Tag Archives: nomination

Carell, Tatum Highlight Slow-Burning ‘Foxcatcher’

Leave a reply

Foxcatcher_First_Teaser_PosterWhat do Michael Scott, the Incredible Hulk and Jenko from 21 Jump Street have in common? They all give some of the best dramatic performances of 2014 in “Foxcatcher”.

Directed by Bennett Miller, who also helmed “Capote” and “Moneyball”, “Foxcatcher” is a  thriller based on the true story of millionaire John du Pont (Steve Carell) who become the sponsor of USA wrestlers Mark and Dave Schultz (Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo).

A huge fan of Steve Carell and excited to see what he could do in a dramatic role, I personally have been looking forward to this film for a long time. Originally due out in December 2013, it was delayed a full year to complete editing, so I have been counting down the days until its release since Oscar Season kicked off two months ago. And much to my pleasure, “Foxcatcher” does not disappoint.

What drives the film are the performances; Tatum, Carell and Ruffalo all shine in their own way. Tatum, coming off the comedy hit “22 Jump Street”, and Carell, from “Anchorman” and “The Office” fame, aren’t exactly who you think of when you hear “Oscar-worthy performance”, but both give just that.

Playing a meathead athlete may not seem too much of a stretch for Tatum considering his physique and persona, but Tatum’s Mark Schultz requires so much more. Stuck in his brother’s shadow despite himself winning Olympic gold, Mark takes up du Pont’s offer to come and train at his estate, seeing it as a chance to separate himself from his brother. While attempting this separation, Mark’s mental state becomes more strained, and Tatum is near perfect showing the emotional toll, as well as physical repercussions, of this.

Carell is almost unrecognizable as John du Pont, a man with an almost homoerotic obsession with the sport of wrestling, a desperate desire to impress his mother, and, as he says, a want to “see America soar again”. Comedians often have dark sides, it’s what made Michael Keaton perfect as Batman and why Robin Williams could flip a switch and give a serious performance. Carell has several scenes where he gives a chuckle-inducing line, like wanting to be called “Golden Eagle”, but nearly every time du Pont walks into a room, especially in the final 30 minutes, you feel uneasy and on edge, because you just have a feeling that this guy could just snap.

Ruffalo has his moments to stand out as well, especially in the second half of the film when he comforts a quickly deteriorating Mark.

What may turn some people off from “Foxcatcher” is the fact that it is a candle burning film, meaning it is a lot of build-up. At times the film may feel like it has no true aim, or even seem uneventful, but it is all building to a fantastically executed climax by Miller. The acting, the score and the direction all come to a perfect head, resulting in a final scene that is still etched in my brain and gets better as more time passes.

“Foxcatcher” is a fantastically acted, wonderfully directed thriller that takes a while to build but is well worth the wait. Tatum, Carell and Ruffalo all have scenes in which they are brilliant, and whether you know how this story ends or not, the final half hour of this film will have you leaning forward in your seat and your heartbeat slowly increasing.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Keaton and Norton are Perfect in ‘Birdman’

Birdman_posterSometimes a film has a large scope and just isn’t able to fill it. Whether it is the visual ambitions or just from a technical standpoint, a director’s goals just sometimes don’t pan out on screen. “Birdman” is absolutely not one of those films.

“Birdman” stars Michael Keaton as a washed up actor who is known for formally portraying a superhero in movies (kind of ironic). To try and remain relevant and prove he is capable of being a true actor, he mounts a Broadway play while at the same time battling his family, his costars and himself. Edward Norton and Emma Stone costar and Alejandro González Iñárritu writes and directs.

“Birdman” does something I’ve never seen before: it shoots the entire film as if it is one continuous take, with each scene seemingly transitioning to the next with no edits. While obviously the entire movie was not shot in 120 straight minutes, each scene seems to be one take. This is not only is impressive from a filmmaking standpoint, but also becomes mind-blowing when you think of the pressure that put on the actors to not screw up; and is even more amazing when you see the results.

Michael Keaton and Edward Norton give two of 2014’s best performances, if not two of the better acting jobs in recent years. Keaton plays a man trying to remain relevant well past his prime, but “mocks Twitter and won’t even get a Facebook page” as his daughter (Stone) says. He has moments of dark humor, the entire film does, but it is the scenes that show him fighting his inner demon (in the form of the voice of a man in a bird costume) that are the best.

Norton may be even better playing a Broadway actor who thinks his he is God’s gift to the stage, and when someone does something to ruin his techniques, he voices his distaste, even if it’s in the middle of a live performance. There is one scene between Norton and Stone (who is fantastic in her own right) that is just insanely fun and pretty damn well-executed, and if Norton gets the Oscar nomination that he deserves then that scene will likely be used as his submission tape.

As near-perfect as the acting in “Birdman” is, the messages it sends are just as good. One is all about the differences between actors and celebrities, and how many actors have traded in genuine craft for capes, and judge their career on weekend box office totals. Another underlying message is that critics are just those who failed at the craft themselves; like they say, those who can’t do, teach (ouch).

The score of the film is also amazing, and it seemed that on numerous occasions it was the transition between scenes with its drums and symbols.

“Birdman” is nearly perfectly executed on near all fronts. The acting and score are phenomenal, Alejandro González Iñárritu’s direction and screenplay are infectious, and the continuous shot gimmick is anything but (next movie I see the edits and different angles are going to be painfully glaring). The third’s final act gets a little out there, and the ending in particular is a bit ambiguous, but these don’t ruin the film. Much like Keaton hearing the voice of Birdman, I can’t get Norton and Keaton out of my head, and I’m sure this won’t be the last that I, or you, hear about their performances for a long time.

Critics Rating: 9/10

‘Fury’ Is Powerful, Gritty and One of Year’s Best

Leave a reply

Fury_2014_posterBrad Pitt and World War II. So far, it has proven to be a potent combonation. First Pitt was hunting Nazis in “Inglorious Basterds”, now he is commanding a tank in Germany.

“Fury”, written and directed by “End of Watch’s” David Ayer, tells the tale of five American soldiers who get stuck in their tank behind enemy lines. Outnumbered and outgunned, they must fight their way through and defeat the surrounding Nazi forces. Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña and Jon Bernthal portray the members of the tank.

There’s really no point of sugar coating it or beating around the bush: “Fury” is one of the year’s best movies and one of the better, and most realistic, war films of all-time. From the haunting depictions of battle, to the heart-wrenching performances, to the high production value everything about this film is as beautiful as it is chilling.

The performances across the board are nothing short of fantastic, with the standouts being Pitt and Lerman. Pitt plays a man who has clearly let the evils of war shatter any morals and sensitivity he ever had, and this is demonstrated when on the first day of the job for the tank’s new recruit (Lerman), Pitt orders him to execute an unarmed German solider.

I have never been a Logan Lerman fan, I believe he plays a pretentious, spoiled boy in every role he takes (“Noah” and “3:10 to Yuma”, just to name two), but the man shut me up with his performance here. He is a soldier who was pulled away from his desk and put on the front lines, and it seems like he will never get used to the idea of taking a human life. But throughout the film we see him begin to change and become more desensitized to the notion of war, but he never loses the innocence that we empathize with.

The rest of the cast are all cookie-cutter roles (minority member, jerky sociopath and Bible-thumper), but the actors all have their moments to shine.

Ayer has proven that he is more than capable of shooting an engaging action scene, but never while sacrificing drama or content. Even when the bullets are flying and shells are being rocketed off, we see the characters’ weaknesses and at times hesitation in their actions. Even at the end of the film, in the midst of an extended battle, the action never feels derivative or redundant, because we are getting heavy doses of human drama, accompanied by a fantastic score from composer Steven Price.

What holds “Fury” back from the greatness it so clearly was striving for is a scene in the middle of the film. After taking a town, Pitt and Lerman come across two German women, who proceed to make lunch. The scene drags on for 22 minutes (I remember looking at my phone twice), and in the end the entire interaction took place simply for a plot point down the road.

If that one scene had been shorter, which it should have been, then “Fury” may have been able to be mentioned in the same breath as “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Hurt Locker” for greatest war movie of all-time. That being said, “Fury” is still a fantastically shot, grittily depicted and powerfully acted war story, which features a climax that had my theater silent when the credits began to roll.

Critics Rating: 9/10

‘Inside Llewyn Davis’ is Slow and Gloomy

Leave a reply

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

‘Mr. Banks’ Full of Magic and Heart

Leave a reply

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

Buy Into ‘Dallas Buyers Club’

Leave a reply

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

Charming Leads Enough in ‘Enough Said’

Leave a reply

enoughThere are some movies that are made just to serve a purpose. “Enough Said” was made to be a relatable rom-com for adults. The film stars Julia Louis-Dreyfus and James Gandolfini (his last starring role before his tragic passing in June) as separate divorced parents who begin to date each other until things become complicated. You know, pretty basic rom-com plot. Nicole Holofcener wrote and directs the film.

When Gandolfini first appears on the screen you are taken back for a second. Not only is he not portraying a mobster, but you realize you are seeing a completely new side to an actor who will never be seen on film again. In his first ever romantic comedy role (one of the few movies where he doesn’t kill anybody, in fact), he plays a tender, lovable ex-husband. While some of his comedic deliveries aren’t as fluid or poignant as they could have been (the fault of either the direction or the new territory), Galdolfini’s last main role is possibly one of his best, simply because it showed his range as an actor.

The rest of the cast is solid. Louis-Dreyfus, a TV star most of her career, has wit in the starring role as a single mom about to send her only daughter off to college. She provides the film’s biggest laughs and her chemistry with Gandolfini is what propels the film beyond the normal clichéd rom-com.

The movie is labeled a romantic comedy but it focuses much more on the romantic drama aspect more than the comedy. There are a few funny one-liners, one solid running gag however some jokes just fall flat or miss completely. Some plot points are never fully explained and some characters randomly fizzle out but what rom-com that is perfect?

“Enough Said” is just one of those movies that isn’t necessarily entertaining, but you are never bored. It is made for a very specific audience, one of which I am not part of, however I can recognize and respect the efforts of the filmmakers, while the chemistry between the lovable Gandolfini and the humorous Louis-Dreyfus holds our interest. And I think I’ve said enough.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Gravity’ Visually Stunning Andrenalin Rush

Leave a reply

gravity-poster

You know how people complain CGI is overused, replaces story and make films mindless? Well “Gravity” takes that stereotype and throws it out the window. The film stars Sandra Bullock and George Clooney as two astronauts who are stranded in space when debris hits their station. They then must work together to make their way to another ship on the other side of the globe. Alfonso Cuarón directs.

Do not drink Red Bull before you see this movie; you will die. The film is so intense that your heart may just explode. The amount of tension that Cuarón builds, especially in the film’s climax, is just unreal. Every scene is better than the last as we follow Bullock and Clooney in space, a black abyss where no one can hear you scream. And Tom Hanks thought he had it bad in “Castaway”…

You’ve probably heard it in every review of this movie, but it warrants clarifying: this movie is visually stunning. I can now put “I have been to outer space” on my job application. At no point in the film did I think that what I was looking at was computer generated or green screen. As far as I know the actors actually went on the most expensive location shoot ever and filmed the movie in space. From the aerial shots of different continents to the sea of stars in the background, every shot in “Gravity” is stunning and will leave you breathless.

What is holding the film back from being a masterpiece is the lack of character development. The running time is only 90 minutes and we are thrust into the action, so we learn near nothing about the characters except that Bullock is a rookie and Clooney is on his last ever mission (so of course something bad is going to happen). The only attachment we feel towards the astronauts is that they are fellow human beings and they are in a situation that we can all agree is horrifically terrifying. But maybe that is enough.

“Gravity” is a Hollywood rarity: a blockbuster with intellect. You have to see this in a theater; experiencing it on anything short of a 40 foot screen will not do it justice. Full of amazing visuals, great performances and intense direction, “Gravity” is just unique in all the best ways.

Critics Rating: 8/10