The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 (2014)

*** ½ out of ****

Sometimes I really don't understand movie critics. When “The Hunger Games” came out in 2012 I thought it was only a moderately okay movie. It was a nice waste of 2 hours, but nothing particularly special. Then in 2013 when “Catching Fire” was released, I considered it a nice improvement on the first – it was more intense, better acted and had far superior production values. I would have given them both 2 and a half stars, with a slightly higher recommendation to “Catching Fire”. But the critics LOVED them – they had 84% and 89% Rotten Tomatoes scores respectively.

So when I saw that the latest release “Mockingjay Part 1” was only receiving a 65% rating, I was in no hurry to go off the theatre to see it. Turns out I was late to the party – critics be damned, this is simply a different class of film. It is really, really good; far better than its two predecessors.

When we last saw Katniss Everdeen she had just been rescued from the games and found herself in the midst of a revolution. The remaining 12 districts of Panem have had enough of the repression of the capital and, using Katniss as their figurehead, are striking back. Perhaps it is the discontented revolutionary deep within me speaking, but this is not like the slightly silly concept driving the original films – this is an idea that stirs feelings in all of us when we see injustice. We want to fight back (but rarely do) and love to see oppressors beaten down. A much more interesting theme that has led to a far superior movie experience.

The revolution is being led by “President” Coin (the modern day Jefferson Davis of the film), and among her key advisers is former game-master Pultarch Heavensbee, as well as Katniss' friends Gale and Haymitch. Since it was Katniss' rebellious actions in the games that originally led to the revolution, they all want to hold her up as the figurehead for the revolt. They film staged settings for her, where she appears to be in the midst of the fighting (complete with CGI) but her acting fall flat; she can only appear revolutionary when she is really in the middle of it. So against their better judgment, they send her out into the districts where the real fighting is happening.

Of course this is the best thing they could have done because Katniss really is a warrior – her fighting on the front lines (with a camera crew at her back) repeatedly displays what the revolution is all about, and airing the footage inspires more and more people to take part. Before long it is full out war complete with late night sabotage, covert operations and hard line artillery shelling going on.

Many critics are calling "Mockingjay" slow and lacking in action, but I felt that director Francis Lawrence paced this film beautifully. It isn't the slam-bang action of the first two films (which even for sci-fi I found too fantastic to take really seriously), but it all unfolds very realistically. I loved how it is Katniss' natural fire that sparks the people to fight, and one particular scene where she spontaneously sings a folk song by a reservoir is really beautifully done. The ensuing scene (where late-night saboteurs destroy a dam while singing the same song) drives it home.

Many are condemning the way the novel has been split into two films, but there isn't one second of this 2 hour "part 1" that I would remove. If you're seeking rock'em sock'em action with endless firefights and mindless battles then you won't like this films as much as the first two, but if you enjoy more intrigue and characters that react like real people instead of caricatures, this one is far superior.

Jennifer Lawrence has made a real name for herself over the past few years, and deservedly so. Her work in “Silver Linings Playbook” (2012) and “American Hustle” (2013) have proven her to be a real talent. While I loved "Mockingjay Part 1", her role isn't much of a challenge for a real thespian – in fact I found her performance to be a bit over-the-top at times like she was trying to wring more out of the character than it actually has to give. Katniss' anguish over the deaths of innocents is dragged out a bit too much, but that is really the only minor complaint I would voice.

This is a terrific movie, and I give it an extremely high recommendation. Now I can't wait for the finale next year- I hope it maintains this level of quality.

Trancers (1985)

* out of ****

Childhood memories can be flawed. You remember a long-ago relative as being a giant..... you meet him again as an adult you find he's barely more than average size. Grandma's basement was a labyrinth of treasures and secrets..... then you visit years later and see it as small, dank and claustrophobic. You are enthralled by a movie filled with excitement and intrigue..... then watching it again decades later it is a truly silly piece of cinematic trash.

Such is “Trancers”. A flick I found very entertaining as a teen which on viewing now I can't believe I ever liked. Although I will go easy on myself by suggesting that some others must have enjoyed it as it has since spawned two sequels.

Reveling in its own low-budget limitations, “Trancers” is a fairly typical sci-fi time-waster from the 80s. Tim Thomerson is Jack Deth (I have to give them this – that's a great name), a 23^rd century cop that spends his time tracking “Whistler”, a psychic who can turn the weak minded into brainless killing machines. When Whistler travels back in time to kill the ancestors of those chasing him, Deth has to follow suit and go back to 1985. They achieve this by transporting your consciousness into the body of an ancestor, leaving your own body behind. This was actually a nice plot device as it added the challenge that Whistler's ancestor was a cop, giving him the authority to remove anyone he suspects is after him from the picture.

One of the better parts of the movie is Helen Hunt as Leena, a Madonna-wannabe that Deth meets up with in 1985. Though her actions and dialogue make no more sense than anyone else's, you can at least see that Hunt's acting is a step above the wild over- emoting that everyone else is projecting. Together Leena and Jack are able to plot a way to stop Whistler and get everyone back into their own time.

When I watched this years ago it seemed to me that it was a “good bad movie” - one that you know was made on a shoestring budget but that overcame that with a fun storyline. Now I see that it is trying very hard to be just that, but the plot holes and lack of continuity is often just plain silly. Thomerson isn't bad in the role, but he really has nothing to work with here. The best part of the entire film is his brief ability to stretch a single second out into ten seconds (allowing for getaways from tight situations).  Early in the film that made for a great scene that really rocked the slo-mo.

But the whole thing just isn't very good.....

Shattering youthful illusions is never much fun, but at least I won't ever make the mistake of suggesting anyone else ever watch it. Though it's not completely without time-wasting capability, I am very confident that I won't ever make any attempt to watch it again.

These Final Hours (2014)

** ½ out of ****

For some reason I have always had a fascination with “end of the world” movies. I can even remember when that fascination started. One day when I was about 10 years old I turned on the TV after school and a local channel was showing “The Omega Man” with Charlton Heston. Not the world's greatest movie, but still one of my personal favorites and definitely the best attempt to bring Richard Matheson's “I Am Legend” to the big screen.  Heston's "last man on earth" was at the same time frightening and exciting, and I have loved the genre ever since.

So every time there is an “end of the world” movie, I check it out. Over the years I have seen some great ones; “This Quiet Earth”, “Mad Max”, “12 Monkeys”, “The Stand”.... more recently “The Road”, “The Book of Eli”, “This is the End”, “Interstellar”. So watching “These Final Hours” was a no-brainer for me, and I have to admit I quite like it – it reminded me in many ways of “Last Night”, a Canadian end-of-the-worlder from 15 or so years ago.

Set in and around Perth, Australia, a giant meteor has hit the earth (somewhere between Europe and North America) and gives us 12 hours before the shockwave wipes out Australia. The film follows James, who leaves his girlfriend behind at their home to go to a "this is the end" debauchery party. He tells her that all he wants is to be “fucked up” at the end so he won't feel or notice the end of the world. Upon hitting the road he is almost immediately relieved of his car by a machete-wielding maniac, and you see the depravity that Armageddon is loosing upon the world. James finds a little nobility when he rescues a young girl from a pair of child molesters, but this screws up his plans as he now has someone to be responsible for. The girl, Rose, wants him to take her to her Aunt Janice's to reunite with her father for the bitter end, which would keep James from his great party. What to do, what to do...... in many ways the film is simply about retaining humanity under inhuman conditions.

What I liked most about it is that it didn't try to offer big, meaningful statements about what it is to be kind or what it means maintain your decency even when it doesn't matter. James was a flawed guy that came to several crossroads where he had to decide between the “right thing” and the selfish thing. At one point he comes across a family of four where the father asks James to shoot them all to spare them the terror of the oncoming firestorm. Without showing it as a big moral dilemma, James simply has to decide what he can or can't do based on his deepest personal needs.

The ending felt a bit of a rip off, torn directly from the pages of “Deep Impact”, but other than that this re-treads much of the genre's old ground without feeling like a waste of effort. It isn't ground-breaking or particularly insightful, but is an enjoyable time despite the grim setting. Most critics are giving it a very high score – I don't think it's quite that great, but surely worth a watch.

Tammy (2014)

* out of ****

When is Melissa McCarthy's 15 minutes going to expire? Soon I hope. The sooner the better.

In reviewing this movie, I will try to be brief. I've already written more than it's worth.

Tammy (McCarthy) is a selfish, rude and self-absorbed loser. She works (briefly) at a fast food restaurant, is married to a man that cheats on her (but who seems totally justified in doing it), and takes advantage of everyone she knows. She is stupid, inconsiderate, mean spirited and just a flat out unlikable human being.

She and her alcoholic grandmother (Susan Sarandon) run away from home in Grandma's Caddy because they can't think of anything better to do. They hook up with a father and son combo and for some reason the son seems to be romantically interested in Tammy. This blew my mind – I mean, who wouldn't have romantic ideas about such a person, especially one who has been nothing but rude to you since you met?

They have so-called adventures. Grandma gets arrested for possession of unprescribed Oxycodone and Tommy very wisely robs a fast food joint for the bail money. They call Grandma's cousin who torches their car and throws them a huge 4^th of July party. Does this seem off-the-charts insane?  In watching you will be holding your head to keep it from exploding .

This movie tries to be funny and fails. It tries to be sweet and fails. It tries to be entertaining and fails. Miserably.

Do not watch this movie. It sucks.

If my review had only been the one line in the previous paragraph, it would have been sufficient.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

** ½ out of ****

When I was a kid I had a Children's Bible – where they retell the bible stories in language a 7 year old can understand and with lots of illustrations. My favorite story was always the tale of Moses, from his mother saving him with a basket in the reeds, to the burning bush, to “let my people go” and the plagues, to the Red Sea and the Ten Commandments. Moses was a real hero, and what kid doesn't love a hero story?

But Hollywood is never happy with a good story – they want to offer “something new”. Earlier this year “Noah” (2014) did it, with the stowing away of Tobal-Cain aboard the Ark and with Noah's near-homicide of his son. In “Exodus” director Ridley Scott takes the same liberties with the written word, but in a slightly different way. Rather than change the story itself, he changes the details around the story that alters the context of the entire thing. Why do directors do that? Do they think their version of the story is better than the one people have been fascinated by for thousands of years?

I won't say much about the geography of the film other than that I have been to Egypt and Ridley Scott seemed to want to get the entire country into one city. The pyramids and the Saqarra step pyramid are shown right next to each other (they are 30 miles apart), the Karnak temple is right outside the pyramids (it's hundreds of miles farther up the Nile) and the Temple of Abu Simbel is also very near Memphis (when it is actually on the north shore of Lake Nasser, a thousand miles away). Impressive looking but ridiculous. Enough said.

Christian Bale is Moses in this retelling, and Joel Edgerton as Ramses, and both play their parts extremely well. Ramses is one role in the film that doesn't seem to have been seriously altered – he is an egomaniacal paranoid who is sure of his own divinity. But the part of Moses is very different than the biblical story – this Moses is a fiercely proud man, unwilling to bow to the word of God unless he personally supports God's position and instructions. Toward the end we find out that God is pretty much okay with this (umm, when the heck would that ever happen? The Judao God is a “take it or leave it” kind of deity).

Like in the Bible version, Moses was saved from the Nile as a child and raised a prince of Egypt, and he and Ramses are like brothers. But unlike the bible which tells how Moses was banished from Egypt after saving the life of a Hebrew slave, here an Egyptian overlord discovers Moses' true origins and reports it to Ramses to prevent Moses from reporting his own theft of riches from the treasury. Ramses is only too eager to believe the tale, and gets Moses to admit its truth by threatening to cut the arm off Moses' sister. Admission under duress, anyone?

God himself is reimagined for the story as well – here God does not appear to Moses as a burning bush, he appears as a nine-year-old child that usually looks like he needs a good spanking. The burning bush is there, but only in the background while the brat whines to Moses about what he wants him to do. I guess Ridley Scott decided that he had to have the bush in there somewhere, so he squeezed it in – that is literally what it looks like. Moses decides to do what he was told and return to Egypt, but he spends a lot of time questioning God and yelling at him. At one point he even yells, “Do you think you have humbled me?” For anyone that has read the Bible, this is a ridiculous idea as it was Moses' pride that keeps him out of the Land of Canaan in the end, for a sin of pride much less blatant than this.

The plagues are presented differently as well, though they are presented very nicely on screen. Here Moses does not appear to Ramses to tell him that these are acts of God and that they will continue until the children of Isreal are freed until after the 6^th plague. To Ramses, the crocodiles, the bloody water, dead fish, frogs, flies, locusts and hail are just a bunch of bad luck befalling his kingdom. But after Moses reveals that there is another, more terrible plague coming Ramses decides to take his chances. I did like this sequence, the first Passover, very much. The deaths of the firstborn sons of Egypt was shown clearly and with sympathy, and the scenes showing the agony and pain of Egypt for their deaths was extremely well done. Ramses pain over the death of his beloved son drives him to release the Hebrews, and Moses leads them across the desert.

Everyone knows the story, so I won't go on about the changes other than to say that the parting of the Red Sea was unspectacular in this version (and meant to be so), though the “closing up” of the Red Sea was VERY spectacular. I didn't really like the presentation of this aspect of the story, but the telling of the tribe fleeing from the approaching chariots was otherwise excellent. But post-Red Sea, the story lost all strength as the “Ten Commandments” part of the film was glossed over (and again presented God less as deity than whiny child) and the 40 years of wandering in the desert was not touched upon at all. Key elements of the story, in my opinion, that the film didn't make any attempt to deal with.

Overall this is a good movie – enjoyable cinema with absolutely fantastic production values, excellent cinematography and near-perfect CGI. The performances are solid (look for Aaron Paul as Joshua – I was disappointed he didn't call anyone “bitch”) and it is entertaining. But it would have been MORE entertaining if they had simply told the story as it was written. That version would have made a better movie than this one.

The Equalizer (2014)

** ½ out of ****

A couple of months ago I reviewed “John Wick”, a stylish action film that understood that action films are not to be taken seriously. I loved how firmly it's tongue was planted in its cheek. “The Equalizer”, new on video and starring Denzel Washington, could take a few lessons from that movie. “The Equalizer”s biggest drawback is how deadly serious it takes itself, when it should treat itself more like the cinematic fluff that it ultimately is.

It doesn't start out that way – in fact I thought the first half of the film was very promising. Denzel is Robert McCall, a simple fellow leading a simple life, working at Home Mart (it was well into the film before I realized that it wasn't actually a Home Depot) and enjoying classic novels. He doesn't sleep much, and is a regular late night patron of a local diner, where he befriends a teenage prostitute names Teri (Chloe Graze Moretz). They see each other there most nights and have a nodding acquaintance - she clearly leads a pretty crappy life and is intrigued by the obvious “nice-ness” of McCall.

But not all is as it seems (is it ever in an action movie?). McCall is a former Green Beret and CIA operative who gave up the life as a promise to his now-deceased wife. And he fights down his natural urges when he sees Teri abused by her pimp, instead trying to reason with him and buy Teri her freedom. Only when the pimp refuses to listen to reason does McCall fly into action, wiping out the pimp and his whole team, and eventually bringing the entire Russian mafia into a manhunt to find and kill him.

So far, this is all pretty much in good movie fun. And when Russian cleanup man Teddy (Marton Csokas) arrives to take charge of the search for McCall, it looks like it could become even more fun. But then director Antoine Fuqua forgets that it is 2014 not 1985 and that he is not Sylvestor Stallone. Suddenly the movie falls into madly obvious subplots and cliched action sequences (complete with slow motion walks and heavy metal music). There's even a hand-to-hand combat scene with a monster of a man who seems to be unhurt by being stabbed a handful of times (including one in the neck). It doesn't get quite as silly as “Cobra” (1985) but the two films are surely kissing cousins.....

However, it isn't all bad. Denzel is adequate in the role (I hate using that term for any performance of his, but there is no other way to describe this one) and most of the supporting cast do their jobs fairly well. It's the filmmaking itself that comes up wanting – if the director had as much fun with this as Chad Stahelski had with “John Wick” it could have been every bit as enjoyable. As it turns out, it is only a slightly-above-average action film that left me thinking it was a missed opportunity more than anything else. A very mild recommendation from me.

I Am Ali (2014)

* ½ out of ****

I became a boxing fan on September 15, 1978, the night that Muhammad Ali beat Leon Spinks by decision to become the heavyweight champion for the third time. There was only one TV in the house, and since my sister and I were 10 and 8 respectively, we ended up watching what my dad wanted to watch just about every night. And while I'm sure I had watched fights with my dad before, I don't remember any prior to this match, mainly because of the impact the decision had on my dad. He cried, he laughed, he mooned over the images of Ali on the TV screen. He was deeply moved.  I remember it like it was yesterday.

Such is the type of emotion that Muhammad Ali generates in those that lived through his tenure as a prizefighter. Ali was more than an athlete; due to the strength of his voice in both the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, he became an icon. During the 60s and 70s he was at the same time the most loved and most hated athlete in the world, and the single most recognizable face on the planet. He was bigger than boxing.  He was bigger than just about everything.

Directed by Clair Lewins, “I am Ali” virtually ignores Muhammad Ali the athlete and focuses on  the icon. And not to put too fine a point on it, basically treats him as Muhammad Ali the saint. Or martyr. Or God..... I appreciate that Lewins tried to do something different here - the amount of media available about Muhammad Ali is so vast that it is virtually impossible to learn anything new about the man. So Lewins doesn't even try and instead made a movie hailing the wonderful-ness of Ali. But since this is a documentary I feel it fell very short of making any kind of real statement, more because of its omissions than its content.

It would be okay to have the people that love and admire Ali discussing how he has influenced them. It's fine to have his family talk about how much they love and admire him. What I found not okay was the absolute refusal to address the reality that Ali left a trail of broken hearts in his wake. The film shows an interview with Muhammad Ali Jr about his upbringing, but fails to address the non-relationship between he and his father now. It also shows interviews with Marvis Frazier where he speaks to some degree about how Ali's taunting hurt his father Joe during their three fight history, but glosses over it rather than hit it head on. I have zero doubt at all that Marvis had a lot more to say about this, but the editing left it as a “they loved each other in spite of it all” feeling to it. Joe forgave Ali in the end but spent DECADES being eaten up inside about being called "Uncle Tom" and "The Gorilla".

Even Veronica Ali, Muhammad's third wife, gives a “kid gloves” treatment to Muhammad. When she discusses Ali's infidelities, it's more in a “nudge nudge wink wink, isn't he naughty” way than how in reality it was the sole reason for their broken marriage. So overall I can't say this paints a real portrait of Ali – it just paints the bright side and leaves the dark side almost completely alone.

There is some great stuff in this film though. Being an Ali-o-phile I noticed quite a few photos and videos that I hadn't seen before, and though it is all daddy-daughter stuff the recorded conversations from the 70s of Ali with his kids is also new to hear. And since there is so much Ali-related stuff out there, it is difficult to make a new documentary that doesn't simply re-tread the same old footsteps. “Muhammad Ali: The Whole Story” (1996) is the most complete, comprehensive and honest documentary about the man, and “AKA Cassius Clay” (1970) gives you a really great account of what he meant to the civil rights movement. Unfortunately, “I Am Ali” falls into the vein of the dramas made about Ali (“The Greatest 1977 and “Ali” 2001) – they are just not very good viewing.

Muhammad Ali is many things. A superior athlete, a great but deeply flawed man, an entertainer, a cruel egomaniac, an icon of anti-war and anti-segregation. But he is no saint, despite what “I Am Ali” seems to convey.  I love the man personally – loved him as an athlete and loved his courage as a political statesman. But I most love him because on the night of his last great triumph, my dad cried tears of joy because of what Ali meant to him. He deserves a better tribute than this film provides him.

The Babadook (2014)

*** out of ****

When you were a kid did you ever lie awake at night convinced that some sort of boogeyman was right there in your room? Did you ever look out from under the covers and see a shadow that appeared to be a monster moving in to finish you off? Can you remember the deep-in-your-gut terror that you felt as a child at those times? Well Jennifer Kent, the writer and direct of “The Babadook” does, and her dark and spooky little movie proves it in spades.....

A good deal of the scariness of “The Babadook” comes from how effectively it plays on our fears. The kid-fears are obvious.  But all parents are terrified that something awful will happen to their kids, and nothing is more terrifying that hear your child shriek in the night. The heroine of the movie is single-mom Amelia (Essie Davis), whose son Samuel (Noah Wiseman) has pretty typical nighttime fears. He's a very intense kid, and spends a lot of time in trouble with the school and with other parents that see him as a behavior problem. Amelia tries very hard to keep things normal for him, but the stress of dealing with everything alone keeps her pretty close to the razor's edge most of the time.

One night at storytime Samuel pulls an unfamiliar volume from his shelf called “Mr. Babadook”. It starts off like most Grimm fairy tales, but soon takes a turn into unfriendly waters and Amelia shuts it down. Samuel however becomes immediately convinced that “The Babadook” is the mysterious monster that haunts him at night. As the days pass and strange things begin to occur around the house, Samuel attributes everything to the Babadook. Amelia naturally sees it as his excuse to get out of responsibility and eventually tears the book up and throws it away.

So far pretty standard scary-movie fare and you are of course sure that there is more to this than Amelia thinks. But then the story actually moves into more primal fears. The book re-appears on her doorstep taped back together, but with some more frightening imagery. The new pages tell her that the more you deny the existence of Babadook the stronger he becomes, and now includes a few disturbing pop-ups including one showing Amelia with her throat cut. This time she burns the book but it's clear that something or someone is stalking or haunting her and her son – the only questions are what it is and what it wants.

"The Babadook" is a bona-fide fright-fest of a movie. As things get worse and worse at the house Amelia realizes that what Babadook wants is her son and it needs to use her to get it. She starts seeing really eerie, haunting images virtually everywhere.  Jennifer Kent's use of lighting contributes greatly to the fear as the shadowy images you see (or don't see) build the tension. At one point (probably the tensest in the entire film) Amelia actually hides under the covers like a little kid (the last thing you do when you KNOW the boogieman is right there....). Amelia's constant battle between self preservation and her need to save her son is what makes this movie so tense – if you have kids you will see exactly what I mean when you watch it.

“The Babadook” is getting rave reviews wherever it is seen, and I guess mine is fairly rave as well. It is taut, tense, disturbing and at times really scary. You will get goosebumps. It isn't the best horror movie you'll ever see, but it is assuredly a good time at the movies if you like to be genuinely creeped out. Stephen King's short story “The Boogeyman” (from the collection “Night Shift”) left me with the same feeling of creepiness, and that, coming from me, is high praise indeed. A terrific little creeper.

This is Where I Leave You (2014)

* ½ out of ****

How is it possible that a movie can be made that is supposed to be both touching and irreverent, then only gives you characters that you don't particularly care about and who are almost completely unfunny? Well if you do all that, you have “This is Where I Leave You”, a painfully uninteresting comedy-drama without drama or comedy.

Jason Bateman is Judd Altman, a radio producer who comes home early to surprise his wife and instead catches her in bed with his boss. The scene where he walks in on them is the funniest in the movie, as he walks into the room and sits down while they remain oblivious. He and his wife split, he quits his job and is mouldering in self-pity when he finds that his father has dies and he needs to come home for the funeral.

His family is well cast, I'll at least admit that. Jane Fonda is his mother, a sexually liberated author that takes joy in making her sons uncomfortable. Tina Fey is the sister in a loveless marriage, and his brothers both have their issues, one in a marriage where his inability to get his wife pregnant rules is every move, and one shiftless brother who is getting marries for money. They all sit shiva for a week with their family, and reconnect with one another.

I could go on at some length about some of the plot points, but really that's all you would need to know. The film tries to make a touching story about how the siblings are all there for each other (and are still each others' greatest tormentors) and how blood connections always seem to be able to overcome. But it just isn't that interesting. Fey considers infidelity with a childhood friend, Bateman is tortured over his failures as a husband.... it's all pretty boring, run of the mill stuff. The film simply fails to make it interesting. But even worse, it fails in every attempt to make the relationships themselves interesting.  Bateman himself gets a few laughs with his straightman routine, but not much else.

There is a pretty fun little spot in the middle where the brothers sneak off from temple to get high, but even that feels like a missed opportunity. Perhaps it's just a matter of taste, but director Shawn Levy has never made a movie that I considered more than “okay” and this one is no exception. Even the “parting of ways” scenes at the end that are supposed to tug at your heartstrings are a complete yawn.

I have no doubt that there are some people out there that will like this film, but I will frankly state that I am not one of them. When it comes to films about families, give me “Ordinary People”, “The Royal Tenenbaums” or “The Kids Are Alright” instead – they're funnier and more dramatic, which is what I like to see in comedy-dramas.

Left Behind (2014)

* out of ****

Okay, I was ready for this movie to suck. And don't get me wrong, it does. But its general suckiness doesn't have to do with the performances or production values (which I honestly did expect to suck) but from a plot that tries very hard to be realistic when it isn't. Kind of like if the “Army of Darkness” had been passed off as a historical drama......

So to be clear off the top, I think the idea of the “Rapture” is almost off-the-charts crazy (as I do with all “end of the world” doctrines). But according to the doctrine this film is based on, at some point in the future, either just before the second coming of Christ or just at the point of the birth of the Antichrist, all of the “saved” will simply vanish from the Earth. Be “taken up into the air”, as it were. I would be clearer on this but there seems to be no real consensus amongst believers on when this will happen, only that it will. After that, only the non-believers will be left on earth to be sorted out by either God or Satan (or both).

So in an attempt to meld new testament end-of-the-world doctrine to the modern disaster movie, “Left Behind” tells the story of what could happen if the rapture occurred today. Now I will admit that despite the critical trashing that this movie received and the silliness of people vanishing into thin air because they are the saved, I felt that this sounded interesting enough to watch. And I watched the whole thing, so maybe it was. But it probably wasn't.

Nicolas Cage is an airline pilot with an extremely religious wife (played by Lea Thompson) and a beautiful cynic daughter, Chloe (played by Cassie Thompson). Cage's character Ray is about to fly to London, with his mistress-to-be stewardess along for the ride. Also on the flight is Buck Williams (Chad Michael Murray), an investigative reporter who Chloe has a romantic interest in. When the rapture occurs (with a handful of people vanishing on the plane) we get “Airport 1975” if it had been written by Pat Robertson. The reactions of the plane occupants are probably pretty realistic if this were ever to actually happen – some are scared, some are angry and some are convinced there is a conspiracy afoot. Nobody seems to think of the rapture, which I thought was cute. Don't these people read?

Meanwhile back on the surface, the saved have also vanished. Chloe's brother disappears during a hug – her frantic searching for him in his backpack was pretty good, but where else was she going to look? The rioting and looting starts almost immediately (why not? Only the foul have been left behind, right?). Chloe is convinced that everyone that means anything to her is gone (mom and brother whisked away and Dad assuredly crashed on his transatlantic flight) and she then of course considers suicide. What else would a reasonable non-believer do, right? Did I overuse the word silly already?

Now I am not going to rip this film for its religious theme. Films with religious themes are often pretty good (for example, I enjoyed this year's “God's Not Dead” despite some heavy preachiness in it). I greatly look forward to Christian Bale as Moses in the upcoming “Exodus”. But this one doesn't really try to tell a story – it's a message. Get right with God or be left behind. Those folks that were taken were so lily-white and pure, they had it all together and were at peace with the world when they were taken. On the other hand, those left behind were either foul human beings or tortured, tormented people who just didn't have any real direction in them. It's the condescension as much as anything else that loses the message here. And a message movie that gives the message ineffectively will suck. This one proves it.

I like Cage and can't imagine what he was doing in this film. For the most part the special effects and production values are acceptable, but it is a poor excuse for popular entertainment. Had this been a “Living Waters” presentation I would have gotten what I expected. But I expected a little more movie and a little less preachy and I didn't get it.

Horrible Bosses 2 (2014)

** out of ****

“Horrible Bosses” (2011) was a screwball comedy that found most of its fun in the bumbling attempts of three basically good-natured guys to do bad-natured things. Their innate goodness and over-reactions to the events they found themselves in was the source of the comedy. The source of comedy in this basically unnecessary sequel is much more straightforward. Stupidity.

Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day return as Nick, Kurt and Dale, who have now given up their hated careers for entrepreneurship. They have developed a completely idiotic product called “The Shower Buddy” which dispenses your shampoo and conditioner directly to the top of your head at strategic points during your shower. Despite this product's utter uselessness they receive a career-making order of 100,000 units from an online company run by Christoph Waltz. Now I love Waltz (except in the weirder-than-weird “The Zero Theorum”) but he is remarkably un-funny in this film. Of course, they play him as mean and cruel rather than stupid, which is where this film tries to get all its laughs, so perhaps he wasn't meant to be funny.

The business deal goes south when they discover that the big order was a scheme to get them to leverage themselves to the hilt so that when the order is canceled and they go bankrupt, Waltz's company can buy the inventory at auction for pennies on the dollar and then buy out the patent. That these yahoos never thought to get a DEPOSIT on the order is mind-boggling. Nobody would be that stupid in reality.

So in order to save their company, they decide to kidnap Waltz's son Rex (played by Chris Pine) and ransom him for the value of their outstanding loans. Rex was for me the best character in the movie, as he was equally stupid but also cunning and manipulative and pretty much hilarious in his over-the-top mistreatment of everyone else around him. Pine appears to have had a lot of fun playing this part, or else he is a much better actor that I ever gave him credit for – he seems to be literally brimming with mirth the entire time.

The three leads being who they are, of course nothing goes to plan. But where in the original it was comical to see them react to their misfortune, in this one it is their stupidity that leads to the misfortune. In trying to steal nitrous oxide from Dale's old boss (Jennifer Aniston) you almost have to hold your head to keep it from exploding, so ridiculous is their attempt at robbery. This is forgivable though, as it got Aniston back into the movie.....

Overall, I have to admit there are some laughs in this film. Quite a few of them in fact. And while I am only giving it a very moderately lower rating than the original, it really isn't half as enjoyable. Jason Bateman's comeback continues – for a guy that was nowhere 10 years ago he is surely in a lot of films these days, and generally plays as good a “straight man” as you can find in modern film. But it is a disappointment overall and what we would have traditionally called “a renter”.

Oliver! (1968)

**** out of ****

When I was 13 years old my entire grammar school was called to the gymnasium for an assembly - like most everyone else, I had no idea what it was about. Unbeknownst to virtually all of us, some of the grade 7 and 8 students were putting on a play – the musical “Oliver!” and this was their dry-run before performing for the parents that night. And much to much absolute shock, I found myself loving every second of it.

If you'd asked me beforehand if I would ever like a musical, given my experience with them (my mother watching Doris Day and Julie Andrews movies on TV) I would have responded with a resounding “Hell no!”. But “Oliver!" is one of those nearly perfect pieces of art that you have to work awfully hard to screw up, thanks to how well written it is. My school's play tried to reproduce the 1969 Best Picture Oscar winner as closely as possible, and who could blame them?

To my eye, this is the most perfect musical ever laid on celluloid. A taut, exciting and heart-felt story with catchy tunes that contribute mightily to the story, rather than leaving you feeling that most songs were there for no reason. Even the slowest numbers that are the only slight drag on the story (“As Long as He Needs Me” and “Who Will Buy”) still add to the plot to give you a clear idea of the mindset of the characters. Happily, those slightly inert ones are offset by some of the most delightfully fun songs in the history of musicals – my favorites have always been “Consider Yourself”, “Pick a Pocket or Two”, “I'd Do Anything”, “It's a Fine Life” and “Om Pa Pa”. All fantastic, grin-inducing numbers.

But enough about the music – how about the movie? Well, what else can you say other than it is one of the greats? Oliver Twist is an orphan, grinding away at the workhouse when he dares to ask for more of the disgusting gruel they are served for dinner. He is removed from the workhouse and sold to a local undertaker where it will be his job to lead funeral processions. After a fight with the undertaker's son, Oliver escapes to London to seek his fortune. This is where the story stops being merely interesting and starts being great theatre.

Upon arriving in London Oliver crosses paths with the Artful Dodger, a child pickpocket and thief par excellence. Dodger hooks Oliver up with his benefactor Fagin, who runs an entire ring of child criminals out of an abandoned industrial building. While Oliver learns the tricks of the trade, we also meet a former pupil of Fagin's named Bill Sykes, who is now one of the most talented and feared criminals in London. We also meet his girlfriend Nancy, who recognizes Oliver as something special and tries to shield him from some of the uglier parts of their lives.

After Oliver is caught for a crime committed by Dodger and sent to court, the kindly victim of the crime decides to try to offer Oliver a better life and takes him in. Fagin and Sykes however are afraid that Oliver will rat out their operation and get them all caught, and scheme to steal him back. The songs continue throughout and keep the feeling upbeat – which is good because the basic storyline is very grim despite the fun. Sykes reveals himself to be a true villain while Fagin is a bit of a “heart of gold” type beneath it all, but the film doesn't cheap out by going for unrealistic happy endings.

The real heart of the movie is Ron Moody as Fagin. His performance is truly wonderful, both in his half-hearted villainy, his lost father figure to the boys in the crime ring and in his clear joy throughout the musical numbers. He delivers lots of laughs but also a nicely played out “sad story” which leaves you rooting for him despite his involvement in child exploitation. Shani Wallis is also very enjoyable as Nancy, and Oliver Reed is deliciously evil as Sykes. And the actor playing the Artful Dodger, Jack Wild, is so darn good even as a very young teen that I'm kind of amazed that I have never seen him in anything else. His screen confidence is outstanding for a kid.

A can't miss, even for those who don't generally like musicals. You may want to scan past the musical number in the middle of the film (“Who Will Buy”) as it is very long and doesn't contribute a great deal to the story (and isn't that much fun to watch or listen to), but that is my only complaint about the entire film.

And for those who may read this that I went to grammar school with and were in that play, I owe you a long overdue thank you for introducing me to the material. I loved seeing friends do something so outstanding. Melanie W as Oliver Twist, Bill G as Fagin, Steve B as Sykes.... though I'll be damned if I can recall who played Dodger. Thanks one and all. It still means a lot to me, 30 years later.

Blue Ruin (2014)

**** out of ****

When you describe the plot of “Blue Ruin” it doesn't sound like very much. When you describe the cast it sounds like even less; the most famed actors in it are Jan from “The Brady Bunch” and Buzz from “Home Alone”, and only in brief supporting roles.  The dialogue, usually is the aspect of a film that most appeals to me, isn't very interesting and in fact may be more sparse than in any movie I can think of that didn't involve cavemen....... but for my money “Blue Ruin” is the best movie of 2014. And there is nothing else that really comes close.

Macon Blair (so unheralded that as of this writing he has only 1700 Twitter followers) is Dwight Evans, a timid Delaware vagrant trying to get through life on the smallest scale possible. He doesn't want to be noticed by anyone and does everything possible to stay out of the line of sight.  His blue ruin is a bullet riddled, beat-to-hell old Pontiac that he lives in on the beach. We find all this out about Dwight before we hear him utter even a single word on screen. Succinct, concise film-making and a great, subtle performance from Blair lay this out for us so we have a clear background picture of the character before the plot even begins to unfold.

When it does, we learn that Dwight fell away from society many years ago after his parents were murdered. He simply vanished and left everyone and everything behind. But now he learns that his parents' killer is about to be released from prison.  He decides he needs to avenge his parents and despite his timidity and general lack of any idea of how to accomplish it, Dwight goes off to murder the murderer.

Without giving too much away, Dwight is initially successful in his attempt only to find out that the family he is messing with has far more in common with the Hatfields and McCoys than the aforementioned Brady Bunch. They decide to keep the police out of things and settle all scores on their own. Left with little choice and virtually no resources Dwight has to figure out a way to live through this, or at least make sure they leave his long-lost sister and her family alone.

I can't describe how wonderfully this film tells Dwight's story. Jeremy Saulnier's direction is brilliant in its simplicity - he mostly just lets it all unfold. There are no voice-overs or muddy attempts to explain what is going on at any time, and when there is confusion on the part of the viewer about what is happening or who we are looking at, it solves itself through what we see on the screen. Completely without pretense and using no pyrotechnics or special effects, this is the ultimate minimalist revenge film. Nobody is a kung-fu expert, there isn't a single character that can crack into CIA files to find information, and basic human need is always the motivation.

Alternately abhorrent and embracing of the violence necessary to the plot, and far better at building tension than a thousand horror films, “Blue Ruin” is one of those great needle-in-the-haystack finds. You may have walked in expecting little, but you walk away with a genuinely wonderful movie experience. Macon Blair plays the part perfectly, using his hang dog looks to always convey his “I really wish I was somewhere else” attitude throughout. Devon Ratray (Buzz from “Home Alone”) is surprisingly good as a childhood friend of Dwight's and everyone else does credible work as well. But it is the story that draws you into "Blue Ruin" and carries you along.

I sincerely don't expect this film to get much (if any) notice from the Academy in February, deserving or not. Little films like this never are. But it is, mark my words, the best movie of 2014. If you have any opportunity to see it, don't pass it up. It is remarkable.