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

JOY

Cole's Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating (And Review): ★★★ ½

Director: David O. Russell

Year: 2015
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro
Genre: Drama
MPAA Rating: PG-13

Over the last four years, Jennifer Lawrence has teamed with director David O. Russell and actors Robert De Niro and Bradley Cooper to produce three notable films. These are 2012’s Silver Linings Playbook, 2013’s American Hustle, and their latest, 2015’s Joy. All three have undeniable merit, for certain, but the result of their latest collaborative effort is Jennifer Lawrence’s finest performance to date and the initiation of a three way tie for O'Russell's second best film (behind I Heart Huckabees).

Yielding an unjustly low Tomatometer score of 58%, Joy follows the plight of an innovative and exceedingly capable young woman, Joy Mangano, who is burdened by her uncooperative, soap opera-addicted mother, her dim-witted father (De Niro), her broke ex-husband, two kids, and the sole responsibility of paying the bills. After years of working her hands to the bone to keep up with the livelihood of the family living under her roof, she comes to the realization that she has been spinning her wheels with no forward progress since she graduated from high school, and, with the slight support and cooperation of her father, controlling sister-in-law, and ex-husband, she embarks on an entrepreneurial journey in an effort to move up in the oppressive and capitalistic world and to redeem all of her lost time.

Joy is, without doubt, O’Russell’s most engrossing and straightforward piece yet. He doesn’t meander, and he doesn’t lose focus for a second. He successfully incorporates crushing themes of consumerism and bigotry, and lets said themes play out in the despair of the viewer’s eyes. He constructs the characters in Joy’s life very simply, but gets away with it. They are cardboard-cutouts in the best sense possible because they leave the viewers very sure about Joy’s family dynamics and the way that she feels about each person in the film. He leaves all of the film's complications to the obstacles that she faces along the journey, and this results in seamless and absorbing plot development.

Bradley Cooper comes in after a decent amount of screen time, and he plays the QVC rep through which Joy is able to advertise her product on television. His role, as her personal connection to the non-personal realm of business, is key and his performance is exactly what you’d expect from Cooper. From a wardrobe/makeup perspective, his appearance properly conveys the high stakes associated with his job along with the same level of anxiety that the audience experiences during the majority of his screen time. Despite being draped in professional clothes with his same, great haircut, he looks like he’s operating on three to four hours of sleep and his tie is loosely tied in every frame. De Niro performs on the same level; he delivers lines with gusto and adheres purposefully to the character of Joy’s father: a dim-witted, but good-hearted man who has accepted into his heart the same condemning ideology that threatens to corrupt Joy’s success: that successful business is done by only the elite male.

Make no mistake, however, it’s all about Lawrence here. From her first scene, it was clear that she was going to shine as the housewife-turned-entrepreneur who is tested on every level. She wears anguish on her face when duty calls and kicks butt when she has to. It seems as though this is the role she was meant to play, as her portrayal feels comfortable and just plain right every step of the way. I foresee strong Oscar consideration for her work here.

All merits aside, Joy does have two setbacks that keep it from being a near-perfect film, and those are its obligatory ending and its imprecise voiceover. Seen many times before in many different movies, this aggravating sort of ending didn’t hurt Joy but certainly didn’t send itself off effectively by any stretch of the imagination. It was an attempt by the filmmakers to encapsulate all of the movie’s ideals and the characters’ denouements in one extremely unsatisfying scene which was suppose to affirm our faith in what we had just seen for the last two hours. Furthermore, the movie is sort of narrated by Joy’s grandmother who, from an early age, was the only person in her life who voiced her support of Joy. Many times over, she is shown conveying her faith in Joy and telling her that she can be an amazing young entrepreneur or a great woman or a strong matriarch or a wonderful parent or a good person… Or something like that. And this is the problem; her presence in Joy’s life is too vague and her effect on Joy’s path and self-image is undefined if at all evident. Maybe her effect on Joy was more profound in real life, but based what we see in the movie, she was simply not influential enough to have the sole narration over the proceedings, which was sporadic at best.

Conclusively, Joy is a wonderful tale of a strong woman who made her way in a man’s world and, unlike the filmmakers’ and actors’ previous movies, it is suitable for a family viewing. From me, it garners a thre (out of four) star rating and ranks highly on the list of O’Russell’s works. In addition to serving as an inspirational biopic, it is also a film that harbors a moving performance and one that divulges formidable themes about society. It’s one that won’t be (completely) ignored by the Academy this year, and one that shouldn’t be ignored by anybody else either.

Written by Cole Pollyea

Gone Girl

Ah, hello film lovers. It feels good to be basking in the love of filmmaking again; forgive my absence, as I have been busy, but I thought I'd share with you some of my obsessive thoughts on a very recent film, Gone Girl. Something in this movie is so invigorating and genius that I couldn't avoid writing about it. Until next time, keep watching.

        Gone Girl

           If you're thinking about seeing Gone Girl, think big. Think really big. Think Kubrick meets Frigidaire (that's right, I'm talking about the appliance manufacturer). Think satire and think deep. Think well coached, because that's exactly what every actor in this movie is. Think disturbing beyond anything he's made before. Think scenes that hurt to watch, and think scenes that make you shiver in awe of what you're watching. Think brutally honest themes packed into one outlandish debauchery of human nature. Think modernism, and think beyond the surface. Most importantly: think, because if you don't, Gone Girl will rip you apart, and you'll hate every second of it.

          To answer your first question, is this Oscar Worthy material? You bet. I'm thinking a Best Screenplay nomination, and Best Actor nom for Ben Affleck, the man with the plan (from, you know, that one movie, Argo). The question is, is he playing another guy that contemplates what he's doing 100% of the time? The answer is no; no he's not. He's a guy whose wife goes missing. He's not a deep thinker. In so many instances, he is seen committing acts that a more composed, more intelligent man in his shoes would not. The problem is that we don't really see Ben Affleck as that guy. 

          On a sidenote, I was recently enlightened on behalf of the difference between a problem and a predicament; a predicament is something that you're forced to compensate for, and a problem is something you can do something about. Ben Affleck's presumptuous complexion, behavior patterns in preceding movies that all point to an intelligent individual is not a predicament, and genius and previously praised (by myself and others) David Fincher has got the skills to re-articulate his manners, and it's just that he does. He coaches Affleck's character so incredibly well that I can't decide who deserves the real credit here. One thing's for sure, Affleck's stellar acting and even better coaching gets attention, gets the job done, and does exactly what this movie was aiming to.

          What a vivid and beautiful movie Gone Girl is. It's a real pleasure to watch (or, in this respect, see); every other shot is a pan that captures seemingly perfect peoples' dazzling complexions or interior decorating that would knock the socks off of any decorator in the modern world.

          Speaking of the modern world, I better stop speaking. I'm not a fan of spoilers and neither are you, but I'll say this in regards to what this movie is saying about the today's society: it's unsettling. So while I'm going to shut up, the movie won't. And don't let it, because it's got a lot to say. Those of you looking for a literal film, go watch Zodiac or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (both Fincher films that I highly recommend). You won't find one here, and if you do, you should take another trip to the theater. Gone Girl is a seething satire that stings like a serrated blade when it clicks in.

          As for the star rating, which I've completely abandoned in regards to this movie, my enjoyment can be exemplified by a three star rating, and the brilliance can be exemplified by a four star rating. I guess, then, my official rating is somewhere in between. You decide.

Written by Cole Pollyea

NEBRASKA

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Alexander Payne

Year: 2013

Cast: Bruce Dern, Will Forte, June Squibb

Genre: Adventure/Drama

MPAA Rating: R     

       Director Alexander Payne and writer Bob Nelson perched themselves on a stool and painted a beautiful portrait of small-scale, unnoticed life in their sensitive examination of old age called Nebraska. With what seems to be an infinite amount of insight and commendable artistic edge, it takes its premise and runs with it. Nebraska is a very, very well made film that will undoubtedly break the hearts of many moviegoers who come across this unique, heartfelt motion picture.

        Will Forte is David, who is, from scene one, burdened with the disorientation of his father, Woody, played by Bruce Dern. This relationship is, as we discover, not very deep, developed, or personal, and David feels obligated to do something about it. So, he humors his presumably silly, unaware father by taking him on a road trip to Lincoln, Nebraska to cash in what Woody believes to be a million dollar cash prize.

        The most mesmerizing attribute of this film is the obvious awareness and understanding that the filmmakers have for the characters that demand our attention and care. The screenplay that articulates everyone in the movie flawlessly defines the people that we grow to know and even understand. And what's more, it leaves us craving more of these people that up and leave when the movie ends; we yearn to hear the rest of their story, even if that's not completely necessary.

        But what really makes this movie shine is Bruce Dern and his considerable acting prowess. He's been in the industry since 1960 and, it seems like, after a lifetime of acting he's found his true role; he plays Woody honestly and wholeheartedly, and I couldn't help but savor every scene that he commanded. His overwhelming charisma and ability to become such a precious character is what earned him his Academy Award nomination.

        And it's those two factors that make this such an incredible movie. It's not a flawless road movie, as it's got its noticeable lags in storytelling. What it is, however, is a moving character study that, in nearly every respect of a movie driven by its characters, fails to let us down. Nebraska is a masterful movie that justifies not one, but multiple viewings.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

LONE SURVIVOR

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Peter Berg
Year: 2013
Cast: Mark Wahlberg
Genre: Action/Biography/Drama/War
MPAA Rating: R

        Lone Survivor goes like this: talk-talk-bang-bang-bang-bang-boom-bang-boom-bang-boom-bang-bang-bang-bang-end. In short, if violence—and I mean intense violence—is up your moviegoing alley, then this is a must-see because Lone Survivor is all about the action. It daringly sheds its ability to be a character study and, in turn, becomes a violent, heavy-handed war film. I dug it, even though I grew tired of it after awhile.

        Wahlberg and company star in this exceptionally well shot movie about a group of special force marines who set out to capture, or even kill, Taliban figure Ahmad Shah. Little do they know that their intentions are about to be compromised by roaming members of the community whose lives lie in the hands of said marines. By choosing to spare their lives and let them go, they put themselves in a extremely vulnerable situation in the mountains of Afghanistan.

         First off, it's important to make note of the fact that Lone Survivor is not a movie that is powered by its performances. In fact, I'd say that, for a war film, its performances are just decent. The acting feels routine, and if anyone in this movie was even remotely attempting for an Academy Award nomination, that notion wasn't delivered in the slightest bit.

        But the thing about Lone Survivor is that it didn't feel like a movie that absolutely needed strong performances (though it, obviously, would've been nice to have them), and that's what gives the visceral scenes of war violence a sense of empowerment. The authority to go forward with such a confident style of filmmaking was also brought to life by the skillful camerawork, a craft of director Peter Berg.

        And what made up for the acting, emotionally, were the well-sewn-in minutes of real-life material that concerned not only pictures and videos of the actual people who are portrayed in the film, but also footage from the marines' training. These pivotal portions of the movie were completely effective, and didn't feel contrived whatsoever.

        Conclusively, Lone Survivor is a nicely edited, action packed war movie that, while it doesn't really feel like Academy Award worthy material, is still a legitimate, worthwhile movie to watch on a Saturday night with some pals. And on the big screen, the experience that this movie can provide is even better—and even more frighteningly realistic.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

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

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

ABOUT TIME

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Richard Curtis

Year: 2013

Cast: Domhnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, Bill Nighy

Genre: Comedy/Drama/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: R

        Time travel flicks sometimes give me a headache. They are interesting and involving, but they also make you think too much. When About Time (the film I'm reviewing) ended, I was satisfied with it. At the same time though, I was mulling over many of the scenes in my mind. What began as a love story between two people eventually turned into one man's journey through adult life. As I viewed this London-based product from the director of the publicly treasured Love Actually, I couldn't help but over analyze the concept of the main character going back into the past and even in the smallest moments, changing things when vaulting back into present day. Trust me, when you see this thing it will drive you nuts because it never quite gets that part right. Therefore, in order to enjoy what's on screen, you have to not look too deep into the whole time travel concept. You basically have to enrapture yourself in the heartwarming vibes from the characters in it as well as the fact that it didn't deserve an R rating (a couple of cuss words shouldn't keep this from being a family film). You also have to believe that time travel isn't totally necessary when it comes to living a full and happy life. Those are my rules when taking in what I believe to be one of the best films of 2013.

        Resembling a sort of toned-down version (sans violence and escapist entertainment) of time travel oddities like The Butterfly Effect, Back to the Future, and, to an extent, Groundhog Day, About Time chronicles a young man's adult endeavors through the art of human transportation. The lead character being Tim Lake (played by a future Hugh Grant in Domhnall Gleeson, son of acclaimed actor Brendan Gleeson), is told on his 21st birthday that all the men in his family can travel back in time (it isn't explained why this is possible but there might as well have some mystery involved). Bill Nighy, perfect in his role as Lake's father, explains to him that all he has to do is venture into a dark space, squeeze his hands, and boom, he goes to the exact moment that he imagined in his mind. For me, the centralized and loving relationship between Tim and his father puts this thing over the top (in a good way). It sells the whole exercise formidably. Added to that, 75% of About Time, has a forwarding narration by said lead. It initially feels out of place only to emerge as a touching follicle toward wrapping things up.

        Now to be frank, I was initially put off by the fact that Tim wanted to do this to, you know, just get a girl to go out with him. But as the movie unfurled, he helps people on the side (friends and his sister to name a few) and builds a sort of solid foundation for a family dynamic. Let me put it this way, this movie is only a little over two hours long. However, there is an epicness that inhabits the proceedings and you get more than what you bargained for. I felt like I had been in the theater for over three hours, but believe me, I wasn't bored. Of note, though, you might have to ignore the fact that no one ages a lick in this exercise (it spans somewhere between 7-10 years I'm thinking). It's a minor oversight and shouldn't keep you from enjoying it.

        Also of note is the gist of Tim's time traveling plights becoming a little muddled when it comes to the workings of the plot. Thankfully, this is masked by a cast that delivers acting in the first class department. This is especially evident in Rachel McAdams as Mary, the object of Tim's affections. As expected, McAdams is effortlessly charming and fancy free. Two words describe her: glowing, radiant, eye twinkling (that's three words, oops). Along with the previously mentioned Billy Nighy, she adds leverage to the extreme likability factor embedded in About Time's character makeup.

        When you put it all together, About Time is a great holiday film, a serviceable date movie, and even possibly something you can take the whole family to (ignore the R rating, trust me). It's breeziness is accompanied by the affable people in it. In scene after scene you sense that they deserve the utmost level of happiness. And that for me, is the reason why I recommend this motion picture so highly. If you cry easily during romantic comedies (this one is more like a dramedy) then bring a slew of handkerchiefs. To put it mildly, there is no doubt that About Time is a keeper. If you haven't seen it, it's "about time" you get to the multiplex!

-Written by Jesse Burleson

THE COUNSELOR

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 2013
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, Javier Bardem, Cameron Diaz

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Every aspect of the 2013 release The Counselor (minus the philosophically damned script), tells you that this is a Ridley Scott film. If you enjoy the way he carefully directs by bringing scenes to a slow creep and then having things interrupted with an act or two of brutal violence, then this will satisfy you, the fan of said director. I have to say that, initially, I had become bored with the first 30 minutes or so of this slick, trashy (might as well throw in stylized) sort of two hour resembling of a cable TV drama (rated for mature audiences of course). It started off as pretentious and self indulgent. You have actors constantly engaging in conversations with each other that go on longer than needed. And the dialogue is all about the meaning of life and such. Therefore, I kept thinking to myself, why does everyone in this vehicle have to be so smart? Although the performances were substantial (with the exception of the continuously miscast Cameron Diaz), it seemed as though the script required almost all the cast members to be Socrates (the supposed founder of Western philosophy).

        Brought to life by rookie screenwriter Cormac McCarthy (his novices shows in his screenwriting even though he's a well accomplished novelist) and dedicated to Ridley Scott's brother (famed director Tony Scott) who committed suicide during filming, The Counselor examines a lawyer who, on the side, gets involved in drug dealings with the Mexican cartel. Hoping to get a huge return back and taking different angles of advice from a drug kingpin named Reiner (played with a goofy stature and an even goofier haircut, by Javier Bardem), "Counselor" (he has no name, this is what everybody calls him) eventually gets in way over his head. He is warned by a middleman named Westray (played by Scott veteran Brad Pitt) that such a deal might be the wrong path to be taken. Furthermore, it doesn't help that he puts his, I guess, pregnant wife (Laura played by Penelope Cruz) in harm's way throughout. Let me put it this way, I found myself more embroiled with "Counselor's" fate as every other character began to die off. I read a separate review that said this motion picture was sort of a dark neo-noir. By definition, neo-noir films deal with social ramifications so I guess that critic pretty much got it right.

        Anyway, if you can get past the gnawing characteristic of the aforementioned tainted screenplay, then you'll find that this movie barrels along by becoming more intriguing and more involving. You realize that Scott knows that there is a problem with the script (he didn't write it), but he decides to be in complete control of the camera anyway. He directs with confidence and funnels little nuggets here and there from his other movies, plastering them into this one. His cast is vast and diligent (a couple of cameos by some notable screen talents). He films sequences either from a long distance away or close up with two actors trading words in a small, claustrophobic space. Last but certainly not least, he puts a relatively unknown yet well seasoned Michael Fassbender in the lead role. Known in this flick as simply "The Counselor," he is able to carry the whole two hour running time quite well. He's in almost every frame (Fassbender looks a little like a young Jeremy Irons and has Ewan McGregor's manneristic smirk) and goes toe to toe with some big name actors (Brad Pitt) that seem to fade in and out of the proceedings. In the end, you don't quite know what the future has in store for him. But you get a sense that his character is the type of person who falls prey to the notion of bad things happening to not so bad people.

        All and all, The Counselor, as a movie, likes to leave little tracings of symbolism here and there (especially in the opening scene). Its intentions are to let you know that it has deeper interludes that extend far beyond the simple art of a drug deal. Yes, there are little flaws that are evident (some of the dialogue is borderline laughable and cringe worthy) but in the end, it still comes off as weirdly sophisticated. It's for the moviegoer who can hold his or her attention span and not harbor to all the disposable drivel that's thrown in year after year (stuff like remakes of classics which I've been ripping on since March). To be honest, I don't know if I would put this thing on my top ten list of 2013. However, it resonates with you minutes after you see it. And that's something I look for when I want to garner a recommendation. It also has the type of ending shot that I like where the camera focuses on a main character's face and goes suddenly to blackout (without any type of fading). With The Counselor, you get a mostly trademark Ridley Scott film and heck, usually he's incapable of making anything mediocre. Halfway into the second act when things get dangerous, Brad Pitt's character states, "I'd say it's pretty bad, then multiply it by ten." Yeah, I'd say this flick is not so bad, so I'll just give it three stars.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

CARRIE (2013)

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Kimberly Peirce
Year: 2013
Cast: Julianne Moore, Judi Greer, Chloe Grace Moretz
Genre: Drama/Horror
MPAA Rating: R

        Thus far, 2013 is proof that the concept of remaking classic films is probably the wrong thing to do. First, we got to witness a rather bland reboot of The Evil Dead. Now, we get another bland, lifeless, and unnecessary retelling of Brian De Palma's audacious and powerfully mesmerizing Carrie. I get it. I know why films are redone, the reason being to make money and to let a newer generation get to experience something similar to what went down over 30 years ago (blah, blah, blah). Listen, if these films didn't have an original copy that came before them, then maybe they'd be okay on their own. But the fact remains that The Evil Dead (1981) and Carrie (1976) already claimed their stake and to give them a second interpretation, to me, is just sacrilege.

        Coming off as a shot-for-shot newbie and having the majority of the actors actually looking age appropriate, Carrie examines a shy, telekinetic girl (Carrie White played by Chloe Grace Moretz who in every scene, seems to have her mouth gaping wide open) who is picked on by her classmates at school, has a religiously defiant mother (Julianne Moore as Margaret White), and out of sheer kindness (and realized guilt), gets invited to the prom (by the most popular boy in high school). As the film progresses, we don't quite no why, but Miss White has inherent powers by which she can move objects with her hands (the hand motions by Moretz aren't quite believable, sorry). When she realizes she can't take the bullying from her fellow classmates and the bible thumping crassness of her mother, Carrie goes a little bonkers (if you seen the original you know the story) and well, you get the drift. What hurts this movie and may have dented the original (what was the only fault of the 1976 version) is the way Carrie is treated from beginning to end. You feel sorry for her as a character and there is never any resolve when the flick comes to fruition. There is never a happy ending for her and you never get to empathize with her plight. Like I said earlier, I dig the original. But I disregard this buried (no pun intended) aspect of it.

        All explanations aside, with this current 2013 release, we get performances that are second rate (with the exception of Julianne Moore who plays Carrie's mom and Alex Russell who plays a slightly different version of John Travolta's character who is Billy Nolan), direction that lacks the swooping camerawork of Brian De Palma (even though it was helmed by the critically acclaimed Kimberly Peirce), and a lack of plodding creepiness that made the original such a 70's relic. Even the musical score has been modernized and filtered through an MTV type vibe. Yes, this version is much more violent and its lead does some pretty demonic things, but there's no sense of awe or dreamlike intensity that made the first one so mystifying (the opening scene in the original, within seconds, trumps the new version). Also, the aspect of 70's culture feels more tailored to this type of flick than having it take place in present day (the new Carrie has the ever popular iPhone/YouTube phase going on which I know is keeping with the times, but seems overly emphasized). In hindsight, this is a faithful yet laughably unfaithful rendition of Carrie and it's far from memorable or compelling. It hinders itself disposable and has the quintessential feel of every reboot you've ever witnessed (this is not a good thing). With good remakes (which are few and far between), the director adds a new twist or something more than an almost shot for shot retelling (sadly, this one comes pretty close to that). This new Carrie is on line with the type of modern horror films in which sterile, stylized blood and gore drips all over the screen while barely scarring the audience. Maybe it's me but I miss 70's and 80's horror films. They're grittier, eerier, and because of the time passed, grainier. Unless someone figures out how to reinvent the horror genre, we're gonna get scary movies that come off the world's biggest artificial assembly line. But hey, they're probably gonna keep making money because people wanna jump out of their seat (or think they're actually achieving that reaction).

        In retrospect, Carrie didn't need to be re-imagined (even though it kind of wasn't). It comes from the mind of someone who is too good for this type of stylized hack job. It's as if Kimberly Peirce (director of the powerful Boys Don't Cry) was so frightened that she wouldn't get another directing opportunity and had to settle for this one. I'm hoping that she gets back to what she does best which is making hard hitting dramas based on fascinating true stories. She does get the set design right, though, because the White family home in the original Carrie seems like a dead-on replica of this one. And Julianne Moore does harness the same psychotic intensity brought on by Piper Laurie in 76'. But alas, there's a moral to all this. Don't remake a great film when you know it's better to remake a bad one. To end this review, I'll leave you with the famous line from both Carries which is, "they're all gonna laugh at you!" Yeah, they're all gonna laugh at you, the viewer, if you think this is a serviceable motion picture.

-Written by Jesse Burleson