CINDERELLA

Cinderella

Grade: B+

Starring: Lily James, Richard Madden, Cate Blanchett, Derek Jacobi, Stellan Skarsgard, Nonso Anozie and Helena Bonham Carter, with Ben Chaplin and Haley Atwell as Cinderella’s Parents and Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger as her Stepsisters

Premise: An orphaned young maiden struggles to keep alive her belief in magic and goodness while she is cruelly treated by her stepmother and stepsisters. But, after a chance meeting with a prince, the maiden’s destiny seems on the verge of a drastic change if only a little magic can be summoned on her behalf.

Rated PG (contains emotional content and some intense moments)

It just so happened that I didn’t have to buy my ticket to the new Cinderella movie myself. This was a relief, as I had been slightly embarrassed at how I would seem to the box-office attendant, walking up to buy a lone ticket for Cinderella, what with being a 26-year-old man and all. It turned out I didn’t have to (shout-out to a certain very good friend :) ), but, in hindsight, I’m not sure I would have minded. True, I have bought tickets to much more terrible movies, but I could probably have proudly bought a ticket for this movie mainly because, in hindsight, this new Cinderella movie is special.

I can’t imagine that anyone was clamoring for a new Cinderella movie. The original Disney cartoon from 1950 is as entrenched in Disney lore as anything, the title character already a staple of the Disney Princess collection, and it’s difficult to imagine anyone today not knowing the basics of the Cinderella story. There have also been at least a dozen Cinderella remakes, updates, adaptations, etc… So, we all know the gist. Plus, amidst the recent wave of gritty-live-action fairy-tale upgrades (Alice in Wonderland, Snow White & The Huntsman, Oz the Great and Powerful, Jack the Giant Slayer, Maleficent, etc…) it’s clear Hollywood studios will turn anywhere these days to make a quick couple million bucks, so it was easy to consider the release of a new Cinderella a purely mercenary move. Basically, I wasn't that excited about.

Well, it was worth getting excited about (read more below). Really, it was. I mean, I thought it was better than Frozen…

Plot

Raised in the foothills of a wealthy, majestic kingdom by her loving, affectionate parents (Ben Chaplin and Haley Atwell), Ella (played as a child by Eloise Webb) was taught to be brave, and to be kind to anyone and everyone. She was also taught to believe in her dreams, to believe in magic. Even as her mother faded from a mysterious illness, Ella was taught to chin up and smile, because her “Fairy Godmother” was watching over her to protect her. Holding onto her cherished memories of her mother, Ella (played as an adult by 25-year-old actress Lily James), even manages to smile and earnestly welcome the arrival of her father’s second wife (Cate Blanchett) and her two snooty daughters, Drisella (Sophie McShera) and Anastasia (Holliday Grainger). Ella even retains a sliver of optimism when her father unexpectedly passes while on a trip out of the country. However, her optimism and kindness are not matched by her stepmother and stepsisters (there’s a reason her stepmother’s cat is named Lucifer). Within days, Ella is reduced to living in the attic, doing all the cooking and cleaning in the household while eating her meals by herself and having no one for company but a band of crumb-snatching mice.

Her days consistently more dreary and difficult, Ella’s resolve starts to crack. One day, she considers running away, making it all the way into the nearby woods. There, she happens to meet a handsome, well-dressed young man (Richard Madden) on a hunt with his companions. His name is Kit, he says, and, while he doesn’t admit it to Ella just then, he’s the son of the aging king (Derek Jacobi) who lives in the nearby palace. While they go their separate ways—Ella compelled by her unending kindness to go back to the house to continue to do her stepmother’s bidding—both are charmed, and, when a ball is announced to which all young maidens in the land can attend, both dare to hope they’ll see that person again. After all, the ball is meant to help the prince find a bride, and the prince is actually open-minded enough to consider marrying someone who isn’t royalty. Ella’s hopes seem snuffed out when her stepmother not only refuses to let her go to the ball but also tears a beloved old dress of Ella’s mother’s, which Ella hoped to wear to the ball. But, just as Ella seems to be encountering her darkest, saddest moment, it turns out she does have a Fairy Godmother (Helena Bonham Carter). And the fact that Ella doesn’t have a dress, a carriage, horses, or any of the other trappings needed to get her to the ball and help her make an impression doesn’t seem to bother her Fairy Godmother in the least. Turns out, all that’s needed is a little magic.

What Works?

To me, the main thing that works in this Cinderella is the movie’s avoidance of the traps that have hindered pretty much all of the other recent live-action upgrades of fairy tales. That is, this movie doesn’t try to be any hipper, funnier, sexier, quirkier or cooler then the cartoon version. There are no added action scenes. No make-out scenes. No modern-day pop-culture references. No toilet/bodily humor. No exaggeratedly goofy humor (in a family film in this day and age, that’s an unbelievable feat). No corny sidekicks. No extra villains or potential love interests. No wink-wink innuendos. No over-the-top musical number to close things out. This movie is earnest and straight-forward.

I'm not sure if I knew this beforehand or not, but the movie was directed by Kenneth Branagh, who is best known as Hollywood’s main cinematic auteur of all things Shakespeare. Well, the Cinderella story is not based on Shakespeare, but it’s not difficult to fathom that this movie came from someone who loves Shakespeare but is also trying to connect with today’s audiences, because, what “extra trappings” the movie has are clearly meant to give it a glossy, classic feel. There are a few swooping camera/CGI crane shots showing the whole kingdom or the lands surrounding Ella’s home. The building interiors and, especially, the costumes, are gorgeous—the colors just pop. Key plot points are iterated by a town crier (Alex Macqueen, in a likeably-committed performance), which makes them seem all the more epic. Like I said, there are no unnecessary villains or forced love triangles, but there is just enough intrigue late to keep things from being completely by-the-numbers as we progress to our predetermined conclusion. Die-hard fans of the cartoon will appreciate both the appearance of Lucifer the cat, and the mice Ella befriends, who don’t talk or sing but figure prominently at a couple points, one of which sees them turned into horses. The critters are convincingly rendered and aren’t used for comic relief. And the phrase “bippity-boppity-boo” is heard, though it is only briefly done—the closest this movie has to a wink-wink moment.

While the look of the movie figures prominently in my overall impression (it is worth seeing on the big screen), the movie’s characters are, of course, first and foremost. And Branagh has assembled quite a troupe, even if there are no real household names in the bunch. Audiences may recognize Lily James from Downton Abbey, Richard Madden and the hulking Nonso Anozie (as one of his royal captains) from HBO’s Game of Thrones, Cate Blanchett from her appearances in all six Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies (she’s also won two Oscars), Hayley Atwell from the Captain America/Avengers/Agents of Shield universe, Stellan Skarsgard (as the Grand Duke) from his mentor roles in Good Will Hunting and Thor, and some might even recognize Derek Jacobi from his appearances in some of Branagh’s early ‘90s Shakespeare adaptations. And, of course, there's Helena Bonham Carter, from movies as varied as The King’s Speech, the Harry Potter series, and the remakes of Willy Wonka, Alice in Wonderland, and Dark Shadows--her single-scene appearance here as the Fairy Godmother is a treat.

It’s a stretch to say any of these actors give three-dimensional performances, but they don’t need to. In a movie like this, with a story everyone knows, Oscar-worthy acting/character development isn’t necessarily needed. But nearly every character has two dimensions—something to them—that makes it click. Time is taken to develop Madden’s prince and Jacobi’s ailing King, not to mention their subordinates Anozie and Skarsgard. And while Blanchett is certainly capable of playing sheer villainy, she’s convincing as the stepmother who is snooty and imperious but also embittered (another big bonus point for this movie: though Ella cries several times about her treatment at the hands of her stepmother and stepsisters, their cruelty isn’t over-the-top—this movie avoids the sheer misery that engulfed the 1998 version, Ever After).

Basically, I know we’ve had everything from Maleficent to a brooding Alice in Wonderland to two different Snow White adaptations, but, to me, this it the best and most well-rounded “fairy tale adaptation” so far.

What Doesn’t Work?

I honestly don’t have many criticisms. Like I said, this movie avoids the kinds of pitfalls that usually nag family films, like over-silliness. I will say that, while James’ performance is believable, it was slightly hard to believe her character would be so kind and naïve that she wouldn’t try to stick up for herself a little bit more against her stepmother and stepsisters. I don’t know if they should have made her stepmother a little more cruel and domineering or have Ella try to stick up for herself and be rebuffed, but she seemed to give in awfully quick. It’s also worth noting that, with the exception of the glowing ball gown she wears for the story’s signature sequence, she wears the same plain, light-blue dress the entire movie, even when she’s not locked in the attic (I couldn’t help wondering if this was a merchandizing ploy, but you know little girls are going to want Ball-Gown Cinderella anyway, not Regular-Everyday-Dress-Cinderella). She also seems to forget at one key point that her actual name is Ella, not Cinderella (that was a cruel nickname hoisted upon her by her stepsisters)—if you see the movie and recognize the moment I’m talking about, let me ask you: do you think she was trying to be especially humble or something?

Anyway, these are nitpicks. This was a lovely movie.

Content

PG! Nary a cussword, make-out, drop of blood or bodily gag to be found. There are a few intense moments with Ella’s chariot turning back into a pumpkin while racing down a country road, or with the same pumpkin’s transformation into a chariot occurring so suddenly that it threatens to squash our heroine, but nothing more severe then that. There are also a fair amount of emotional moments, and not all of them have to do with Ella’s parents dying or with her being mistreated—the film’s emotional peak actually has to do with the prince, and I’ll be darned if that didn’t get me choked up. You’re dead inside if that scene doesn’t “hit you in the feels”.

Bottom Line

Cinderella wasn’t perfect, but it was really close. It’s a gorgeously-made, well-acted movie that’s not excessively girly, excessively silly, or trying to be anything other than a sincere recreation of a beloved Disney story. To me, this is the best yet of the “live-action fairy-tale adaptations” we’ve seen in recent years, better then even Alice in Wonderland, Maleficent and Snow White & The Huntsman. Really, it’s perfect for the whole family. I had to nitpick to find things wrong with it. And, if you have the slightest bit of interest, it is worth seeing on the big screen.

Cinderella (2015)

Directed by Kenneth Branagh

Screenplay by Chris Weitz

Rated PG

Length: 112 minutes

THE PURGE: ANARCHY

The Purge: Anarchy

Grade: B-

Starring: Frank Grillo, Carmen Ejogo, Zoe Soul, Kiele Sanchez, Zach Gilford, John Beasley and Michael K. Williams

Premise: Three sets of strangers join up to try and survive the annual Purge in 2023.

Rated R for strong bloody violence, intense, disturbing thematic material, constant profanity, and scary moments

Made on a tiny budget with only a few recognizable stars, the 2013 thriller The Purge had an unexpectedly strong box-office haul, immediately granting the film a sequel (sound familiar?). I didn’t see the original film, but I heard a lot about its Hunger Games-esque premise, in which all laws and emergency services are suspended for a 12-hour period, allowing people, in the not too distant future, to let out all their pent-up aggression by any means necessary. The film’s claim was this tactic, instituted by a group called The New Founding Fathers, helped lower crime and unemployment—albeit often by having the people who might be in such conditions brutally bumped off. I guess writer/director James DeMonaco wanted a good idea for a free-for-all that would allow the Panic Room-type scenario of the first film to play out without such petty distractions/plot obstacles as police being summoned. Having done that, and emboldened by the success of the film, he cranked out a sequel the very next year: The Purge: Anarchy. From what I’ve heard, Anarchy is the big bad brother, darker, meaner, with a wider range of crimes experienced, and with its main characters out in the open, fleeing for their lives in a dark, unfriendly city—a different kind of terror from the claustrophobia of the first film.

Anarchy is definitely dark and gritty and intense; it’ll keep you watching. But, as you’ll read me say later, it slowly sinks in that, hey, even though the idea of a government-sanctioned annual free-for-all is kind of intriguing for a movie, it’s not plausible in the slightest. No, not at all. And even a movie with such a singular idea isn’t immune to certain horror-movie-staples, which become more and more obvious as the movie goes on.

Plot

It’s 2023, the ninth year of the reign of the New Founding Fathers of America, whose idea for their citizens to have the chance, once a year, to purge themselves of all dark thoughts and impulses has done wonders for society the other 364 days of the year. Sure, there are dissenters, like Internet blogger Carmelo Jones (Michael K. Williams), but, for the most part, the ‘rules’ are pretty straightforward: if you wanna purge, go for it, and good luck getting all the yucky out; if you’re not purging, stay inside, keep weapons close, and hope to God no one comes for you.

The film follows three sets of characters on Purge night—an estranged young couple (Kisele Sanchez and Zach Gilford) who bicker over every little thing right up until their car breaks down in the middle of an empty Los Angeles highway with less than an hour until the Purge kicks off; a kindly waitress (Carmen Ejogo) and her grown daughter (Zoe Soul) who want to weather the storm, if they can, in their downtown apartment; and a mysterious man (Frank Grillo), who drives downtown armed to the teeth with a serious look on his face and a mystery man’s pictures apparently giving him motivation. Wherever he’s going, you clearly don’t want to be there when he gets there. But the night is dark and full of terrors. The waitress and her daughter are yanked from their apartment by the armor-wearing denizens of a baddie in an 18-wheeler who’s mowing down any people he gets in his sights. The young couple seems to have been ‘tagged’ by a gang of mute, mask-wearing thugs, who follow them everywhere. Even when the mysterious man unexpectedly takes them under his wing, they’re still stuck downtown, in the dark, with gangs swirling around. And the mysterious man is clearly hell-bent on getting to his destination, whether his new ‘friends’ survive or not.

What Works?

The Purge: Anarchy is undeniably intense; it hooks you from the early going, getting you wondering just how horrific a night of such free-for-allness would truly be. Of course, with a movie and a premise like this, you just know, every time the characters get a breather, another threat is right behind. With a premise like this, a movie could almost have no specific characters and just be a faux-documentary, and it would be great—really, really dark, but great.

The characters we have, though not super-developed, are reasonably engaging. Frank Grillo is solid in what must be his first starring role (he should look familiar to audiences for his often-scene-stealing roles in Warrior, The Grey, End of Watch and Captain America: The Winter Soldier); I’ve heard it said he was perfectly cast. The script doesn’t really require a lot of him, and the character is a clichéd type, but he’s solid. There’s not a whole lot for the other characters to do but scream, gasp, cry, and be scared, but they hold your attention. The movie is really all about the suspense, the attitude, the darkness of its premise, and the haunting promise that, just before the end credits, there are “364 days until the next annual purge”.

What Doesn’t Work?

Before I get started, let me remind you (and myself), I gave this movie a B-, and it held my attention fairly easily. Most thrillers have a good idea or two to get the ball rolling and set up the screams and suspense, and Anarchy was no different (I mean, it certainly got me a little paranoid, thinking about how I would hold out on such a night of criminal debauchery). But…

But, the main premise—the idea of the annual purge—is complete nonsense in my opinion. Complete nonsense. And I’m writing this as a Christian, who believes that all people have a sin nature and are, at their root, evil. Thus, the idea of ‘purging’ one’s darkest impulses has a sort of ring of authenticity. But there is no way, no way, this would fly in real life, even a ‘real life’ set almost a decade from now. In this day and age of tolerance and acceptance and let’s-settle-our-differences-and-find-peace, this kind of raw sadism would never happen. Not to mention, that’s a heck of a mess one 12-hour period causes. Each half-day purge would have to be followed by a several-day (or week) clean-up period to take care of all the bodies, blood, fires, bullet shells and general wreckage—it would be way too inconvenient for any city or country’s budget. The Purge isn’t the first story to tackle the idea of popularly-accepted savagery (The Hunger Games, anyone?), but it fails to address how a society centered around this event would hold together. For instance, there’s a late scene—very reminiscent of The Hunger Games, not to mention Richard Connell’s famous short story The Most Dangerous Game—in which unwary (usually poor) people are snatched off the street by gangs and delivered to the rich, who have auctions in which they buy people to maim and kill, or else buy their way into a sort of arena where they can go after the hapless, unarmed people placed in it. The film does make a great deal about how the rich need to purge as much as anyone, but they do it in this high-society way, complete with the non-participants in the little ‘Game’ watching excitedly from behind glass.

This scene, which is actually effective in that it’s so sickening and cruel it kind of makes you want to vomit, represents the real problem with something like The Purge, in my opinion. Forget the clean-up that would have to happen afterward. Forget even the numerous lawsuits that would likely ensue the next day, once Purge rules were up and people wanted recompense for their losses. There is no way a society could function as a decent, happy, almost crime-free society for 364.5 days and then give itself over to complete and utter heartless, sadistic, animalistic crime against itself, and still function again like everything was hunky-dory afterward. I don’t see it. I know the first film presented the idea of neighbors who smile and laugh with each other on the 364.5 turning against each other and going cuckoo, but I just don’t see it. A society would not be able to happily turn a blind eye to the horrors it commits on one night. It would not continue to function. There would be wars and crime galore during the 364.5. If anything, the Purge would have to be a 12 hour period in which no one is allowed to commit a crime, and society can catch its collective breath. That wouldn’t be much of a ‘purge’, but I’m just saying.

But this is all the premise, right? As long as the movie pulled it off, why worry? Well, Anarchy, in addition to suffering from the can-you-really-leave-your-disbelief-at-the-door-for-this skepticism from people like me, does succumb to many regular horror movie tropes. Where to begin? People who think hiding in a closet in their broken-into apartment will keep them safe from armed intruders? An elderly father who gives a long, tearful speech about how much he hates the Purge and says he’s going to sleep in his bedroom and don’t disturb him? (He’s going to stay put, right? I mean, he’s not up to anything) A character who gets killed right after telling someone they love them? A woman who screams in a you-need-to-be-quiet moment while hiding when a small animal (a rat, in this case) jumps on her? People who out of nowhere become expert marksmen with heavy automatic weapons, firing on moving targets in the dark? The friendly neighbors who take you in, promising safety and “no Purge here”? People who leave their only weapon in a room they vacate, only to be cornered when their apartment is broken into? People who are so comfortable that they’re asleep in their beds on a night when anyone can break into their house and do anything they want to them? Guy who’s life is spared saves the life of the person who spared him? Any of this sound familiar?

Oh, and it did feel the tiniest bit insulting that statements like "God Bless America" or, for heaven's sake, the song "God Bless America" are used in such a dark, brooding movie--including a credit's sequences set to the song played in operatic form against a montage of images of guns and crimes and killings. No patriotism here...

Content

Anarchy is dark. While some of the blood effects are a little cheesy (a couple times, people getting shot through with many holes reeked of CGI), there’s no denying that a lot of the happenings onscreen are dark. People are shot, stabbed, run over, set on fire, hit by cars, blown up, etc… People hurting/killing/maiming other people becomes a fixture of the background, a matter-of-fact detail that’s kind of sickening. Yeah, it’s dark.

Bottom Line

The Purge: Anarchy is a pretty good movie in that it will hold your attention and keep you watching, but I didn’t love it. Its key premise is way too far-fetched if you really think about it, even for a gritty, futuristic thriller. There’s also a lot of horror movie staples like people trusting people they shouldn’t, people going into rooms/buildings they shouldn’t, would-be “innocent” characters turning out not to be innocent, etc… It’s an interesting idea, and there’s sure to be a third one (because when do movie franchises ever stop at two these days), but I thought it was just okay.

The Purge: Anarchy (2014)

Written and Directed by James DeMonaco

Rated R

Length: 103 minutes

CHAPPIE

Chappie

Grade: B+

Starring: Dev Patel, Hugh Jackman, Jose Pablo Cantillo, and Sigourney Weaver; with Ninja as 'Ninja', Yo-Landi Vi$$er as 'Yolandi', and Sharlto Copley as Chappie

Premise: A pioneering robotics engineer creates a ‘consciousness’ for robots in defiance of his corporate superiors’ orders, and plugs it into a simple scout droid. Almost as soon as the scout begins to walk and talk, it is hijacked by a group of thugs who want to use it as protection while they rob a bank.

Rated R for strong bloody violence, language, intense emotional content, some scary moments and drug references, and a brief nude image

South African writer/director Neill Blomkamp burst onto the scene in 2009 with his Oscar-nominated sci-fi adventure District 9 and followed it up with 2013’s underrated post-apocalyptic thriller Elysium. His newest film, Chappie, is the latest in a long line of films (Bicentennial Man, The Iron Giant, I-Robot, Wall-E, Big Hero 6, etc…) in which a mechanical humanoid is given a realistic human personality. However, unlike those other films in which a robot was plunked down in a fairly innocent setting, Chappie sees a mechanical being thrust into the run-down, bullet-ridden Johannesburg ghetto, becoming both an important player in a gang war and the ultimate MacGuffin for a pair of competing scientists.

I had seen the trailers for Chappie many times, to the point that I was quite weary of seeing it and, at one time, swore off seeing the movie. With the awkward robot of the title shown doing various childish things while different characters muttered solemn platitudes like “I brought you into this world” and “you can do anything you want to do”, I thought it might be some dopey fable about, basically, a kind of grown-up Wall-E. It isn’t that. It’s closer to a robotic Frankenstein tale, set in a unique, gritty setting with a unique cast that gives it a kind of naturalistic, anti-blockbuster vibe. Despite my initial reservations, this disorienting and uncouth atmosphere started to draw me in, only to leave me awash in adrenaline with a tremendous action-packed, edge-of-your-seat final third. It’s not perfect, but Chappie was far better than I expected, a welcome surprise in my first trip to the movies in almost a month.

Plot

It’s 2016, and crime in Johannesburg, South Africa, is at an all-time low thanks to the addition to the police force of robotic ‘scouts’, human-like figures able to take commands, kick down doors, tote guns, and arrest criminals. Though the scouts have helped save lives and stop crimes and make his company a fortune, the scouts’ creator, Deon Wilson (Dev Patel, of Slumdog Millionaire fame) isn’t satisfied. He’s as interested in creating a robotic consciousness—the ability for robots to think and learn and act for themselves—as he is in continuing to turn a profit for weapons manufacturers. His CEO (Sigourney Weaver) scoffs at the notion, as does rival robotics inventor Vincent Moore (Hugh Jackman), who, wanting to one-up Deon and his scouts, has created a bigger, more powerful robot called a Moose, which a human driver can control by wearing a helmet that forms a connection with the human’s neural transmitters. However, with the scouts’ success, the Moose isn’t needed, and Vincent remains second-class.

           

 Even further down the food chain are a local gang of petty criminals, Amerika (Jose Pablo Cantillo) and sweethearts Ninja and Yolandi (South African actors/musicians Ninja and Yo-Landi Vi$$er), who have run afoul of a notorious, deadly gangster, Hippo (Brandon Auret). Though their lives were spared by police and robot scout intervention, Hippo escaped, too, and he holds them to a significant debt. Ninja figures the best way to pay Hippo what they owe is a bank heist, but with impervious robot scouts stopping crimes everywhere, their prospects of pulling one off seem hopeless. It occurs to them to try stealing a robot and figuring out a way to reprogram it just as Deon smuggles a damaged robot scout out of his company’s headquarters and tries to bring it to his home, where he can implant the new consciousness program he’s created. He’s hijacked halfway by the gang, who are delighted to learn they can teach and influence the robot however they want once the consciousness is implanted. It’s Yolandi who names the robot once he comes to life and begins to warm to their presence, calling him a “happy chappie”. Deon has to go to work each day, but he gets off whenever he can to help teach the robot. So, Chappie (voice of South African actor Sharlto Copley) gets a unique dual influence—the gentler Deon and Yolandi want to teach him nice things, like how to read and paint and draw and appreciate beauty, while Amerika and Ninja want to teach him how to wield guns and knives and knock down walls. Meanwhile, an increasingly-obsessed Vincent has begun dogging Deon’s steps and his trips away from the office, and, infuriated at the idea that giving the robots a human-like consciousness could make them even more popular and profitable, he begins hatching a wild scheme to discredit the scouts, and Deon, once and for all.

What Works?

There are a lot of things I’d like to praise about Chappie, but the main reason the movie is so effective is Chappie himself. Sharlto Copley is, at this point, best known for playing a pair of extremely vindictive characters, the stop-at-nothing hit-man in Elysium and the scheming, power-mad king in Maleficent. Considering that’s the major impression of the actor, the humanity he infuses in Chappie through just the power of his voice and movements (thanks motion-capture animation!) is both indelible and incredible. He generates laughs, tears, and even gasps of fright, and does so without exaggeratedly gooey material (props to the gritty and moving screenplay, by Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell). You feel for Chappie, you care about him, you hope he’ll spare someone’s life at one point, and you hope he’ll save the day by grabbing a gun at another. He’s a wonderful creation, as effective on a personal level as Wall-E or Beymax or any of the other popular movie robots. The animators of the film deserve a huge hand, as well; not even once, from the very start of the film, does it occur to one that Chappie, or any of the other dozens of robots in the film, are mere CGI. Chappie seems every bit as real and present as any other popular CGI character of recent years—Gollum, the Na’vi from James Cameron’s Avatar, the new Planet of the Apes simians, any.

It would be easy, however, for the makers to have simply invested all their time and energy in a robot and left the plot and other characters out to dry. Thankfully, they haven’t. Dev Patel shines in what is probably his best role since Slumdog, convincingly taking the ride from nebbishy inventor to avenging creator. Hugh Jackman, able to speak in his native Australian brogue, is also supremely effective as Vincent—obviously known the world over for his portrayal of the tough, gruff-with-a-heart-of-gold Wolverine in X-Men, Jackman is rather surprisingly convincing as a sneering villain. I won’t be the only Jackman fan cheering for the actor to get pummeled late in the film, as his diabolical schemes unfold. The three unknowns who make up the gang that takes Chappie in deserve a huge hand as well. It takes a few scenes for one to get over Cantillo, Ninja and Yo-Landi’s bizarre appearances and thick accents, and all eyes are on Chappie from the get-go, but when all the characters end up in mortal danger late, you realize how much you care about them (random fact: the basically-playing-themselves Ninja and Yo-Landi are former real-life romantic partners. They have a daughter, and they front the South African rap-rave group Die Antwood). None of these actors will win Oscars or anything, but, as stated, their naturalistic appearances and layered portrayals greatly enhance the story. It is thanks to their contributions that the movie’s pell-mell, high-stakes action sequences are as gripping as they are.

What Doesn’t Work?

I don’t have a whole lot of criticism, other than the fact that the movie’s first 15 or so minutes are, as mentioned, rather disorienting, given that the early approach seems so different from what was shown in the trailers (including an enormous time jump). Blomkamp’s choice to subtitle a number of scenes in which characters like Ninja and Hippo speak heavily-accented, gangster English is also a questionable one; it feels like a gimmick, which isn't a great way to start a movie. For my money, they should either just have them speak regular English in a heavy but discernible accent, or have them speak a completely different language and subtitle it. Other than that, however, I can’t think of any other issues—Chappie is about as good as it could’ve been, and I want to praise Blomkamp for, just as he did in Elysium, coming up with a sort of feel-good ending that doesn’t feel cheap or phoned-in. His movies are quite ingenious.

Content

If you can discern the dialogue, you’ll be able to discern plenty of cuss-words. There’s also the fact that, as was also the case in Elysium, when the going gets tough, the going gets bloody. The violence in Chappie tends to be fierce and brutal, though it does have a point and you do keep track of the characters in it. This movie, uncouth and gritty as it is, can be tough.

Bottom Line

Chappie is not a perfect movie, but boy was it a surprise! Engaging, well-written, thought-provoking, exciting, and electrifying, this quasi-real-life fable from South African writer/director Neill Blomkamp (who made the similar District 9 and Elysium in recent years) outperformed even my best expectations. Hugh Jackman’s great in a non-Wolverine role, a bunch of unknown South African actors make invaluable, memorable contributions, and Chappie himself proves to be every bit as engaging and believable a CGI creation as Gollum from Lord of the Rings. There’s laugh-out-loud humor, there’s white-knuckle action, and there’s a point to all of it. I was quite pleasantly surprised.

Chappie (2015)

Directed by Neill Blomkamp

Screenplay by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell

Rated R

Length: 120 minutes

THE INTERVIEW

The Interview

Grade: C+

Starring: James Franco, Seth Rogen and Lizzy Caplan, with Randall Park as Kim Jong-Un and Diana Bang as Sook

Premise: A lively TV interviewer and his producer land a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to interview North Korea’s Supreme Ruler, only for the CIA to immediately recruit them for an assassination attempt on the dictator.

Rated R for constant crude, profane language (including graphic sexual references and racial and ethnic slurs), bloody violence, coarse humor, some sexuality, brief graphic nudity, and some drug content

I doubt it ever struck anyone in the majority of the world’s countries as anything but mere farce, but the broad 2014 comedy The Interview became a hot topic a few months ago when North Korea—the country that’s heavily ridiculed by the film—allegedly threatened terrorist attacks on the U.S. if the picture screened in theaters. It was almost immediately yanked from major theater chains, and there were rumors the film would never, ever, see the light of day, in any medium. But, amidst cries of patriotism (“American does not negotiate with or bend to the demands of terrorists!”), Hollywood muckraking (“you’re cowards if you don’t show the film”, dozens of celebrities tweeted), and social memes that were gleefully passed from person to person (“I can’t wait to see what movies North Korea lets me see this Christmas!”), the movie leaked out, first as a pirated property, then as a Video-On-Demand and limited release. It was something of a Must-See there for a while, just for the purpose of the thing (many people undoubtedly watched it believing their doing so was an act of patriotism for ‘Murica, or else one of defiance against North Korea). I had never truly wanted to see it—being a fan of neither James Franco nor Seth Rogen—even if the premise struck me as fairly intriguing, but, on yet another snowy, icy day this winter, I couldn’t help checking it out on Netflix to see just what all the fuss was about.

Absurd. That’s my instinctive one-word reaction to this socio-political hot topic. Utterly absurd. While you can't make the argument that no one should be upset by the film when it’s obviously supposed to just be silly escapist entertainment, The Interview is really quite harmless, a crass, lame-brained, feature-length version of a drunken party joke, one that is largely-cliché and embarrassingly-acted. I’d be tempted to call it the most outrageously-vulgar movie I’ve ever seen if I hadn’t seen star/director Rogen’s last comedy (Neighbors). Basically it pairs Rogen—doing his expletive-mumbling underachiever gag—alongside Franco—who does his patented weird, over-acting, wink-wink-I’m-smarter-than-this-but-I’m-doing-it-anyway shtick—and just wants to make anyone not from North Korea belly laugh while pointing an amused finger at the world’s most hostile dictator and his tight-lipped nation. A good idea? Hard to say. An intriguing premise? Sort of. A good movie? Ehhhh…

Plot

After years of producing a popular late-night talk show, TV executive Aaron Rapaport (Rogen, playing the straight man for once) hasn’t gained much respect, mainly because his show, Skylark Tonight, is a vehicle for flamboyant dufus Dave Skylark (Franco, in his most intolerable role ever) to exchange gossip with celebrities. The show is so low-brow that its idea of breaking news is a rapper admitting on the air that some of his blatantly homosexual lyrics point to the fact that he is actually a homosexual. Inexplicably, however, the show is watched by millions, including none other than the Supreme Ruler/Dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un (a likeably-game Randall Park). Delighted by the idea that he could interview someone important and serious and look like a real journalist, Dave convinces reluctant Aaron to call the North Korean embassy and request an interview with Kim. Surprise! The interview is granted. And, within days, the CIA shows up on Aaron’s doorstep, with a sharp but comely agent (Lizzy Caplan) informing the men they are to be part of a plot to put the world’s most dangerous man out of commission.

Though disbelieving and then nervous at first, Dave and Aaron manage to grasp the basics of a surprisingly simple assassination plan, to poison the dictator by having a tiny pellet of a lethal substance penetrate his skin when he shakes Dave’s hand to start the interview. However, things go awry almost immediately, when Dave and Aaron are met by a stern female head of security, Sook (the winning Diana Bang), and a baggage check loses them their precious sample of poison. They manage to obtain another sample later, at great cost, by which time Sook has grown very suspicious of Aaron. Worse, Kim Jong-Un himself instigates a private audience with Dave, in which he shows Dave that is really a lonely-at-heart frat boy with daddy issues, a lot like Dave. If he wasn’t so pressured, Kim reckons, he could be free to drive hot cars, make out with hot women, drink, snort, and live the debauched lifestyle he craves. Touched, Dave begins to have second thoughts about attempting to kill the dictator, while Aaron is dogged consistently by the stern and forbidding Sook. As the big interview draws near, both men wonder if it really is worth trying to kill the man.

What Doesn’t Work?

The first flaw of the movie that comes to my mind is also its biggest—top-billed actor James Franco is absolutely insufferable in the role of Dave Skylark. I haven’t been a fan of the actor since he bombed in his major attempt at epic romantic drama/tragedy (2006’s Tristan & Isolde, in which he did nothing but brood and mope), but he gives one of the most maddeningly-awful performances I’ve ever seen in The Interview, even if it was probably the goofy leading performance co-Directors Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg were looking for. By turns fey, fussy, shrill, obnoxious and cloying, Dave is nails-on-a-chalkboard annoying for about 97 percent of his screen time, the last third of which he spends baby-talking to a puppy, to give you an idea. It’s distressing to think that the actor’s fans, and many Hollywood personalities, likely hailed the actor for his ‘fearless performance art’ here; Academy members should feel ashamed for ever considering this man for an Oscar (even if it was for his admittedly solid one-man-show in 127 Hours), let alone for letting him host the show (he was memorably ticked/embarrassed/stoned while co-hosting with Anne Hathaway back in 2010). Anyone, like me, who thinks of the actor as smug and overrated will have no reason to think or feel otherwise after watching this (note: I think his brother Dave, of Neighbors and the 21 Jump Street remake, is a much more talented comedian).

I probably shouldn’t have been surprised by this, but The Interview is vulgar to the max, beating the viewer over the head with words that starts with F, C, and P, or that consist most notably of letters like M and F. There’s not a hint of subtlety to be found in The Interview, whether it pertains to the movie’s politics, racial stereotyping, bromance, budding romance, or to the fact that Dave has the hots for the CIA agent (Caplan) who hired him. Its main characters are both nitwits, its antagonists are largely cliché, and, of course, it’s determined to make broad comedic fodder out of an entire country, its people, and its traditions. Mostly, The Interview is flat-out stupid.

What Works?

That said, in its best moments, The Interview manages a sort of rollicking entertainment factor, particularly in a wildly-over-the-top in-studio fight between Rogen and one of Kim’s cronies (I was howling with laughter during this scene), and an incident where Rogen has to retrieve a high-priority package and hide it from Korean sentries while Dave and the CIA both yammer in his ear (another doozy). The final action sequence is exciting, and the titular televised conversation, while played mostly for laughs or embarrassing farce, manages a modicum of actual suspense. It’s also worth noting that Rogen—as I said earlier, for once playing the straight man—is rather more watchable than usual here, even if it’s only because your options are him and the hamming-it-like-there’s-no-tomorrow Franco. It’s also commendable that the movie’s main attempts to develop “character” involve the two main Korean characters. Kim and Sook—played by western-raised actors born to Korean parents, Randall Park and Diana Bang, respectively—have hints of actual personalities, and motivations and feelings, even if every moment of actual decency is almost immediately followed by expletives or other wild bluster.

 Content

As I pointed out, The Interview is just about as lewd and crude as they come, notching bad words by the score and firing away with sexual references, sexist jokes, racist jokes, ethnic jokes, violent jokes, and other fairly insensitive material. This probably shouldn’t surprise anyone, but it’s worth noting. If they have tried to make a more serious movie out of this premise (not a straight drama, but a less goofy farce), The Interview could’ve really been something.

Bottom Line

You can’t argue that The Interview isn’t insulting to North Koreans, but this wild and crazy comedy farce is mostly a lightweight, goofy, vulgar-to-the-max party joke for party boys. James Franco gives one of the most annoying would-be comedic performances I’ve ever seen in my life, actually giving Seth Rogen a chance to seem endearing.  A couple Korean actors do well, too (isn’t it appropriate the movie’s most interesting and well-rounded character is Kim Jong-Un?). There’s definitely some laugh-out-loud stuff, but, even with all the support-freedom-of-speech, we-don’t-negotiate-with-terrorists, rah-rah hoopla that surrounded its release, The Interview is not even close to a Must-See movie. I just grabbed it on Netflix because I’m snowed and iced in, again.

The Interview (2014)

Directed by Evan Goldberg and Seth Rogen

Screenplay by Dan Sterling

Rated R

Length: 112 minutes

JUPITER ASCENDING

Jupiter Ascending

Grade: C

Starring: Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Sean Bean, Eddie Redmayne, Douglas Booth and Tuppence Middleton, with Maria Doyle Kennedy as Jupiter’s mom

Premise: An ordinary young woman is mistaken for intergalactic royalty, instantly becoming a target of both ire and desire for the members of one of the universe’s oldest and most powerful ruling families.

Rated PG-13 for intense action and violent content, constant scenes of peril and destruction, some gore, language and brief nudity

Given the high-wattage stars and intergalactic-power-struggle plot displayed in the trailers, I thought Jupiter Ascending might be the rare solid February film that qualified as the kind of legitimate popcorn-entertainment usually released in the summer. Before I even saw it, I gave it brownie points for being an “original” work, the rare high-budget, big-spectacle flick not based on a bestselling book series, a comic book, a TV show, a video game, another movie, or a true story. I was hopeful. Not to mention I was intrigued by the possibility of a hiss-worthy bad guy played by rising star Eddie Redmayne, who is on the verge of possibly becoming a Best Actor Academy Award winner later this month thanks to his lauded portrayal of Stephen Hawking in The Theory of Everything.

Alas, I was way too optimistic. It must've slipped my notice that this film was written and directed by the Wachowski siblings, Andy and Lana, who wrote and directed an all-time great movie (1999’s The Matrix), and then ruined it with two overblown and overly-serious sequels, and whose last release was the ambitious but uneven sci-fi adaptation Cloud Atlas, a movie I sort of enjoyed but would probably never watch again. And, of course, Jupiter Ascending was released in February, which is typically a wasteland for movies. Ultimately, this is a cliché, underdeveloped and overwrought movie that was, at times, hard to follow, at others, ridiculously corny, and, for almost its entirety, seemed to be an unworthy compilation of scenes and ideas from about a dozen other, better movies. I suppose the special effects were decent and there were some engaging action scenes, but the muddled dialogue does neither its audiences nor its A-list cast (Mila Kunis, Channing Tatum, Redmayne) any favors, and, ultimately, it makes you feel that you would much rather watch Star Wars, even the prequels. Yes, this movie actually made me want to watch the Star Wars prequels. So, obviously, it wasn’t exactly great.

Plot

A second-generation immigrant whose astronomy-loving father died before she was born, Jupiter Jones (Kunis) is scratching a living with her Russian immigrant relatives and, essentially, hating life. Then, one day, during a trip to a medical clinic to donate some eggs for money, she's nearly killed by aliens but saved in the nick of time by an extraterrestrial humanoid (Tatum) who claims to have been tracking her. Allegedly a human/wolf hybrid, Caine, as he’s called, sneaks Jupiter out of the hospital and then tells her he was sent from the planet for which she’s named to bring her back to the ruling family of the galaxy, who believe her to be the reincarnated form of their dearly-departed matriarch. A quick visit to another humanoid who’s been hiding out on earth (Sean Bean, of Lord of the Rings and Game of Thrones fame) confirms her “Majesty”, and, with assassins and trackers on their tales, Caine takes Jupiter to Jupiter. There she meets the Abrasax siblings, Kalique (Tuppence Middleton), Titus (Douglas Booth) and Balem (Redmayne), all of whom are thousands of years old and heirs of the ancient and powerful race that gave birth to life on Earth. They inform Jupiter that she is an exact DNA match for their late mother ('reincarnation' is the human word for it, she's told), and begin to clue her in on the power and prestige that entitles her to. But it isn't long before Jupiter begins to sense trouble. None of the siblings seems like a fully good-hearted person, all of them have benefitted from “harvesting” human lives, and Balem, especially, wants Jupiter to turn over all the power she has--or supposedly has--so he can rule the universe.

What Doesn’t Work?

That may not be a great description, but that’s what the movie boils down to, with the typical plot strand thrown in that Jupiter begins to develop feelings for Caine, her protector, but since she's royalty and he's a lowly foot soldier, the match cannot (or should not) happen because he is unworthy. Also, since this is the Wachowskis and their stuff has to have some extra meaning, there’s a bit about time being the real currency of the universe, and we’re all just boiled to how much time we have left and how we use it. It's interesting, I guess, but it doesn't help the idea carry weight when it's presented in the same hokey sci-fi universe in which a rich young heir (Titus, in this case), proposes marriage to the woman who’s supposed to be the second coming of his mother.

Yeah—corny is the main word I would use to describe this movie. Since this movie actually isn’t based on any prior material, it needs explaining, but it’s explained rapid-fire by people using all kinds of sci-fi speak and, sometimes, by people with accents that make it difficult to understand. The main characters are all paper-thin cutouts, too. Kunis is incredibly-attractive and suggests actual acting ability, but all she’s required to do here is gasp and scream when in danger and otherwise simply provide the requisite swooning/shocked/awed expressions. She doesn’t have a whiff of chemistry with the sadly-cast Tatum, who should fire his agent for getting him into this goofy project. All this likeably expressive actor does here is brood and shoot baddies. And Redmayne may find his Oscar chances in trouble, here confined to a cringeworthy example of hammiest villainy, with all his dialogue either hoarsely croaked or bellowed in embarrassingly-high-pitched shrieks.

Driven by dozens of plot strands that often seem to be quickly discarded (the Abrasax sister, Kalique, has one great scene and is never seen again), Jupiter Ascending seems far longer than its just-over-two-hours running time suggests. Really, this is a step up from average Sci-fi Channel fare only because of its name actors and its budget, which must’ve been huge (last I checked, $179 million). Good luck to the Wachowskis getting that back.

What Works?

Though its nearly every frame feels like a rip-off of Star Wars, Ender’s Game, Guardians of the Galaxy, Thor or even John Carter, Jupiter Ascending is visually impressive. In addition, there are a few reasonably-exciting action sequences to raise the pulse, and, let’s face it, it doesn’t hurt to stare at Kunis for two hours.

Content

There’s a lot of fairly-destructive sci-fi violence going on, and a few scenes concerning bloody wounds, and even a handful of cuss words. Shouldn’t cause any real stir, though some parents might not appreciate the close-up of Tuppence Middleton’s bare butt as she comes out of a bath. Ethics aside—keeping up with this movie’s avalanche of names, terms and plot threads is the real key to digesting this flick.

Bottom Line

Jupiter Ascending’s premise is intriguing, but the movie’s too long, too corny, and doesn’t give its A-list cast much to do. Most of the movie seems ripped off from countless other sci-fi franchises (Star Wars, The Terminator, John Carter), it has a chemistry-free romance at its center, and it might have ruined Eddie Redmayne’s Oscar chances. Did I mention it’s written and directed by the Wachowskis, who made one great Matrix film and then two stinkbomb sequels? Important to know. This wasn’t a terrible movie, but not one I’d recommend.

Jupiter Ascending (2015)

Written and Directed by Andy and Lana Wachowski

Length: 127 minutes

Rated PG-13

MY TOP TEN MOVIES OF 2014

MY TOP TEN MOVIES OF THE YEAR – 2014 Edition

**WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAY CONVINCE YOU THAT I AM A HUGE GEEK!!

 Hello. If you’re reading this, first off, I want to say thank you. I started this blog about three years ago on the recommendation of a friend simply because I think about and try to analyze movies more than the average person does (maybe more than I should). I imagine I’d like to do this for a living. This blog doesn’t have many followers and doesn’t get too many views, but, every now and then, people comment on the links posted on Facebook or tell me in person that they read my blog or are looking forward to my comments on a certain movie, and, I gotta tell ya, it makes my life. It’s such a blessing! I post links to these posts on Facebook because, I figure, Why Not? Just in case somebody wants to read it. So if you’re reading this, thanks.

If you’re reading this, I also want to say I’M SORRY if you get offended or irritated because I don’t have as much of an appreciation as you for one or more of the movies mentioned below. Please believe me when I say putting this together is something I like doing and wanted to do, but, this year, it was almost unfathomably difficult. Why? Well, for one, I can find something to appreciate in almost any movie (as much as I analyze movies, you may have noticed I’m not that hard of a grader). For another, there were just so many good movies this past year! Yeah, the usual glut of summer blockbusters didn’t impress me as much as I hoped it might, but, since about mid-October, I’ve seen one legitimately great movie after another. Suffice to say, I was deeply impressed by, and would gladly vouch for, any of the movies listed below, regardless of ‘rank’. In fact, ranking them like this is a silly thing, because, as I found out when I set my mind to try to rank them, it’s more than a little difficult to compare a longer, slower, more meditative and dramatic type of movie (that might have a lot of real-life implications and a lot of touching material to analyze), with a more straightforward, entertaining action film with tons of appeal that just thrills the heck out of you. Yeah, it was hard, so hard that the idea of putting this list together and trying to rank these movies often put me in a place where I experienced something rather like this:

“AGONYYYY

That can cut like a kniiiiife!”

 Anyway, regardless of rank below, I enjoyed all of these movies and would watch any one of them again—there was something really impressive and noteworthy about each and every one.

HONORABLE MENTIONS

Guardians of the Galaxy
Foxcatcher
American Sniper
Interstellar

‘Honorable mentions’ is putting it mildly. It was quite tempting to simply have six movies tied for tenth. In fact, there was a twinge of anguish in the back of my head with every new movie I saw that really impressed and touched me, because I knew it meant there was less and less room at the top. And the sucky thing is, I bet I could watch any of these four movies again and, at any given time, think to myself “Man, there is no movie I would rather be watching right now.”

From the rollicking entertainment of Guardians, the epic tragedy of Foxcatcher, the unbelievable tension and stirring drama of Sniper and the straight-up rush of Interstellar, these were all great movies, and, as said before, ones I would gladly watch again.

THE TOP TEN

10. BOYHOOD* (tied with Captain America: The Winter Soldier)

The only reason Boyhood is ranked this low is because it was so stinkin long. At two hours and forty-five minutes, it was an endurance test, even for a movie as quietly-compelling and touchingly-relatable as this. If you haven’t heard, this movie was filmed by director Richard Linklater and the four main actors (Ellar Coltrane, Ethan Hawke, Patricia Arquette and Lorelei Linklater, the director’s daughter) in 39 days over the course of twelve years, from 2002-2013, in order to capture the growth of the main character, Mason (Coltrane), as he grew from age 6 to 18. Fully intent on capturing snippets of everyday life, the movie’s matter-of-factness took some getting used to, but it was absolutely riveting in its best moments, contemplating things like domestic scuffles, a broken home, first love, first heartbreak, and the poignant endings and beginnings that come with a life milestone like graduation. It’s going to win a couple big Oscars and it’ll deserve them all, in my opinion. It was long, but I’d watch it again.
 

10. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER*

I’m not a comic book fan, per se, so I’ve grown a little weary of the avalanche of comic book-based movies that have come out in recent years. I go see them because they’re popular, of course—I tend to get my hopes up, only to be disappointed by some of the sillier humor, more clichéd plot ‘twists’ and more hackneyed last-second escapes common to the genre. I’ve walked out of several recent Marvel movies (Iron Man 3, Thor: The Dark World, The Amazing Spiderman) contemplating whether it’s worth ever seeing another Marvel movie, since they all seem to follow the same general template. So it means a lot when I say that Captain America: The Winter Soldier was the first Marvel movie in a while that not only surpassed my expectations, but made me legitimately excited for “the next one”. Of course, Chris Evans’ Steve Rogers is one of the more relatable Marvel heroes, and the movie explored relevant themes like national security, secret surveillance, conspiracy theories, and even veterans struggling to integrate themselves back into society after serving in the Middle East. Plus, the Captain’s relationship with The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) gave this movie a more genuine emotional pulse than most Marvel movies can hope for. But this wasn’t some artsy-fartsy film—the action here was top-notch, including the rare modern-day extended fistfight that wasn’t marred by unnecessary shaky-cam (Cap and The Soldier had some EPIC mano-a-manos). Plus there was a great supporting cast (Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Mackie, Robert Redford, Frank Grillo, etc…). Yeah, this was straight-up entertainment at its best.

 

9. BIRDMAN (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

I remember the first time I saw the trailer for Birdman—it looked like about four different movies. There’s a reason, as this whirling dervish of a flick veers from domestic drama to absurdist comedy to outright fantasy, testing a viewer’s patience and concentration. But the fast and furious dialogue, quietly-epic tracking shots, occasional big laughs, and superb cast made it worth it. Every actor in this group—Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Edward Norton, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Amy Ryan, Andrea Riseborough—was impressive, and could have been even more so if the movie didn’t want to be all ‘weird’ and ‘different’. But, ultimately, this story of a formerly-popular movie star (best known for playing a popular superhero, Birdman) trying to make a comeback in a big Broadway drama opposite a raging dingus (Norton) and a clutch of needy women (Watts, Riseborough) was great when it needed to be. And the ending is one sure to be debated (what actually happened!?!).

 

8. WILD

Like 127 Hours or Into this Wild, this was an intimate study of a real person who sought to find himself or herself out in nature. In this case, it was Cheryl Strayed, a lonely divorcee and recovering junkie who, in 1995, hiked 1,100 miles of the Pacific Northwest Trail, from Mexico to Canada, because she just needed to accomplish something. Along the way, she grew stronger, made some new friends, and learned to cope with the crushing, unexpected death of her mother, which had happened just months before. With Reese Witherspoon in her best role in ages, this was another quiet, poignant movie about love and loss and learning to appreciate the little things.
 

7. THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING

This wrenching true story flick chronicled the unlikely romance and lengthy marriage of Jane and Stephen Hawking. When they met, she was way out of his league, but she admired his depth and sincerity, they became inseparable, and she refused to leave him even when he got a horrible diagnosis—Lou Gehrig’s disease. It was said he would die within 2 years, but, as you know, the physicist is still alive today. Brought to life with expression and feeling by Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, this movie really made me ponder what it means to truly love someone. If you really love someone, you will do _____ for them… And that’s probably an open-ended sentence. Jane’s self-sacrifice in caring for her brilliant but almost helpless husband was touching, as was the question of whether or not it was right for her to crave affection and physical love when her husband was unable to provide it, or for him to develop an interest in another woman when Jane gave him so much. Great acting, whirlwind romance, multiple tearjerker scenes and hard questions/talking points galore—consider this a prime date movie for serious couples.
 

6. EDGE OF TOMORROW

Let’s get this out of the way first: if you aren’t a Tom Cruise fan, you probably won’t enjoy this movie, because it’s all about him. But if you don’t mind him, check out this Groundhog Day-meets-Starship Troopers sci-fi action flick that hit it out of the park where most of the summer’s bigger, sexier movies (X-Men, Spiderman, Godzilla, Transformers) struggled—it was freakin’ entertaining, but it also made you think and gave you something to invest in. When a cocksure-but-cowardly military officer has a close encounter with an advanced member of an alien race, its DNA-from-another-dimension throws him into a time warp where he relives the day of a major humans-vs-aliens battle again and again. Eventually, he realizes he must use this increasing knowledge to find a way to defeat the aliens before they wreak further havoc on humanity. But the cost of seeing so much death, over and over, is high. Co-starring Emily Blunt (the Baker’s Wife from Into The Woods) as a badass army chick he teams up with to defeat the aliens once and for all, Tomorrow was such an engaging, exciting movie that I was completely swept away.
 

5. THE IMITATION GAME

In a nutshell, Imitation Game was the best of the year’s clear-cut Oscar-bait dramas for a simple reason: it knew how to be deep and thought-provoking and legitimately entertaining. Best Actor nominee Benedict Cumberbatch was perfectly cast as brilliant but socially-awkward mathematician Alan Turing, a real-life figure who served the British government/military while England was getting hammered by Germany in WWII. Turing helped crack the complex, specialized morse code the Nazis used to communicate over the radio without giving their plans away—it allowed England and the other allies to anticipate the worst attacks, and meet them. But despite this breakthrough, Turing was looked down upon for being a homosexual at a time when it was illegal by British law. And part of his social awkwardness came from the cruel twist of fate that befell his first love. With rapid-fire dialogue, endearing character development and moments of deep, deep emotion, Game was a great, well-rounded movie.

 

4. DAWN OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

I really do think this one should have been called Rise and the earlier one should have been called Dawn, but whatever—this was a deep, engaging adventure story highlighted by magnificent special effects. One of the most invaluable, irreplaceable people in the movie industry—motion capture wizard Andy Serkis (aka Gollum)—does it again as Caesar, a smart, talking chimp who leads his tribe of advanced apes with wisdom and grace in a post-apocalyptic world. When the apes unexpectedly come into contact with a band of human survivors (led by Jason Clarke’s compassionate explorer and Gary Oldman’s fierce military leader), both sides struggle over whether or not to better their own race’s chances by trying annihilate the other. But the die are really cast by Koba, one of Caesar’s right-hand apes (voiced and given movement by Toby Kebbell), a malicious, bitter chimp who was a human test subject and wants revenge. This story would be perfectly interesting if both sides were people, but the fact that one side are apes with very humane movements and personalities, but were, in fact, apes, just made it that much more exciting. And that scene of apes riding horses while wielding machine guns as they stormed the humans’ encampment? Freakin’ awesome. Yeah, this was a good one.
 

3. NIGHTCRAWLER

When I watched Nightcrawler, there were times when I thought “this is almost the perfect movie”. It turned out I didn’t quite agree with the note on which it ended, but, overall, this was one of the year’s most mesmerizing and unforgettable films. Jake Gyllenhaal (sadly snubbed in the Oscars’ Best Actor category) was almost unrecognizable as gaunt, ambitious creeper Lou Bloom, who stumbles upon the L.A. crime ‘nightcrawling’ scene and decides he wants in. How do you get in? By getting to the scene of serious incidents (car wrecks, fires, shootings, break-ins) and filming the intimate, sometimes gory details, and selling it to the highest bidder amongst local news stations who want higher ratings (“If it bleeds, it leads!” a fellow nightcrawler proclaims). Lou takes to this ‘profession’ like a duck to water, and becomes a hot commodity amongst the local stations with his ability to get the shots no one else can (partly because he’s willing to manipulate or stage scenes to his liking). Lou’s decision to get more dirt on a particularly-horrific series of murders leads him to stage the most audacious crime yet, and it takes Nightcrawler from an edgy procedural to the year’s single most electrifying and scintillating action sequence (trust me, you’ll know it when you see it). Co-starring Rene Russo as an ambitious news station director Lou blackmails into sleeping with him, Nightcrawler was a dark but brilliant film.
 

2. GONE GIRL

You’d be hard-pressed to find a movie that better exemplifies the phrase “crazy good”. I remember leaving the theater after Gone Girl raving, saying over and over, “that was awesome…that was nuts—that was CRAZY!” Adapted from Gillian Flynn’s novel of the same name (she also wrote the movie’s screenplay), this long, topsy-turvy film takes a look at the deepest, darkest secrets of one particular couple’s stormy marriage. When the woman (Rosamund Pike), goes missing, leaving signs of a violent struggle, the police immediately suspect her overly-calm, slightly-arrogant husband (Ben Affleck) of murder. It doesn’t help his case when they find his wife’s journal, in which she wrote of her husband: “this man may kill me.” But when an old flame of his wife’s ends up dead, it becomes clear things are not what they seem. Boy, aren’t they…Gone Girl is a spellbinding, eye-popping, edge-of-your-seat thriller that will leave you in disbelief. It was only recently edged out of my #1 spot for the year, but it remains one of the year’s most dynamic and memorable movies. It also remains the absolute last movie you should ever watch on a first date; shoot, make that any date in general, even if you think you really, really trust the person. Directed by noted auteur David Fincher (The Social Network, Benjamin Button, Se7en, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), this is an epic white-knuckle thriller I’m half-looking forward to seeing again, and half-dreading. Yeah, it’s like that.

Yeah, it was hard to top Gone Girl, but this last movie just hit me in the sweet spot. That movie?

WHIPLASH (#1)

Now this is how you write a good movie—put two sterling performers in the roles of a pair of men who admire and despise each other, ratchet up the tension and adrenaline to almost unbearable levels, add a killer musical score, and fill the last third of the movie with a jaw-dropping, gut-wrenching game of F*** You. Oh yeah, and end it with one of the most maddening cliffhangers imaginable. It’s true, part of writer/director Damian Chazelle’s genius is that beauty of a cliffhanger—it makes Whiplash about ten times more brilliant and haunting, but it also can frustrate the mess out of you, because, if you’re like me, you want to know What the Hell Happened Next! Seriously—I haven’t loved a movie this much, and yet so badly wanted more, in years.

Yeah, Whiplash got me good. It stars upcoming sensation Miles Teller as an ambitious younger dummer who gains admission to an exclusive musical academy in Manhattan, where he strives to get his big break by catching the eye and ear of the school’s renowned jazz instructor. Catch the eye and ear he does, but it turns out the instructor, Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons of the old Spiderman trilogy and the Farmers Insurance commercials), is, behind closed doors, a tyrannical slave driver, a relentless, bullying monster who considers neither verbal nor physical abuse out of the question when it comes to getting the best out of his budding musicians. The musicians, thus, are tense and terrified, practicing obsessively to unhealthy levels and proving quick to turn on each other if anyone even slightly messes up. Teller’s drummer, Andrew, in particular, becomes so hellbent on impressing the instructor that he dumps his girlfriend and starts lying to his father in order to focus exclusively on drumming. Yet impressing Fletcher proves a Herculean task, and Andrew starts to crack. He becomes rude and sour and starts to lose his own humanity. And impressing Fletcher may not, at the end of it all, even be possible. And it may not be worth it.

Headed by a pair of phenomenal performances (Teller was great, and Simmons is on his way to an Oscar), Whiplash was so intense my legs were numb within minutes; by the high-flying, magnificent whopper of an ending, I was practically begging for mercy. The script (by director Damian Chazelle) is raw and brilliant, the drum solos are incredible, and the clash of wits and wills at the center is something I would long like to analyze (if you can’t tell). Just what went on to happen between these two after that final scene, I really want to know. Someone needs to see Whiplash so we can talk about it. That would be quite the conversation.

If you’ve gotten this far, thanks for reading. :)

WHIPLASH

Whiplash

Grade: A

Starring: Miles Teller, J.K. Simmons, and Paul Reiser; with Melissa Benoist as Nicole, Austin Stowell as Ryan Connelly and Nate Lang as Carl Tanner

Premise: A skilled young drummer attending an elite musical academy comes under the tutelage of a renowned but abusive orchestra conductor.

Rated R for constant profanity and abusive language (including racial slurs and sexual references), bloody images, and some intense emotional content

Whiplash:

1. The lash of a whip

2. An abrupt snapping motion or change of direction resembling the lash of a whip

3. Also 'whiplash injury', a neck injury caused by a sudden jerking backward, forward, or both, of the head

                                                (from dictionary.reference.com)

All three listed definitions of the single word in the title of writer/director Damian Chazelle’s nerve-shredding Academy-Award nominated drama are appropriate descriptions of what happens in the film—if not literally then figuratively. Some of the most startling content truly is capable of causing one to recoil, possibly fast enough to give oneself whiplash. But another visceral word that could be used to describe the affect this film has is gutpunch. Yes, that, too, would be accurate.

The 29-year-old Chazelle made a huge splash on the film scene this year—after only a few previous writing and directing credits—with this brutal, harrowing film, and it’s no wonder. The screenplay takes the idea of tough competition at a high-falutin’ music school (the fictional New York-based Shaffer Conservatory) and makes it positively, almost literally, cutthroat. The demanding music instructor that looms large over the proceedings is inspired by a story that jazz saxophonist Charlie Parker only became ‘The Yardbird’ aka 'The Bird' because Jo-Jo Jones threw a cymbal at his head during a mediocre showing with the band and told him to “get the f*** out”. Humiliated but determined, Parker came back and changed jazz music. Thus, the Shaffer Academy instructor considers it his duty to, in his words, “push people beyond what they believe they’re capable of” because he wants to have his own Charlie Parker. Just how far he’ll go to do it is what makes Whiplash such a demanding film. Just how far a young drumming protégé will go to try to impress this monster, and to realize his own dream, is what makes it mesmerizing.

Plot

Nineteen-year-old Andrew Nieman (Miles Teller) is bursting with pride at having gained admission to Shaffer, having been raised by a single parent (Paul Reiser) and idolizing the likes of Buddy Rich his entire life. One day in entry-level orchestra, he catches the eye (and ear) of visiting instructor Terrence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), the conductor of Shaffer’s nationally-recognized jazz core orchestra. Excited, Andrew goes to the classroom and greets the other musicians, watches Fletcher come in and lead the group in a few warm-up numbers…and someone happens to be out of tune. Fletcher—whose bald, muscular, blue-eyed visage seems the epitome of cool—descends on the offending brass musician and screams obscenities until the kid flees the class in tears. And that’s just the beginning. Within the first week, Andrew, despite being remarkably quick of hand on the drums, has been cussed out, slapped repeatedly, and had a chair thrown at his head.

Despite this abuse, Andrew, who no one has ever thought much of, buckles down, deciding to make drumming his life. He even dumps his cutie girlfriend Nicole (Melissa Benoist) because he’s so intent on being “great”, he wants to dedicate his whole life to it. That means losing sleep, skipping meals, ignoring phone calls from his father, and drumming until his hands are bleeding and blistering and his body is covered in sweat. He wants to be great. After word of Fletcher’s horrific methods gets out, Andrew is asked to inform on him. Andrew has certainly suffered at his hands—having been called unfathomable names and suffering a near-death experience in his attempts to gain the man’s approval—but he feels the better for it. He’s become better then he would’ve been, he’s surpassed all the core orchestra’s other drummers, and he’s good enough that he has might have figured out how beat Fletcher at his own game.

What Works?

Anyone who comes into Whiplash not knowing about the verbal abuse aspect of the film will be appalled. I already knew the gist of what was coming, and yet I was reduced to a quivering blob of jelly within the first half hour. Suspense barely does the movie’s dramatic tension justice. Whiplash is electrifying and grueling, it’s mesmerizing, and it’s torturous. When J.K. Simmons won a Golden Globe a week ago for his performance as Fletcher, he thanked actor Miles Teller for inspiring him “to scream at him and hit him in the face.” He wasn’t exaggerating.

Simmons, who is also the favorite for the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award, towers over the film, as fearsome and loathsome a villain as has appeared on the screen in some time. It's difficult to fathom that this cruel, sadistic man is played by the same actor who fronts the droll Farmers Insurance commercials, and who was once worth several laughs a minute as the blustering J.Jonah Jameson in the original Spiderman trilogy. Here, when he's bending over, leering into the faces of his petrified students--at angle so that the shadows in the lines on his face darken and the folds in his skin become even more pronounced--and starts bellowing, he looks less like a person and more like a twisted gargoyle from someone's nightmare. It's the definition of a commanding performance, and the genius of Chazelle’s writing is that he makes Fletcher an actual person with depth and feelings without any contrived daddy-issues backstory. In the film he’s matched only at the end, when the drummer played by talented Miles Teller (of The Spectacular Now and Divergent fame) engages Fletcher in a gut-wrenching, jaw-dropping game of F*** You that will have viewers on the edges of their seats. Teller is understandably overshadowed by Simmons, but his performance, all coiled force (and a considerable bit of physical agony) is haunting as well.

It’s also impossible to watch this movie without appreciating the music. Jazz may make most people think of Frank Sinatra coffeehouse fare, but the drumming here (“jazz drumming”) is as fierce and unrelenting as that in any rock music I’ve ever heard. The commitment and stamina it must take to learn to play such numbers at a performance level is almost beyond imagination. Some of the most-heard numbers are Hank Levy’s “Whiplash” and Duke Ellington’s “Caravan”. And yes, in case you’re wondering, Teller, who had drumming experience, played all his own numbers after several months of tutelage from notable drummer Nate Lang, who plays one of Andrew’s drumming rivals in the movie. Here’s hoping Lang wasn’t quite as tough as Fletcher.

What Doesn’t Work?

I wouldn’t have minded if the movie was a little bit happier—and it takes a gutpunch (there’s that word again) twist late that makes you want to scream in devastation—but my only real point of issue is that a few of the climactic numbers, impressive though they are, begin to drag on.

Content

Every other word starts with a ‘f’, there’s some graphic shots of bleeding blisters, and there are repeated shots of young men driving themselves almost past the point of endurance to try to please their drill sergeant maestro. This movie is rough.

Bottom Line

“The two most dangerous words in the English language are: good job.” So says the tyrannical monster at the center of this ferociously-intense film. Whiplash didn’t get its Oscar nominations by pleasing voters (at least not in a pleasantries sort of way), it got them by shocking them and giving them something they couldn’t forget. Featuring a couple great performances and some superb drum solos, this is one wild and crazy-good movie.

Whiplash (2014)

Written and Directed by Damien Chazelle

Rated R

Length: 107 minutes