Category Archives: Oscar Contenders

Films that should earn buzz during awards season.

Little Funk in ‘Get On Up’

Get_On_Up_poster            There are lots of typecasts in Hollywood. Melissa McCarthy always plays a slacker. Liam Neeson always plays a badass. And Chadwick Boseman plays influential African Americans in biopics. This time around, instead of portraying Jackie Robinson, Boseman takes on the role of the Godfather of Soul himself, James Brown.

“Get On Up” tells the tale of James Brown, from his troubled childhood to his rise to fame all the way until his final days. Nelsan Ellis stars as Bobby Byrd, Brown’s longtime friend, and Dan Aykroyd plays Brown’s manager. Tate Taylor, made famous by “The Help”, directs here.

I love me a well-done biopic. Any film that is set in the past, particularly in the 1950’s and 60’s like this film is, instantly should earn bonus points with me. It’s what made me enjoy “Jersey Boys” and “J. Edgar” more than other people. However “Get On Up”, despite featuring a dedicated performance from Chadwick Boseman, is a basic biopic, and doesn’t feature anything too fun or engaging.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again here, because it’s true: sometimes an actor does such a good job in a role that it exposes the rest of the film for how truly mediocre it is. It happened with Denzel Washington in “Flight” and this year with Phillip Seymour Hoffman in “A Most Wanted Man” and it happens again here in “Get On Up”.

Boseman is at times electric as Brown, and portrays him from ages 17 to 73. He immerses himself into the role and much like with Robinson in “42”, you truly believe you are watching a documentary of Brown, instead of an actor portraying him.

However, the film around Boseman is average. While it doesn’t sugarcoat or ignore Brown’s demons, such as drug use or money issues, it does choose to discuss them in limited amounts, never having the guts to fully pull back the curtain.

The biggest thing the film does wrong, however, is its use of non-linear story telling. The film opens in 1988, only to jump to the 60’s in the next scene, 1939 in the scene after that and then ends up in the 1950’s. Confused? Yeah, it’s not much easier watching the film, even with time stamps on screen.

Example of how confusing this choice of narrative is: Brown’s mother comes to one of his shows and then comes back stage to introduce herself. The film then cuts to a flashback of James’ mother ignoring him, and then goes to an entirely unrelated scene altogether. When they finally return to the mother backstage, it has probably been 25 minutes, and you forgot completely that the first scene had happened.

Aside from Boseman, what the film does do well is the music. All of the musical scenes are toe-tapping and infectious, with a few interesting shots by Taylor, such as cutting to TV-quality, or slowing down to see what Brown is taking in while on stage.

“Get On Up” gets some brownie points for trying not to be the cliché biopic, however it really shot itself in the foot with its constant shake up of the place and time. Boseman is worth checking it out, but especially with a running time of 2:18, this looks more like a decent Redbox movie.

Brown occasionally turns to the camera to address the audience, and at one point warns them, “if you look backward, you’re dead”. I find those words ironic, as every time the film takes us on a trip down memory lane, it becomes less and less lively.

Critics Rating: 6/10

2014 Oscar Predictions

The 2014 Oscars are right around the corner, so here are my thoughts on who I want to win (SHOULD WIN) and who all signs point towards winning (WILL WIN) for the 6 main Oscar categories.

BEST PICTURE

For all intents and purposes, this is a two horse race between “12 Years a Slave” and “Gravity”. “American Hustle” has an outside chance of squeaking in, but the Academy will probably choose between the visually stunning “Gravity” and the historically important “12 Years”. Regardless of who wins Best Pictu12_Years_a_Slave_film_posterres, both films will win multiple awards Sunday night. “Wolf of Wall Street” and “Captain Phillips” were my top two favorite films from 2013, but they are either too controversial or too under-publicized to stand a chance here. Also if “12 Years” wins, it will be Brad Pitt’s first Oscar win, so that would be cool.

Should Win: Captain Phillips

Will Win: 12 Years a Slave

Best Director

I personally feel Paul Galfonsoreengrass was snubbed for “Captain Phillips”, but it wouldn’t have mattered much, because it is pretty much a lock that Alfonso Cuarón will win for “Gravity”. If you watch any of the behind the scenes for the film, he had so much to do with creating the most visually stunning film ever (Avatar be darned). Steve McQueen could win for “12 Years a Slave” because of the emotional toll of that film, but honestly this would be an upset if anyone other than Cuarón wins.

Should Win: Alfonso Cuarón

Will Win: Alfonso Cuarón

Best Actor

This is by and far the tightest race in any category in Oscar history. Tom Hanks didn’t receive a nomination foractor “Captain Phillips”, yet he wasn’t snubbed; that’s how great this year’s nominations are. The leaders, however, are Matthew McConaughey for “Dallas Buyers Club”, Chiwetel Ejiofor for “12 Years a Slave” and Leonardo DiCaprio for “The Wolf of Wall Street”. Christian Bale (“American Hustle”) and Bruce Dern (“Nebraska”) both gave great performances, but it would still be a small shock if they won. McConaughey has done an amazing job turning his career around from the awful rom-coms and was phenomenal in “Dallas”. Ejiofor had such a large range of emotions in “12 Years”. And DiCaprio went all in with “Wall Street” and may deserve to win simply because he has been snubbed by the Academy for near 2 decades now. It will be close, but in the end I think the actor with the most physically demanding role will win, and that goes to McConaughey, who lost 38 pounds.  

Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio

Will Win: Matthew McConaughey

Best Supporting Actor

Much like Best Picture, this is pretty much going to come down between 2 nominees: Jared Leto (“Dallas Buyers Club”) and Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips”). 2-time nominated guys Bradley Cooper (“American Hustle”) and Jonah Hill (“Wolf of Wall Street”) will have to try their luck again actor2another year, and despite being memorizing in “12 Years a Slave” Michael Fassbender has denounced the Academy after getting snubbed for “Shame” several years back, effectively knocking him out of contention. Between Leto and Abdi, Leto has the slight edge because his role was extremely demanding in several categories (he played a cross-dresser, lost 40 pounds and got his arms and legs waxed). As fantastic as Leto is, however, I personally would love to see Adbi win, giving “Phillips” it’s likely only win of the night. Plus he had never acted before this role; the guy was driving limos. That would be a crazy rags-to-riches story.

Should Win: Barkhad Adbi

Will Win: Jared Leto

Best Actress

Like many non-Academy members, I did not see Cate Blanchett in “Blue Jasmine”, but the buzz around Hollywood is she is a lock to win. She has essentially swept every award this year. Sandra actressBullock (“Gravity”) and Judi Dench (“Philomena”) both gave great performances, but this just isn’t their year. And if Meryl Streep wins for “August: Osage County” I am pretty sure everyone watching the TV will groan and throw up. The only person who can challenge Blanchett is Amy Adams, and it is for the same reason DiCaprio stands a chance: she’s a 5-time nominated, no time winning actor. The Academy may feel bad if Adams goes home empty handed for a fifth time, and as much as I would love the overrated “Hustle” to not win a single award on Sunday night, I think Adams deserves a trophy for once.

Should Win: Amy Adams

Will Win: Cate Blanchett

Best Supporting Actress

I am going to begin by saying Jennifer Lawrence doesn’t deserve her nomination and was nominated for the same reason Meryl Streep was: because of her name being credited in a movie. That being said, everyone in Hollywood does not agree with me, as Lawrence has won the BAFTA and Golden Globe this year for “American Hustle”. She has two real competitors: June Squibb (“Nebraska”) and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave”). I thought Squibb was the best part of “Nebraska”; she was funny, angry and honest, often all at once. Nyong’o did a good job stirring up emotion in her role, and stands the best chance of beating Lawrence from sweeping the Big 3 awards. I really don’t know how this one will go; my gut says Lawrence, my logic says Nyong’o and my heart says Squibb. As long as Lawrence doesn’t win I’ll be happy, but deep down I fell I’m going to be disappoinlupita-jennifer-600x450ted come Sunday night.

Should Win: June Squibb

Will Win: Jennifer Lawrence…or Lupita Nyong’o, I really truthfully haven’t a clue.

‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ is Slow and Gloomy

Inside_Llewyn_Davis_Poster

There are some people in the movie industry whose films you just can never seem to like. There people like Adam Sandler who are understandably disliked because they are lazy and consistently put out subpar products. However for me, the person, or persons, whose films I can never seem to enjoy, no matter how hard I may try, are Joel and Ethan Coen. And their new film, “Inside Llewyn Davis” does not help change my opinion very much.

The film follows folk singer Llewyn Davis (Oscar Issac) and the struggles he faces as he tries to make it in 1961 New York City. Carrey Mulligan and Justin Timberlake also star. The Coens wrote the script and direct.

The movie is just about a lot of depressed, angry and/or confused people struggling to make it in the world. There is no real joy to be found, and by the end of the movie Llewyn is no better off than he was at the beginning of the film. If you are going to make a movie that follows one main character, some sort of development, characterization or at the very least resolution is expected. But instead the Coens just travel from scene to scene in an effort to include as many of their trademark abstract characters as they can.

That is one of the reasons I don’t like the Coens. With the exception of “No Country for Old Men”, every one of their movies is about characters who have these quirky or dark personalities, a lot of which are unlike any person you would find in the real world. I just have never been a fan of their awkward and dry humor.

Not everything about the movie is negative, however. The main actor, Oscar Issac, is great. He is the only reason the film is watchable, to be honest. We aren’t sure if we should be rooting for Llewyn or not, because for as sympathetic as we feel for him, we also come to realize he may have dug his hole for himself, but Issac has a sense of charisma that is just too much to overlook.

But my favorite part of the film is John Goodman. In his ten minutes of screen time he has some very funny lines of dialogue and when he showed up I thought maybe the movie would get better but nope. They just abandon him and move on with the film; literally.

The music in the movie is very good; I have to give them that credit. I’m not the biggest folk song fan in the world but my foot started tapping whenever a character would pick up a guitar and start to play. All but one of the songs was recorded and sung live (Les Mis style) and it showed; it didn’t feel forced or fake.

I really cannot recommend “Inside Llewyn Davis”. One great performance and some catchy songs were not enough to overcome a dull script and a plot that doesn’t go anywhere. The highlights of Oscar Issac’s performance will be all over the place come Oscar season and you can look up the songs on iTunes or YouTube, so there is really no reason to see the movie.

I wish the Coens had broken their form and made a coherent, enjoyable movie about music, and instead of this depressing and gloomy picture. There is the patented Coen ending that will leave you confused and rethinking the movie, but unlike their other films, you don’t care if you figure out what it all means.

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘Lone Survivor’ Is Brutal and Heartbreaking

220px-Lone_Survivor_poster

America and movies. Those are two of the things that I love most in this world. And “Lone Survivor”, the film based on the true events of a failed Navy SEALs operation, combines my two loves into one package.

Written and directed by Peter Berg, “Lone Survivor” stars Mark Wahlberg, Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch and Ben Foster as four Navy SEALs who go on a mission to kill a high ranking Taliban official. When their operation is compromised, the group must fight their way out of the Afghani Mountains.

When dealing with a film that is based on a true story, especially one that is as tragic and heartbreaking as this one, there is very little wiggle room a director can take if he wants to remain credible. Unfortunately all too often when a film slaps the “based on a true story” label in the front of its trailer it is just a marketing ploy.

However with “Lone Survivor”, Berg slept and ate with real Navy SEAL members while writing the script and designing the action scenes. The man on whom the film is based, Marcus Luttrell, was along for every step of production. The four main actors all went through military training in order to function like an actual unit. And it is all these things and more that make “Lone Survivor” one of the most realistic war movies of all-time.

The film is essentially one prolonged action scene, and for the most part that is alright. While the continuous action inhibits the film from having a real flow, it never feels like overkill. The movie, shot entirely in New Mexico, is at times entertaining to watch, but more often than not it is gritty, gruesome and heartbreaking to see these four young men go through hell.

All of the action is shot wonderfully, give or take some shaky cam every now and again, and the stunt work was outstanding. On more than one occasion the soldiers have to jump off a cliff and roll down a hill in all their gear, and you feel the impact of every snapping branch and crushing of each bone. It is just incredibly intense and major props go out to Berg and his team.

Every performance in this movie is fantastic as well. Each actor went to the friends and family of the man they were portraying in order to fully become that person and it shows. Every character has a different personality, which gives the film an extra layer.

As great as the acting is, however, the film suffers from the same problem as “Gravity” in that there is little characterization. We are essentially handed the characters and then when they are thrown into battle we are only rooting for their survival because they are in this horrible situation that we could never conceive being in.

The biggest thing that stuck with me upon leaving the theater, however, was trying to figure out the stance of the film; whether it was pro or anti-war. Because for as many “America, heck yeah!” moments and depictions of heroism and brotherhood the film had, there is the overarching thought that all these men died for nothing, and that these kinds of tragedies happen all too often. I feel like the movie was trying hard to convey some sort of ideal, but it just got lost behind its action.

There really isn’t anything incredibly wrong with “Lone Survivor”; in fact most every department involved did an outstanding job, including cinematography, special effects or make-up. The film’s biggest flaw may be that its scope was too big and it isn’t really about anything.

The men who died as part of the failed SEALs operation, and all men and women who have served up until this day, deserve nothing but the highest respect for their sacrifices and this movie does a noble job at honoring them. “Lone Survivor” may not be the best war movie ever made, but it is entertaining while at the same time brutally honest and heartbreaking. While not for the faint of heart, it is a film all should watch to see first-hand what the best and bravest do.

Critics Rating: 7/10

Top 10 Films of 2013

There were plenty of good films in 2013, and a few great ones. Here are my top 10 films of 2013. If you disagree with my rankings, or even hate one of the movies on here, then too bad, they’re my opinions. Welcome to the internet, my friend.

Honorable mention goes to “Gravity”, which was number 11 on my list and was one of the most visually stunning films in the history of cinema.

220px-Saving_Mr__Banks_Theatrical_Poster10. Saving Mr. Banks

The movie about how Mary Poppins got made into a movie turned out to be as entertaining as it was emotional. Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson both nail it as Walt Disney and P.L. Travers respectively, and the songs were infectious.

220px-This-is-the-End-Film-Poster9. This Is the End

A very fun time at the movies. Huge credit to Seth Rogen who not only gave a funny performance, but wrote a hilarious script and gave a solid directorial debut alongside Evan Goldberg.

worlds end8. The World’s End 

In a year filled with apocalypse films, this British comedy from Simon Pegg and Nick Frost was as entertaining as a sci-fi as it was as a comedy. Edgar Wright’s direction was quick paced and electric and it had some great social satire.

220px-Monsters_University_poster_37. Monsters University

Disney-Pixar nailed it again with this prequel, and while it may not be as memorable as the Toy Story sequels or even the first Monsters Inc., “University” had some great laughs for both kids and adults and was gorgeous to look at.

220px-Iron_Man_3_theatrical_poster6. Iron Man 3

Immensely entertaining and featuring a very witty script from Shane Black (who also did a great job directing), this third Iron Man may not have been as good as the first film but it was pretty darn close, and was by and far better than this year’s other Avengers film, Thor 2.

12_Years_a_Slave_film_poster5. 12 Years a Slave

Great performances highlight this brutal look into American history. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender knock their performances out of the park and while this film is by no means entertaining, it is very good and the ending will leave not a dry eye in the house.

Dallas_Buyers_Club_poster4. Dallas Buyers Club

Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto carry this movie to the heights it reaches as AIDS victims who open a pharmacy full of unsanctioned drugs. Both of these men transcend acting and become their characters, and the film was as fun as it was honest.

Prisoners2013Poster3. Prisoners

Unbelievably intense, this film had great performances from its star cast, including Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal. It had several twists and turns and the ending had me on the edge of my seat and my eyes locked on the screen. I don’t think my heart has ever pounded so hard in my chest while watching a movie.

WallStreet2013poster2. The Wolf of Wall Street

Just a great film. Leonardo DiCaprio was nothing short of brilliant in his role, and the fact that this movie is based on a true story just makes it even better. Some of the best writing I have ever seen in a film. It is just an all-around crazy ride that you need to see to believe.

Captain_Phillips_Poster1. Captain Phillips

The moment the credits began to roll after this movie I knew I had just watched the top film of 2013. Tom Hanks killed it in the title role, including some of the best acting I have ever seen in the film’s climax. Meanwhile newcomer Barkhad Abdi was menacing as the pirate leader and Paul Greengrass’ direction was incredibly intense. The final ten minutes left me in shock and I couldn’t shake the movie off.

‘Wolf of Wall Street’ Immense Irrelevant Fun

WallStreet2013poster

Imagine if Patrick Bateman and Gordon Gekko had a love child, and then that child was raised by Charlie Sheen. You would end up with Jordan Belfort, the main character from Martin Scorsese’s new film “The Wolf of Wall Street”. Based on the true story, Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Belfort, a young Wall Street stockbroker who gets caught up in illegal trading and federal corruption.

Leonardo DiCaprio has had a fantastic career, and the man is not even 40 years old. The one thing he does not have is an Oscar. When most people hear that they are shocked because he is such a big name, but it is true. We live in a world where Nicolas Cage and Eminem have Oscar trophies, and Leonardo DiCaprio doesn’t. I’ll let that sink in for a second…

If DiCaprio doesn’t win the Oscar for Best Actor for his portrayal of Belfort, the little faith I have left in the Academy will be lost. He gives everything he has to the role, leaving nothing on the table or the viewer’s imagination. Whether he is giving an inspirational speech to the members of his firm or on a bad drug trip, he is a blast to watch. Belfort is an awful human being and does some despicable things, but we can’t help but like the guy. His charisma and charm are simply too much, and much like Belfort can sell anything to anyone, DiCaprio sells us the character.

Every other actor in the movie is phenomenal as well, the two standouts being Jonah Hill and Matthew McConaughey. Hill continues to venture outside the realm of comedy, first with “Moneyball” and now in “Wolf”. He has great chemistry as DiCaprio’s right hand man and much like DiCaprio he dedicates himself to the character (to the point of eating a live goldfish).

McConaughey, who had himself a remarkable 2013 that included a Golden Globe and probable Oscar nomination for “Dallas Buyers Club”, plays Belfort’s mentor. He has a monologue early in the film that was as funny as it was brilliant. Credit to the writer Terrence Winter for putting the words on paper but it is McConaughey that just made those words come alive. I really wish he had been in the movie more because he was honestly my favorite character.

The movie clocks in at 3 hours long, but unlike things such as The Hobbit trilogy, it earns and warrants that run time. There wasn’t a second I was not entertained for one reason or another, and at no point did I look at my phone to check the time. There may have been a few scenes that ran a little long, but I never got mad at the film or felt like it was deliberately wasting my time.

Now this film is not for everyone. Not only does it have that running time of 3 hours, but it almost earned an NC-17 rating. There is an incredible amount of sex, drugs and language; in fact the movie officially holds the record for most f-words in a non-documentary with 414 uses. Many of these obscene occurrences are crucial to the plot and are an accurate portrayal of Belfort’s life, and it is debauchery at its highest form, however the easily offended may want to avoid from the film.

It is worth mentioning that the film’s first third was perfect. I love movies about beginnings and origins, so seeing Belfort build his corrupt company from scratch was immensely entertaining. The rest of the film is very good, too, albeit for completely different reasons.

There really is nothing “The Wolf of Wall Street” gets wrong aside from its pushy running time and slight tone issues. DiCaprio gives one of the best performances of his shining career, and all the supporting cast add in some big laughs and entertaining pieces of dialogue. Scorsese does a good job capturing all the irrelevancy on camera and it is one of my favorite films by him. I really don’t want to ruin anything more about what this movie is, so much like a stockbroker you are just going to have to take me by my word on this.

Critics Rating: 9/10

‘Mr. Banks’ Full of Magic and Heart

220px-Saving_Mr__Banks_Theatrical_Poster

             It may come as a surprise, especially when you look at all the blockbusters that Hollywood releases nowadays, but there once was a time where movies were entertaining due to the charm of its actors and the wit of the writing. “Saving Mr. Banks” not only is such a film, but it depicts the making of one as well.

Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney, who is struggling to get the film rights for Mary Poppins from author P.L. Travers, played by Emma Thompson. Disney then invites Travers to Los Angeles in an attempt to persuade her. John Lee Hancock directs.

When depicting a real life person in a film, there are so many things that an actor has to get just right, because there is an actual template that they must follow. Both Hanks and Thompson nail their portrayals of their respective historical figures, from Walt Disney’s Midwestern drawl and signature mustache to P.L. Travers’ gleeful nagging and British tone. Both actors become the people they are portraying and are joys to watch.

The real standout of the film, however, is Colin Farrell, who plays Travers’ alcoholic father. Farrell is nothing short of fantastic playing a man whose disease is slowly separating him from his family, but he still has love for his daughters. Farrell provides the film with the majority of its emotion, both laughter and sadness.

Now this may be produced by Disney and be about the making of a children’s movie, but “Mr. Banks” is not all cotton candy and rainbows. There are some seriously deep, almost depressing moments involving Travers and her father, which is both a strength and fault of the film.

While the more heavy tone is handled well and keeps the movie from being too over-the-top schmaltzy, it sometimes comes without warning and the tonal shift may take the viewer out of the film. Once again, it was done very well by Farrell and the director Hancock, just, you know, heads up.

Of course the movie is not 100% historically accurate and the portrayals of the characters are idealized, particularly that of Walt Disney. I mean, the movie is being produced by Disney, so I doubt they are going to show the side of Walt that was a ruthless businessman who was hesitant to give any creative say to a headstrong woman. But that “sanitation” is expected, and Hanks does a good job at showing us the side of Walt Disney that society wants to see.

“Saving Mr. Banks” features great performances across the board, including B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman as the musical Sherman brothers and Paul Giamatti as Travers’ limo driver. Director John Lee Hancock handles most of the dramatic scenes with finesse, and the Mary Poppins songs will keep you humming long after you’ve left the theater. Sure, it may be Oscar-bait, but it is a well-executed film and fun to watch Hanks and Thompson go back and forth. And in a world of sequels and big budget blockbusters, that is good enough for me.

Critics Rating: 8/10

‘American Hustle’ Mainly Bells and Whistles

American_Hustle_2013_poster

Sometimes in movies it is very apparent the actors had much more fun making the film than the audience has watching it. That pretty much sums up “American Hustle”, the new David O. Russell film with an all-star cast including Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Lawrence.

Set in the late 1970’s, the film follows con man Irving and his partner Sydney (Bale and Adams), who are forced to work with an FBI agent (Cooper) and take down politicians in exchange for their own freedom.

The premise of the movie is very intriguing, and could have been something fantastic. People trying to scam the mafia, corrupt Congressmen and other con artists all in one big deal? With a tighter script it might have been like “Goodfellas” meets “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” (how’s that for a movie reference?). But instead we get a movie that decides to focus more on its characters, rather than its plot or story arch.

According to Christian Bale, Russell allowed the actors to improvise their lines whenever they felt the desire, even if it changed the plot. This may seem like a creative, fun idea at the time however the end result is the movie lacking solid flow or a true narrative (try and decipher whether this is a drama, comedy or political thriller, because it doesn’t have a clue). It seems like the whole film was just a scene with a punchline or dramatic moment, followed by another scene with a punchline or dramatic moment which is almost unrelated to the previous scene.

All the actors do a fine job, particularly Bale. His dedication to any role he does is admirable, as he gained 40 pounds to play Irving. Bale went from dangerously skinny in “The Machinist” to ripped in “Batman Begins”. He then lost weight again for “The Fighter”, and had to put muscle back on for “The Dark Knight Rises”. Bale is the best part of “Hustle”, as he plays a man who deep down has good intentions but can’t seem to get out of the rut he has put himself into with his scamming.

The rest of the cast is solid, albeit nothing memorable. I’m sure they will all earn their award nominations, however I couldn’t help but get the feeling their roles could be done by anyone, particularly that of Jennifer Lawrence, who plays Bale’s wife. Until the film’s climax she really isn’t anything but an extended cameo, and I just never felt she brought anything special to the table (except that she is Jennifer Lawrence).

There are flashes in “Hustle” that made me think the film would rise above the mediocrity that had so far been presented, but it never does. I’m not sure if it was the pacing or the lack of any true resolution, but I just never got absorbed into its world of 1970’s New Jersey. People disappear from the plot never to be seen again, and others do actions that are just completely out of character and leave you shaking your head wondering why that just happened.

“American Hustle” may have looked good on paper, and it is clear the actors all had a fun time with each other while filming it, but in the end it just feels like a missed opportunity. The ending is clever and some of the dialogue is sharp, but it just doesn’t come together in a pretty bow, which is a disappointment considering the cast. The movie may not be a scam, but it certainly sold itself short.

Critics Rating: 6/10

Buy Into ‘Dallas Buyers Club’

Dallas_Buyers_Club_poster

            It seems every year there is a performance from an actor that transcends dedication. They immerse themselves into the character, often involving physical appearance. In 2012 it was Daniel Day-Lewis in “Lincoln”, and he took home the Oscar for Best Actor. This year there are two of those performances, both coming from one film: “Dallas Buyers Club”.

An unrecognizable Matthew McConaughey is Ron Woodroof, a real-life cowboy living in 1985 Dallas, Texas. When Woodroof is given the news that he has AIDS, he begins to investigate and then sell alternative forms of medicine, and founds the Dallas Buyers Club. Jean-Marc Vallee directs.

McConaughey lost 38 pounds for the role of Woodroof, and his performance is as just as dedicated. He plays a flawed man, partaking in drugs and sex (it was the ‘80’s, after all) and is shocked when he is given the diagnosis. However once he comes to terms with his condition, he begins to fight the FDA and hospitals, whom he claims are only worsening the condition of AIDS victims, all while running his own drug-dealing ring.

One of the patients Ron comes in contact with is Rayon, a cross dressing AIDS victim played masterfully by Jared Leto. Leto himself lost 40 pounds for the role and it shows. But his portrayal of Rayon is memorizing and it is one of the more dedicated performances in recent memory. Right away we see that Rayon is tender and a lover of life, however his drug abuse may be getting in the way of his health and chances of beating the disease.

While “Dallas” rests purely on the scrawny shoulders of McConaughey and Leto, the movie has moments of genuine humor and wit. Seeing Woodroof try and get between the Mexico and the United States border in various disguises is entertaining, and the scenes where Ron takes on the possibly corrupt FDA will make viewers just as frustrated as Woodroof and Rayon. It connects with viewers, as we realize that many of government agencies that we trust to keep us healthy and safe may not have our best interests at heart.

The only flaws with the movie are the final fifteen minutes feel a bit drawn out, and the film doesn’t seem to know when it wants to end. It has several scenes where it seems to be rapping up, only to open another door it must then close.

In a career of underappreciated performances, Matthew McConaughey should finally get the attention, and more importantly the praise, that he has long deserved. His performance is full of every human emotion in the book, and we find ourselves rooting for Ron, even when his flaws and inner-evils come to light.

With two truly masterful performances from McConaughey and Leto, “Dallas Buyers Club” is an entertaining and heartwarming movie, while at the same time being brutally honest, frustrating and devastating.

Critics Rating: 8/10

’12 Years a Slave’ an Unflinching Look at History

12_Years_a_Slave_film_poster

Hollywood is often accused, and rightfully so, of glossing over harsh topics and sugar coating grey areas in history. But Steve McQueen’s “12 Years a Slave” refuses to take part in that practice. The film shows American slavery in all of its horrors and evils, and it makes for an unforgettable, albeit at times uncomfortable, film going experience.

Based on a true story, Chiwetel Ejiofor plays Solomon Northup, a free black man living in upstate New York in 1841. When Northup is kidnapped and sold into slavery, he must find a way back to his family. Steve McQueen directs.

“12 Years” is no “Django Unchained” revenge fantasy tale. It is the gritty facts about the forced labor of an entire race of people, and the horrible conditions under which they suffered. There are several lashing scenes, one of which is painfully realistic and disturbing. But it hits you that human beings actually endured this; it isn’t some fictional punishment that only exists in the movies.

The acting in the movie is nothing short of excellent. Ejiofor keeps a calm presence most of the film, however when he feels he is being mistreated even by slave standards, he snaps and goes on rage-fueled rants about freedom and how he doesn’t want to just survive; he wants to live. It is a multi-layered performance that gives the film’s hero a special amount of humanity.

The film’s best performance, however, comes from Michael Fassbender, who plays a sadistic plantation owner. Fassbender portrays a man who is naturally wicked and more than just a product of his environment. He gets angry at the smallest things, such as Solomon having conversations without his permission, and whips his slaves if they pick less cotton than the prior day. It is a chilling performance that is sure to earn Fassbender award talk.

The film is not without its flaws, however. At times we feel like Solomon is merely a spectator to these horrific events, not living them, and that makes us less empathetic towards him. Also, the whole concept of the audience rooting for one hero to make it back to his family is a bit unfair, for lack of a better word. Yes, this is one movie and one story, but there were millions of people separated from their families in real life and most all of them never saw their loved ones again. So when the film tries to give off this sense of hope, it is a bit diluted since it is really the exception to the rule.

Problems with the story arc notwithstanding, “12 Years a Slave” is a gripping, horrifying and brutally honest piece of American cinema that shows the darkest part of our nation’s history. Few films have ever dared to be so loyal to their dark source material, and almost 200 years after it took place, it is great to see the story of one man’s triumph over the evils of slavery.

A moving score by Hans Zimmer and steady direction from Steve McQueen, not to mention the two powerhouse performances from Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Fassbender, make “12 Years a Slave” a necessary film that needs to be experienced by people of every age, young and old. It is a tale of perseverance, determination and triumph of the human spirit, and those traits are what make life, and the movies, so great.

Critics Rating: 8/10