sure TV actors will go 8 months without having to use a character, but then the filming of the next season will take place over the course of 4 months or something. They have plenty of time during that span to become refamiliarized with their characters. Not these guys. Anyway, Ellar Coltrane and the director’s own daughter, Lorelei Linklater, do an incredible job here. Coltrane plays Mason, who is kind of the main character of the movie, however Lorelei is just as important as the sister, Samantha, and is in the vast majority of the movie as well. Their chemistry is undeniable, and I honestly figured initially that these two actors were really brother and sister in real life. I mean wow. And some of the toughest moments of the movie from an acting standpoint are in the first few years from young Lorelei. Her father (the director) asked Lorelei to do some very difficult things, particularly with her mom (played by Patricia) when Lorelei was just 6 and 7 years old. A tall order for a kid, but she absolutely nails it. 

And then we get to the script. The script is quite possibly the best script I’ve ever seen. Almost guaranteed to win Best Original Screenplay at the Oscars, director Linklater (who also wrote the movie) managed to successfully create a very abstract plot over the course of the 165-minute movie. There’s no single overarching storyline here. Rather, there’s a lot of little things that happen all throughout the movie that are set up in one year and then solved. Sometimes they are solved in the same year they are set up and other times they are set up and resolved a few years later. Then the movie moves on, as the events become just a memory, similar to what happens in our actual lives. They’re still there, but we learn to move on. There’s an element of grounded human emotion in this movie that is created because of how real this movie really is. And by the end I had a feeling that I’ve never really felt before in a movie because…well because I felt like I grew up with Mason and Samantha, too. Remember how you felt in Toy Story 3 when Andy goes off to college? That feeling multiplied by 10 is how you’ll feel at the end of this movie. A guaranteed tear-jerker. Sure it’s 165 minutes long, but it could’ve just as easily been 265 minutes long and I would not have cared. It’s so real. So human. So authentic. Even though the script is very rigid, it felt like it was entirely improv’d because it was so natural. The set design was also incredible. Linklater was always sure to include something in the set, whether it be a TV program our family was watching, or a baseball game the dad took the kids to in order to keep us, the audience, aware of exactly where we were in time. Because of this, I never felt lost, despite the movie frequently making jumps in time without warning. You’d worry that the transitions in a movie with this sort of undertaking would be very subtle, but they weren’t. The transitions were smooth and flawless. Everything about this movie was flawless, as I honestly do not have a single complaint about Boyhood.

In short, please go see this. It doesn’t have the sort of advertising campaign that Gravity had, but it is still a masterpiece of American cinema. A groundbreaking movie for sure. So go see it! And hopefully we’ll get a Boyhood 2 in 12 years following these characters even further. I would not be opposed to this in the slightest.

The Critique: A masterpiece of American cinema, Boyhood is easily one of the best movies of the year.

The Recommendation: If you don’t see this, you’re wrong. A must-see for every individual out there.

Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 10/10 Perfect

Oscar Talk: Expect this movie to be nominated a lot. I also will basically guarantee wins for Original Screenplay and Directing. Calling it now.




Photo Credit
http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2014/06/29/BOYHOOD.jpg

Still Alice (2014): Alice Howland, happily married with three grown children, is a renowned linguistics professor who starts to forget words. When she receives a devastating diagnosis, Alice and her family find their bonds tested.

Hi. So. In the past, I have sometimes been criticized for not talking about every aspect of a movie. I have often not mentioned set design, sound design, production value, and other things of the sort, choosing instead to focus primarily on the acting, the story, and the directing. I have chosen not to focus on these other characteristics for multiple reasons. One, because I do not consider myself an actual movie critic. I am an amateur. Up until now I have not taken film classes in my college career, so I don't feel like I have the right to be able to identify and critique the finer points of a movie. And two, frankly I feel that these aspects of a movie are usually pretty good. The production value of a movie is usually relatively the same regardless of whether the budget for the film is $1 million or $100 million. However, occasionally a movie will fail so epically on this premise that I have to say something. And that’s where I’m torn on Still Alice. On one hand, the story is heart wrenching and downright terrifying as we see the main character struggle to maintain her humanity as she looses herself to Alzheimer’s disease. The acting is phenomenal. Julianne Moore is receiving a lot of praise for her role as the lead here and rightly so: she plays this character on a level that could be compared to my favorite performance of the year from an actress in Rosamund Pike in Gone Girl. Easily in my top 10 acting roles of 2014 thus far, Moore in chilling as Alice. When I finished this movie, eyes red from tears, I thought this movie was going to be another 10. But then, as I always do, I thought a bit more about the movie, and I realized that it is not a perfect movie. It isn’t even awesome, though it almost is. So, shall we jump into it?

First off, the stuff I usually talk about and, coincidentally, what this movie does right: I already praised Moore and her future Oscar-nominating performance, but she wasn’t the only person worth noting in this movie. Alec Baldwin and Kristen Stewart (of all people) both put in stellar performances in this 101-minute movie. Actually, in a year of not-so-strong supporting actress roles, Kristen Stewart may even dark horse herself into a nomination for her performance here. Even though her character was one of three children of Moore’s character, this movie is as much about her as it is about the relationship between Moore’s character and her husband, played by Baldwin. While sadly the other two children, played by Kate Bosworth and Shane McRae, have very little material to work with, Stewart and Baldwin do more than enough to keep the movie memorable from an acting standpoint. Also, the story is fantastic. From the most tear-jerking of moments to some very powerful moments of victory for Moore’s character, this movie had everything. Actually, on the topic of brief victories against Alzheimer’s disease, one of my favorite scenes from a movie this year occurred in this movie involving a speech made by an already very Alzheimer’s-stricken Moore. It was a fantastic speech, and a major bright spot on this otherwise darkly terrifying movie. If you notice, I keep saying dark and terrifying. That’s because that’s exactly what it is. You can probably guess what this movie shows you given what I’ve already said about it, so I’ll say the amount of excruciating detail this movie goes into showing the decline of Moore to Alzheimer’s is really terrifying. Anyone who knows someone suffering from Alzheimer’s or has a connection to the disease will really be able to connect with this film and it will be even more powerful to you than it is to someone who has been fortunate enough to have no connection to the disease such as myself. This movie is a tearjerker, no matter who you are or where you come from.

So, why is it not a sure 10? Well, couple of reasons. The primary one is the fact that the movie is shot terribly. Richard Glatzer and company make some horrible and illogical decisions from a cinematography standpoint, which is very surprising. For example, and again not a spoiler, in the first meeting Moore has with a doctor as they are trying to figure out what’s happening to her, Glatzer decides for whatever reason that the best way to show this scene is by giving us a minute-long headshot of Julianne Moore smiling and discussing her symptoms with the doctor. We don’t even see the doctor, who ends up being a rather major character I might add, until the second appointment. What? Who thought that was a good idea? We also get these really awkward fuzzy shots, which I ultimately understood what they were going for with these but to me they made the movie a bit uglier. And led to utter confusion the first time it happened. And another thing; the production value of the movie? The set design? Well, it looked like it was a made-for-TV movie. The production value was horrible. The movie was shot in a very confined space, and the houses where most of the movie takes place were incredibly simplistic in design. Nowadays many directors (it’s basically a standard in Hollywood now) will ad some flair into a house so that we can get a bit of an insight into what the characters are like. Or, the director will have the characters go do something, like get dinner at a nice, real-life restaurant. Something. Anything. But none of that is here, as the whole movie is basically shot in either a generic house, generic college classroom, or a generic doctor’s office. My favorite scene of the movie was about the only time the movie mixed it up from a production value standpoint, where Julianne Moore delivers a moving speech from a -wait for it- generic hotel multipurpose room. Yay variability! But I hope you can kind of see what I mean. When a movie does these things right, you don’t notice them. However, when a movie fails from a production value, you’ll notice. Maybe not in the moment, but if you start thinking about it and reflecting on it, you may notice just how bland the scenery all around the characters are. Here’s an experiment if you don’t know what I mean: go and watch Nightcrawler, then go watch this. Both movies where shot with relatively the same budget, ($4 million for Still Alice versus $8 million for Nightcrawler) but the set design and cinematography of Nightcrawler is so on-point that the city of LA almost becomes a character throughout the movie. Here in Still Alice I would not have known the movie took place in NYC if it weren’t for the characters making reference to the city. Generic. Generic everywhere.

So there you have it. Again, while the production value of Still Alice is terrible, it is an excellent movie. See why I'm torn? I hope you take the time to see this movie, particularly if you know someone who has recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s. One thing’s for sure: this movie does a phenomenal job at raising awareness for the disease and showing just how terrifying it can be.

The Critique: While the production value is of made-for-TV-movie quality, this cannot take away from an excellent script and great acting from Julianne Moore. An excellent movie.

The Recommendation: a must-watch for anyone with connections to Alzheimer’s disease. And frankly I’d still highly recommend it to everyone else too.

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Verdict: 8.5/10 Almost Awesome

Oscar Talk: this movie is receiving a huge amount of buzz from the Academy, and for good reason. I foresee an easy nomination for Julianne Moore for Best Actress, as well as a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. Kristen Stewart may dark horse, and given the ridiculous nomination size for Best Picture, I would not be surprised if this movie receives a nod for the category as the “official” indie entry for Best Picture. We’ll see. The nominations can’t come soon enough. I want to see just how in-sync I am with the Academy….




Photo Credit
http://www.showbiz411.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/kristen-stewart-julianne-moore-film-serious-scene-for-still-alice-03.jpg