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.

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

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

Cole's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

I often hear the phrase, “don’t judge a book by its cover”. It’s a metaphoric statement to be sure, but in the case of film, this can translate to “don’t judge a movie by it’s title, year, cast, director, or what have you”. It’s too broad a statement to ring true, so when people asked why I wasn’t going to like the new Tom Hanks movie, Captain Phillips, (because I told them that I predicted it to not be that great of a movie) for me to explain to them that I was judging it before seeing it was futile. Their response was “you can’t judge a book by its cover”. Yet as I write before you, the readers, today, I find myself recycling the words I said weeks ago, before the film’s release. “The trailer says it all. It probably masks a good performance by Tom Hanks, but the plot is too fleshed out in the description. My money says that it doesn’t have much more to offer than what it purports, which isn’t immensely spectacular, so therefore, I don’t believe it will be that great of a film.”

Captain Phillips chronicles the week (or so) long journey of Captain Phillips, from the superficial conversation about the small troubles back at home with his wife and kids to a hostage situation with Somali pirates on a freighter ship in the middle of the ocean. If you’ve seen the trailer, I’m telling you nothing new, and that’s this movie’s major flaw.

 
Director Paul Greengrass is quite fond of his shaky camerawork. I’d stick my neck out and say that it gave me a major headache in his previous The Bourne Ultimatum, but here, I found it quite effective. It matched the pure terror of the situation, and best of all, it felt documentary-like. Along with the effortless way in which Hanks plays your ordinary guy, the first thirty or forty minutes is captivating, legitimate stuff. Then after the initial entry, the movie takes a plot turn that we all knew was coming. The Somali pirates start to press hard, and then the film successfully turns into an exhilarating motion picture. With steady, controlled handle of the cast and knowledge of the plot, Greengrass keeps ahold of the reigns for a good chunk of time, making this scary, exciting, and worthwhile. 

But then after it hits the hour and twenty minutes (or something like that, this movie is long) mark, it starts to deflate like a balloon, sucking all life, vitality, and exuberance out of it slowly until the only thing it’s got dragging the weight is Hanks. Considering all this, my first comment when the movie was over was “They should just give Hanks the Oscar right now.” And I meant every word of it. Mr. Hanks is one of the most talented actors in the industry, without question. He possesses the so coveted ability that is creating an invisible emotional connection with the audience, and his films all benefit because of it. From scene one, the thing that struck me first was believability. Hanks paints the images on his face and in his words more vividly than nearly any artist could on paper. 

What’s unfortunate is that he couldn’t totally save it. What can I say? The script just ran out of ideas, becoming more tedious and tedious as it went. I found myself yearning to walk out of the theater after some time because I knew how it was going to end, and after the repeated continuation of scenes inside the lifeboat, I had had enough. I knew what was coming (it’s got Hollywood written all over it, hint hint), and I wanted it to either end with a bang or end sooner. To my misfortune, it didn’t. The expected and necessary peak of the climax never quite came.

 
Considering that it harbors a cast that truly hits it home here (including the newbie Somali actors that protruded in a casting call to secure a well-deserved spot in the cast), it’s a crying shame that I was let down by Captain Phillips. Keeping that in mind, I will say this, though: it’s probably the best two and a half star rating that I’ve ever given a movie. It’s moving enough, it’s well-shot enough, and it’s enjoyable enough. But it’s just not good enough.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE For Jesse's Review

Jesse's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Paul Greengrass seems like the ideal director to helm a movie about real life dramatizations. This can involve anything from terrorism to hijacking to the rifle shooting of a group of protesters (events or happenings that categorize some of his work). He is a former journalist and that may explain some of his career choices when it comes to various film projects. Of the three or more pictures I've seen of his, my understanding is that he likes to direct material that is based on true events (world news related, 9/11, you know, that sort of thing). Using hand held cameras and showcasing a sort of documentary feel, Greengrass picks unknown actors for a lot of roles in his films. He also shoots a flick in a way that allows these actors to have a smooth, unassuming style of delivering their lines. Scenes in his movies (like the near perfect United 93) have a real life feel to them. They almost suggest that you're not watching a movie but actual live content as it happens. This trademark is wholly evident in the Tom Hanks vehicle Captain Phillips. It's a 2013 release in which everyone seems overly natural on screen (this is a good thing). It's also one of the best pictures of the year (so far). With a superb, perfectly plotted opening 30 minutes and a sense of raw fear that accompanies the majority of that time, "Phillips" gets off to a stupendous start. What keeps it from perfection is a slightly bogged down second act in which the filmmakers sort of run out of steam. "Phillips" involves the act of kidnapping and piracy. With this notion in my mind, you'll find that a lot of the scenes between the kidnappers and the hostage seem like unnecessary filler. It doesn't help that the conversations between them are terse and involve minimal dialogue. Overall though, I'd say that this choppy (yet effective) nailbiter ends on a riveting, amped up note. It gives Hanks a chance to give one of his "Hanksian" performances (I didn't make up that term by the way) and it provides audiences a reason to believe that Greengrass is one of the most accurate, innovative voices in American cinema. If the film has any flaws, it would be the almost too by-the-book style of explaining true events and the aforementioned selected hostage/pirate episodes. From a director's standpoint, that sort of thing seems admirable. From an audience's viewpoint, it can be deemed monotonous and repetitive.

        Beginning without any opening credits (that's a Greengrass trademark) and featuring a small appearance by Catherine Keener (considering that she had a minor role, it would've been nice to see more of her in the movie), Captain Phillips tells the true account of Captain Richard Phillips (a straight faced Tom Hanks). He is a merchant mariner whose ship, the Maersk Alabama, gets hijacked by Somali pirates in 2009. Their first order of business is getting on board and holding people up with machine guns. Then, they ultimately want the insurance money (or as they say, they want millions). When these pirates don't get what's coming to them, they eventually get on a small vessel boat and take the Hanks character with them as a hostage (this is where the movie loses some of its dramatic power before regaining it in the final, explosive ten minutes).

        That's the overall gist of "Phillips" and with films like Bloody Sunday and the aforementioned United 93 (and this one as well), Greengrass likes to include a lot of faces that you've never seen on screen before. He squeezes terrific performances out of all of them and, in my mind, this takes the star power away and lets the viewer concentrate more on the story. This technique also makes a lot of the material seem more like real life (as mentioned earlier in the review). With Captain Phillips, a lot of the actor's lines seem improvised. And what he does with the casting of the antagonists (the hijackers with Barkhad Abdi as their leader) is absolutely amazing. These gentlemen had never acted in a movie before and got picked out of a group of 700 people (in an open casting call). Their screen presence is undeniably electric (the looks in their eyes are searing) and they hold their own with a 30 year acting veteran like Hanks. Speaking of star Tom Hanks, with the casting of unknowns being the director's strength, you wonder if the addition of him as the lead would hurt the proceedings. Honestly, I don't think it matters because this dude is a reputable icon and a darn good actor anyway (not an easy combination to pull off). Playing the "everyman" to perfection, he can undeniably get away with it because he effortlessly embodies the character of Richard Phillips. He sort of underplays this performance in certain spots and acts with a slew of dead on mannerisms (he only emotes when needed). With the exception of him clearly campaigning for an Oscar in the last few minutes of the film, I'd say that this is one of his 5 best screen performances of all time (especially concerning believability). I saw the actual Captain Richard Phillips on the news a week ago, and Hanks nails his persona. He looks like him, has the same facial expressions, and his accent is dead-on.

        All in all, the real life story of Captain Phillips was the perfect film for an accomplished director like Paul Greengrass and a Hollywood goody goody like Hanks (watch him in the last scene, not many films showcase stuff like this) to make. It has its ups and downs, but my overall observation is that it has what a lot of films today lack, which is the natural gift of sophistication. It also meets the basic Oscar criteria because of its association with its multiple Academy Award winner and the addition of its heroic true story value. You could also throw in historical value, too, as we all know that the Academy craves their antiquity. In its possibly overlong running time (it's not significant enough to fault it for), Captain Phillips is an accurate, professionally told, true story, an "everyman" drama, and a directorial showcase all rolled up into one. Oh yeah, and it's a solid action adventure with good sea legs, too. I always wanted to say that.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE For Cole's Review

Cole's Take on GRAVITY

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

Year: 2013

Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Genre: Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
MPAA Rating: PG-13

             In a world where basically every imaginable thriller has been made, Gravity is a breath of fresh air (ha). It exercises its unique wings and flies up, up, up (I'm done now). However, since there are so many thrillers that require the audiences full engagement (which most don't quite get), it's hard to make a good one. Open Water is a perfect example of a movie that is totally involving. Sure, it's not perfect, but it gets everything right from the beginning to end as far as script goes. Despite its inability to do this, Gravity gets my recommendation because of a few things. One, it is remarkably well shot and filmed. The claustrophobic feeling of being stuck in outer space translated to pure fear thanks to incredibly realistic visual effects and applaud worthy camerawork. Two, it harbors a cast that surely doesn't stand us up. And three, it's original, exciting, and fast-paced. I'd say that for the most part, job well done.

        Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are excellent here as two astronauts who encounter violent debris from a Russian missile strike on a satellite has caused a mass of destruction and is headed there way. They are told to abort the mission, but when time runs out and they haven't done so yet, there are cast into space and are devastatingly against the odds.

        While it lost the pretentiousness that definitely anchored the obviously commemorated 2001: A Space Odyssey, the director of this motion picture seemingly didn't have the guts to make it a true knockout. A drastic alteration to the conclusion of the film would have made it far more emotionally moving, and understandably so (lack of elaboration is a cause for no spoilers). However, he does a nice job of keeping everything moving at a brisk pace, and all of the scenes are shot very well. Director Alfonso Cuarón directs scenes with exuberance; I felt an invisible gun held to my head and heard the words "get involved" while I watched this film, but this came with a catch. In most similar situations, the victim would want to refuse or resist the antagonists' oppression, but here, I didn't want to resist, and I don't think that he is an antagonist. I think that he is a talented filmmaker that had to put up with a cop out ending from the script.

        Here's the bottom line: see Gravity. It's a good film. It's a great way to spend an exciting hour and a half with your pals.  However, unlike some of its predecessors (Apollo 13, "Space Odyssey", Open Water, Alien, etc.), this is not a revolutionary step in the sci-fi industry. Twenty bucks of my money says that it won't win any Academy Awards either (possibly with the exception of special effects). Be that as it may, I anticipate future work from the clearly talented filmmaker.

-Written by Cole Pollyea
   
Click HERE For Jesse's Take on GRAVITY

Jesse's Take on GRAVITY

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

Year: 2013

Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Genre: Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Mainly, the only actors that appear in the 2013 sci-fi release, Gravity, are George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. They share top billing but in the end, this is Bullock's show. She gives a stunning and seething performance as Dr. Ryan Stone, a Mission Specialist who gets caught in a violent (outer atmosphere) debris storm that destroys her shuttle and sends her floating into space. With the help of astronaut Matt Kowalski (played by George Clooney), she is brought back to safety (by way of a tether) and the two of them must find a way to get back to Earth. They have limited resources (the rest of the crew are dead and Stone's oxygen pack is waning) and can't get any type of radio transmission.

        This is basically the set up for the rest of the proceedings. My overall view: Gravity is pretty good, but not great. From the opening shot, right away it feels like the director is teasing you with a teeny tiny homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey (a space shuttle floats across the faraway landscape of the planet Earth). That's where the comparisons end. This film hints at Kubrick's masterpiece (there's a close-up of Bullock's eyes that channel Keir Dullea with his space helmet on) and it seeks to bring the terror like, say, the 1979 gem Alien. But alas, Gravity lacks the eerie beauty displayed in "Odyssey" and the nightmarish posture that possessed Ridley Scott's celebrated marvel. Yes, the characters in this flick are in a lot of danger and extreme peril. However, their plights did not shake me. I didn't experience fear with them. Being lost in space is, I guess, terrifying. But it's hard to pull off. Open Water, a movie that has nothing to do with sci-fi but carries a similar theme, is a superior thriller that has two characters stranded in a body of water with no land in sight. The fact that they might be eaten by sharks is something that shook me to the core. I didn't get the same vibe with Gravity. I don't think it's the filmmakers' fault. This is a picture that is stunning to look at and it has that feeling you get when you think to yourself, "how the heck did they make this?" I give credit to director Alfonso Cuarón for using the same technique that he perfected in Children of Men (2006). He excels at getting the camera to closely follow every action of the characters (it stays right next to them) while, at the same time, having the destruction and chaos occur around them and at close proximity.

        Honestly, if there is one major flaw that seeps into this vehicle's veins, it would be this: a lot of the dangerous situations that Bullock and Clooney (more Bullock than Clooney) get into are the plot devices this thing throws in to keep the film moving or afloat. And then there's the ending that kinda winks at Ron Howard's Apollo 13. Again, Gravity is a good film. But it's not the masterpiece that most critics make it out to be.

        I see some good things happening with this picture though. It should get some technical nods come awards time. And I think Bullock deserves a nomination from the Academy (completely different from her performance for The Blind Side, but still terrific in its own right). But is it Best Picture material? Not in my book. Gravity is no doubt an effective way to kill an hour and a half. The movie has the feel and look like nothing you've ever seen before. But as something that stays with you long after the curtain closes, I feel it doesn't quite hold much weight.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE For Cole's Take on GRAVITY

Cole's Take on PRISONERS

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Denis Villeneuve 
Year: 2013

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello, Jake Gyllenhaal

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

In 2007, a movie of infinite intellectual stature and vivid potency hit theaters around the US (naturally) and left a major mark on cinema; it forever raised the expectations of a crime-drama-thriller. And this was definitely in the back of my mind as I viewed the latest movie of the same genre(s), PRISONERS. 

The aforementioned movie I referenced was David Fincher’s ZODIAC, a genuinely haunting motion picture that, in my mind, should have at least garnered Best Picture in 2007. Why, one may ask, was I reminded of that masterpiece when I viewed PRISONERS, then? In addition to having similar plot development, it stars the same actor and is extremely absorbing. Here, two respective little girls are out frolicking in the cold after their families finish their Thanksgiving meal, but sooner or later, their families notice that they’ve been gone for some time. After an extensive search around the house and neighborhood, it’s concluded that these little girls have been kidnapped.

As terrifying as the initial entry into this movie sounds, it only gets more frightening, adding layers and layers onto the mystery with every scene. While it lacks the audacity and therefore brilliance of Fincher’s direction in ZODIAC, Canadian director Denis Villeneuve does an adequate job of holding the reigns; at some times I’d say he’s holding too tightly, and at others, not enough. For the most part, it flows nicely and what’s happening on screen is simple yet fascinating. 

As for the acting, most members of the cast pull through. While I believe that Hugh Jackman sincerely overacted his part, Jake Gyllenhall’s quietly powerful performance reiterates why he’s so talented in the acting industry. As for the other participants (who should’ve received more screen presence than they did), they did just fine. I wouldn’t quite say PRISONERS was made to specifically showcase acting talent, though.

 

 All in all, I’d say that PRISONERS is among some of the best films so far this year. I don’t know if it will last over the years, but I can say that there were few seconds of screen time in which I wasn't engaged. At the end of this picture, take a ruler and measure how far your back is from the seat. I think you’ll find that you might need a yardstick or two.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE for Jesse's Take on PRISONERS

Jesse's Take on PRISONERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Denis Villeneuve 
Year: 2013

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello, Jake Gyllenhaal

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Produced by busy bee actor Mark Wahlberg and helmed by acclaimed Canadian director Denis Villeneuve, Prisoners is the type of vehicle that is perfect for a fall moviegoing season. It was filmed in Georgia (which I believe, was made to look like a drab part of Pennsylvania), takes place during Thanksgiving, and harbours a non-stop sense of doom and gloom from its opening frame (I think the sun shined maybe once during the entire two and a half hour running time). Listen, I'm not gonna sugarcoat it for you, this picture is long, feels long, and it really takes its time. Villeneuve uses old school filming techniques and doesn't project anything flashy at all.  However, the story, when it's all said and done, is somewhat conventional. Therefore, I think it was necessary for the events to be drawn out and dragged through the muck a little. Based on an initial viewing, I realized that Prisoners would have felt like a TV movie and/or a Law and Order episode if the running time was trimmed to, say, an hour and a half. Thankfully, it comes off as an extended director's cut (I'm not the only critic that felt this way) and that, to a fault, is what makes the flick work. Watching it, I was reminded of a David Fincher film (without Fincher's signature style, though) and not just because it starred staggeringly disciplined actor Jake Gyllenhaal. Prisoners is basically a mild spawn of Fincher's Se7en and Zodiac. It's not quite as effectively creepy as those films, but it's definitely good enough to recommend.

        Part kidnapping movie, part police detective character study, and part fatherly vigilante escapade, Prisoners tells the story of two families (neighbors from across the street) who get together on Thanksgiving day. The Birch's (Franklin Birch played by Terrence Howard and Nancy Birch played by Viola Davis who barely registers here) and the Dover's (Hugh Jackman and Maria Bello as Keller and Grace Dover) have a relaxing, calming holiday until their respective daughters wander off and go missing. This then gets the attention of a socially inept area detective (Mr. Loki played with vigor by Jake Gyllenhaal) who garners almost complete control over handling the missing persons case. As days go by and a potential suspect who might've taken the children gets bounced free, Jackman's angry, frustrated character eventually decides to take the law into his own hands. As the film slowly creeps toward its conclusion, you get small twists and turns (as well as slightly minimal character revelations).

        On the acting front, one thing to notice when viewing Prisoners is how it pushes aside the other performers in the main cast (Oscar nominees like Viola Davis and Terrence Howard) and puts its main focus on Jackman. Now I'm not saying that Hugh Jackman is a mediocre actor. I just don't think he has the fiery chops to take on such a serious, dramatic role. His fault lies in the extreme overacting and preening to the audience. He seems to be saying, "hey look at me, I should be nominated for an oscar!" With all the focus on him, the other player's roles become seriously underdeveloped. It gets to the point where you hardly see them anymore. Using little to no background music, there are a lot of carefully set up scenes in Prisoners. To a fault, Jackman appears in almost all of them.  Jake Gyllenhaal (Detective Loki), the only other actor receiving top billing, takes up almost as much of the shared time. The difference with Gyllenhaal is that he quietly outacts his co-star. His minutes on screen are underplayed but they feel more genuine, more studied (Gyllenhaal's character's facial ticks like eye blinking were a nice touch), and generally more effective. He seems born to play his role. Jackman, on the other hand, has one persuasive agent (he probably needs to stick to his strengths, which are the X-Men movies). 

        As a fall release that feels as if it's a journey or a metaphoric expedition, Prisoners has a teaser of an ending that may leave viewers holding their hands in the air. The overlength may also be a factor when it comes to their varied attention spans. I however, found this exercise mildly absorbing and it was able to keep me interested. You may find the opening ten minutes a little muddled and weak in terms of set up, but after that, this exercise will place you in its grip (not too tightly) and not let go. Like I said earlier, Prisoners makes its case for being serviceable because it rides the wave of other crime dramas filling the screen with gloomy, overcast, and rain-drenched sequences. While watching it, you can almost sense that it does hold back just a little. This film doesn't take too many risks and it may not haunt you like it should (Villeneuve's direction is overly careful). But hey, it still gets by mainly because of its look and Gyllenhaal's icy magnitude. All in all, if you like crime thrillers that take their time and don't try to jerk you around with the camera, Prisoners might just set you "free".

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE for Cole's Take on PRISONERS