ARRIVAL: A Perfect December's Film

In the month of December, equally important to re-watching our favorite holiday films and sampling ones we’re unfamiliar with is getting to the theater to see new releases. And that is because of the glorious Oscar season (early November to late December), when studios release the most critically touted films of the year. I am here to discuss one particularly interesting and thought-provoking film that is considered a “frontrunner” for the Best Picture Academy Award in 2017. That movie is Denis Villeneuve’s Arrival; and it is spectacular.

Arrival follows Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams), who is teamed with Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), and recruited by Colonel Weber (Forest Whitaker) to decode and interpret a foreign language used by aliens who have peacefully landed in 12 different locations across the globe. To tell more would be to spoil any of the fascinating twists and turns that the movie makes. That would be a grave mistake, for Arrival is a masterful sci-fi film that demands a totally uncorrupted viewing.

I must first note what entered my mind upon my viewing of Arrival: here is a movie that took a few ideas out of Steven Spielberg’s playbook. It undeniably resembles Close Encounters of the Third Kind with respect to plot, characters, and set design. And I couldn’t have enjoyed it any more. The great Martin Scorsese once said that directing is what one can “smuggle in” from other films. That is evidenced here by director Denis Villeneuve, who successfully pays homage to “Close Encounters” while at the same time creating an original work all his own.

Among Villeneuve’s other work includes 2013’s Prisoners. Like in that absorbing drama, in Arrival, Villeneuve creates a cerebral, chilling atmosphere and fills the screen with soft grey colors. The musical score is enigmatic and repetitive. All of the necessary components for the foundation of a disturbing, thoughtful sci-fi film are here. Fortunately, the movie takes advantage of them.

One of the ways in which Arrival excels is its performances. Amy Adams has the most screen time and gives one of her more memorable performances as the reputable professor and linguist. She articulates the complex emotions of her character through her aware facial expressions and her sensitive delivery of lines. Jeremy Renner is solid, as always, as her supportive and caring colleague. His character has more everyman values than his usual roles do; and I believed him for every second. What’s more, Forest Whitaker as the order-following colonel is extremely effective and his convincing performance here is yet another testament to his versatility as an actor.

It almost goes without saying that most first-rate sci-fi films of the 21st century offer knockout visuals. Arrival is no exception. Beyond the incredible CGI, the movie offers a certain mystique to what we see. We never quite get a full view of the aliens because of an eerie white mist and, in many close-up scenes, there is only focus on certain portions, or characters, on screen. This manipulation of background and camera focus is used to great effect by the director to produce an additional layer of intrigue.

My uncle and colleague wasn’t as enthusiastic about this film as I was. He complained that it was like a puzzle with a number of pieces missing. I obviously disagreed. But I did feel that the movie wasn’t long enough. Some of the most memorable sci-fi films of the recent past, like  Interstellar, run at well over two-and-a-half hours and Arrival is only 118 minutes long. This is not to say that a contemporary sci-fi film cannot be successful with a short running time. This is just to say that when Arrival’s credits rolled, I was settled back into my chair expecting at least twenty more minutes of elaboration.

Arrival is PG-13, family-appropriate for the most part, and certainly targets a more general audience than Interstellar (a more intricate and complex sci-fi film) did. Perhaps this shorter length that irked me will make viewing Arrival a more enjoyable experience for a family.

Written by Cole Pollyea

THE TOP 10 MOVIES OF 2013

The Top 10 Films of 2013

by Cole Pollyea

1. THE GREAT GATSBY

- Though it wasn't critically admired, I, as a film and classical tale enthusiast, was moved by this film on every level. With great performances, a unique soundtrack, astounding visuals, and an epic story that can't be dismissed, The Great Gatsby is, conclusively, the best film of the year.






2. AMERICAN HUSTLE

- American Hustle is a movie's movie. It's detailed, gritty, and incredibly well made. David O. Russell concocted yet another masterful piece of art that fuses groundbreaking performances with a juicy, mature story. 







3. DALLAS BUYERS CLUB

- Dallas Buyers Club is so many things. It's Matthew McConaughey's best performance of all time, Jared Leto's best performance of all time; it's one of the most hard-hitting, emotionally effective movies of the year, and it's, overall, a movie that I will revisit time and time again.

4. BLUE JASMINE

- Blue Jasmine is a mature, engaging, well made film that is about as real-life as anything this Oscar season. Cate Blanchett delivers a strong, noteworthy performance of the dynamic, well-created Jasmine. A powerful, thought provoking film, is what I'd call this movie.





5. HER

- As creative, wise, and innovative as they come, Her gets a strong recommendation from me because of its undeniable intelligence and absorbing moviegoing experience. Spike Jonze hits it out of the park.





6. NEBRASKA

- Alexander Payne paints a portrait of small-time, unnoticed life in Nebraska, and couldn't have done it any more sensitively. He has an admirable awareness of every character that encompasses screen time in this movie, and the payoff is enormous. Nebraska may not win any Academy Awards (may), but it sure is a solid candidate.



7. THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY

- Beautifully expressed and totally honest, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is included on my list because of the vision and intent in the eye of director and main actor, Ben Stiller. Look out for an artistic cameo by Sean Penn.









8. MAN OF STEEL


- Man of Steel is an epic must-see. It's an accurate, engrossing moviegoing experience that re-creates the tale of Superman with a modern touch. My only complaint is how it turns into a Michael Bay picture in the second half of its running time. Nonetheless, the performances and screenplay (for the first half) are enough to call this an instant classic.





9. GRAVITY 

- Gravity is a well acted, well shot thriller that is a solid, justifiable ninety minutes of movie watching. In terms of it's impact, I wouldn't say it's as epic or revolutionary as something like Open Water. It's main flaw lies in the script, which is why I found myself rather irritated with what I invested my empathy into. However, it moves quite a bit in the considerably short time it runs for.




10. PRISONERS

- Prisoners is a well filmed, sharp, frightening look at a kidnapping case that shook worlds. It begs comparison to Zodiac because of its eerily similar style and feel, and I couldn't help but notice that it just doesn't live up to that. Nonetheless, Prisoners ensures an absorbing, scary experience, and it packs in a lot of clever irony in the screenplay.

BLUE JASMINE

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Woody Allen
Year: 2013
Cast: Cate Blanchett
Genre: Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        From scene one of Blue Jasmine, I got the notion that this movie was going to be a lot of talking. This dictated that I was going to have to conquer my viewing with a cup of coffee in hand; so I did. Here's the report: Blue Jasmine is a solid entry into this year's Academy Awards. It's an engrossing movie that harbors exceptional characters and an even better cast to bring these characters to life. With all this in mind, I also took note of the fact that it's probably the unhappiest film of the year.

        Jasmine—played by Cate Blanchett—is a total mess. She takes Xanax to prevent herself from having nervous breakdowns on a daily basis because she decided lithium wouldn't do the trick. She drinks vodka and martinis at two o'clock in the afternoon, she lies, and she takes advantage of everyone around her to support the image she builds for herself in her head. She comes to San Francisco to stay with her sister and her two kids for awhile until she "gets back on her feet", though she, nor her sister, are sure this will ever happen. But by the tone of the movie, it's clear that this is not all there is to the story, so, while the whole process of this is happening, the movie zooms in on her life years before, when she was married to Hal (played with exuberance by Alec Baldwin), a hotshot businessman whose credibility becomes a risk for his job and family.

        This story parallel that the screenplay creates makes for an engaging, worthwhile moviegoing experience. The scenes that depict her relationship with her husband seamlessly flow into present day, which creates a sense of understanding for the main character whose flaws and shortcomings are all a result of her shipwreck of a marriage. There's a gap of time between these linear tellings that are, brilliantly, left to the viewer to depict. We aren't spoon fed the exact happenings and circumstances that made her so unstable, but we have a clue, and, to be sure, sympathy is had. It's not that we like Jasmine, or root for her, but we have an understanding for her that we feel no one else does. That's what makes this motion picture so moving.

        On top of that, what comes with the well-crafted film is a cast of seemingly veteran actors that make this a believable, upsettingly realistic movie. Cate Blanchett isn't nominated for an Oscar because of her stand-out performance or ability to take control of the screen. She's nominated for Best Actress because of her mere ability to encompass the dynamic character that is Jasmine. To begin with, she looks the part. Moreover, she commits every small action with even the slightest detail to embrace this character for what she is. In part, this is what makes Blue Jasmine such a convincing movie.

        The wonderful thing is, she's not the only one carrying weight; we have Alec Baldwin who gives a lively, incredible performance as Hal. The smooth, quick-to-think nature of his character is brought to life all too well. We start to, as audience members, fall subject to his charisma, well aware of his wrongdoings that Jasmine fell victim to. Then we have Sally Hawkins (who is nominated for Best Supporting Actress), Andrew Dice Clay, Louis C.K., and Bobby Canavale who contribute their best efforts to spice up this film; that's exactly what they did.

        And throughout the proceedings there is a evocative, unique soundtrack that consists of songs like "Blue Moon" from 1934 and "Back O'Town Blues" from the same time. These vintage songs that play over what's happening benefit the screenplay greatly by helping make more vivid what we are feeling as we watch what happens to the characters on-screen. There were a lot of films that came out this Oscar season, and some used music notably well. Take, for example, The Wolf of Wall Street. Others, like Dallas Buyers Club, the opposite. I'm glad to report that this insightful, artistic film is in the former category.

        Conclusively, I'd honestly say that Blue Jasmine is one of the best films of the year. However, it's elongated, talkative style of storytelling will most likely turn some viewers off, which is one of the reasons I think it wasn't nominated for Best Picture. With that being said, I'd like to point out that this movie has an admirable maturity about it. There isn't the slightest bit of sugarcoating, and, as a result, this movie isn't superficial in the least bit. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

ALL IS LOST

Cole's Rating: ★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: J.C. Chandor
Year: 2013
Cast: Robert Redford
Genre: Action/Adventure/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Stop me where I'm wrong. Robert Redford is stuck on a boat. Did I hear stop? I shouldn't have, because that's absolutely right. Robert Redford is stuck on a boat in All is Lost. Now, stop me where I'm wrong once more. Robert Redford is stuck on a boat and I care enough to watch him for nearly two hours. Did I hear stop? I definitely should have, because that is completely inaccurate.

        Cinematic escapism is an important thing nowadays. Being able to turn on a movie—a thriller—and become concerned with, and immersed in, the world that it creates is a desirable thing. The fact that All is Lost purports to be a movie that can serve as such a piece is an insult to our expectations. This movie's writing and direction, while steady, is merely unconvincing—and unsatisfactory. The screenplay doesn't create nearly enough opportunities to get to know the main character, and as a result, I'm left wondering how exactly the audience is supposed to care what happens to this man during his plight that is, while uninteresting, still well captured.

        While All is Lost isn't nominated for Best Picture, two other movies that share similar attributes are, being Captain Phillips and Gravity. I'm not a huge fan of Captain Phillips, but I do like Gravity, and I can say this: both of those movies are far more involving, and both far more worthwhile to watch. The reason for that is the screenplay for each movie seamlessly develops the characters in distress, and adds psychological layers that make it a viewing that is, well, more fun.

        All is Lost is, however, nominated for Sound Editing in this year's Academy Awards. It's status in these awards represent what I consider to its exact quality. I don't consider it a poorly made film because I'm someone who needs to be stimulated to an incredible extent in order to enjoy a movie, as I'm not. I just think that, ultimately, while its visual and sound effects may garner some attention, this movie, otherwise, just isn't worth viewing. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

HER

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Spike Jonze
Year: 2013
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Amy Adams, Rooney Mara
Genre: Drama/Romance/Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: R

        It's important to have insightful, fearless, innovative, and intelligent filmmakers like Spike Jonze in today's cinematic industry. Many of our modernistic ways haven't yet been put into perspective on film, but director Jonze does just that and more in his 2014 Best Picture nominee, Her.

        Her confidently throws us into the life of Theodore Twombly, a lonely man who works at a company that composes personal letters for people that can't or won't. He spends his nights restless and empty, and his days stuck in reality. This all changes when he becomes infatuated with the newest, highly futuristic OS1, a technology that communicates like a human, and starts to—theoretically—become one.

        Theodore is flawlessly executed by Joaquin Phoenix, who fits the role like a glove. His facial expressions, gestures, and the way by which he delivers dialogue is quiet, genuine, heartfelt, and incredibly powerful. There are pivotal scenes in the movie that couldn't have been expressed through any other actor. It feels like Jonze is the painter and Phoenix is the brush; these two were meant to work together to bring this movie to life, and the result is something to marvel at.

        Amy Adams, in her third movie of the year, has proven that any director who dare cast her is going to get his/her money's worth. She has the admirable ability to embody any given role in the wide spectrum that is film. Earlier this year, she played Lois Lane in Man of Steel with exuberance. Later on, she took on the job of American Hustle—which I believe she is going to receive an Academy Award for—and here, she plays Amy, a documentary filmmaker whose relationship with Theodore isn't really divulged and made important until the last half hour or so of the movie comes around. This last portion of the movie is perhaps the most tender; it's about then when the writing, performances, cinematography, and score all come together like members of an ensemble to bring home the point that the filmmaker was attempting to make. It's at this point in the film that Adams kicks into high gear, and creates a character whose self-realization is both touching and awing. In short, I know for certain that her role in Her didn't consume as much screen time as her role in American Hustle did. I can't say for certain, though, for which performance I'd applaud the talented Ms. Adams for more.

        There's a level of appreciation that has to be had for a writer who incorporates fashion statements from the past to add a layer of intelligence to a futuristic tale. Part of the reason why this film works so well is because of what we, the audience, see on-screen. Considering that he wears high-waisted trousers and collarless shirts, Joaquin Phoenix looks as comfortable as can be on screen in front of the beautiful filming site of Los Angeles. Moreover, the gracefulness of the intimate camerawork benefits every other artistic characteristic of this movie (including the musical score). These aspects are a lot to take in at once. But as one will discover, this movie appeals to all senses, and it's obvious that Jonze has a good grasp on, and awareness of, all of this. It's an atmospheric movie, and I can honestly say that there were few times when the filmmaker didn't have the grip that he should have had on me.

        With all of that being said, it's important to put on the table that I don't believe Her is going to win Best Picture. It's not the Academy's type of film; it's a precocious, sensitive satire that doesn't beg for attention. It's not the meaty, historically rich film that 12 Years A Slave is. However, this is something that I, as a film lover and maturing human being, am going to revisit as the years go by, as it is a movie of incredible wisdom that offers insight into human emotion and capability. It is the most exquisite, beautiful motion picture that has come along in a long time.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE NUT JOB

Cole's Rating: ★★

Director: Peter Lepeniotis
Year: 2014
Cast: Will Arnett, Brendan Fraser, Liam Neeson
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Comedy
MPAA Rating: PG


       Before seeing The Nut Job, know this: it's been done before. Animals commit acts of theft in order to secure food for their survival during the winter. What's new? There isn't the slightest difference between this and the 2006 animated film, Over the Hedge, except maybe the voiceovers, which I found to below average here. Ultimately, The Nut Job doesn't have a lot of things going for it. I suppose its charisma may be on its side, but I wouldn't say that it's enough to justify a trip to the movies.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

25th ANNUAL NOTRE DAME FILM FESTIVAL

Article: Coverage of ND's 2014 Film Festival

By Cole Pollyea

        It's a privilege to have a local college, the successful and well known Notre Dame University, devoted to encouraging, motivating and exposing young, avid filmmakers and their productions. Their education, creativity, and passion for film are three elements that drove their short movies out of nowhere and onto the screen of the beautiful DeBartolo Performing Arts Center on the cold, wintry evenings of January 23rd, 24th, and 25th. 

        Before entering this building on Friday night, I had only been to the Performing Arts Center once, this being on that very same afternoon around 1:00. My film-loving uncle and I, so incredibly hyped to be covering our first major film event as critics, made the drive to the Notre Dame campus five hours early to observe where we'd be attending that night. We trekked through the blizzard-like weather and burst through the door, becoming instantly immersed in a clearly well kept, educational environment. But alas, there was a catch: no one was there. We looked around for awhile, eventually locating Browning Cinema, the theater in which the films were going to be shown. It was an odd thing to be in such a vast building alone in the middle of the day, and out of courtesy, we began to leave. On our way out, we were warmly greeted by a member of the Arts Center, who offered us a free tour of where this event was to be held. We were led through the spectacular, graciously funded, and masterfully designed building and introduced to the exquisite interior structure and state-of-the-art technology that made it such a well-functioning place.

        With the introduction of the venue out of the way, my uncle and I ventured into the Arts Center for the second time that day. We were eager to witness these student-made films, and possibly engage in a discussion with any other aficionado willing to converse about film (as we were looking for some exposure for our websites). After pictures and brief conversations were taken care of, the films began.

        Having fourteen projects in all (with each one ranging anywhere from three to sixteen minutes long), the program began with a seven minute film called "Chicks", a movie about a "poultry prank" on a farm that surely makes the antagonist regret the actions he took. This, along with five others being "Ash", "Lilith's Game", "Discordance", "Dinner For None", and "My Neighbor Ned", were all fictional projects that I saw to be very nicely edited. It was clear, though, that this was not all these talented filmmakers were capable of, as the program was not done. Shortly following "Ash" came an effective, thought provoking documentary-like film called "Gimp", based on Toronto writer Aaron Broverman, an individual with a disability who wants to change the world's perception of disabled persons. One of the films that followed was a delightful Coen Brother's spoof called "Rice Bag" wherein a man found in the middle of the dunes (shot in St. Joseph, Michigan) becomes the center of a very confusing—and very funny—debacle. 

        Along the lines of channeling famous feature films from the past was an extremely short, metaphoric (?) film called "A Quiet Day At The Park". It chronicles a woman's horror-filled, yet seemingly playful afternoon in the park. As it comes off feeling like a theater piece and also has a wildly frolicsome theme song playing over, I could see its resemblance to something that Charlie Chaplin would have made. Moreover, near the end of the program was a student film called "The Wormhole", a movie that, in some minor respects, channels 2001: A Space Odyssey.

         Near the end of the program was a silent, hauntingly powerful slice of life concerning two parents whose worst fear became a reality. Without being cliche, overdramatic, or dull, "Unearthed" moved me without trying too hard. It kept me guessing, and exercised its lack of dialogue to its best interest. I was left clapping heartily and saying, "well done".

        However, the two longest and possibly most memorable short films were the documentaries entitled "The Suicide Disease" and "The Last Free Place". "The Suicide Disease" is the heart-wrenching real-life story of Frances Shavers, a woman who is victim to a horrifying disease, one that impaired her ability to continue her profession at Notre Dame. Having personally known her as a wonderful woman, I was completely engrossed with what was on screen (though I would have been even without knowing her). As far as my level of involvement goes, the same is true of the other remaining documentary, "The Last Free Place",  a film that exposed a small, dirty, unnoticed aspect of life—in "Slab City". Considering that both movies felt professionally filmed, I wasn't shocked to hear that "The Suicide Disease" won the festival's award for best student movie. 

        Having witnessed a good amount of well filmed, sharp-looking student movies in a pristine, top-notch theater, I can wholeheartedly state that I am looking forward to coming back next year. I'm not sure what I thought of Notre Dame's film program before venturing out on the frigid evening of the festival, but after viewing how solid their film department is, I can honestly say that my eyes are far more open than they previously were.

DRUGSTORE COWBOY

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Gus Van Sant
Year: 1989
Cast: Matt Dillon, Kelly Lynch, James Le Gros
Genre: Crime/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

I applaud Gus Van Sant, Jr. I really do. Over the course of his lifetime, he’s made a multitude of thought-provoking, inspiring films that manage to capture and expose seemingly unnoticed aspects of reality (a classic example in Goodwill Hunting). In his most potent movies (Milk at the top of the charts), he effortlessly moves the audience in a way that only those who have experienced it can fathom. I didn’t get this feeling when I saw Drugstore Cowboy. Instead, I felt particularly unaffected.

However, my hopes were considerably high when the film started. Beginning with what I took to be a sound, promising structure, Drugstore Cowboy zooms in on the lives of pathetic (right?) druggies that get by by their drugstore raids. Following their intricate schemes, they proceed to retreat to their apartment and shoot, literally, whatever substance they managed to accumulate on their pillage into their veins. Thereafter, bickering, and serious self-examination follows. This is the tired route that the movie takes over and over again and, before long, it becomes quite purposeless.  

The problem lies in the narrative; what were the filmmakers trying to tell us? Were they exposing the desperation that people can be succumbed by in this world? Were they trying to incorporate a theme about physical abuse? Or, did this movie even have a narrative? All of these thoughts occurred to me as I sat and watched the ongoing (yet well captured) display of these peoples’ day to day lives. At the end, I was left wondering what it was I just saw.

In conclusion, it’s safe to say that Drugstore Cowboy’s screenplay took us nowhere. It isn’t a movie with a clear intention. It’s sort of just existent. What started as an ambitious, exciting slice of life headed downhill, becoming more and more meaningless as it went along. Among the film’s few assets are Matt Dillon and Kelly Lynch. While they really stand out, I do wish I could name more.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE SECRET LIFE OF WALTER MITTY

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Ben Stiller
Year: 2013
Cast: Ben Stiller, Kristen Wiig
Genre: Adventure/Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: PG

I’ve endured years of watching Ben Stiller on the big screen. I’ve chuckled at his decent romantic comedies, I’ve enjoyed his voice work in animated films, and I’ve winced at the ones that needed work, but The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is his first movie that blew me out of my seat. To people who haven’t seen this motion picture, it is, understandably, nearly impossible to fathom the beauty of what inhabits the silver screen. Stiller made a movie that is utterly genuine. As an audience member, I haven’t been moved by the honesty of people and their actions as greatly as I was here since I saw Silver Linings Playbook. 

In The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Walter is a humbled Life Magazine worker that faces a generational difficulty when a young hotshot comes in, takes control, and transforms the company into an online program. This results in the firing of many devoted, “old-fashioned” employees. Walter’s job, for the last print issue of Life, is to find a missing negative (photo) that would prevail as the cover photo. He embarks upon a journey, a real one, that allows him to break free of his obsessive daydreams (to which he has fallen subject to over the course of his life). 

Along with a simple, yet intricate screenplay and astounding visuals, Ben Stiller is what makes this film so candid. His character is so believable because it feels like he’s effortlessly playing himself on screen. In short, he comes off as a veteran actor here, capable of encasing any role and making it as personable as possible. As a director, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty is, for the most part, a job well done. Though there is a sense of unsteadiness in the mood of the film as it progresses, and it feels like he hasn’t quite identified what makes his style of shooting his own. In a 114 minute vehicle, there is a large amount of visionary techniques that aren’t exercised to their fullest potential.


       Moreover, despite this, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty clocks in as the third best movie of the year for me. Taking in all of what it has to offer: mesmerizing cinematography, an incredible story of self-discovery and real-world encounters, exceptional performances, and an overall highly thought-provoking film, it’s fair to say that this exquisite, brilliant piece of art is the strongest chapter in Stiller’s book thus far.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

AMERICAN HUSTLE

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: David O. Russell
Year: 2013
Cast: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner
Genre: Crime/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

        Long before the widely praised American Hustle came out, I, as an unconditional lover of film, was infatuated with Christian Bale’s purported charisma in the sneak peeks (trailers) that detailed very little of the movie itself. And, long after seeing the movie, his performance had the same effect. Coherently, this is another one of David O. Russell’s crisp, accurate films that was anticipated before its arrival, and greatly commended afterwards. In short, American Hustle gave film lovers something to look forward to, and it didn’t let us down.

        Within seconds of the opening shot, awe plastered itself upon the width of my face. “Who starts a movie off with some guy fixing his fake combover?”. The quiet brilliance was nearly too much to handle, so when very next shot displayed a trio of some of the finest living actors throwing around potent lines of dialogue, I knew I was going to love it; I don’t stand corrected.

        Often times, people use the phrase “before its time” as a complement, and understandably so. For film, when a large quantity of it (stylistically speaking) has gone downhill since the 90’s, it would be more than appropriate to say that American Hustle is after its time. Truly, that’s what I enjoyed so much about it. I’m not sure if it was his intention, but David O. Russell modeled his newest film’s structure after that of Martin Scorsese’s Goodfellas (though it was far from derivative), opening with a shot in need of explanation from a linear structure, starting from the beginning. Then it took us back through that scene again, and continued the story. It was, quite honestly, the best way this movie could have been written, and it was presented very well.

        But it did feel like I was sitting in the theater for a long time. Admittedly, it’s not as engaging as his other works (specifically Silver Linings Playbook), a result of the inability to identify a protagonist or main conflict in the story until about an hour or so into the picture. However, it kept me entertained (for the most part), and it was so well made that whatever lags that may have occurred in the development of the plot can and should be dismissed.

        Of course, it’s not just the steady, evocative direction that makes it among the best films of the year, though. Probably the two most evident aspects of this motion picture that qualifies it as such are the powerful performances and the artistic costume design. Not a scene went by when I wasn’t in awe at the beauty of the wardrobes and the craft of the hair styles, or, on another note, swept away by the accuracy of the time period captured.

        So, will it win Best Picture? To answer with words said by the movie’s own (Bale), “people believe what they want to believe, but the guy who made this, was so good...” that it sure has a solid chance.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE HUNGER GAMES: CATCHING FIRE

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Francis Lawrence

Year: 2013

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence

Genre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: PG-13

       Before teen dystopian novels became dull and redundant (yes, I’m talking about Divergent), there came a trilogy of teen novels called The Hunger Games. As they caught publicity and the eye of certain filmmakers, it seized its opportunity upon the silver screen. For a follow up to a good film (The Hunger Games, 2007), Catching Fire isn’t bad. It showcases a lot of the same stylistics used in it’s predecessor, and offers new insight, too. What’s more, it’s also very entertaining.

        To begin, after a performance beyond anyone’s wildest expectations in the 2012 masterpiece, Silver Linings Playbook, everything Jennifer Lawrence stars in is worth seeing. Her talent continues to be displayed as she sustains the character of Katniss Everdeen, “Girl on Fire”, who, here, is re-entered into the Hunger Games, a 75th anniversary that supposedly would solve all of the governments revolutionary problems. But things are not what it seems, and Katniss, yet again, is put against the odds.

        But it is a sequel, so it can’t just get off scott-free (haha). While this element was more evident in the first film of the series, it still irked viewers including myself here, that being the lack of adult material. Of course, it was put out to attract a teen audience (job well done), but the way it avoids the intimacy and violence is a clear indication that reigns were applied. However, it is important for there to be some films that earn that PG-13 rating, but it is one thing that held Catching Fire, and The Hunger Games for that matter, back from being better.

        As I sat with my class of students on a field trip we attended to see this movie, I heard whoops and cheers all the way throughout the duration of the movie. Some of those whoops and cheers came from kids who had seen the film multiple times before. It is a movie that is, by no means, a masterpiece. For example, it’s structured rather awkwardly in some portions of the film. Nonetheless, it’s a successful chapter in the creation of Suzanne Collin’s dystopia. To conclude, I would say that it caught fire with the fans, and spread like mad.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

DRACULA (1931)

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Tod Browning, Karl Freund

Year: 1931

Cast: Beri Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners

Genre: Horror

MPAA Rating: Approved

Tod Browning’s vision of Dracula is a landmark in filmmaking. It’s not only a breakthrough in horror pictures of its time, but also an excellent showcase for the wildly talented Beri Lugosi. While it is unfaithful to the details of Bram Stoker’s masterful novel, it still delivers the story of the Transylvanian nightmare, the vampire who could control minds, possibly the most popular antagonistic fictional character of all time, Dracula.

The events of this film are as follows (however, they differentiate from what takes place in the novel), Renfield, a real estate agent (of the time), goes on a journey to Transylvania, where he attempts to make a sale in London to Count Dracula. Little does he know that The Count is not what he appears, and before long, he is taken under his influence and thrust into the living nightmare that is victimization. When he returns to London, along with The Count, Dracula has his motives aimed at a family who administer mental care to patient Renfield. Eventually, when worse comes to worse, one Dr. Van Helsing is sought out to protect the family from the vicious beast.

What’s amazing is that Lugosi wasn’t even supposed to be in the film at first, and after a rather haunting viewing of this motion picture, it’s hard to believe that it would be the same without him. The power behind his lack of dialogue is shockingly immense. Instead of caressing “Madam Mina” with his words, as it is displayed that he does in other adaptions, he instills fear into her and her protectors silently; his performance is brilliant, to say the least.

It’s easy to point out the cheapness, unbelievability, or cheesiness of some set designs in earlier films, but not here. From scene one, it purports a grainy, old-fashioned feel that never quite fades. What’s more, as a result, the viewer’s expectations for production design are considerably low, so when the journey to The Count’s lair takes place, and the eery, well done sets are shown off, viewers are catapulted into palpable fear.

Dracula (1931) is among Roger Ebert’s list of “Great Movies”, and that’s quite understandable. No other adaptions are quite as mesmerizing as such, and with the mark this film left, it’s hard to say that it shall be beaten in years to come. Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula may surpass it in production quality and faithfulness to the novel, but Tod Browning’s imagining is engrossing and far more well made, a film for the ages. To that, I saw bravo.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE (1974)

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Director: Tobe Hooper
Year: 1974
Cast: Marylin Burns, Edwin Neal, Allen Danziger
Genre: Horror
MPAA Rating: R

        When I discovered that my friend held, in his possession, a copy of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) I avidly begged him to borrow it. This is understandable, considering how the multiple media stores I visited over the Halloween month failed to provide a copy of the seemingly rare DVD. But alas, my friend came through (I lent him The Color of Money, we’ll chalk it up as a fair trade), and I got my hands on the classic horror film that “Did for meat-eating what Psycho did for shower taking”(Marylin Beck, Hollywood). 

When several young adults travel down south in a van to a destination that is apparently murky to them, they come across real trouble in an act of desperation: a family bound by incestuous and reasonably sick morals. One or two of them go missing in a hunt for gasoline, and, from then on, it becomes a helpless situation that feels palpably real.

To be sure, this film is terrifying. The situation that the protagonists are in is concocted so brilliantly that it, automatically, gets my recommendation. Concerning the plot, what anchors it down is the harshly unnecessary dark comedic element that left me with a bad aftertaste.

Beyond that, the structure of this 83 minute movie really perplexed me. Director Tobe Hooper filmed this motion picture rather subtly, dragging the viewer along for the first (dare I say) rather dull 30 or so minutes, which he spent setting up the inevitable. As for the climax, it’s absolutely effective. It’s horrifying and totally involving, but then, Hooper doesn’t wrap it up well either. It’s as if he didn’t want to do the film total justice. That’s what’s so confusing about “The Massacre”.

The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was remade in 2003, and I can’t tell you how happy I am about it. The original is no masterpiece, to put it lightly. It’s structured awkwardly, and doesn’t boast itself as much as it needed to. But the remake does. It’s directed steadily, it’s longer, more protracted, more real-life, more serious, and more detailed. Ultimately, it’s a better film. For the first time in horror history, I discovered why exactly horror flicks are remade. They’re (or at least this one’s) purpose is to expand, correct, and update. While I believe that the original is definitely a landmark in horror filmmaking, I think that it is faulted, and it was remade for good reason. To that, I say job well done, horror enthusiasts (this time).

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts:  Brilliantly horrific, imitated but never duplicated, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre represents the purest form of terror known to any cinema buff. Thousands of countless ripoffs and average remakes have tried to capitalize on its success, but with minimal gore and a grainy, sadistic edge, the original 1974 "Chainsaw" is untouchable. The fact that an unknown director (Tobe Hooper), a cast of nobodies, and a shooting schedule in 100+ degree Texas heat could produce a horror flick light years ahead of its time is a miracle in itself. Give credit to actress Marilyn Burns who coined the term "scream queen" before Jamie Lee Curtis could even get her hands on it. Let me just put it right out there, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the greatest films of all time. It will haunt you for days after you view it. Guaranteed.