13 HOURS: THE SECRET SOLDIERS OF BENGHAZI

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016)

Grade: B-

Starring: John Krasinski, James Badge Dale, Max Martini and David Costabile

Premise: A half-dozen CIA security contractors fight to defend a U.S. embassy and save a U.S. ambassador’s life in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2012.

Rated R for strong bloody violence, language, and some disturbing images

It’s difficult to know where to start in reviewing 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi because it comes with such baggage, so I’ll start with three main points.

1)      I am not a politically-inclined person. I don’t actively read about politics, watch debates, or root for (or against) different politicians. I remember hearing about the events depicted in 13 Hours around the time they occurred, but I didn’t know many specifics going into the movie today, and I did not go in with an agenda. Thus, to my untrained eyes and mind, 13 Hours doesn’t reek of politics. Hilary Clinton’s name is never mentioned, the mostly-Muslim Libyan nationals in the film are shown both ways--some as people who want to attack an American compound and some as people who were sorry when an American ambassador was killed in the violence that occurred (sorry for the spoiler), and there is no particular grandstanding, even if it is made clear that back-up security forces were not deployed to help a vastly-outnumbered CIA security force once things became dangerous. Bottom line: I can’t tell you if the film is strongly leaning one way or not (I also obviously can’t tell you if the film is truthfully depicting these events or not), but, ultimately, it didn’t seem to me to be any more politically-charged than, say, 2013’s Captain Phillips, another film about a headline-making true event that involved the military.

2)      It definitely wasn’t the worst movie I’ve ever seen that was directed by Michael Bay. When I first saw trailers for the movie and the notoriously action-first, scantily-glad-women-and-explosions-galore director’s name was mentioned, I laughed off any thought that I would see it. I mean, come on—the last film Michael Bay directed, 2014’s Transformers: Age of Extinction was, if not the worst film I’ve seen in theaters in the last five years, in the top three for sure (he’s directed all four Transformers movies, both Bad Boys movies, and Pearl Harbor). Well, despite an obvious focus on violent action (see below), the movie doesn’t scream Bay. There are no scantily-clad women, and slow-mo shots and shots focusing at length on explosions are few and far between.

3)      There’s no reason to see this movie except to see the action. Like I said, there’s no grandstanding or overly-political tones running through the film, but it’s also a movie based on a violent event…and it’s also a Michael Bay film, so, with the exception of the first 30, 45 minutes of set-up, it’s all automatic weapons and flames and flying RPGs and falling bodies and grunts yelling back and forth to each other. There’s no discussion of President Obama, Hilary Clinton, or any other popular American figures. There’s no deep characterization or great acting. It’s certainly not an art film. And oh by the way, there are plenty of other movies about modern urban warfare you could watch that did this kind of thing better, from Black Hawk Down to American Sniper.

I didn’t go in with any expectations, really—other than the fact that I knew it was directed by Michael Bay and, therefore, figured I knew what the movie would consist of—so I’m not really either disappointed or enthused. It wasn’t a great movie. Like I said, there are plenty of other contemporary-military-action movies you could watch instead that are done better, not to mention other movies about recent international events (like Captain Phillips and 2012’s Zero Dark Thirty). There is some effective cinematography, some invigorating action and suspense, and some decent characterizations. It also does highlight and depict an event most will remember hearing a little bit about in the news. It wasn’t a terrible way to kick off my 2016 theater-going experience.

Plot

Following the 2011 Libyan civil war in which dictator Muammar Gaddaffi was ousted from office, control of the country’s government and people was contentious, to say the least. This led to security concerns for an American diplomatic compound in Benghazi, which housed a U.S. Ambassador (Chris Stevens, played by Matt Lescher) and several CIA agents and analysts (including David Costabile’s head officer, identified only as ‘Bob’ or ‘Chief’). But, of course, a large security force would likely attract attention to this covert compound, so the CIA brought in security contractors with military experience to form an elite, highly-trained team. Among them are Jack Silva (John Krasinski) and Tyrone Woods (James Badge Dale), each of whom has been deployed many times, to the detriment of their family life. But they each feel a call to duty, which comes in handy on the 11^th anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks, when the location of the ambassador and the compound becomes the worst-kept secret in Benghazi. First, crowds of armed men swarm the lavish poolside mansion in which the ambassador lives, forcing the security detail to drive a mile up the road in the dark to try and save and protect him. Then, they have to maneuver back to the CIA’s compound, giving up its location, and then they have to dig in and fight against a much larger, more heavily-armed force while the Chief tries to tell them to cease fire, while they can’t manage to call up any reinforcements from nearby American military outposts, and, in the commotion, can hardly tell friend from foe.

What Works?

As I sat in my seat before 13 Hours started, a weird sensation overtook me. It’s not that I was afraid it would be a bad movie; I was afraid that it would be a good one, and that I would favorably look upon a work by Michael Bay. Ultimately, while 13 Hours isn’t a great film, it’s probably one of Bay’s better ones. When most people think of his 2001 Pearl Harbor flick, they probably just remember that it was long and that it was mostly about an insufferably-bland love triangle; people forget that the December 7, 1941, attack scene was actually pretty spectacular. There was also some decent action in 2003’s Bad Boys II. Bay knows how to direct action, and action that doesn’t consist of giant, interchangeable, computer-generated robots punching each other is a big step up. For the most part, he knows how to keep the energy high through the second two-thirds of 13 Hours, which depict how things went once the action started, and he leaves you with some resounding images. Remember the unbelievable, epic shot in Harbor that followed a bomb falling from the Japanese plan all the way through the deck of U.S.S. Arizona? Bay does something similar in 13 Hours with a Libyan-fired mortar round, and it is a beaut. There’s also a terrific scene in which people are forced to hide in a bathroom and lock themselves in, and then a horrifying plume of black smoke bursts from under the door, indicating that the attackers, unable to get at their quarry, have dumped gasoline and set the building on fire. It’s a nightmarish image.

Like I said, there isn’t much to recommend in 13 Hours besides the action, but there a few nice, quieter moments. Some great cinematography shows the compound and the neighboring city from above—similar wide-angle shots are effective at showing swarms of attackers creeping through the underbrush as they converge on the compound in the darkness. One brief scene showing one of the grunts’ wives back home (Wrenn Schmidt) attempting to relay some important family news packs an emotional punch. And, try as I might to focus on the thin characterizations, some of the actors make an impression. Krasinski and Dale managed to win me over despite their fairly clichéd, sensitive-family-man dialogue during quiet moments in the midst of the conflict. Costabile (who may look familiar to viewers from his stint as Walter White’s short-lived goody-goody lab partner Gale in Breaking Bad) manages to flesh out the “suit” type of CIA agent he’s given. Also, Pablo Schreiber, playing the clown of the security team, has a very memorable, emotional reaction when he realizes a huge convoy of ominous-looking armed vehicles pulling up to the gates are actually “friendlies”.

Like most movies of this ilk (including last year's American Sniper and Lone Survivor), 13 Hours ends with a somber epilogue showing the names and pictures of the real-life figures who died. No matter what you think of the rest of the movie, it is an effective tribute to their memory and their efforts. 

What Doesn’t Work?

For the most part, nothing that happens before the action starts (probably 45 minutes in) really registers or matters. That’s not really a surprise in a Bay movie, or any movie of this nature, where the action is all that matters. With the exception of the Krasinski and Dale characters, who are given significant screen time, the grunts blend together, a bunch of ra-ra bearded men who you can’t really tell apart nor care much about despite a montage of them talking with their families on their cell phones and iPads (I appreciate the effort, but 13 Hours is just the most recent in a long list of movies about military types that portray every single grunt as a sensitive family man). There’s a lot of lingo and/or clichéd dialogue (“you do not have authority”; “I’m proud to know Americans like you”; “we are the only hope they have”; “we are all gonna die if you don’t send somebody”; “I just wanna get home to my family”, etc…), and some of the fast-cut editing is disorienting. And, though—as I mentioned—Bay knows how to direct action, as was true of his Transformers movies, when the “climactic action sequence” composes over half the film, it gets draining and even dull after a while. There’s also an embarrassingly-uninteresting montage of early hours of September 11, 2012, that are supposed to the viewers’ tension in preparation for the dramatic action to come but really shows a whole lot of nothing—this scene could and should have been cut, as it adds little to the later action.

Content

13 Hours is pretty intense, with a high onscreen body count, lots of bullet wounds, and some pretty gruesome injury images. There are plenty of F-words from our grunts as well, which is to be expected. This isn’t Transformers, where every good guy who dies either was easily replaceable or gets to be brought back.

Bottom Line

While 13 Hours isn’t the political soapbox it could’ve been (neither Hillary Clinton nor President Obama is even mentioned once), it’s not a great movie, either. Michael Bay (yes, THAT Michael Bay) actually directs with some restraint, but there are better-filmed and better-acted movies about real-life international political/military incidents you could watch (Black Hawk Down, Zero Dark Thirty, Captain Phillips, American Sniper). Still, there’s some pretty intense stuff, tons of action, some well-filmed sequences, and decent performances by guys like John Krasinski and James Badge Dale. January is usually a wasteland for non-Oscar-contending movies, but this one will hold your interest—it’ll teach you a real-life thing or two as well.

13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi (2016)

Directed by Michael Bay

Screenplay by Chuck Hogan

Based on the book “13 Hours” by Mitchell Zuckoff

Rated R

Length: 144 minutes

ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS REACTION PT. 1 - BEST PICTURE

ACADEMY AWARD NOMINATIONS REACTION (Part 1)

I’m actually pretty pleased with this year’s Academy Award/Oscar nominations.

Last year, some of you may recall, I was frothing at the mouth in rage over major snubs for Gone Girl (Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay) and actor Jake Gyllenhaal (Best Actor-Nightcrawler). This year…I guess I’m okay. There were some notable snubs and I think the Academy could have done a little better with a few public relations-type things, but, overall, I think they did pretty well.

My big fear coming into this morning’s announcements was that my favorite movie of the year, the low-budget kidnap drama Room, was going to be this year’s Gone Girl. Sure, it had the Golden Globe-winning Best Actress favorite (Brie Larson) at the helm, but it was a small film without a lot of buzz that had very passionate support among those who saw it, but the impression from some pundits was that its heavy, disturbing premise and subject matter would likely deter many from seeing it. Many predictions I saw even the night before the nominations were announced had Room left off their Best Picture rosters, plus Emma Donoghue’s screenplay was thought to be an on-the-bubble nominee for Adapted Screenplay. Well, it snagged both those nominations, plus the expected nod for Larson, and even got one of the morning’s biggest surprises in a Best Director nominee for auteur Lenny Abrahamson, who incredibly nudged Ridley Scott (The Martian) out of the Best Director lineup.

This week I wrote up a little ditty that I never ended up posting on this blog, my forecast for the nomination announcements in terms of my “Dream picks” and my “Nightmare snubs”. A couple of my dreams actually came to fruition. The ominous, drums-heavy score from Sicario—composed by Johann Johannson—snagged a nomination in the Original Score category. Mad Max: Fury Road made the Best Picture lineup and got a nomination for its director, George Miller, who I think did the directing job of the year. And I had listed a group of about seven actors in supporting roles, of whom I thought one might be able to crack the loaded Supporting Actor category’s final five, and one did!

That’s not to say it was all perfect. While I’m happy personally, the Academy is going face some major backlash after, in the wake of last year’s #OscarsSoWhite outcry, they didn’t nominate a single person of color in the acting or directing category (with the arguable exception of Mexican-born Alejandro Inarritu, the director of The Revenant). Idris Elba of Beasts of No Nation, who was thought to be a cert for Supporting Actor, was snubbed. Best Picture hopeful Straight Outta Compton got left out in the cold, along with its cast. The well-reviewed Creed, which was directed by and starred African-Americans, got a single nomination—Best Supporting Actor for Sylvester Stallone. Will Smith was overlooked in the Best Actor category for his role in Concussion. Even Wiz Khalifa got snubbed after his song “See You Again”, from Furious 7, composed in memory of the late Paul Walker, got snubbed in the Original Song category, and that would have been a favorite to win. Now, I don’t know how the Academy votes, exactly, but coming off the backlash from last year, they probably could’ve been a little wider-thinking.

There’s also the fact that the year’s biggest movie in terms of buzz and money, Star Wars: The Force Awakens, didn’t make the Best Picture roster. I’m sure that upset a few people.

But, overall, I’m pretty pleased. There were some surprising snubs, but nothing that infuriated me like last year. Below I’m going to take a quick—well, I’ll try to be efficient—look at the major categories and review who was nominated and who looks like they will, or could, take home a prize on the night of Sunday, February 28.

BEST PICTURE

The nominees are:

The Big Short

Bridge of Spies

Brooklyn

Mad Max: Fury Road

The Martian

The Revenant

Room

Spotlight

Notable snubs: Carol, Straight Outta Compton, Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Reaction: Last year, the Academy took heat for filling the most important category with tiny art films no one had ever heard of, with the exception of what became a monster box-office hit in American Sniper. This year, the only films that really fit the description of tiny indie films are Brooklyn, Room and Spotlight (and Spotlight, with a cast of A-listers, doesn’t necessarily feel like a tiny film). The Martian and Mad Max: Fury Road were both hits, each making upwards of $150 million domestically. With Best Actor buzz, some big Golden Globe wins last week and a $39 million opening weekend, The Revenant looks like it’ll make a significant dent in the public consciousness. The Big Short and Bridge of Spies have each gotten a reasonable amount of buzz and been respectable at the box office. The snub of the well-reviewed, artsy Carol is a big surprise—that looked like a possible winner of this category—and, like I said, the Academy didn’t do themselves any favors in terms of ratings/popularity/relevance leaving out Compton and Star Wars. Okay, so, The Force Awakens was basically a remake of the original Star Wars, but Compton was another $150 million hit and would have been a big shot in the arm for diversity’s sake. But, with two legitimate blockbusters in the mix and another widely-released, buzzed-about movie relevant right now, this is a step in the right direction.

The Race: This is the most wide-open race for the big prize in years. You could spin it any way you want—especially in light of The Revenant and The Martian’s dominant showing at last weekend’s Golden Globes—but this year’s Best Picture race doesn’t feature a head-to-head, one of whom definitely will win (a la Avatar vs. The Hurt Locker, The Kings Speech vs. The Social Network, Boyhood vs. Birdman); there’s not even a head-to-head with a third film serving as a potential spoiler (a la 2013—12 Years A Slave vs. Gravity, with American Hustle hot on their heels). So, how’s this gonna shake out? You got me.

Carol was the only one of the year’s really tiny films that seemed to have enough passion surrounding it to maybe propel it to a win. In fact, it was the only one of the really tiny art-house films that seemed likely to be nominated in this category. Without it…well, let me just say, despite pockets of die-hard support for Brooklyn and Room, those movies should just be happy to be here. Oh, last year’s winner Birdman wasn’t a huge movie, but it had a larger scope, a star-studded cast, and more of an entertainment factor/widespread appeal, than Brooklyn and Room (plus, it was about actors and actresses and show business, so, you know, brownie points). A win by either of these films would be a major surprise and, let’s face it, probably bad news for the Academy, since neither is a movie the average person has heard of.

Bridge of Spies had a higher profile—directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Hanks—but I don’t think it was anyone’s pick for movie of the year; most of the buzz I heard was that it was a decent period piece but not among its director or star’s best. The nomination’s the honor.

It’s hard to know what to think of Mad Max: Fury Road, a much more action-driven film than the Academy usually recognizes, in regard to this competition. It obviously inspired passion and is likely to sweep the technical categories (and I think it’s got Best Director locked up), and it landed on more critics’ Top Ten list than any other movie last I looked. That said, it was constantly criticized for for having almost no plot, and is the Academy really ready to laud a film whose characters have names like Immortan Joe, Rictus Erectus, The People Eater, and Splendid Angharad? I’m thinking no.

The Martian will probably end up the most financially-successful and widely-seen of any of the nominees; it also received good reviews and very favorable word-of-mouth. Within weeks of its early October release, it was being hailed as a possible frontrunner. Though it did win a couple major Golden Globes, they were controversially in the Comedy category (which inspired a great deal of debate and derision), plus, a lot of its awards season momentum has lately been stolen by fellow mainstream hit Mad Max. It once seemed headed for Oscar gold in the Directing category for legendary helmer Ridley Scott, who has been nominated three times and never won (even if his movie Gladiator won Best Picture in 2000), but Scott was surprisingly snubbed for Best Director. Three years ago, Argo became the first Best Picture winner in a couple of decades to win Best Picture without even a nomination for Best Director (helmer Ben Affleck’s snub was a huge surprise, considering he won the Golden Globe), so it’s possible The Martian could go the same way. However, Affleck was considered the dead-red, no-doubt frontrunner that year. By this point, Best Director this year seems to be headed to either Mad Max’s George Miller (the Golden Globe favorite) or Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu of The Revenant (the Golden Globe winner and last year’s Oscar winner for Director). Scott still had a good narrative being a classic name with no Oscar on his mantle, but, by this point, he was set in most people’s minds to be, at best, the runner-up to Miller. His snub, while very surprising, is unlikely to generate the same kind of shock (and corresponding sympathy votes) Affleck’s snub did—shock that propelled Argo to a Best Picture win. (It’s also important to remember Argo was one of the front-runners for Best Picture anyway, with maybe a slight edge on its primary rival, Lincoln. The Snub gave it the last little emotional edge it needed to become the favorite.) A Best Picture win for The Martian wouldn’t be a total shock, but it feels like The Martian’s momentum has faded away.

The Big Short is a really interesting case, a movie that only looked appealing because of an A-list cast (Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale, Brad Pitt) but that seemed to be about the kind of thing that makes you bang your head against a wall—the ins and outs of the not-too-distant financial/housing market crisis of 2008. I passed up seeing it to this point because it didn’t seem like the kind of thing I wanted to spend $10 on to hear people talk about for two hours in the theater. However, along with Spotlight, this talky but clever dramedy has gotten every Best Picture equivalent nomination from every guild and major awards group, which is saying a lot. Director Adam McKay—best known for directing Will Ferrell comedies like Anchorman, Step Brothers, and The Other Guys—just became a double Oscar nominee in directing and in writing for his contributions. The fact that it was beaten in the, um, “Comedy” category by The Martian was actually considered a surprise, given its momentum. I’ve heard it actually has a pretty legitimate entertainment factor, with star cameos and random interludes to keep the pace flowing and the energy high even when its content is loaded. I’m trying to think of a recent Oscar nominee with a similar profile—a talky, slightly-snarky take on recent, real-life events—and the closest thing I’m coming up with is The Social Network, which won the screenplay Oscar and in some corners was favored to beat The King’s Speech for Best Director and Best Picture (it lost both). That film, however, was undeniably a much-harder-hitting drama. Still, while I haven’t seen The Big Short yet, it is definitely a serious contender.

That leaves Spotlight and The Revenant, and it’s easiest for me to picture either one of these movies’ names being called at the end of Oscar night. Spotlight—which many pundits have considered the frontrunner since the beginning of end-of-year awards conversations in the fall—has a profile not unlike recent Best Picture winners Argo and 12 Years A Slave, in that it’s a very well-received, well-crafted film about a real-life event, in Spotlight’s case one that was very relevant to the average, everyday American. It has an A-list main cast (Michael Keaton, Stanley Tucci, supporting acting nominees Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams) and cracks along despite having no action or romance, and dealing with some sobering subject matter. That said, despite a reasonable appeal in chronicling a major, recent, real-life story about real people, and a respectable box-office cume so far, it feels like its momentum in awards races may have taken a significant deep as later-released films like The Big Short and The Revenant have come on strong.

Since last Sunday, I’ve read many a pundit or “expert” go on about how we shouldn’t read too much into The Revenant’s Golden Globes domination (wins for Best Actor, Director, and Best Picture-Drama, with Actor the only prize it was favored to win going in). We shouldn’t. The Golden Globes are issued by the Hollywood Foreign Press, a group of foreign journalists less than 100 strong. It could’ve taken just 20 or 30 first-place votes to give it enough of an edge to win over its four fellow Best Picture-Drama nominees (Spotlight, Carol, Room, Mad Max: Fury Road). Things will be different with the supposedly-7,000-member Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. However, what can’t be denied is this—The Revenant has the most going for it, right now, of any of these nominees. A dark, bloody, violent, two-and-a-half-hour film, it opened to a domestic gross of $39 million last weekend—almost enough to knock the four-week-old Star Wars: The Force Awakens off its perch—and those tickets were sold before it won those three Globes Sunday night. Now it’s grabbed headlines for winning the three biggest Globes and leading this year’s field with 12 Oscar nominations, plus it has the likely Best Actor winner (Leonardo DiCaprio) and features another nominated A-list star (Tom Hardy). While I haven’t heard overwhelmingly-positive word-of-mouth from those I know who’ve seen it, it’s undeniably a solid film with a wow factor that will keep people coming to the theater, and, by the time of the Academy Awards broadcast on February 28, I bet it’ll be at worst the third-highest grossing Best Picture nominee, behind Mad Max and The Martian.

Now, last year, American Sniper—another hotly-anticipated, R-rated, violent picture—came on very late, receiving six Oscar nominations when it had had minimal showing at any other awards show (not a single Golden Globe nomination), opened the weekend after the announcement of the Oscar nominations, and blew the doors off the box office. In days, it was the highest-grossing Best Picture nominee, and easily the highest-profile contender for the big prize. It didn’t win. But it’s important to note that, last year, even Sniper’s prodigious box-office success placed it no better than a distant third in the Best Picture race, behind the almost-sure-thing Boyhood and its chief challenger, Birdman. The Revenant may have just jumped right into the chief challenger spot in this race. There is certainly a precedent for Best Picture going to technically-dazzling, eye-popping dramatic epics (Ben Hur, Dances With Wolves), even those of the extremely bloody variety (Braveheart, Gladiator). Sure, it has some dark, tough subject matter, but, especially with DiCaprio the Oscar front-runner in his category, it’s sure to be viewed by a vast majority—if not all—the voting members of the Academy. Fairly out-of-left field nominations this morning for Visual Effects and Tom Hardy’s supporting performance indicate how noteworthy The Revenant already is.

There you have it. The Writers, Producers, Directors and Screen Actors’ Guilds will each have their own shows and hand out their own types of top honors that could change the narrative (Spotlight could cement its “frontrunner” status, The Big Short could look even more formidable, The Revenant could add to its already-impressive trophy case), but that’s roughly the order I envision at this point. So….

Will Win: I’ll say Spotlight¸ though that is admittedly mostly because most critics and pundits have considered it the front-runner for months.

Main Challenger: The Revenant, which certainly has the most momentum right now (should it surprise at any of those Guilds’ award shows, it will seem more legit)

Could Win: The Big Short has obviously struck a lot of people’s fancy

Dark Horse: The Martian. This could be Ridley Scott’s last, best chance to be on the Oscar stage. He could still do it if this puppy wins Best Picture. 

In the coming days, I'll break down the other big categories including Best Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting, and Screenplay. I promise they won't all be this long. Since Best Picture is so wide open this year, I figured a more detailed analysis might be fun (for me, if not you) and, hopefully, informative.

MY TOP TEN MOVIES OF 2015

TOP TEN MOVIES OF THE YEAR - 2015 EDITION

By about mid-November, I wasn’t sure I was actually going to end up making a list like this, even though I wanted to. That was because, by that time, I’d only seen a handful of 2015 releases that, to my mind, registered as even above average movies. I mean, you rarely see anything before the summer that’s of much note, the summer movies this year weren’t great, and most of the “awards contenders” released in October and even November (Black Mass, for instance) seemed to me solid but unspectacular. At one point, my “Top Ten” list for the year consisted of “The Martian and…..The Avengers, maybe?”

Happily, since the beginning of December, I’ve either shored up my opinion of some of the year’s earlier movies by re-watching them, or seen new releases in theaters or via Redbox, and it’s yielded one great movie-watching experience after another. The Top Ten List for 2015 went from an exercise in futility to an embarrassment of riches. The process of making the list went from convincing myself to do it for fun to days and days of hand-wringing and hair-pulling from being so torn about whether to put one movie ahead of another or another and so on. This list went from one of the weakest ones I’d ever done to maybe one of the best—so good that I kept re-watching movies and wanting to bump them up, with the result that I re-shuffled the list you’ll see below about 20 times in the past week-and-a-half. No joke.

Putting movies of different genres, lengths, themes, tones, and stories in order of quality is obviously a pretty subjective and arbitrary exercise. Something that may seem stale and uninvolving at one point can seem exciting and worthwhile at another. A movie that nearly puts you to sleep in the theater can seem accessible and captivating at home when you can pause for pee breaks and eat snacks at your every whim to enhance the experience. Something full of subtle nuances can come alive in your mind after you watch it, and prove full of talking points and seem twice as rewarding at a second or even third watch.

Basically, the randomness and unpredictability of comparing movies and putting them in order will be easy to note if you read my blog regularly, or look back over my reviews from 2015. The following rankings may not always follow what my original grade suggested—two movies to which I originally gave a grade of “B+” have hurdled over several movies to which I gave a grade of “A-“ or even “A”. A couple movies I labeled with an “A-“ didn’t even make the Top Ten! Basically, I could make a solid case for any of these movies and would watch any one of them again.  I’ve tried to watch as many as I could more than once to give myself a more balanced, thorough impression, and then, like I said, I’ve wrung my hands and lost sleep and made Pros/Cons lists. It’s been quite the ordeal.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

This was tough, because four movies I thought quite highly of landed here. There was the very entertaining pseudo-Bond flick Kingsman: The Secret Service, which boasted a great cast, some amazing action, and some fun stunts. Jurassic World grew on me with every viewing—somehow, I enjoyed its high drama and epic action even more at home. Creed brilliantly continued/rebooted the Rocky saga, bringing on some new blood (and some amazing camerawork) even as it paid tribute to Sly Stallone’s iconic character and Bill Conti’s signature “Gonna Fly Now” theme music. And The Netflix Movie, Cary Joji Fukunaga’s Beasts of No Nation, was a gorgeously-filmed, effectively-jarring and hauntingly-nuanced film about child soldiers in Africa.

 THE TOP TEN

10. TIE between

ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL    

&

SICARIO

I know it’s cheating—for the second year in a row, I squeezed an extra movie into the Top Ten. What’s the point of making it a Top Ten list then, huh? Why not make it a Top Eleven? I don’t know. What I do know is, once I’d seen all the movies I wanted to, I had one spot to give and two movies vying for it, one the memory of which had started to fade but which I just couldn’t shake off, and the other an under-the-radar emotional favorite I couldn’t bear to leave out. I’ll let you decide which is which. Sicario was a dark, brooding film with an ominous score and terrific cinematography, loaded with dark themes about the pointlessness of fighting the war on drugs and the depravity of mankind. Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, and Benicio del Toro all gave great performances in a movie packing a couple of the most unshakably-powerful scenes of the year. Meanwhile, Me and Earl and the Dying Girl was a quirky little indie about an oddball teen befriending a cancer-stricken classmate and creating a "doomed" but life-changing friendship. Its likable cast and tongue-in-cheek narration made for some big laughs and some fun moments—also some relevant and effective emotional themes; it could’ve been higher on this list if not for being a little too quirky.

9. THE MARTIAN

It’s kind of hard for me to believe this movie ended up this far down the list. It had a great, likable ensemble cast, a killer central premise, an endearingly-light-hearted tone despite some serious subject matter, and a tears-of-joy-type climax. What’s not to like? Well, after seeing The Martian twice, I can tell you that, while I loved Matt Damon’s lead performance (not many actors are likable enough to pull that role off single-handed), liked the big supporting cast, thought the movie was technically-impeccable and thought the movie very interesting, it just didn’t quite have enough oomph. To use an apt metaphor, this movie was all-systems-go and everything was humming, but the rockets didn’t have quite enough of a boost. No scene or moment quite made me go “wow, what a great movie”. But, overall, it was very solid, and I know it’ll be a great rental on Redbox.

8. Ex MACHINA

When I first watched Ex Machina—a well-reviewed sci-fi venture I for some reason hadn’t been psyched to see in theaters—it blew my mind at the end and I walked around saying “WOW” to myself over and over for five minutes. This three-character story of a breakthrough in artificial intelligence has some fine acting, some sterling visual effects, and good, intelligent writing, but you may forget all that once you get to the third act and the curveballs start coming. That might be why it’s so far down this list—it doesn’t necessarily make for great repeated viewings, because nothing beats the “oh my gosh, OH MY GOSH” knee-jerk reactions you have the first time to the big plot twists that come on late. That being said, this is a smart, sensitive, effective movie that leaves a fine impression.

7. STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS

Yeah, I’m probably gonna get crap for this. I saw Star Wars opening night, saw it again two days later, and saw it a third time after Christmas. As we speak, it’s still in theaters making tons and tons of money. In keeping with the Star Wars brand, The Force Awakens is visually-gorgeous and emotionally-irresistible. New director J.J. Abrams combined the old with the new in a colorful, exciting, sometimes-gripping cocktail that goes down easy….or does it? Try as I might, I just can’t shake my nagging little nitpicks about the movie. I’m not one of those people dismissing as a flat-out remake of A New Hope (though just how fresh and original this new part of the saga ends up being depends largely on the next movie), but there were plenty of really familiar elements, not to mention a few underwritten characters and scenes that could’ve used more explaining. That being said, I think Kylo Ren was a great character, I like Rey, Poe, and BB-8, and I’m very excited for the next installment. As I wrote in my full review, even if it’s not perfect, it’s freaking Star Wars—there’s no question I’ll get this movie on Blu-Ray and probably end up watching it far more times than any other movie on this list, ranking be damned.

6. CINDERELLA

I know, I know: you’re thinking I’ve gone crazy. That, or you’re ready to take my man card. Or both. Probably both. But darn it, I have an undeniable affection for this movie that refuses to go away. In an age of cynical cash-grab sequels, remakes and reboots, of movies trying to be so hip or cool or sexy or quirky, an age of obnoxious “kids” movies that are way too smart for their own good, March’s Cinderella reminded me of how wonderful a movie can be when it doesn’t try to be anything other than what it is. And what it is, as directed by Kenneth Branagh, is a luminous, well-acted, brightly-colored, entirely-sincere recreation of one of the most well-known stories of all time. Here’s a movie for the whole family that doesn’t insult its audience with crass bodily humor, unnecessary pop-culture references or innuendos for the adults, meaningless action sequences or added snark for the boys, or over-the-top musical numbers aiming for 100 million views on Youtube. It’s only—in my opinion—the feel-good movie of the year, one with some laughs, lots of smiles, and a hug-yourself ending.

5. THE REVENANT

We’re getting down to the nitty-gritty here, where every one of these movies has brilliant, memorable sequences that represent some of the best and brightest movies have to offer. With The Revenant, where do you wanna start? The staggeringly-directed/shot/choreographed Indian attack scene at the beginning? The grizzly bear attack that will make your eyes pop? The quietly-devastating scene where Leonardo DiCaprio’s haggard, badly-injured frontiersman crawled over and laid down next to the body of a dead loved one as if ready to die with him? Or the scary-intense knife, tooth and tomahawk final showdown between DiCaprio and Tom Hardy’s charismatic antagonist who he’s been seeking revenge against the entire movie? The Revenant is probably twenty minutes longer than it needs to be, and there are some slow moments, but Oscar-winning director Alejandro Inarritu and legendary cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki have crafted a gorgeous film that harkens back to outdoor epics of decades past.

 

4. SPOTLIGHT

Chronicling the real-life events in which The Boston Globe’s “Spotlight” investigative team unearthed a widespread child abuse scandal within the Catholic Church, Spotlight defines what it ameans to be a well-made movie. Without any action or romance (or any graphic flashbacks or depictions of molestation), the movie manages to be funny, intense, and incredibly-involving. The year’s best ensemble cast does terrific work, bringing to life a brilliant screenplay that will reward those who pay attention.

3. MAD MAX: FURY ROAD

It took me a couple viewings to really buy into Mad Max, probably the year’s most talked-about movie this side of Star Wars, but I’m ultimately forced to accept that no movie was as vividly, clearly, and effectively directed, set up, and shot, than this wild post-apocalyptic romp through a weird, brutal, scary future. Yeah, it’s a little short on plot, but it makes up for that with outstanding visuals (there’s nary a wasted frame in the entire movie), wild-comic humor, impressively-effective nonverbal acting, and, of course, some of the most spectacularly-choreographed and filmed action ever seen in a movie.

2. INSIDE OUT

I’m a sucker for a good animated movie (aren’t we all suckers for Pixar?)—so much so that I almost considered leaving Inside Out off this list by default, because how could a film top it in terms of impact and emotional complexity? Well, for a tangible answer, keep reading. But, ultimately, I knew a list of the most memorable, brilliant, imaginative, and affecting movies of the year wouldn’t be complete without this instant addition to the upper echelon of Pixar's works. The animation is gorgeous, of course. The voice actors (especially Amy Poehler and Phyllis Smith) are pitch-perfect. The characters are unforgettable (Bing Bong, anyone?). But what really sets Inside Out apart is the incredibly-imaginative screenplay, which dissects a human mind in a colorful series of involving set pieces including trains of thought, imaginary friends, abstract thought, imagination, dreams, nightmares, memories, key personality components, and the crucial need for connection and love. It’s just a wonderful movie.

1. ROOM

Please don’t confuse this title with the crappy 2003 flick The Room. Almost nothing could do Director Lenny Abrahamson’s adaptation of Emma Donoghue’s novel a bigger disservice. Room has a startling central premise—a young woman kidnapped by a strange man and held in captivity for years raises the young son of her captor until both are freed—and it uses it as a springboard for a bold, searing, deeply-affecting movie about love, freedom, selfishness, and survival. You don’t think a movie starring an 8-year-old playing a 5-year-old can be all that good? As I said in my review, Room has probably five of the year’s 10 or 15 most can’t-look-away-gripping scenes of the year. Phenomenal lead performances by Brie Larson and little Jacob Tremblay help unpack the fascinating and devastating psychological ramifications of captivity and re-introduction to the outside world. It’s not an easy movie to watch (I’ve called it “a psychology major’s dream subject matter and a mother’s worst nightmare” and I stand by that), but it’s a hugely-rewarding, wonderfully-made, unforgettable flick that, for me, almost immediately resonated as the year’s best.

**Thank you for reading if you’ve made it this far. If you’re curious (or offended) about this numbered order, please believe me when I say that, while I almost immediately deemed Room my #1 after watching it (and Inside Out was always a safe bet to be right there at the top, too), the next 6 were in flux in my head for the last 10 days. Shoot, I had a freaking hard time deciding which out of Mad Max and Spotlight would end up my top movie besides those two, and everything besides. Where to put Star Wars—knowing it would probably disappoint many of my readers—was a wrench, and where to put a light, feel-good flick like Cinderella amidst a tide of heavy but rewarding dramas was equally-difficult. Ultimately, this was a terrific bunch of movies, and at this point I own one (Mad Max) and have deemed at least five others capable of buying on Blu-Ray. It was a great year for movies.

Speaking of which, I’m dying for Thursday morning’s Academy Award nominations. This is a year with no bonafide front-runner in even most of the highest-profile category, so seeing the actual contenders and hearing the early analysis will be fascinating. 

THE REVENANT

The Revenant

Grade: A-

**Currently in Theaters**

Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Domhnall Gleeson, Will Poulter and Forrest Goodluck

Premise: Badly-injured frontiersman Hugh Glass sets out on a bloody path of revenge against those who betrayed him and left him for dead.

Rated R for strong bloody violence and gore, language, disturbing images, some emotional content, and a brief scene of rape

Without question, the worst thing to happen to The Revenant is all the Oscar fuss surrounding Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio is a fine actor, but the fact that he just happens to have never won an Oscar during his decorated, critically-acclaimed career, and might win for his intensely-physical performance in this new gritty survivalist drama, has become an albatross around the movie’s neck. I suppose it’s a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing because it sells tickets and gets butts in seats, but it’s a curse because much of the hype and excitement surrounding the film is based on that maybe-Oscar selling point, and yet DiCaprio’s performance doesn’t leap off the screen, which is bound to leave people disappointed. This disappointment, as I felt myself and heard in others last night, threatens to devour a movie that is an old-fashioned epic—based on a 2002 novel about a an actual historical incident—that is about as well-made as movies come.

Plot

A man who has lived among the Native Americans, speaks their language, knows their customs, and who fathered a son (Forrest Goodluck) by a Pawnee woman, Hugh Glass (DiCaprio), is extremely valuable as a guide to a fur-trapping expedition led by Captain Andrew Henry (Domhnall Gleeson) in the wilds of 1820s South Dakota. He knows the land, he knows rival clans’ fighting tactics, and he knows some of the milestones along their path. He’s also a crack shot with a rifle. But when he’s savagely mauled by a grizzly bear, he’s left with broken bones, torn flesh, and pain so agonizing he can barely move. The fur-trapping party’s numbers were recently decimated in a horrific ambush by Arikara Indians, and the surviving members are exhausted, scared, and hungry, and asking them to tote Glass on a roughly-fashioned stretcher across rivers and up mountainsides is a tall order. So Henry promises bonus money to anyone who will stay behind to keep the incapacitated Glass company as he suffers, to ease his passing if necessary, and to give him a proper Christian burial when the time comes. It surprises everyone when it isn’t only the young, idealistic Jim Bridger (Will Poulter) who volunteers to stay with Glass, but also John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), a hulking, ill-tempered Texan who has seemed to be locking horns with de facto leader Glass from the start.

Things go as bad as anyone could have thought. The grumpy, selfish Fitzgerald decides to spin a story about Glass passing peacefully and considers smothering him, but instead digs a shallow grave and tosses him in and throws dirt on him while he’s still alive. He also tricks Jim Bridger into thinking their lives are in danger from nearby Indians, and that they have no choice but to leave Glass. But Glass, despite his mangled condition, isn’t dead. Maimed, starving, freezing, and broken, but not dead. Despite the harsh elements, his own wounds, and parties of hostile Indians roaming nearby, a furious Glass decides to set out after Fitzgerald and teach him a lesson, that only the strongest and most worthy will survive.

What Works?

If The Revenant were perhaps 20 minutes shorter and didn’t come with the unavoidable will he/won’t he Oscar talk about four-time nominee DiCaprio, it might be considered a masterpiece and one of the great movies ever made. You know why? Because if the first thing out of my friends’ mouths last night was that The Revenant was “a little overhyped” (probably in regard to the Best Actor buzz), the second thing was that “the directing was amazing”, and the third was that “the camera movement was incredible”. You know how amazing it is to hear praise like that from regular moviegoers about a $135 million film starring two A-list actors? More than the acting or the action, people were talking about the cinematography and the directing! Do most moviegoers even know what “cinematography” is?

That the sheer quality of The Revenant is being praised shouldn’t surprise anyone. Its director—Mexican-born Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu—won three Oscars a little less than a year ago when his pet project, the sharp, hyper-realistic showbiz dramedy Birdman, won the Oscars for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay. Even before that, Inarritu was famous for directing grueling but fascinating dramas like Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel. And his cinematographer for The Revenant is the same man who fashioned Birdman’s long scanning, ducking, swerving, all-encompassing tracking shots, who won the Oscar for cinematography for that film and for the space epic Gravity the year before. His name? Emmanuel Lubezki. Remember it, because it will almost certainly come up during the announcement of the Oscar nominations this coming Thursday, and, based on his stupendous work here, he might be on the verge of an unprecedented Oscar three-peat. Inarritu and Lubezki were big winners last year, and yet they’ve upped their game to make a film even more technically astonishing than the whirling-dervish that was Birdman. Most of The Revenant’s opening ten minutes are composed of a terrifying Indian ambush on the fur-trapping party that is a wowzer of a 360-degree sensory experience, with arrows whizzing and thudding, bodies falling, people running and shouting and grappling, and blood spattering. Exactly how they made the scene is difficult to fathom. Then there’s the jaw-dropping bear attack, in which it’s almost impossible to believe it’s CGI—and not a real bear—clawing, biting, stomping on and tossing around a screaming DiCaprio. Later on there’s a high-speed tracking shot of Glass on horseback fleeing a party of hostile mounted Indians while they fire bullets and arrows back and forth, right up until Glass’s horse runs over a cliff. Still later there’s a thrilling two-man chase that culminates in one of the most exciting and realistically-gripping movie fights I can remember.

These scenes are a testament to everyone involved, from Inarritu and Lubezki to the actors to Bryce Dessner, Carston Nicolai and Ryuichi Sakamoto, who have fashioned a brilliant musical score, to Stephen Mirrione, who, even with expert cinematographer Lubezki around, does some very effective editing. I expect The Revenant to be loaded with Oscar nominations on Thursday as mentioned, because, on a technical level, it bests most films. And this comes after the film proved a notoriously difficult 9-month shoot, changing locations from Alberta, Canada to Argentina in the dead of winter, filming in natural light, surviving the elements and keeping cast and crew healthy even as people fell off horses, or, as required in the movie, ate raw meat, crawled through the snow, were dragged through the snow, climbed trees, or waded through freezing rivers.

So, will Leo finally get his Oscar? From what I’ve been reading and hearing, he probably will. So I guess the more important question for me as a reviewer is, does he deserve it? For my part, while I will say this is about as far-removed and in-character a performance as an actor of DiCaprio’s profile can give, I’m not ready to hand him the trophy just yet. In fact, I still hold to my months-old assertion that Michael Fassbender’s tremendous performance in Steve Jobs deserves the Oscar, nevermind that film’s highly-publicized box-office failure. That’s not to snub DiCaprio of praise. For a guy who starred in what was then the highest-grossing and most popular movie of all time (Titanic) at the age of 23, he’s had one of the most impressive and diverse careers, doing absolutely anything but coasting on that teen-idol reputation. His commitment to a role has never been in doubt, and no two of his performances have been exactly alike in terms of appearance, accent and temperament (and this is considering he’s made five movies with Martin Scorcese alone). It’s been said he really ate raw bison liver, slept on the ground, and waded into frozen rivers to make The Revenant. Whether this was a no-holds-barred determination to finally win an Oscar or just his passionate commitment to a challenge in a profession that handsomely rewards people who undertake far less arduous challenges, I don’t know. What I do know is that DiCaprio is effective, whether it’s embodying Glass’s amazing resolve or working wonders with his face (a scene where he quietly cradled the body of a dead loved one nearly broke my heart, and this was without DiCaprio himself crying or voicing his grief at all).

In a vacuum with no Oscar talk, I would say DiCaprio was very good, but that it wasn’t the actor who caught my attention so much as the story in which he played a crucial part. In that same vacuum, while praise would certainly be offered the top-billed star for his hands-on work, it would probably be noted that the performance that really dominates The Revenant and holds viewers’ attention is that of Tom Hardy. The hugely-popular Hardy—an actor's actor with a pin-up's face and physique—is riding high after the success of Mad Max: Fury Road, and he tears into the part of John Fitzgerald with gusto, whether it's rambling and swearing in that sometimes barely-intelligible Buffalo Bill accent or staring, wild-eyed, at his surroundings as his survivor's senses tingle on overdrive. Best-known for his strong, silent types in Warrior, The Drop and Mad Max, Hardy's constant prattle mixed with his intimidating physicality is reminiscent of his more loquacious roles in Inception (also with DiCaprio) and The Dark Knight Rises. Yet Fitzgerald is even more intimidating than comic book villain Bane, whom Hardy played in the latter—he's selfish but smart, manipulative and violent but resourceful, borderline-buffoonish until he's in your face, daring you to contradict him as he looms over you. With DiCaprio nearly incapacitated or struggling along wordlessly for large portions of the film, Hardy's self-serving bluster and undeniable charisma provide The Revenant with most of its must-watch energy. He, too, could end up an Oscar nominee, though it must be said his road to the final five is much tougher than DiCaprio's given the sheer number of contenders for Supporting Actor. 

Finally, impressive supporting performances are given by Will Poulter as the conflicted Jim Bridger, and Domhnall Gleeson, whose performance here is superb and makes it difficult to believe this is the same actor from this year’s Ex Machina and Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

What Doesn’t Work?

The Revenant is two-and-a-half hours long, and it feels like it. Unlike The Martian, in which Matt Damon was stranded alone but talked aloud to himself or to a camera almost the whole movie, Revenant has long stretches without dialogue (Glass’s encounter with the bear left him almost unable to speak), and long stretches with the camera focused on the beauty of nature a la Terrence Malick. While this length is probably necessary to convey the length of Glass’s journey (the real Glass supposedly traveled around 200 miles in pursuit of Fitzgerald) and the difficulty it took, it does leave the movie suspended a few times. There are a few moments when Fitzgerald seems a little too cartoonish a villain as well. And a few of the nuances of the ending didn’t quite work for me, including a somewhat improbable way for a main character to go out.

Content

The Revenant is one of the harder-core awards contenders you’ll see, with images including arrows through the neck and eye, scalped corpses, a back shredded by bear claws, people losing fingers, and corpses’ exposed innards. There’s a brief, non-graphic rape scene. There are several F-words. The movie isn’t exploitative, but it’s not for the faint of heart, given these graphic details and the sheer intensity of some of the aforementioned set pieces. It’s a pretty dark, sobering film—not for the kids.

Bottom Line

Will Leo finally win an Oscar? That’s been the main talking point surrounding The Revenant, which is somewhat unfortunate considering it’s a great movie and not just an actor’s showcase. An old-fashioned epic that one of my friends compared to a mix of Dances With Wolves and Cast Away, Revenant is partly based on a novel that was inspired by near-mythic true events in American history—namely, a man who was mauled by a bear, left for dead by some dispassionate comrades, and who crawled through a frozen chunk of the Louisiana Purchase to teach them some manners. Complete with cowboys-and-Indians-type battle scenes, terrifying bear attacks, gripping chase sequences, and some bloody mano-a-mano, plus plenty of gorgeous scenery shots, The Revenant is a technical marvel put together by some Oscar-winning masters of the craft. It’s definitely long (2.5 hours) and has its slow moments and its artsy flourishes that are not quite necessary. But Tom Hardy gives a terrific performance as a dastardly villain with an accent you’ll want to mimic right away, and Leonardo DiCaprio…well, from what I’ve heard, he’s probably going to win the Oscar. I wasn’t blown away by his performance in a give-him-the-Oscar-now kind of way, but I will say it’s another great performance by one of the most talented, committed actors in Hollywood. This movie’s not for the faint of heart, though.

The Revenant (2015)

Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Written for the Screen by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu and Mark L. Smith

Based in part on the novel by Michael Punke

Rated R

Length: 156 minutes

ROOM

ROOM

Grade: A

Starring: Brie Larson, Jacob Tremblay, Sean Bridgers, Joan Allen, Tom McCamus and William H. Macy

Premise: A young boy and his mother, who have been trapped in enclosed surroundings for years, are able to again explore and experience the outside world.

Rated R for thematic material including language, intense emotional content, some violent/disturbing images, and child endangerment

At this point, Room is my pick for movie of the year.

Even The Revenant—Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s frontier survival epic—which comes out in theaters this weekend and which I’ve been waiting months to see, will have a job being more affecting and more powerful than this movie. Based on a novel by Emma Donoghue (who also wrote the screenplay), Room may star an eight-year-old playing a precocious, sometimes-whiny five-year-old, but it’s ultimately a mesmerizing, unsettling, superbly-made film about a harrowing psychological trauma and its aftermath. Fronted by two unforgettable performances that deserve serious Oscar consideration, and containing a heart-stopping central premise that is horrific and fascinating at the same time, director Lenny Abrahamson’s movie left me shaken and entranced, almost unable to think about anything else. Its effect has proven reminiscent of my favorite movies from last year—it leaves you agog like Gone Girl and it has the unshakeable intensity of Whiplash…not to mention a beautifully-played ending that leaves you wanting more.

Plot

Miraculously freed years after a heartless kidnapping, five-year-old Jack (Vancouer-born Jacob Tremblay) and his Ma (Brie Larson) find freedom comes at a cost. Gone are the familiar surroundings—including the garden shed “room” in which they were kept—Jack once believed encompassed the whole world. Gone is the simple routine they enjoyed, which included taking baths, making meals, and telling stories. And gone, seemingly, is Ma, who was longing for freedom but can’t seem to recover the life that was stolen from her.

What Works?

Room has the same structural appeal as the 2000 survival epic Cast Away, in that the early portions are dominated by the extraordinary circumstances that give the movie its must-see hook, but it’s the latter portions—once the characters are back in the real world and find that even regular, everyday freedom offers its own problems—that leave the emotional mark. The questions here are of selfishness and selflessness, of bitterness and regret, of a free but uncertain future juxtaposed with confining and unpleasant but familiar circumstances. The movie’s marketing material focuses on the characters’ escape and reunion with their families—not to mention Ma and Jack baking a birthday cake and frolicking in the bath—making Room seem significantly more chipper than it is, but what it is instead of some happy little children’s fable is a challenging drama psychologists would love to study.

Just eight when he played Jack during filming, Jacob Tremblay is a revelation. This might be the most crucial and effective performance ever by a child in a movie made for adults, and it’s winningly played by Tremblay, a fine mixture of sensitive and sprightly, of petulant and curious. I won’t say the role is entirely devoid of cutesy moments, but for a film focused on a child, it feels very natural and unforced. That said, when Tremblay cranks up the volume in the moments of high emotion, the force of his yelling and screaming is almost shocking (yet it’s not the grating, nails-on-a-chalkboard squealing of the young Dakota Fanning; it has the startling punch of real children’s fits). As with real kids, Jack’s “cute” can vanish in an instant. Overall, it’s a pretty remarkable performance, superbly-directed by Abrahamson—the eight-year-old is instantly convincing as a five-year-old.  

It is Jack through whose eyes we see the movie, and who we follow around the most, but Ma is the catalyst of the story, and Brie Larson’s performance is sensational and shattering. Ma is a hero, an idol, a comforter, a shield, a dream-weaver, a rock for her son—at least early on, when they’re still trapped and she tries to save Jack from the grimness of their predicament (the film’s title is the name by which Ma advised Jack call their living quarters, to keep him from realizing there’s a whole outside world they’re missing out on); yet Larson’s grey-tinged face and piercing gaze make it clear most of what’s really holding her up is the desperate, fierce, calculated hope of escape. When they’re freed, though, and Ma is forced to come face-to-face with the life she once had and can never reclaim, it’s a wrenching portrayal, a person collapsing under the weight of bitterness, self-doubt, anger, and insecurity. It’s a character and a performance I’ve been mentally going back to over and over in the past 48 hours, dissecting more and more of the character’s ordeal and the psychological fallout of that trauma. Best known to me as the sweet, slightly-goofy love interest from the 21 Jump Street remake, Larson proves devastating and unforgettable; if I could, I would gladly award her the Best Actress Oscar. I hear she may be the front-runner. I hope so.

Jack and Ma are the two crucial characters, but fine support is offered by Joan Allen as Grandma, Ma’s mom, who can help raise a sweet little boy but struggles to deal with the suffering creature the ordeal made of her daughter. Tom McCamus has some very fine moments as the warm, gentle stepdad who helps draw Jack out of his shell. And Sean Bridgers forces nothing but packs a wallop as the sickening creeper who keeps them both trapped in a soundproof shed, mocking their circumstances and casually raping Ma.

It’s difficult to overstate how affecting Room is, with a disturbing central premise and fascinating psychological consequences and brilliant acting. It’s fair to say this movie contains as many as five of the ten or fifteen most arresting sequences on film this year, from an early encounter with Bridgers’ “Old Nick” to Ma’s desperate attempt to make Jack understand the seriousness of their circumstances to a shy, confused Jack’s interrogation by two curious cops (the sublime Amanda Brugel and Joe Pingue). It’s got a subtle but effective musical score, some fine bits of narration from Tremblay that are sometimes jolting in their matter-of-fact truthfulness despite being explained in a child’s simple language, and a wonderfully-quiet ending that packs a wallop.

What Doesn’t Work?

Much as I love Room, I’d be lying if I said there are no slow moments, particularly in the second act when Ma and Jack aren’t together all the time—thus, with the movie focused on Jack, we get a few scenes of Jack coloring and jumping on sofas instead of more scenes with Ma readjusting to the world. There’s also the slight detriment that the Jack-focused screenplay doesn’t allow us to see Ma’s reaction during their liberation. And there’s one moment—which I won’t spoil—that might strain implausibility a little bit, that could’ve been given a bit more time. But other than that…

Content

Okay, here’s where we get honest. Room deals with some tough subject matter, and while it’s not graphic in any way, exactly, it’s an extremely intense film overall. There are several F-words and a few intense arguments, but the content is generally heavy with desperation and emotion and pain. Mothers with young kids or with teenage/young-adult daughters may have a hard time dealing with the gritty realism of the onscreen events, particularly considering some real-life cases that have been unveiled in the past few years. It’s definitely a film that can rattle you.

Bottom Line

Not to be confused with the famously-bad independent film The Room (“you’re tearing me apart, Lisa!”), Room is a harrowing, sublimely-made film. Featuring a performance from 26-year-old Brie Larson that deserves to win the Best Actress Oscar and a really impressive performance by eight-year-old Jacob Tremblay—who might also get Oscar attention—Room is a psychology major’s dream subject matter and a mother’s worst nightmare. Based on a novel by Emma Donoghue (who also wrote the screenplay), Room is a haunting and remarkable story of love and selfishness, survival and freedom. It’s also my favorite movie of the year.

Room (2015)

Directed by Lenny Abrahamson

Screenplay by Emma Donoghue; Based on her novel

Rated R

Length: 118 minutes

SOUTHPAW/THE HATEFUL EIGHT

BLOOD AND GUTS. (AND GLORY?)

Intense Tarantino Film, Boxing Flick Soar in Parts, But Not Outstanding

Snubbed in the Best Actor race after his transformative performance in last year’s Nightcrawler, Jake Gyllenhaal came back with a vengeance in the dark and literally bruising boxing film Southpaw. I didn’t see it in theaters over the summer due to some middling reviews, but now I got the chance to watch it on DVD just weeks after watching another underdog boxing flick, Creed. And I almost wish the two movies had switched places, because Jake Gyllenhaal might have had a chance at this year’s Best Actor Oscar race if the movie had come out in October or later.

Meanwhile, no matter what time of year his movies came out, Quentin Tarantino’s movies are always Events, in terms of word-of-mouth, box office success, and, usually, end-of-year award nominations. The Oscar winner who writes and directs his own movies has a penchant for laughs, irony, and straight-up grisly material, a cocktail that has led to great success over the past two decades, and almost always turns out interesting, above-average films. So I was quick to see The Hateful Eight, the director’s newest, as it bowed in theaters on Thursday. It was your typical Tarantino, and all the good and bad that implies.

*Fun Fact: Both Southpaw and The Hateful Eight have served as sponsors for UFC Title Fights that I’ve watched over the past seven months. As if they needed more down and dirty street cred…

SOUTHPAW                                                 Grade: B

Directed by Antoine Fuqua

From the director of hard-hitting movies like Training Day and Olympus Has Fallen, Southpaw follows in the footsteps of Rocky, Raging Bull, Warrior and other movies about combat sports. It pits the world against a main character (or two), has it chew him up and spit him out, and then watches him try to climb and recover with the help of a wise friend/trainer or two. Often, the main conflicts are familial or financial ones, and, sometimes, there is a specific villain or adversary the hero must defeat. And he can only do it if he can get out of his own way.

It’s a typical formula, and Southpaw follows it pretty clearly. Billy “The Great” Hope (Gyllenhaal) is a middleweight champion fighter who grew up in an orphanage in Hell’s Kitchen, and has proven to be a better boxer when he’s faced with a real test—that is, when he’s being beaten to a pulp. It’s led to success, sure, but his devoted wife Maureen (Rachel McAdams), who also grew up in that orphanage, thinks it might be about time to hang up the gloves. Part of her reasoning is their smart, precocious preteen daughter Leila (Oona Laurence) who probably doesn’t need to be exposed to the injuries Billy brings home from even his victories. But the allure of the ring, Billy’s own stubbornness, and his “Yes man” manager (Curtis “50 Cent” Jackson) make pulling out of the game an unappealing possibility. But after Maureen dies in a freak accident, Billy’s world falls apart, as he loses his house, his fortune, custody of his daughter, and his license to compete. Forced to start from the bottom up to prove himself to the courts, to his naysayers, and to himself, Billy has to work as hard as he ever has in the ring to put his life back together.

Southpaw got mixed reviews from critics upon its release because it isn’t exactly original. Like I said, dozens of movies, from Rocky on, have followed this formula, from the familial issues to Billy’s eventual money issues to the villainous guy he has to face in the ring (here a hiss-worthy rival played by Miguel Gomez) to the world-weary gym owner who “doesn’t train professional fighters” (played by Forest Whitaker). I don’t mean to discredit Southpaw in terms of execution, because most of it is well-done. It’s just been done. There are few surprises, whether you’re contemplating the movie’s central tragedy, which was revealed even in the trailers that led up to the film’s release, or the climactic bout that, in a movie like this, can only really end one way. And the aforementioned trainer who doesn’t train professional fighters…whether it was Clint Eastwood, Sylvester Stallone, Burgess Meredith, Frank Grillo, or anybody else, has that trainer ever resisted the allure of the big time in the history of movies? Southpaw is imminently-watchable (the only times, in my opinion, it did something wrong was when it made sure to emphasize what a douchebag the rival fighter was, and when it ended at least a scene too early), but clichés and comparisons to other films are unavoidable.

Like I mentioned before, I wish this movie had come out more recently, because Gyllenhaal—who deserved the Best Actor nod for Nightcrawler he did not get—is terrific, convincingly shelving his boy-next-door image for this gritty portrayal. A nomination for this lead performance would not be amiss. Whitaker always seems to play the wise man of authority but when he gets an emotional moment he makes it count. McAdams is terrific as the sadly-doomed wife (her death scene is difficult to watch in its wrenching immediacy), and 13-year-old Oona Laurence is able to sidestep most of the cutesy-kid clichés in a dramatic and emotional performance.

Like most movies of its ilk, Southpaw is watchable. If you and yours are prepared for the R-rated language and some pretty intense moments, it’ll keep you entertained.

**SOUTHPAW is rated R for thematic material including boxing violence, bloody and disturbing images, language, intense emotional content, and brief sexual content

THE HATEFUL EIGHT                             Grade: B-

Directed by Quentin Tarantino

With the possible exception of his 1994 classic Pulp Fiction, Quentin Tarantino movies are each roughly 70 percent intense and terrific movies, and 30 percent mean-spirited and completely reprehensible movies. That tradition stays alive with The Hateful Eight, a three-hour epic that is as well-made, well-acted, and clever in its dialogue and set-up as any of the writer/director’s movies, but comes to the usual drawn-out, relentlessly-blood-soaked finale that, combined with a few other particularly dark moments, can leave a bad taste in one’s mouth.

The Hateful Eight are people, a group of men holed up in a small but nicely-rustic lodge in Nowhereville, 1860s Wyoming, during a terrible blizzard. The group is completed when the carriage of John Ruth (Kurt Russell) pulls in to stay for the night, bringing Ruth—a bounty hunter—his driver O.B. (James Parks), and two men he decided to rescue from the bitter cold en route, a black Army officer (Samuel L. Jackson) and the newly-elected sheriff (Walton Goggins) of Red Rock, the biggest town in the region. Also aboard Ruth’s carriage is Daisy Domergue (Jennifer Jason Leigh), a battered charge handcuffed to Ruth’s wrist that Ruth is planning to bring to Red Rock for a $10,000 reward and a good hanging. Already in the lodge when Ruth and his motley crew pull up in the deepening snow are an old Confederate general (Bruce Dern), a chatty Brit (Tim Roth), a heavily-accented Mexican (Demian Bichir), and a mysterious, laconic cowboy (Michael Madsen). Like those already in the tavern, Ruth and his fellow travelers realize they’ll have to wait out the blizzard in the cold. Daisy’s presence—attached to Ruth’s wrist—naturally raises questions, like who is she, and why is she worth so much money? The tension slowly begins to mount, as the Confederate general and the black officer have a clash of egos, the increasingly-paranoid Ruth tries to collect everyone’s guns to ensure no one will shoot him in the back to try to steal Daisy and the bounty on her head, and whispers of friends of Daisy’s who may be en route make everyone nervous. It turns out everyone stuck in the lodge may not be so hateful, but, trapped in those cramped corners, will they be able to survive when the tension explodes?

This is familiar territory for Tarantino, whose last film, 2012’s Django Unchained, was also about a bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) and his sojourn through America in the race-torn mid-1800s. In fact, Jackson, Roth, Dern and Madsen have all worked with Tarantino at least once before (Jackson has had at least a bit part in every Tarantino film since Pulp Fiction). As is typically the case, there is some slow, talky build-up, constant use of profanity—specifically the N- and F-words—a lot of shifty characters, quirky monologues, and, eventually, more blood than you’re likely to see even in a slasher horror film. As is also typically the case, Tarantino’s love for movies and uncanny skill are evident in the snarky humor, dramatic irony, leg-numbing suspense, colorful characterizations, and payoff to those viewers who have paid close attention.

However, Tarantino’s name in the credits also means things will slow to an absolute crawl at points (and this feels every bit of its three full hours), conversations will go on for a long time, every single detail of an encounter will be observed at length, and some very unpleasant things will happen—Hateful Eight ends with a gruesome image the onscreen characters laugh gleefully about that encapsulates the most literal meaning of the term “gallows humor”, but its mean-spirited nadir is a monologue by Jackson in which he taunts another character by happily explaining just how he tormented and abused an acquaintance of theirs before killing them. Tarantino’s movies are always edgy to the point of sadism; there are moments all but the most extreme Tarantino fans could do without.

The main thing that drops Hateful Eight a notch below Tarantino’s other recent films is likely the absence of Christoph Waltz. The Austrian-born Waltz may have won Supporting Actor Oscars for his roles in Django Unchained and 2009’s Inglorious Basterds, but he was the undisputed star, as well as the best thing about both those films. His undeniable charisma, smile-inducing theatrics and musical line readings were a perfect match for Tarantino’s edgy/witty dialogue. Waltz combined with Tarantino was a source of tremendous entertainment in both those films, and, despite solid work by the cast on hand, Waltz would almost certainly have upped the likability and entertainment factor of the drawn-out Hateful Eight were he in it. (In addition, Django Unchained also featured actors of considerable charisma in Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio—the vicious charm the latter brought to his slave-owner role was another of Django’s best elements).

Like I said, the cast on hand isn’t bad. Jackson has proven time and again to be one of the most entertaining actors alive, but Hateful Eight isn’t his finest hour, even if his acerbic, shouty, scenery-chewing portrayal apes his classic Jules Winfield character from Pulp Fiction; truth be told, Jackson has aped that character again and again throughout his career, to the point that it feels like he’s playing himself in most movies—he’s been at his best when doing something different, like the blustery, hand-wringing head slave in Django or the geeky, brains-before-brawn villain in Kingsman: The Secret Service. Russell is a nice addition, Roth is always welcome, and Goggins—who was also in Django Unchained—is a delight in one of the meatier supporting roles. The only woman with a prominent role, Leigh is effective, even if she doesn’t do much more than snigger or spit until the last quarter of the film.

My opinion of Tarantino’s movies usually improves with repeated viewings—it’s easier to appreciate the layered characterizations and witty dialogue when I’ve heard it before and when I know when the darker material is coming so I can be prepared, or so I can skip it outright. But The Hateful Eight still feels a notch below his more recent flicks, due to the length, the more reprehensible material, and the lack of originality (while it’s different plot-wise, Eight takes place in the same time period and, as mentioned, uses a lot of the same language and same actors as Django Unchained, plus we know by now with Tarantino it’s only a matter of time until the grisly, over-the-top bloodbath). If you’re a diehard Tarantino fan, you’re gonna see it regardless of what I say, and you’ll probably love it. If you’re a casual fan or Tarantino films are an unknown entity for you, rest assured, despite its epic running time and a solid cast, The Hateful Eight is nothing you need to see.

**THE HATEFUL EIGHT is rated R for strong bloody violence and gore, constant profanity (including racial slurs and graphic sexual references), disturbing images, and a scene of graphic nudity

Southpaw (2015)

Directed by Antoine Fuqua

Screenplay by Kurt Sutter

Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Forest Whitaker, Rachel McAdams, Oona Laurence, Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson, Naomie Harris and Miguel Gomez (as Miguel "Magic" Escobar)

Rated R

Length: 124 minutes
*SOUTHPAW is Currently Available at Redbox and on DVD/Blu-Ray

The Hateful Eight (2015)

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, Demian Bichir, Bruce Dern, James Parks and Channing Tatum

Rated R

Length: 187 minutes

*THE HATEFUL EIGHT is Currently in Theaters