Top Five

         ‘Top Five’ is a film that if you like Chris Rock and his sense of humor then you will have a lot of fun.  It has a semi-autobiographical feel to it as he lampoons the state of modern celebrity and examines the fact that success doesn’t necessarily bring happiness. No one in modern entertainment is spared Rock’s critique (including himself) as he delves into everything from the stardom of talentless reality show stars to comedians who begin to take themselves to seriously through vanity projects.  One feels that Chris Rock is someone who did not find fulfillment with his success and fame and, if anything, had his fears and insecurities intensified with the public spot light upon him.  The lead character, Andre Allen is obviously fictional, but one cannot help but feel that Rock is drawing upon personal experience and the result is closer to reality than fiction.

The story opens with Rock’s character Andre Allen, a mega successful stand up comedian, trying to prove that he is a serious artist by releasing a movie that will probably alienate the majority of white audience.  During the stressful time of wondering how his movie will be received, Andre tries to juggle the public attention and constant filming of his upcoming wedding to reality star Erica Long (played in perfect Diva fashion by Gabrielle Union).  Andre is adored by millions, but feels his life is no longer in his control as he believes he is in danger of falling into irrelevancy.  Or as his agent ,played by Kevin Hart, says; “You are one step away from appearing on ‘Dancing with the Stars’!’.  What should be an exciting time in Andre’s life is fraught with stress and anxiety.

Andre agrees to do an interview with New York Times reporter, Chelsea Brown (played with an attractive girl next door vibe by Rosario Dawson).  Andre is cautious as the Times has been less than flattering with his movies in the past, but the spunky reporter appeals to him and he agrees to let her have access to him during his pre-wedding and pre-movie release chaos.  Chris Rock and Rosario Dawson have a good on screen chemistry and the questions are no holds barred even if the answers aren’t always as direct.  The two grow closer as they learn about each other even as their cynical wariness keeps a professional distance.  One senses (or maybe I project) that Chris Rock is trying to show that fame isn’t all its’ cracked up to be.  Chelsea also comes to realize there is more than just glitter behind the lights and starts to gain a sympathy which can be dangerous to a reporter trying to be objective.

Chris Rock has struggled to make his movie career match up to his stand up success.  The movies he has starred in to pay the bills have never been critically well received, but the movies he has written and directed have been very well received.  Unfortunately, they didn’t translate into big box office dollars.  It’s too bad, because I enjoy his films immensely and I believe he has a voice worth hearing.  

You know Rock must have a lot of friends in the industry because this movie is filled with many fun cameos.  I could list them, but I don’t want to spoil the fun when they pop up. The movie is also filled with Saturday Night Live performers, including present and alumni alike.  Each brings their unique comedic talents and only enhance the film.  It’s nice to see a talent like Rock not afraid to showcase other talents than himself.  

Like I said earlier, I don’t see this movie making a big splash, but if you are in the mood for a fun examination of Chris Rock’s observations and tribulations, then this is time well spent.  I’m going ot rate this film higher than it deserves strictly out of my entertainment value and appreciation of independent artistic expression.  It’s a fun time at the movies.

I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1507569433?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_9

Theory of Everything

       Bias alert:  I’m not a big fan of Oscar baiting bioptic pictures.  I usually find them over blown and more focused on some actor trying to prove their acting brilliance than having an engaging story line.  Of course there are exceptions, but ‘Theory of Everything’ is not one of them.  Based on the book by Stephen Hawking’s ex-wife Jane Hawking, the story is told in bland milquetoast detail providing all the insight that could have been found in five paragraphs of Wikipedia. This was a uniquely unsatisfying film about a man whose story should have been much more developed.  It was not the actors fault as they all turned in superb, ‘Oscar’ level performances, but the storyline execution kept them from greatness.

The film starts off following the blossoming academic career of Stephen Hawking (played exceptionally well by Eddie Redmayne) meeting his future wife Jane (Felicity Jones) while trying to find a subject of his doctoral paper.  The events that lead to Stephan searching for the universal equation that explains everything and finally settling join Time are some of the most engaging pats of the film and areas that I wish they would have developed more fully, but this was secondary to the love story.  Actually, I would have been fine with this, but as I mentioned, this was story was written by Stephen’s ex-wife.  While I commend her for trying to put the best spin on the story, it came across as glossed over and ultimately unsatisfying in understanding them as people.  The film follows Stephen and his wife through the milestones of childbirths, fame, and marital issues, none of which are fully realized or explained.

The bringing of another man into their marriage as well as Stephen ultimately leaving his wife for his caretaker were unsatisfyingly explored.  It was treated as if this were the most normal and natural thing in the world instead of a fascinating human story to be explored.  As far as their separation being amicable, I think that is great, but I would like to have a bit more understanding of the dynamic other than ‘It just happened’.  The poetic music and flowery photography tried to add a dimension of beauty to the story, but I felt it just distracted from the essence of the story, which was the brilliance of a man who battled great obstacles and odds, but still retained his fundamental humanity, with all the weaknesses and triumphs we all face.  

Of course, most people know the tragedy of Stephen Hawking’s condition, so there was really only a sense of dread as we see him deteriorate.  We saw much of his physical obstacles, but not enough of how he emotionally coped with them.  Nor was enough explored about how he had children while in this condition or the rumors about the children’s actual paternity. The author, Jane Hawking, states she wanted to keep that private, but that is a significant omission of the story she wanted to tell.  If you are not going to uniquely focus on his scientific contributions, rather their marriage, then tell the whole story or don’t tell it at all.

Overall, the orchestral music and artistic imagery were overdone in an attempt to make this an Oscar worthy film.  Eddie Redmayne proved himself an exceptional actor playing Stephen Hawking (I wouldn’t b upset if he were nominated) during various stages of his disease, but it was not enough to make this film an engaging or comprehensive examination of one of the great minds of the 20th and 21st centuries.  Big disappointment, but I blame that more on the source material rather the film making skill.  They did the best they could with what they had to work with which was an incomplete and surface examination of the topic.

  I give this film ** stars out of four

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2980516/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Interstallar

Bias alert!  Christopher Nolan can do no wrong in my book.  He has created  incredible films that have never failed to leave me amazed.  Everything from the ‘Dark Knight’ trilogy, to ‘Inception’, to ‘Memento’.  His latest film, ‘Interstellar’ is no different and is probably his most ambitious film to date.  Taking obvious inspiration from ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, Nolan uses his trademark style of soaring music scores (always heavy in bass for maximum effect) and complex, overlapping, and brain turning plots to take us on a journey trying to capture concepts we are unable to understand in our three dimensional world.  You don’t have to be a physicist to enjoy this ride, but the movie doesn’t try to dumb down the science and it stretches our ability to understand things we aren’t meant to understand.

The film starts in the near future focusing on the life of Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a farmer living a farmer’s life, well past his glory years as a pilot for NASA.  The world is in its’ final stages of being able to support human life.  Year after year, people are able to harvest less and less crops and dust storms have become the norm for weather.  Everyone instinctively knows they are only a generation or so away from extinction, but they still try to carry on as best they can.  Cooper sits on his porch nightly with his father-in-law Donald (John Lithgow) and remembers the days when humans had purpose.  When they dared to explore instead of merely survive.  Cooper sees that same spark in his daughter Murphy (MacKenzie Foy/Jessica Chastain), but knows she lives in a world where that is no longer valued.

Murphy amuses her father with stories of poltergeists in her room, that is until Cooper starts to see things he can’t explain.  Patterns in the dust and oddly arranged books on the book case in Murphy’s room arises his scientific curiosity and eventually leads him to see patterns.  The patterns lead to coordinates which lead him to a secret scientific base in the desert.  He discovers a group of scientists lead by Prof Brand (played by Nolan favorite Michael Caine) and his daughter (played by new Nolan favorite Anne Hathaway).  Prof Brand confirms that the human race will indeed not likely survive his daughter’s generation and since the discovery of a wormhole (a tear in space) by Saturn, they have been working for decades to find another inhabitable world.  For years, they have been sending secret expeditions to the far side of the universe with promising data of inhabitable planets coming back.  Unfortunately, not one of the astronauts have returned.  Cooper is selected to lead a crew to find salvation for the human race.

The effects in this film are stunning and riveting, yet at it’s core, this film focuses on Cooper’s family and the choices he makes.  Nolan’s artistry is that he can make the dynamic of Cooper’s family seem as majestic as a trip through interstellar space.  In fact, the two are interconnected as they progress through the wormhole and find a black hole on the other side.  On the far side of the universe, near the black hole, time, space, and gravity are no longer constant and Nolan challenges our minds to understand the ramifications of actions in five dimensions, when our minds are wired for three.  Again, you don’t have to be a science buff to enjoy this.  Sometimes the ride is enough (or as Nolan puts it, you don’t have to know how a motor works to drive a car).  

Small Spoiler Alert:  Towards the climax of the film, it is obvious Nolan tries to capture the magic of Stanley Kubrick’s “acid trip” finale in ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ without all the druggie incoherence.  In fact, Nolan seems eager to try to show coherence in the incomprehensible.  I enjoyed it immensely, even if my suspension of disbelief faltered. Nolan's thumping soundtrack and overlapping plot lines builds to a crescendo as we see all the pieces start to fall together.  There may not be comprehension, but one leaves with a feeling of resolution.  

Whatever one thinks of this film, this is one of McConaughey’s most intense and emotional performances (and that’s saying a lot).  His ability to portray a father torn from his family and struggling with the choices he made is incredible to watch.  Nolan’s story telling abilities mixed with incredible special effects further cements his reputation as one of the best film makers of his generation.  Solid performances all around by Nolan’s troupe of favorite actors as well as an uncredited appearance by an A-list actor that turns into more than just a cameo. 

As I stated in the beginning: Christopher Nolan and his writer brother Jonathon, can do no wrong in my book.  A fantastic, awe-inspiring, and thought provoking film.  Science fiction usually doesn’t get too much respect come Oscar time, but McConaughey deserves another one this year for this performance.

I give this film **** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2284039193?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_6

John Wick

       Some movies I go to, I really want to like just because I like the premise or the actor starring in it.  ‘John Wick’ is a film that i really wanted to hate.  Watching the trailer, this looked like a generic action flick, starring an aging movie star, with a cheesy revenge premise.  I am not sure why I even decided upon this one, but truth be told, I was pleasantly surprised.  While everything I listed above is true, ‘John Wick’ turned out to be a slick, hip, and stylish action flick that makes no apologies for the genre it tries to exploit.  I can’t say this was a ‘good’ movie, but it was beautifully shot with grey and blue camera filters, and with video game action sequences which somehow never became tired.  This is just a fun time at the movies.

Keanu Reeves plays retired Hitman John Wick.  Against the odds, he has managed to leave his life of violence behind and start to lead a normal life with his beautiful wife.  Life has other plans and John suffers the loss of his wife to cancer.  Her dying gift to John is a puppy to help cope with his grief.  While devastated, John is able to get by with the help of the puppy who gives his life purpose and a reason to get out of bed every morning.  This delicate balance is destroyed when a young Russian mobster named Iosef takes a shine to John’s muscle car and brings his crew to break into his house and steal his car.  John is beaten and his dog is callously killed.  I always find it interesting that the audience can take massive amounts of people killing people in film, but the second the dog gets it, all gloves are off.  

When Iosef tries to take the car to a chop shop to clean all the ID markings, he soon discovers that the name John Wick is a name whispered only in reverence in the underworld.  Even Iosef’s Kingpin father seems beyond anger when he learns what his son has done and is more or less resigned to his and his son’s fate.  His gesture to send everyone he has after John Wick seems more of a ritual of what he has to do than having any hope of success.  The next 2 hours is an orgy of video game mayhem and violence that even the most jaded movie goer would have a hard time not getting a thrill from.  The gun play mixed with martial arts achieves an almost ‘Matrix’ level of coolness as John Wick shoots his way through the underworld in search of Iosef.

Following John Wick on his path, glimpses into his past are revealed and there are interesting explorations of the fraternity of Hitmen.  Particularly cool, was the Hitman hotel, which is basically a hidden sanctuary for people in the trade where they can stay without fear of violence.  Each member of the hotel staff knows how to professionally deal with issues unique only to Hitmen. I especially like the touch of the cleaning crew for hire that cleans up the mess after each massacre. Wherever John Wick goes, he is recognized by people in or associated with the fraternity and is given the awe like respect that his past seems to have earned him.  At some points, we almost feel sorry for Iosef, despite being a thug, because we know that his fate is sealed and its just a matter of time. John Wick is on a mission and any hope he had for returning to a normal life have been shattered

As I said in the beginning, the plot of this film is eye rolling generic and cheesy. The genre is tired. However, it is the execution of this film that is impressive.  Beautiful photography and riveting action pacing.  Keanu Reeves plays an aging Hitman with just the right amount of disciplined reserve and explosive action. Even John Wick’s mentor/friend Marcus (Willem Dafoe) is played with just the right amount of sinister creepiness and professionalism to make the relationship work.  Overall, just a great, fun time at the movies if you are in the mood for a shoot ‘em up.  I can’t in good conscience give this film a high rating, but I do highly recommend it for fun’s sake.  Prepare to say ‘cool’ often.

                                                              I give this film ** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi884911897?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_6

Birdman

‘Birdman (or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)’ is the type of film I love to see and write about.  That doesn’t mean I thought it was a great film, but Director Alejandro González Iñárritu paints a unique and daring vision and that is always something that I respect immensely.  I also enjoy seeing actors leave their comfort zones and explore different genres of film.  “Birdman’ dissects the world of acting and it’s over blown self importance while at the same time embracing its’ passion and need to create.

Riggan (Michael Keaton) is a washed up actor who, at the height of his career, played the superhero Birdman in a series of blockbuster movies in the 90’s.  He left the franchise right before Birdman 3 for artistic reason, but was never able to recapture that level of glory again (an uncomfortably autobiographical role for Michael Keaton to be playing).  Broke and awash in family issues, Riggan decides to write, produce, direct, and star in a Broadway play in a last ditch attempt to show the world his artistic abilities.  To add to the pressure, Riggen must deal with Mike (Edward Norton), a temperamental Broadway star, and his estranged daughter Sam (Emma Stone).  Both drive him to the edge, but he must work with each in order to make his play work and save what’s left of his family life.

The film is often abstract and even though it flows in a linear fashion, it does not always flow coherently.  Scenes often dissolve from one to the next with no discernible transition and leaves the viewer momentarily disoriented.  The camera work is interesting, even if it is taxing at times.  It feels as if the camera is mounted on a person’s shoulder as it follows the action through the backstage halls.  A first person view point that gives the feeling of eavesdropping in on their lives. One plot device that was particularly hard to reconcile with the rest of the story was the evil voice inside Riggan’s head.  It’s a bitter and angry version of his Birdman character that reminds Riggan of his past glory and spurs him, almost Satanically, to create his Broadway show.  To further blur the lines of reality, when Riggan hears this voice in his moments of solitude he possesses super powers.  Whether it’s flight, super strength, or telekinesis, these schizophrenic episodes weave in seamlessly with the reality around him making it all the more confusing.  

Riggan’s lawyer/agent Jake (played surprisingly well by Zach Galifianakas) is the only one fully in Riggan’s corner and his only point of reality and sanity.  While a steadfast friend, Jake still has his eye on the ball and wants desperately to help keep things together so he can be part of Riggan’s glorious return.  Other character relationships are interesting, whether it’s the awkward romance that develops between Ed Norton and Emma Stone’s characters or the lesbian romance between Riggan’s girlfriend and Mike’s soon-to-be ex-girlfriend.  While these are all compelling, the true star is Michael Keaton. His portrayal of Riggan may be uncomfortable given how closely it mirrors his real life, but it is definitely an Oscar caliber performance and I hope he is not over looked come Oscar time. 

I don’t think this film merits all the praise it has been receiving.  I think the fact that it is so unique and also lays bare the vapidness of the acting community strikes a chord with critics as it is not something you see on screen very often.  One scene that particularly resonated with me was when Riggan confronted a ruthless theater critic.  He states that despite the inherent inaneness of acting, being a critic costs nothing.  Artists put everything on the line to create something for the public.  They put their livelihoods, their fortunes, even who they are as people on the line just to create something they hope people will enjoy, whereas critics risk nothing.  They just sit back and judge and their are no personal consequence to their actions.  Something I keep in mind when I write.

I recommend this film for its’ uniqueness and to see well known actors in a different light. I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1378069529?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

Gone Girl

I dedicate this post to my father who passed away recently.  He rarely saw movies, but always had a constructive comment on how my posts were written.  He let me know if I was hitting the mark with my comments or if i talked him out of seeing a film because of what I wrote. 

“Gone Girl”

So, during the slow movie months of September and October, a truly exciting film that I can only call a Thriller comes out.  Starring Ben Affleck and Rosemund Pike as Nick and Amy Dunne, this is the story of a seemingly idyllic couple whose marriage is thrown into the media spotlight after the mysterious and suspicious disappearance of Nick’s beautiful wife Amy.  The film plays into and almost lampoons the conclusions we jump to immediately and the mob mentality that seizes our modern society as a result of a ratings obsessed media.

Director David Fincher builds an elaborate base from which we think we know what happened because the clues are so obvious, but at the same time allows us to doubt what we feel for the very same reason of how obvious the clues are.  Ben Affleck is perfectly cast as the handsome, yet suspicious husband channeling the Scott Peterson case from the early 2000s.  Through police interrogations, Fincher tells the picture perfect storybook tale of how Nick and Amy met and came to be married. They were two people destined to be with each other.  As the story progresses, we begin to see the cracks in the fairy tale, and as our suspicions increase about Nick, so do our doubts about whether he actually did it.

As much as I enjoyed Ben Affleck’s performance, Rosemund Pike’s performance as the missing wife was the true standout for me.  Not only am I impressed when the English can do a flawless American accent, but she has the mannerisms down to perfection too.  She portrays the perfect victim, but at the same time has a sinister and dangerous edge that keeps us guessing.  As her dark side is slowly revealed (actually, quite suddenly at one point in the film), she becomes a source of fear and distrust that rivals, if not exceeds, what we feel for her husband Nick.  I can’t go into much more of a synopsis without giving away key plot points, so I will just say that there are very few innocents in this film and Fincher has a way of making everyone sympathetic and deplorable at the same time.

David Fincher has an impressive track record of creating thrilling film noir.  Having achieved almost perfection in the film ‘Seven’, he has used this type of film making over the years even in his lighter faire such as ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons’.  Watching ‘Gone Girl’ makes me realize how truly absent the art form of the Thriller has become in the modern movie landscape.  Films that take their time building tension and demand our attention to even the minutest plot points have become increasingly rare.  Today’s audiences seem to have lost the appetite for storytelling and nuance opting for instant gratification action sequences that appeal to our attention deficit.  

While one can just enjoy the whodunnit storyline of this film, it is also an effective social commentary of our media culture as well.  It lays bare the hunger that the media has for sensationalism over truth.  They look for the angle that gets the most people into a frenzy, no matter who it hurts.  In a small, but pivotal role, Tyler Perry plays the spotlight-hogging, sleazy defense attorney, yet ends up being one of the more virtuous characters in the story.  His understanding of how the media ‘system’ works is something that Nick clings to during his most trying times.

I highly recommend this film.  It’s a great fall movie night film that leaves you talking about it long after the credits roll.  See it with a date, but it might give you second thoughts about getting married.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars out of four

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1541712921?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

The Skeleton Twins

        I really enjoy when actors leave their comfort zone, even if it is on a small scale.  Former Saturday Night Live stars and, up until now, strictly comedic movie actors Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader team up as a pair of estranged siblings who reunite after failed suicide attempts coincidentally on the same day.  It’s a look into their lives and past that is both humorous and somber.  Emotionally impactful, if at times depressing, this film rises above self pity and explores two siblings reconnecting after being scarred by both childhood and life.  Kristen Wiig as Maggie is always charming whether playing comedic or dramatic, but it’s Bill Hader’s performance as her gay brother Milo that steals almost every scene in this movie.  It’s a toned down version of his SNL character ‘Stefan’, but he is definitely channeling him throughout the film.  He is able to contain the excesses just enough to make it a masterful performance.  I’m going out on a limb and say that this will be a nominated performance come Oscar time.

After a failed suicide attempt by her brother Milo, Maggie travels to L.A. to bring her brother back home to the East coast.  Milo’s dream of making it big in Hollywood never materialized and after a breakup with his boyfriend, Milo is lost.  Maggie’s dream of suburban bliss did not turn out as satisfying as she expected.  Despite having an ideal, albeit clueless husband, (played just goofy enough by Luke Wilson), Maggie is depressed to the point of suicide herself and consoles herself in a string of extramarital affairs.  Despite the 10 year absence and tension between the two, their chemistry is apparent and their connection is strong.  Despite their fragile states, each strengthens the other with their presence.

The film unfolds slowly and takes its’ time examining the two.  Whether through flashbacks or conversational revelations, their history begins to take shape and we begin to understand what has brought them to this point in their lives.  I go back to Hader’s performance that could have been played over the top, but was instead right on the mark.  A delicate person trying to deal with the trauma of his life the best he can and come to grips with his past.  His confrontation with his ex teacher/first love Rich (Ty Burell playing to almost the same level of performance perfection as Hader) could have been overly dramatic, but Hader conveys both hurt and hopefulness simultaneously.  It’s a pleasure to watch subtleness of performance and complexity of feeling instead of being hit over the head with whatever is trendy or politically correct.  The writer walks a tightrope of a teacher who betrayed a student’s trust yet sincerely cared for him as well as wrestling with his own identity. 

Kristen Wiig also is able to create a character we care about despite not being satisfied with a life most people strive for.  Maggie wanted the suburban dream after being denied it as a child, but is in turmoil when she discovers that it is not fulfilling.  With a fragmented and estranged family, she feels lost and alone despite having everything she could want.  Only Milo can understand, if not sympathize.  The understanding is emotional and, despite their history, each is there for the other, even when it appears they are not.  

It’s difficult to say what this film is ‘about’ or what message it trys to convey.  It merely examines the lives of ordinary people in a way that allows us to care for everyone involved instead of choosing sides.  Life and our decisions aren’t as black and white as we try to make them.  The bond of family is what supports us even when they are not present.  Once again, I’ll say I enjoyed seeing the dramatic side of these two comedic actors even if there were many comedic moments in the film.  While I can’t say that this film had a fulfilling message or tidy resolutions, it is a satisfying character study.  Fingers crossed for Hader at Oscar time.

I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1200598041?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_1

Frank

      I so wanted to like this film.  Not only does it star one of my favorite actors; Michael Fassbender, but it has been getting a lot of good buzz on the Indie circuit, including Sundance.  I have a particular fondness for Indie films, so I was excited to see this unique story about an Indie rock band fronted by a man named Frank.  A man who never takes a mascot size head off whether on stage or not.  As hard as I tried to like it, this dark comedy was neither amusing nor were the dramatic turns particularly affecting.  This was a film that tried to impress itself with its’ eccentric ‘humor’ and tried to say something profound about mental illness, although I could never figure out what.

I will say, the film started off promising focusing on Jon (played by Irish up and comer Dohmnall Gleesan). A cubicle worker desperate to find an outlet for his creative expression, Jon one day stumbles across a small Indie band who has a sudden need for a keyboard player.  Deciding to take a leap at his dream, he drops everything and agrees to tour with the band.  Immediately meeting Frank, he is confused by this eccentric frontman, whom everyone worships as a creative genius, but no one can ever remember seeing him without his mascot head.  I know this sounds weird and it is, but somehow, this part of the movie works.  Once you settle in and realize that the head is on for the duration, you buy into the premise.  I do applaud Fassbender as his ego is in check enough not to have his face shown throughout the film.

Jon senses trouble and disillusionment when the band sets up in a lake side cottage instead of going on tour.  The manager says they must spend time laying down tracks and coming up with an album before they go on tour.  It’s at this point I think the film loses it’s way.  Being the only ‘normal’ one, Jon has trouble fitting in with the group.  It’s only through Frank’s fascination with Jon that the group allows him to stay.  Even so, I felt that Frank’s interest in Jon was more due the kitsch factor of his normality.  From here, every scene seemed to be trying to have each band member’s quirks out do the others.  I found none of them particularly engaging, especially Maggie Gyllenhaal’s Clara, who is threatened by Frank’s diverted attention to Jon.  

Hints at mental illness among all the band members begin to emerge and instead of being humorous as the film intended, I found it more sad than anything else.  As the months pass and supplies begin to run low, Jon feels he has had a creative epiphany from all his isolated suffering and goes into overdrive.  Unfortunately, his work is mediocre and considered mundane by the rest of the band.  Regardless, Jon soon sees Frank as the creative genius that everyone else sees him as and he uses his skill with social media to start lining up performances for the band.  The most high profile is a music festival in Texas.  Despite Clara’s concern that this type of thing could unbalance Frank, she is overruled and they are off to America to find their fame and fortune.

The film, having already gone wrong in my opinion, dives deeper down the wrong direction and soon all pretense of comedy is dropped and the film just become a series of psychotic episodes among the band members.  We begin to question Jon’s own mental balance as his obsession with becoming a famous musician overcomes his own common sense.  The cameras rests slowly and uncomfortably long on scenes of Frank’s despair with no real reason or epiphanies. We begin to learn Frank’s secrets, but instead of revealing they are just depressing and disappointing.  

I’m not going to continue with criticizing this film as I admire independent films and their creative process.  I’ll just say that I thought this one missed the mark and I have no idea what the critics are seeing in this.  Sometimes I think critics will say they like things that they think are thoughtful and edgy just to appear to be thoughtful and edgy themselves.  Michael Fassbender is still at the top of my list of modern actors and I enjoy he enjoys doing low profile and unique films, but I just couldn’t connect with this film.

I give this film * 1/2 star

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4288654361

The Hundred-Foot Journey

        ‘The Hundred-Foot Journey’ does what it is supposed to do.  It targets the middle aged movie going crowd with beautiful exotic scenery, mature family based characters, and long lingering camera shots on food, both familiar and exotic.  It’s a nice way to spend a Sunday matinee and get your life affirming warm fuzzies.  Produced by Steven Speilberg and Oprah Winfrey, this film doesn’t exactly push the envelope, but it does paint a beautiful picture that’s comforting to watch. 

The story follows the Kadam family as they are forced to leave their life in India.  Eventually, they find their way to the South of France where they stumble across a small picturesque village which the family’s patriarch, Papa (Om Puri) decides to call home.  The whole Kadam family are restauranteurs and they decide to open up an Indian restaurant across the street from the town’s celebrity French restaurant, a mere hundred feet away, which has a coveted Michelin star.  The proprietress, Madam Mallory (played respectably French by Helen Mirren) is aghast that someone has dared set up shop next to her let alone immigrants who want to offer ethnic food to the finicky French townspeople.  She is more indignant than anything else as she is convinced that the French know good food and Kadam’s restaurant will be short lived.  

Papa has a secret weapon that even he doesn’t realize.  His eldest son Hassan (Mannish Dayal) is a great cook, but even Papa doesn’t suspect how good.  Hassan has mastered Indian cuisine , but starts to become enthralled with French culture and cuisine as he discovers a whole other world of food, ingredients, and spices.  The artist within him starts to experiment with fusing the two cuisines and the results catches everyone’s attention, including Madame Mallory’s.    Despite Madame Mallory’s misgivings, she convinces Papa to let her take Hassan under her wing to help develop him into a world class chef.  She succeeds and suddenly the culinary world notices the Indian immigrant living in the small French Village.  The village suddenly becomes too small to hold Hassan’s talent

Much of this film is paint by the numbers and predictable.  Everything from the expansive landscapes, to the clichéd love interests, to the little guy fighting the odds, to the awesome food porn, this movie takes few chances, but that doesn’t mean it’s not thoroughly enjoyable.  Sometimes comfort and beauty is a nice way to spend your movie dollar and from that stand point, this film delivers.  You always know what’s coming, but when it happens you still smile and appreciate the journey.  I would be hard pressed to remember a more picturesque film in recent memory and for those who day dream about running away to the south of France, this film is more than enough to satisfy.  For foodies out there, it doesn’t favor one cuisine over the other rather it encourages all people to leave their culinary comfort zones and explore, which I particularly appreciated,  

Not all films have to have gravitas or action or explosions. Sometimes, it’s just nice to take a long leisurely journey down a picturesque path.  I recommend this film as mature escapist fantasy.  A great date movie that will probably have you reexamining your vacation plans.  

I give this film *** stars out of four

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3660426521?ref_=ttvi_vi_1

Lucy

        I am not a huge fan of French filmmakers or French films in general. I find them pretentious, pompous, and overly stylized.  However; while I am not a great fan of Director Luc Besson, he has produced some of my greatest guilty pleasures, most notably La Femme Nikita and Colombiana. I’ve always felt he was a French Director who was trying to make American style films.  Besson has an affinity for heroines who kick-ass stylishly and ‘Lucy’ is no different.  Like most of Besson’s film’s, it is high on style and low on substance.  I will say that he did attempt to add some depth and interesting exploration of human potential, but ultimately ‘Lucy’ relies on it’s fashion show action sequences and falls flat as it tries to explore the outer rims of the human mind.

The story revolves around a young American exchange student in Taiwan (played by the stunning Scarlett Johanssen) who, due to a bad choice in boyfriends, is kidnapped to become a pack mule for a new type of street drug being developed, which they hide inconveniently inside her abdomen.  When the package begins to leak and the substance enters her system, the true nature of the drug is revealed.  As humans, we use 10% of our brain’s ability.  Through questionable science, this drug begins to expand our ability to tap the unused portions of our brain.  Of course, we have seen this type of plot many times before, most recently in Bradley Cooper’s ‘Limitless’.  This time the vision of what we are able to do while utilizing greater brain power takes us into the realm of meta-physics and into a pseudo Matrix like reality.  Lucy uses her enhanced brain power to escape and the race is on to find a way to reverse the effects before the substance kills her through overload.   Lucy seeks out Professor Norman (played by elder statesman Morgan Freeman) as he is the foremost authority on the subject of human potential.  

Another consistent item in Luc Besson films are generic bad guys and Min-sik Joi’s Mr Jang is no exception.  He is the evil crime boss who looks for ways to be even more evil with his generically evil henchman.  He pursues Lucy to retrieve the remaining substance, showing no fear of Lucy’s rising God like powers.  The chase leads to Paris France where Lucy teams up with Professor Norman and enlists the aid of local French detective, Pierre del Rio (Amr Waked).  Lucy’s abilities begin to grow exponentially until the very nature of linear reality comes into question.

I am not short changing Besson’s ability to create a stylish and visually stunning film.  I particularly liked his ‘time-clock’ method of tracking Lucy’s evolving brain capacity.  He also made some interesting flash screen choices using behaviors in the animal kingdom to reinforce points about human actions.  The film is just pleasing to the eyes and the action zips you along just quick enough to keep your mind from finding all the holes in the meta physical plot line.

This film is almost a super-hero film and  almost a sci-fi Matrix style film, but ultimately it is all a Luc Besson film and he does what Besson does best:  stylish, eye candy, action (led by hot chicks).  Despite the glaring holes in the meta-physics of the film, it does get you thinking and that has to be respected in an action film I suppose.

I give this film ** 1/2 stars out of 4

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi4114984217?ref_=ttvi_vi_2

Guardians of the Galaxy

       ‘The Guardians of the Galaxy’ has been one of the most hyped and buzzed about Marvel movies in recent memories.  Not so much just for the ‘Avengers’ style team dynamic, but also that this is Marvel’s riskiest endeavor to date.  Since Marvel doesn’t own the film rights to their two flagship comic titles, The Fantastic Four and The X-Men, Marvel has quickly run out of primary characters with a general public awareness. In fact, they are tapping a moderately if not lower successful comic series that only started in its’ current form during the last decade.  Hardly a pedigree upon which to build a franchise.  In addition, ‘The Guardians of the Galaxy’ isn’t a super-hero film per se, it falls more under the Space-Western genre and those have become as rare as actual Westerns in recent years.  To make executives more nervous, Marvel, once again, picked a quirky (some say unknown) Director, James Gunn, known primarily for low-budget genre films.  However this could have turned out, I admire greatly that a big corporate machine like Disney/Marvel took a chance instead of going cookie cutter.  The film is a welcome addition to the Marvel Universe and takes us down a more comedic path than previously angst ridden and dark super-hero films.  Combine that with one of the hippest retro soundtracks ever attached to a movie and Marvel has a blockbuster on their hands…in August (slow movie month) no less.   I will say that this film isn’t as accessible to mass audiences as other super-hero movies which are more Earth based.  Once the prologue ends, it is a non-stop outer space roller coaster ride.  If you are someone who doesn’t like Space Westerns then this might not be for you, but Director James Gunn does a phenomenal job bringing every cliché in the book together and presenting them in a fresh way.  

Chris Pratt takes on the lead role of Peter Quill aka Star-Lord (a lofty name which no one except him seems willing to use).  Chris Pratt is best known for his goofy sit -com role on ‘Parks and Recreation’, but this film launches him into the leading man category.  Pratt channels and combines the roguish, yet comedic qualities of Harrison Ford’s Han Solo and Indiana Jones and gives us a scoundrel to root for. Quill is charming, handsome, funny, and did I say roguish? Despite his cavalier antics, he can handle himself in a fight and he would be the first one you would want to help you out of a jam.

        After being snatched from Earth as a boy, Peter Quill spends his time as a treasure hunter/salvager.  When he recovers a mysterious orb on one of his adventures, he brings the attention of several baddies he would rather not be noticed by.  The beautiful green skinned assassin Gamora (played stunningly gorgeous by Zoe Saldanna) is sent to retrieve the orb from Quill as he tries to pawn it on the planet of Xandar.  In addition, bounty hunters, most notably a grumpy cyberneticly enhanced raccoon named Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) and 7 foot Groot, a walking tree (played tri-syllbalically by Vin Diesel) are trying to catch Quill in order to collect the price on his head.  During all the commotion, they are captured and thrown into a maximum security prison where they find their final member, Drax the Destroyer (played surprisingly able by former WWE wrestler Dave Bautista).  Drax has lost his wife and daughter and his sole mission is revenge on Ronan, the being responsible.

Some may roll their eyes at the thought of a talking raccoon and a walking tree being characters, but the CGI in this is flawless and they become the highlight if not breakout characters of the movie.  The friendship between Rocket and Groot is something that we empathetically feel and even though Groot can only say three words; “I am Groot’, Vin Diesel does a great job instilling emotional context in the performance.  No easy task and a tribute to the CGI team.  The anti-heroes reluctantly team up to break out of prison and once they find out the true plans for the orb by Ronan, a generic omnipotent villain for which Marvel is known, they decide to work together in order to save the galaxy.  Giddyup!

The genius of Marvel is that every character they create, no matter what the genre, exists in the same universe.  Everything is interconnected and if you have been following the films over the last several years, you will see the cross overs and connections.  Glimpses of everything from the Teserac to the Mad Titan Thanos are seen if not explored.  Also, more than any film to date, there are more Easter eggs for the comic geek than all other films combined. Races like the Kree or the Xandarian’s Nova Corps to The Celestials and even the beginnings of the Infinity Gauntlet are all in here for the über nerds like myself.  Just take a look at The Collector’s menagerie during its’ brief screen time and you will see things that will occupy you for hours. However; the further genius of Marvel is that you don’t have to know about these things to still enjoy the film.  The layman can get on this roller coaster and still enjoy the ride, while the fanboys scream the loudest at the hints of things to come. 

As most people know, all these films build on one another.  Up until now, it has all been earth bound.  It will be interesting to see how Marvel integrates this cosmic story line with the more terrestrial Avengers.  They do it all the time in comic books, so why not in film.  There is no dead weight in this film as each of the characters is fleshed out and as we learn about them we come to care about them as individuals.  Despite the bickering, they begin to care for each other as well.  As I stated before, not only is James Gunn not afraid of using clichés he embraces them.  The film makes fun of itself through the use of clichés whether it’s the ‘we-are-all-in’ rousing motivational speech or the cheesy ‘all-is-lost-before-victory’ climax.  The villain Ronan definitely doesn’t give a Loki class performance, but Lee Pace does what he is supposed to do and that is look omnipotent and pissed off.

While I don’t think this is the best film Marvel has put out, it definitely is a fun and worthwhile ride.  A star is born with Chris Pratt.  Zoe Saldanna proves she is stunning as either a blue or green alien and we actually cheer on a talking raccoon.  A tree that can only say three words touches our heart and Drax the Destroyer kicks ass even when he’s getting his kicked as well. Even if you aren’t a comic fan, go see it just for the sheer popcorn fun and visual wonderment.  As always in super-hero films, stay for the post credit scene and you will see that even Marvel has a sense of humor about itself.  If you don’t understand it, ask your favorite comic nerd to explain it.  It’s hilarious.  

I give this film ***1/2 stars to of four

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi3390942489/

Life Itself

I usually don’t review documentaries.  I’m not sure why, but they usually don’t inspire me to want to share my thoughts on them.  ‘Life Itself” moved me so much that I felt compelled to talk about it.  Roger Ebert was arguably (or really, unarguably) the preeminent American film critic.  His reviews were full, rich, and academic, yet at the same time accessible to the masses.  Roger and his fellow film critic Gene Siskel held court weekly in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s on their their syndicated show.  In Emperor like fashion, their ‘thumbs up, thumbs down’ became almost more coveted than the Oscar and a movie’s fortunes could rise or fall based on their reviews. ‘Life Itself’ showcases the life of this unremarkably remarkable man.  It’s a cliché ‘wart’s and all’ style of documentary that gives us an insight into a man whose love of movies was exceeded only by the woman and family he found later in life and the city of Chicago of which he was indelibly a part.

Most people know that Roger Ebert at the end of his life had a long battle with cancer that severely disfigured him to the point of needing a computer to communicate.  We were all startled by his transformation as he progressively began to lose his battle.  What was remarkable was his determination not to curl up and hide, rather to continue to live life the best he was able and to maintain not only his high spirits, but the spirits of the people he loved as well.  The camera is unflinching (at Roger’s request), no matter how undignified, yet even though we wince we are uplifted by the power of his spirit.

This is not a depressing cancer movie.  This is a deep exploration of Roger’s life and the events and paths that lead him to become the critic to which even the likes of Martin Scorcese bowed.  A man of contradictions, who could win Pulitzer prizes and write reviews that even academics were jealous of, yet write a screenplay for Roger Coreman called ‘Beyond the Valley of the Dolls’.  To call this a B-movie would be over complimentary, but to hear Roger defend it was a highlight of the film.

As an adopted Chicagoan, I loved the parts that focused on his love for the city.  Exploring places I frequently haunt and showing areas I never knew existed. In the height of his fame and power, he was offered positions and jobs that paid much more and offered greater prestige, but he turned them all down as he never wanted to leave this great city.  Chicago was part of who he was.  He hit his meteoric highs in this city as well as hitting rock bottom.  It was part of who he was.

The most moving part of the film was exploring the two great loves in his life: Gene Siskel and his wife, Chaz Ebert.  Regarding Gene; they became famous for their on-air bickering and acerbic interactions while reviewing movies.  We see behind the scene footage that shows that the constant irritation and bickering was genuine.  It was a true Love/Hate relationship as they did not get along off camera either, but it becomes plain to see that each respected each other’s intellect immeasurably.  One of the more moving scenes was the fact that Gene hid his own cancer from Roger until it was too late.  Not only was Roger devastated with the passing of Gene, but he was even more devastated that Gene chose to keep something so personal hidden from Roger.  It wasn’t until Gene’s death that Roger realized how much he loved Gene and how much a part of his life he was.

The great love of Roger’s life, he met at age 50.  Chaz Ebert is a strong, independent (self-proclaimed militant in her younger days) African-american woman who fell in love with probably the whitest of white men on the planet.  Despite Roger’s nerdy appearance, he was a playboy most of his life, but when he met Chaz, she fundamentally him for the better.  Not only Chaz, but also her immediate family accepted Roger as one of their own.  He described it as receiving love unconditionally and conversely giving them love unconditionally.  Chaz wells up as she remembers Roger telling her that he waited 50 years to find the woman he loved.  Chaz kept largely out of the spotlight during Roger’s life, but she was definitely the emotional core and strength of the two.  She saw Roger at his worst, yet she never wavered from his side.  In fact, she held on to Roger’s life past the point Roger was ready to go.  It would take a hard heart not to be moved when Chaz recounts how Roger asked her to let him go because he was ready to move on. 

Overall, I viewed this movie as a love story rather than a cancer movie.  Not just a story of his love affair with Chaz, but his love of ‘Life Itself’.  His passion for those around him, the city he loved, and of course movies. I love movies too, but I don’t come close to the passion that Roger had for the art form.  He loved every word of dialogue and every picture frame put forth. Oddly enough, I rarely agreed with Roger’s opinions (except that he loved super hero movies too), but he was always the first review I read when I wanted to find out about a film.  Even though this documentary can be hard to watch, I found it to be incredibly uplifting and life affirming.  I highly recommend this film even if you aren’t a film fanatic.  A great insight into an unremarkably remarkable man.

I give this film **** stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi856010009/

Boyhood

       As moviegoers, i don’t think we always appreciate the amount of labor and commitment that goes into creating something that gives us 2 hours of entertainment.  People dedicate years of their lives and companies dedicate their fortunes, just to plant us in a seat for 2 hours and hopefully enjoy ourselves.  Is it any wonder that movies tend to shoot big to reel in the big dollars?  If you read critics reviews, they almost unanimously  are giving ‘Boyhood’ perfect 100 scores on IMDB.  I am not going to jump on that bandwagon, but I am speechless and in awe at the level of artistry and commitment that it took to assemble this film.

Director Richard Linklater has given us a film that has taken him 12 years to assemble.  It follows the life of Mason (Ellar Coltrane)  growing up with his family in Texas over the course of his adolescence.  What is so amazing is that Richard Linklater was able to keep the same actors on this project over the course of 12 years and you actually see Mason grow up on screen before our very eyes.  He starts out as an 8 year boy and we follow him through adolescence to young adulthood.  Anyone familiar with Richard Linklater knows he has done similar things with the ‘Before’ trilogy where he reassembles the same actors every 10 years for an update to their character’s story.  As ‘Boyhood’ progresses one gasps the same way one gasps after seeing a child relative after they have growth spurts.  To see these child actors grow up in front of our very eyes over a 2 hour period leaves one incredulous.

What I found interesting about the movie is the same thing that I felt detracted from it.  The movie isn’t about anything in particular.  It is dialogue based and basically is a series of vignettes of Mason’s life growing up in Texas.  The glimpses aren’t even milestones in Mason’s life, merely peeks as his life progresses.  As the random events are shown, one begins to see the tapestry of his life that culminates into the young man he becomes, but at it’s core, it’s very existential in its’ portrayal of his life and lessons.  

Patricia Arquette plays Mason’s single mother who is struggling to make ends meet.  She had children way to early with the roguish, yet lovable father (Ethan Hawke, another Linklater favorite).  Mason’s sister Samantha (played by Lorelei Linklater) has even more startling transformations as she matures into a young woman.  The family dynamic works despite the mother bringing a string of abusive father figures into her life and Mason’s continual teenage disaffections.  Ethan Hawke is a constant in the kids life despite his absenteeism (I know that sounds weird, but its true).  Over the course of 12 years, we see Ethan slowly begin to get his life together and make something of himself.  Even when he starts his new family, his kids are always forefront in his heart.  His attempt to talk about the birds and the bees with his daughter was one of the highlights of the film with one of the most palpably awkward and humorous scenes I’ve seen in awhile.

Again, the fascination of this film is seeing Mason develop into the man he becomes through his formative years.  The movie has no real direction of life lessons, merely a voyeuristic look into the lives of a family that could be anyone in America.  There are highs and lows, but I don’t think the film strives to be anything more than a character study.  It’s the scope and breadth of this film that is remarkable and the awareness that it took over 12 years to make.  It says something about the director that he was able to keep the same cast of actors dedicated throughout.  Like all Linklater films, dialogue is at the forefront, so for those who don’t enjoy the art of conversation and observation, the 2.5 hour running time could seem tedious.  Most, I believe, will be too awe struck by the actors growing up in front of us to actually miss any type of linear story or action.

A warning: this is a rated ‘R’ movie with graphic language and mature story lines.  I saw a lot of families with little children attending this and the parents squirmed uncomfortably during some of the dialogue.  The movie poster makes it look like a kiddie film, but it is definitely labeled ‘R’.  Not to be too snobbish, but that is why they give films ratings, so parents will know what’s appropriate for kids and what isn’t.  I was wondering what the parents were thinking when they brought their little 8 year olds to see this.

Overall, if you are an avid movie goer, I recommend this film for it’s artistic achievement.   If you are more of a casual goer, this might be a little long and short on excitement.

I give this film ***1/2 stars (mainly for the fact it was made)

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1306504217/