Inherent Vice (2014)

* ½ out of ****

If any movie this year was set up for me to love, it's “Inherent Vice”. A hippie era crime drama directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (“Boogie Nights”, “Magnolia”, “Punch Drunk Love”) and starring Joaquin Phoenix, Josh Brolin, Owen Wilson, Reese Witherspoon and Benicio del Toro, how could it miss?

Well let me tell you....

First, make the plot virtually incoherent. Yes, I understand that the key characters are spaced out high all the time and it's supposed to be convoluted, but it is so complicated and full of sub-plots that half the time it's hard to know what is going on. Add to that the humor – it's so dark that you feel mean-spirited for laughing at anything. It is just incredibly hard to follow and almost utterly without joy – it is simply "rough". When it's over you feel like you've been through an ordeal rather than a bit of fluffy entertainment.

Not that an experience like that can't be great entertainment. When I first saw “Platoon” (1986) I felt the same – I dragged myself out of the theater. But “Inherent Vice” is not the same – it feels like something you put yourself through instead of something you experienced.

Joaquin Phoenix is good in the lead role – I am a fan and am glad he is back to star-status after his bizarre “I'm Still Here” experiment. But he doesn't play “Doc” Sportello as a sympathetic character. In fact, he looks like someone who you'd be scared as hell to meet in a dark alley. Something like a cross between a Woodstock-era Joe Cocker and a pre-conviction Charlie Manson. Trying to make a living as a doctor, which isn't easy when you're wild high all the time, and getting caught up in a murder mystery, you never know quite what to make of Doc. Or to particularly care. Given his self-destructive behavior and recklessness, it seems inevitable that he is going to come to a bad end.

I won't try to describe the plot any further – and am not sure I could if I tried. For half the film Josh Brolin is entertaining as the hard-as-nails square detective on the case, but he takes a left turn into utter bizzarro world in the second half. A scene where he eats some of Doc's grass might have been the most weirdly disturbing thing I've seen in quite some time. You can never get your feet under you here – everything that starts to compel takes that hard turn into zany before long. There were times that I felt they were trying to re-construct some of the odd pieces of David Lynch films (particularly one where Doc meets with an informant in a foggy alley) but it never comes together. 

Some are suggesting that this strange assembly will be a cult classic, one that you need to see again and again to appreciate, but unlike most cult-following films I can't imagine what additional I may glean from a second viewing.

A complete disappointment. And this coming from a fan of all the primary stars and the director. It has an Academy Award nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay, but I offer a personal guarantee that it won't win.  The nomination is surprising, considering the lack of continuity and ridiculously complicated story.  One to be forgotten.

Whiplash (2014)

*** out of ****

In 1987, Stanley Kubrick introduced us to Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in “Full Metal Jacket”. Played by R. Lee Ermey, Hartman was the archetype for a brutal, cruel and mean-spirited drill sergeant emotionally, physically and psychologically brutalizing the recruits under his command at Parris Island. The role was brilliantly played, and I never expected to see anyone surpass his level of viciousness in a similar role. But in “Whiplash”, J.K Simmons may just have done it.

Simmons is Terence Fletcher, the most revered jazz conductor at the Shaffer Conservatory Music School. To be in his competitive jazz band, you need to be the best of the best. Student Andrew Neimann (Miles Teller) wants desperately to be a great musician, and through a lucky case of happenstance ends up as the alternate drummer for Fletcher's band.

In reality, J. K. Simmons has the reputation as a bit of a teddy bear – one of the “nice guys” of Hollywood. But you'd never know it from how effectively he plays Fletcher, a nearly inhuman taskmaster who rules his players through fear, intimidation and humiliation. Punishment for Neimann's falling out of tempo is to have a chair hurled at his head, and for becoming emotional about it he suffers through racial slurs and personal degradation. But so determined is he to be “great” that he practices until his hands bleed, breaks up with his girlfriend to avoid distraction, and becomes a self-obsessed jerk to friends and family. Such, he believes, are the demands of greatness.

“Whiplash” tries very hard to be a great movie, and almost succeeds. The storyline is a bit too basic for it to reach this height, though it is very gripping. However I believe that the sway this film holds over the viewer is almost entirely about the performances – Teller is excellent as Neimann, but Simmons is a revelation as Fletcher. He pushes his character far past the line of what would generally be acceptable behavior for a “teacher” but despite his abject beastliness you still find yourself feeling some empathy with him. You understand that all he really wants is for his players to achieve their potential, and is simply really horrible at knowing how to get it.

Some developments later in the plot show him to be even more unscrupulous than originally shown, but you still can't quite hate him. Considering his actions and the words that come out of his mouth, that is quite an achievement. A truly wonderful performance from the first scene to the last.

And then there's the music. Now personally I couldn't be bothered for one second about jazz – generally I find it a cacophony of disorganization and ego. But in “Whiplash” the music is much more crowd friendly. I'm sure jazz purists will complain that it isn't true jazz – but I don't particularly care. It made for good subject matter, and the closing musical sequence was spellbinding to watch.

Overall an extremely enjoyable film, full of compelling performances. It's Best Picture nomination I would call worthy, but Simmons' nomination was a necessity. And in a strong field, I would have to call him the Best Supporting Actor frontrunner. A really wonderful portrayal of a fascinating character.

Into The Woods (2014)

* ½ out of ****

Is it just me, or does it seem that Meryl Streep would get an Academy Award nomination for playing a catatonic quadriplegic? “Just look at how she lays there and does nothing! Astounding!” She has received another nomination for “Into The Woods” (her 19^th) for playing an over-the-top witch in such a way that, had it been anyone else, an award nomination would never have been remotely considered.

I have found that a lot of critics like this film. Why, I cannot say. Not only is it not very entertaining, it is marketed to give you a completely different idea of what the film is than what it actually turns out to be. The marketing suggests it is a whole new take on a bunch of fairy tales, adding some dark and sinister elements to make it more entertaining for the modern audience. Instead you get a full blown musical (something the trailers don't suggest at all), which wouldn't be so bad if virtually every song didn't remind me of “God That's Good” from Sweeney Todd. At times I thought it was a lot like “Rent” - the characters sing dialogue with virtually no melody when a little spoken word would much better convey the scene.

And it isn't a retelling of any of the stories – it's a total re-imagining of most of them. In some cases it's necessary for the plot, but in some cases it's a real head-scratcher. For instance, Cinderella does to the ball for THREE straight nights, bolting from the unexpecting, dullard prince every night.  And the “darker” imagery is not so much to make it tense or scary, it seems to just make it dreary. REALLY dreary.  And it redefines the characters as people we don't like enough to care about their fate. The only story that follows the same basic plotline is that of Red Riding Hood, but Lilla Crawford plays her as a unlikeable brat. There really just isn't anything or anyone to root for.  Streeps's witch is as likeable as any of the “heroic” characters, and believe me that isn't saying much. It just made for an unhappy film, and I was hoping it would end soon even before the final act began.

There are a couple of pretty good sequences. Chris Pine is terrific as Prince Charming, and his duet “Agony” with Billy Magnussen is not only musically interesting but genuinely entertaining. Pine's character is a dullard and a little detestable (by design), but he is easily the most interesting of the handful of characters. Daniel Huttlestone, who plays Jack, certainly has a beautiful singing voice but again his character (and that of his mother) just aren't sympathetic enough to root for.

Overall I can't understand why the critics are going so easy on this movie. Sad, boring, unsympathetic and tedious.... it really was a waste of money. Perhaps the first film I've been to since “The Allnighter” (1987) where I seriously considered going to the management and asking for my money back.

St. Vincent (2014)

** ½ out of **** 

If Bill Murray hadn't been nominated for an Oscar a decade ago for “Lost in Translation” I would feel sorry for him that he didn't receive one for “St. Vincent”. He is extremely good in it – award-worthy even. However, he wasn't nominated and I can see why; there is barely any acting required. The role of Vincent Mackenna comes too naturally to him – I bet he barely had to rehearse. I've read that Jack Nicholson was originally supposed to play the part and I'm sure it would have come even more naturally to him.... 

Vincent is a crotchety old bugger living alone in Brooklyn. His house is filthy and run down, he spends his days getting hammered and blowing money at the race track, and what disposable income he has left he spends on weekly visits from a pregnant hooker (Naomi Watts). He doesn't like people and for the most part they don't like him.  He lives a very solitary life, and that's how he likes it.

Enter Maggie and Oliver Bronstein (Melissa McCarthy and Jaeden Lieberher) a mother and son who move in next door. They, of course, see Vincent for the mean old guy he is but thanks to necessity Oliver starts to stay with him after school due to his mothers long work hours. Vincent takes the kid to bars, the track, feeds him little else beyond crackers and sardines, and generally walks all over him. Are you expecting to hear that the kid comes to see Vincent's heart of gold and they begin to rely on each other a bit more every day?

Ding ding ding.

It turns out that Vincent is a little deeper than we originally thought. Much of the reason for his poverty is his secret insistence to keep his Alzheimer's-stricken wife in the best nursing home possible. And he was a Vietnam war hero. And much of the reason he wants people to leave him alone is that he is afraid that anyone he might love will again be taken away from him. But despite that he comes to care deeply about his young charge. 

My greatest issue with this movie is that it was utterly predictable straight down the line. There is a formula for movies like this, and “St. Vincent” never deviates from it. And while Murray's performance is very good, I can think of at least a dozen actors that could have done it at least as well. Hell, drop Walter Matthau's “Buttermaker” in here from the “Bad News Bears” (1974) and I don't think you'd have much in the way of a difference. 

Melissa McCarthy is (wonder of wonders) not absolutely awful in her role, though she is still annoying and unlikable. And Naomi Watts is virtually unrecognizable as the Russian hooker. 

Overall it isn't a bad movie, but neither is it anything more than a formula comedy/drama. A couple of good laughs and a nice wrap up pay its admission, but really nothing more.

Shoah (1985)

**** out of ****. More if possible.

In a conversation with a friend earlier today I brought up the film “Shoah” and mentioned that, while not the most entertaining piece of celluloid in the world, I consider to be the most important film ever made. At 10 hours and 13 minutes it's also one of the longest, but it doesn't change the fact – the world is a better place because of it. That's a bold statement about a movie, but I am convinced it is true. Yet almost no-one knows about it, or they have forgotten about over the ensuing 30 years.

Shoah is a Hebrew word meaning “catastrophe”, and has become synonymous with the Holocaust. This film is a documentary about the methods and events of the extermination of  Jews under Nazi rule, specifically at the death camps at Chełmno, Treblinka, Auschwitz-Birkenau; and the Warsaw Ghetto. Of course there have been countless other pieces dedicated to the Holocaust, but this one is different and could never be repeated. There is no historical footage used. There aren't any photos of starved inmates. They don't show Nazi leaders or anything at all from the time it all occurred. That's why it is so impossibly special.

“Shoah” is all about experience. It is simply a series of interviews with people who were there, people who survived and people who participated in the death camps. It is a first hand account of what happened. The war has been over for close to 70 years now, which is why this film is so important. Hearing what these people had to say was crucial in ensuring that we remember, and can understand the horror.

Filmmaker Claude Lanzmann personally questions (often through translators) the witnesses, and at times he is brutal. Clearly determined to get everything possible from his subjects, he delves deeply into their experiences and asks them even the most personal and terrible questions. Many of the interviewees clearly never talk about the subject and are deeply uncomfortable, but in almost all cases they eventually give in and provide even the most wretched details Lanzmann asks for. And as horrible as their testimony often is, having it and seeing it is more important than anything else ever laid to film.

Sometimes what we hear is gut-wrenchingly horrible; sometimes it is so sad it tears at your heart. One witness, Abraham Bomba, was a barber at a death camp where his job was to cut off the hair of new arrivals that were going straight into the “showers”. He tells this story matter-of-factly, even when he describes seeing friends and neighbours come through. But Lansmann doesn't let it go at that - he presses on with, “How did that make you feel?” The poor man then drops all emotional walls and describes how it made him feel. He begs Lansmann to stop asking questions, but Lansmann replies, “You have to. I know it's hard, but you have to.”

There are many moments like this in “Shoah”. I generally want to watch a movie to be entertained, but Shoah is nothing less than a crucially important historical document. One of the men we see most frequently in Shoah is Simon Srebnik, a Polish Jew who as a boy was forced to use his lovely singing voice for German marching songs while he helped dispose of the burned bones of exterminated fellow inmates. And while he is present, we see him listen to modern-day Polish anti-semites suggest to the camera that the Jews deserved their fate, that the Holocaust was fair retribution for the killing of Jesus.

"Shoah" is not easy watching. Even more so that it is very hard to find in its entirety. But if you can, do so and then show it to as many people as you can. The Holocaust is the most horrible event ever perpetrated by humanity, and these people torture themselves just to bear witness to it. The least we can do is watch, listen, and respect. And know enough about the attitudes behind the Nazis to recognize them if they ever appear again.

Still Alice (2014)

*** out of ****

The Academy loves to reward men for playing mentally challenged individuals, but I can't remember an actress having been nominated for playing a similar role. Just off the top of my head I remember Oscar nominations for Sean Penn (I Am Sam), Billy-Bob Thornton (Sling Blade), Tom Hanks (Forrest Gump), Dustin Hoffman (Rainman), Brad Pitt (12 Monkeys), Leonardo DiCaprio (What's Eating Gilbert Grape), Robin Williams (The Fisher King), Geoffrey Rush (Shine) and Russell Crowe (A Beautiful Mind). Now, finally, a woman has received a nomination for a like role – Julianne Moore.

Moore is Alice Howland, a professor of Linguistics at Columbia. She is married to a doctor (Alec Baldwin) and has three grown children that are all carving out a life for themselves. She is extremely intelligent, caring, successful and is a real achiever. At the age of 50, her life seems everything she could have hoped it to be.

But then she starts to forget little things – insignificant things at first, that she can eventually find the answers to after wracking her brain. But since this is all new to her she decides to see a neurologist about it, and after a battery of tests is told that she has a severe case of early onset Alzheimers disease. She will inevitably lose all her memories and any knowledge she once possessed. Worse still, it's a hereditary condition and her children may be destined for the same fate.

Moore is absolutely wonderful in this role. She approaches it in such a way that you feel genuine empathy, compassion and heartbreak for Alice. Baldwin is also terrific, though his character is considerably less sympathetic. But credit directors Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland with approaching the subject matter with real compassion. We watch Alice as her condition gets worse and worse, and as she clings to what remains of her memories as hard as she can despite knowing it's a losing battle. She even attempts to set up an “endgame”, leaving enough sleeping pills readily available and instructions for herself to follow for her own suicide when things get too bad.

A few years ago I saw the father of a dear friend of mine go through this very same thing, and I spent much of this film with a lump in my throat. In watching Moore's interpretation of Alice's slow fall into near-mindlessness, the movie is filled with little moments that touch your heart. You really come to love and root for Alice, and your heart aches for her plight.

The musician/songwriter Glen Campbell is now institutionalized with the same disease, and no can no longer remember anyone from his life or his own significance. But before his memory left him forever he wrote a song to his wife about his love for her and his disease called, “I'm Not Gonna Miss You”. Watching Alice slowly lose her battle, I came to know exactly what he meant.

“Still Alice” is a tremendous movie, though I will stop short of calling it a great one. Moore is great in it however, and it is one of a very small handful of this year's films that brought a tear to my eye. I consider it a great achievement for a film if it can make me care enough about a character or characters to shed a tear. “Still Alice” is not as heralded as this year's other films from which the “Best Actress” nominations have come, but her performance is outshone by none of them. A film I will revisit several times, I am sure.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014)

*** ½ out of ****

It's often risky to create a “comedy of the absurd”, especially when it is rapid fire all the way. It's been done successfully many times (my personal favorites were “Raising Arizona” 1987 and “O Brother Where Art Thou” 2000) and this one hits so many of the right notes that I several times thought that it MUST BE a Coen Brothers film. It's hilarious without being slapstick and just really enjoyable all the way through. Upon reflection though, I see that it was much more heavy handed in its design to make sure it was a success, which may make it less risky than a Coen Brothers movie, but surely no less enjoyable.

Shown as a “tale being told through a story being told by another tale”, it follows the misadventures of Gustave, the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel (Ralph Fiennes), and his lobby boy, Zero (Mathieu Amalric) in 1932. War is imminent (which war I am not quite sure of) and danger abounds. Gustave's services are much in demand from the elderly female clients of the hotel, as he not only sees to their every comfort but also provides sexual services. And when one of his richest clients is murdered, he discovers he has been bequeathed a priceless Renaissance painting. Of course, the rest of her family is aghast that they will not be receiving the value of such an item and have Gustave accused of her murder. Gustave and Zero must clear his name.

This movie is really, really funny. As a comedy of the absurd, most of the jokes are treated as though they are not jokes at all, and if you're not paying attention you will miss many of them. The incessant nature of the comedy contributes to this, as the gags are utterly non-stop once they get started. But once you get into the swing of things they are all pretty obvious and several times I was caught so off guard I found myself barking a laugh out loud. Really wonderfully paced and extremely well assembled.

But as I mentioned previously, it watches almost like it was designed to be a "can't miss". The cinematography is wonderful, the sets are amazing and the script is hysterical, but the cast is truly off the charts. How director Wes Anderson was able to line up the non-stop cameos by big stars is almost unbelieveable. Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Edward Norton, Jude Law, Owen Wilson, F.Murray Abraham, Bill Murray and Harvey Keitel all show up at various times, and all (especially Brody) contribute to the hilarity.

Side note: I may be a bit biased when it comes to Adrien Brody.  Ever since his heart-stopping, other worldy performance in "The Pianist (2002) I would watch him play just about anything.  A performance like that one can remove all objectivity about an actor.  He destroyed me in that movie - possibly the best performance I have ever seen by anyone, anywhere, any time.  'Nuff said.

There are those suggesting that this film is a bit of a sham, dressed up on the outside and void in the middle, but I can't agree. The character development is unsubstantial yes, and the motivations of the villains get almost no treatment at all, but this isn't meant to be a deep or meaningful film. It's a comedy and the purpose of a comedy is to make you laugh. Consider it a wild success, because if you don't laugh at this movie either you have no sense of humour or just aren't smart enough to see the absurdity of virtually every situation presented.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” is nominated for 8 Oscars including Best Picture, Director and Original Screenplay, and I doubt it has much chance at any of those. But the nominations for Cinematography, Editing, Production Design and Costume Design are all very real possibilities.

Ralph Fiennes has had a distinguished, Oscar-winning career, though he has never done anything much for me. But here he has finally put together a performance that I think is really great, and is the primary one in the movie. So I can finally say I liked him in something. But never, ever, EVER ask me to sit through “The English Patient” (1996) again. Death first.

American Sniper (2014)

*** ½ out of ****

Okay, forget your politics, forget whether you're a liberal or a conservative, and put aside your feelings about the war in Iraq. Disregard your personal feelings about insurgents, the American troops and guerrilla warfare. If you don't you will find this film impossible to fully experience. And it is well worth experiencing.

If Clint Eastwood had never been an actor, his contribution to the movies as a director would be a unique and fairly amazing one. Yes, he won the Best Director Oscar twice (for “Unforgiven” 1992 and “Million Dollar Baby” 2003) and both those films also won Best Picture. And incidentally, are both on my “10 Favorite Movies Ever Made” list. But outside of those Clint has also directed such wonderful pictures as “A Perfect World” (1993), “Absolute Power” (1997), “Mystic River” (2003), “Letters From Iwo Jima” (2006), and “Gran Turino” (2008). There have also been a few duds, but overall he has churned out great work as a director.

And “American Sniper” is another great one. In it Bradley Cooper is Chris Kyle, a good ol' boy who grew up wanting to be a cowboy. After seeing the US Embassy Bombings in 1998 he enlists in the navy, becomes a Navy SEAL and eventually is deployed to Iraq. There, his sure-handed ability to shoot accurately over great distances allows him to become the deadliest sniper in US military history – he is so highly regarded that the men in his unit simply call him “Legend”.

Though the film is most compelling when showing his activities in Iraq, the real thrust of the story is how his experiences affect him personally, and how they affect his relationship with his wife (Sienna Miller) and their kids. Kyle goes back to Iraq for a total of four tours, and eventually is so haunted by his experiences that his shell shock seems capable of tearing him apart. How he deals with this, and how his family supports him are the soul of the picture, but the Iraq scenes are the meat on the bones.

A lot has been made of the fact that the movie has a politically “conservative” outlook – the war is never shown as anything but “just” and the Iraqis they fight are very simple and straightforward villains. Repeatedly Kyle refers to them as “savages”. However, I don't think that this detracted form the movie at all because it was all told from the point of view of the soldiers and their families, and that is how the HAVE TO view this type of action. That there were no voices calling “what are we doing there” is irrelevant to the film, as there would have been none of those voices present in these situations.

I also have to send out some respect to Bradley Cooper for his turn as Chris Kyle. Over his past few films he has proven himself to be much more than the pretty-boy type he originally appeared to be, and this performance continues on that trend. I battled myself a little in examining his performance because he plays a somewhat unintelligent, war-mongering Texan (not my personal favorite type of guy, cough-cough Bush) but in the final analysis he is excellent in the role. Everyone in this film plays well, but it is Cooper's performance that everything is based around and dependent on.

I have issues with several of this year's Oscar nominees, but not this one. It is moving, taut and at many times edge-of-your-seat, and you are drawn into the story and the characters. A worthy candidate for the big prize.

Wild (2014)

*** ½ out of ****

Like many of the really deeply emotional movies of the past few decades, “Wild”s plot sounds pretty straightforward. Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) is in her late 20s, and is looking for some direction in her life. Her mother was a free spirit but died too young for Cheryl to appreciate her constant “cup half full” attitudes, and she has been on a personal self-destructive bent for many years. Countless one night stands, drug addiction and a failed marriage have all left her at a crossroads in her life. So she decides to do something fairly radical to cleanse herself – she goes on a 1,000 mile hike along the Pacific Crest Trail.

Of course, she is woefully unprepared for the trek. She knows next to nothing about how to hike or camp successfully, and is trying to lug a backpack that weighs as much as she does. Some of the other trekkers along the trail call her pack “Monster”. In the early stages of the hike she is always thinking about quitting – taking the easy route to falling back into her old behavior. But she soldiers on, eventually re-discovering herself and her own strength, and becoming reconnected with the person she originally hoped to be.

All that sounds very nice and “deep”, but it doesn't do justice to what this movie shows us. First, though I have always been a fan of Reese Witherspoon, I have honestly thought of her as a bit of a lightweight as an actress. She has been very good in many roles that weren't especially demanding, and occasionally surprised us by going further than many would have in some performances. But she still always fit right into the “Legally Blond” and “Sweet Home Alabama” modes.

But here she shows us something more, and substantially more. She plays every aspect of this role with absolute authenticity. When you see her recalling her dabbles into prostitution, her drug use, her sexual carelessness..... and also her little-girl-lost and hopeless soul during the hike.... she sells it completely. Easily the best performance of her career.

And even saying THAT doesn't do this film enough justice, because you can have all that in a movie and still not ring the right emotional chords. But this film manages to ring true all the way. And one of Cheryl's great realizations in the film is described so perfectly, so succinctly, that it can't help but resonate with virtually any viewer. That realization is that she may never find "redemption" – or that she has already been redeemed and simply needs to let go of the things that fuel her self doubt.

I loved this film. Honestly, though Witherspoon's performance and that of her screen mother (Laura Dern) have been nominated for Academy Awards, I wish it had ended up in the Best Picture category as well. I understand why it wasn't – the cast is too small, the production not grand enough for the Academy to recognize it in that category.. But I would suggest that it is far better than many of the Best Picture nominees. And much more inward looking and moving.

I hope Witherspoon takes on a few more roles of real emotional significance in the future – this shows she is more than capable of delivering a knockout performance, and of carrying an entire picture on her strength. Bravo.

Birdman (2014)

** ½ out of ****

Experimental movies are very hit and miss for me. Sometimes they're hilarious (“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” 1998). Sometimes they're mind-blowing and thought provoking (“Mulholland Drive” 2001). Sometimes they're just weird and don't work at all (most of the rest of them). And sometimes you just don't know how to feel about them (“Birdman” 2014).

Michael Keaton is Riggan Thompson, an actor who at one time was the star of a blockbuster series of superhero films about a character called “Birdman”. Now, twenty year later he is just another actor trying to make a living in New York. If nothing else the casting was bang on, not only because Keaton is terrific, but because of his real life similarity with his Batman character. Though, of course, Keaton has never been struggling to make a living over the last couple of decades.

Before discussing the experimental aspects, I will say that the cast here is absolutely stellar. Keaton is great, Edward Norton is even better a a brat theatre star, and Emma Stone gives probably her best career performance as Keaton's recovering-addict daughter. They are all working on a Broadway adaptation of a Chandler story, and we follow them through their last few rehearsals and previews up to opening night. Riggan and his lawyer (Zach Galifanakis) are producing it and have everything invested in it, so success is critical. And based on what we see leading up to opening night, highly unlikely. Especially when we learn that New York's most influential critic plans to destroy them out of her dislike for “movie stars” trying to take over theatre.

So that's the plot and the players. It's the presentation that is experimental, and while interesting I still am not sure how I feel about it.

First, the entire film is wound together through clever editing to be presented as one long sequence. There are time lapses but no visible cuts through the entire length of the film. Further, Riggan is holding onto his sanity by the thinnest of threads, constantly hearing the voice of Birdman like the “angel/devil on his shoulder”. Occasionally he even sees him. And his delusions include him seeing himself as being telekinetic, even though he does all of him moving of objects with his hands. Overall the entire film is given a completely unique presentation. And it is intriguing, but doesn't necessarily make for great film.

The movie has been nominated for Best Picture, though I really think it is because of the buzz rather than the Academy liking it. I guarantee you that it will not win. Keaton, Norton and Stone have all received acting nominations and I will say very forthrightly that I hope Stone wins "Best Supporting Actress". Her performance is the very best of the really wonderful lot.

“Birdman is an interesting movie, no question. Is it a great movie? I really don't think so, though it is a good one. And despite the accolades about the unique presentation, I actually think it would have been a better film with a standard format. A marginal recommendation, though if you don't like avant garde, you'll do best to stay away.

The Imitation Game (2014)

*** out of ****

There are always a lot of films in release that are entertaining, and some are game-changing.  And occasionally there is a film that is historic – one that can change the way people think and even possibly make some headway in righting things that were wrong.  “The Imitation Game” is one of those.

In 1939 the Nazis had an encryption device that they used to send all military communications called “Enigma”.  It was such a radical development in espionage that it was believed that the encryption could never be solved.  The Nazis changed the machine settings daily, which had 159,000,000,000,000,000,000 possible outcomes.  Even if the Allies had an Engima machine (which they did), unless they knew which of the encryption settings to use on a particular day, they couldn't decipher any of the messages.

Enter Alan Turing, a British mathematician who led a team of cryptologists in attempting to solve Engima.  Turing was not well liked by his team, being an egomaniac and lacking in social graces, but the team eventually came to understand that he was a true genius and their best hope of accomplishing their goal.  Turing believed that only “a machine could defeat a machine” he began developing a whole new type of technology to break the codes.  What he did essentially was build the first computer.  That and a lucky break, stumbling across a sort of Rosetta Stone in the Nazi communications, allowed them to succeed and eventually become key elements of winning the war.

All very interesting and exciting.  But that isn't what I found important about the movie, despite it's terrific entertainment value.

Turing was gay.  Some of his colleagues knew it, and some of his personal friends.  For the most part, these people never let it get in the way of their relationships with him, but there were elements of the military that hated his lack of respect for the chain of command and would have used it against him, so he had always to be extremely careful about his behavior.  Especially when you consider that at the time (and until the 1960s) Britain had “Decency Laws” that made any acts of homosexuality illegal.  Punishment for conviction was prison, or hormone treatments designed to eliminate sexual urges.  In the film Turing describes it as “chemical castration”.

Some years after the war, this is what Turing was put through, after his home was burgled by a former lover.  And tragically, he committed suicide (though there is some real life dispute over whether he killed himself or was murdered, though the film does not touch upon this).  His military clearance was revoked and he was publicly shamed.

“The Imitation Game” does not deliberately set out to clear his good name, but I believe it did so rather admirably.  Though they don't pull any punches about Turing's personality, they show the unbelievable value of his contributions to the war effort, and treat him with respect.  Benedict Cumberbatch is absolutely wonderful as Turing, hitting just the right note between “insufferable jackass” and “misunderstood genius”.  Over the past few years Cumberbatch  has gone from someone I didn't know about at all to someone whose performances I now always look forward to.  And for this film he is nominated for the Best Actor award, and I believe I will be pulling for him to win.

The world wouldn't have changed if this film had never been made, but the word could be radically different if it's subject matter had never existed.  And in trying to make more people aware of Alan Turing and his accomplishments, it is one small step in making whatever amends are possible for the injustices thrust upon him.  This is a wonderful movie about an important man.  Highly recommended.

Big Hero 6 (2014)

** ½ out of ****

It would appear that it is time to start my “pre-Oscar blitz”, where I watch as many Oscar-nominated that I have so far missed as possible. Most years I only have a few to catch up on, having seen most of them throughout the year. This year is a different story – I have only seen a small handful of the nominees.

Nominated for Best Animated Feature is “Big Hero 6”. Usually I love really good animated films; usually I also love a good superhero film. An animated superhero should be a home run, but for some reason this highly-acclaimed movie just didn't do it for me. It's good, the kids will enjoy it, but I thought the whole thing was predictable and fairly obvious. I suppose this one, as a flat out Disney production, was meant more for the kids than their parents.....

Hiro Hamada is a boy genius. Graduated from high school at 13, he thinks college will bore him as much as high school did and instead spends his days working on a “battle bot” and hustling for bets in life-or-death robot matches. His brother Tadashi shows Hiro the error of his thinking by taking him to the robotics lab at his college, where they are always breaking new ground. Hiro decides he HAS TO go there, and prepares a project of “microbots” to present to the department head to win his admission. The microbots are thought of as ground-breaking and Hiro is accepted, but immediately afterward there is a fire that claims the life of his brother and the robotics department head, as well as his microbots. Crushed, Hiro locks himself away.

But locked away with him is Baymax, a “personal healthcare” robot that Tadashi had designed. Together they discover that Hiro's microbots were not destroyed in the fire and Hiro outfits Baymax with armour, weapons and rockets that basically turn him into a superhero. He also outfits several of Tadashi's friends the same way so they can create their own Justice League, and they head off to discover who is at the bottom of the theft (and likely the fire).

There is some comic relief in the film (in particular the character Fred, a stoner-type who thinks this whole thing is like, radical). The best laugh in the whole thing is provided by Damon Wayans Jr. when his character Wasabi nearly has a freight car dropped on him. But overall the humour is pretty simple and not very clever, like most elements of the film. There is plenty of action, battles and intrigue, but as previously mentioned it's all pretty predictable and not especially intriguing.

If you have a 10-year-old boy, he will love it guaranteed; that appears to be the primary audience for the film. But if you think you're getting “The Incredibles”, you will be heartily disappointed – this film just isn't in the same league. Not a bad movie.... and that isn't something you want to hear about an Oscar nominee. It's okay, and worth a watch. Not too much more.

Boyhood (2014)

** ½ out of ****

Consider this my official prediction: “Boyhood” will win the 2015 Academy Award for Best Picture.

I say this not because it has already won the Golden Globe, and not because I think it is a great movie. I say it because it has all the things that the Academy likes to reward films for. It is large in scope (though not a big budget film), it has solid performances throughout and it is heavy (and I mean HEAVY) on the “emotional realism”. So congratulations to them for their impending Oscar.

Too bad it's not that great.

Shot over a 12 year period, the film follows Mason Evans Jr. (Ellar Coltrane) from ages 7 through 18. His life hasn't been terribly easy, as he and his sister (Lorelei Linklater) live with their mother (Patricia Arquette) and don't get much time with dad (Ethan Hawke). They move frequently as Mom can't provide a substantial life for them and is always trying to improve things, eventually going back to school. She gets remarried to a man who is a fairly strict disciplinarian (Marco Perella) but who eventually becomes an alcoholic and abusive. After divorcing him she eventually remarries again to an Iraq veteran who can't see past his own sense of responsibility – and can't understand why everyone else doesn't think the way he does.

Through it all we watch Mason grow up. Through his relationship with his parents and his sister we see a lot of the types of things that real people have to deal with. Personally, I think this is why “Boyhood” is getting such rave reviews; sooner or later through this film (and it goes on interminably long) you will run into a situation or two that you've had with either your parents or your children. All of these episodes are presented very realistically, which is fine, but they are all pretty “serious moments” which I got tired of pretty early on.

The performances are all great. Arquette shows acting chops I actually didn't think she was good enough to possess. Coltrane's role is incredibly understated (he's one of those moody “I feel too much to talk too much” kids) but he is very good in it. But where I am not on the same page as the standard critics is based on two things. First, I didn't think the characters were that interesting. A mom that makes tons of mistakes, moody kid, abusive stepdads.... we've seen it all before and in much more interesting ways. Second, and more importantly, it is all a huge "downer".

Now I enjoy a good “deep” movie as much as the next guy, but this one is trying to be deep every single second. Particularly in moments where someone is realizing “wow, time marches on” the film tries to send a big, meaningful message. Perhaps it is just my taste, or my personal lack of amazement that I am going to get old and die one day, but I think that in order for a film to get anything from a viewer in moments like this it has to offer them "meaning", not just present the moment that it happens. Otherwise it is just depressing. And there are ample depressing moments in “Boyhood”.

And (spoiler alert?.... perhaps) I really wanted (after 2 hours and 45 minutes) a payoff. It just doesn't come. Mom has a breakdown the day her son moves out, realizing that life is fleeting and her time to be the most important person in his life is over. Then he goes off and has a nice time with his new college roomie and a couple of girls when they go hiking. Perhaps it was just that this wasn't the payoff I was looking for, but I felt it was no payoff at all.

I have full respect for the ambitiousness of the project, and I don't feel like watching it was a waste of my time. But what I look for most in a movie is to be entertained or moved. “Boyhood” failed to do much of either. Interesting enough to watch because of the scale of the project, but ultimately won't end up on anyone's “favorite films ever” list, I am sure.

Cast Away (2000)

*** out of ****

Hard to believe it was 15 years ago; when Tom Hanks did the film “Cast Away” his star was probably as bright as it would ever be. After a decade as the star of enjoyable light fluff like “Splash” (1984), “Bachelor Party” (1984) and “Big” (1988), Hanks had gone from reliable box office star to superstar with a series of really wonderful movies. Starting with “A League of Their Own” (1992) he had gone on a streak of fabulous performances, won two acting Oscars and probably deserved another one. And for my money, “Cast Away” was the best story he was ever involved in telling.

Now don't get me wrong – I don't think it was his best movie. That would obviously go to “Forrest Gump” (1994) with “Philadelphia” (1993) and “Saving Private Ryan” (1998) not far behind. But “Cast Away” was such a compelling story that if they had dropped a couple of totally unnecessary elements from the story it would have made for Hanks' best film, and probably won him another Best Actor award. I will get to those elements (and will expect many to disagree with me about them) in a minute.

In this film Hanks is Chuck Nolan, a Fedex executive that travels all around the world to drill the Fedex mandate into various levels of the corporation. He is madly in love with Kelly Frears (Helen Hunt), a doctoral student with mild commitment issues. On a Christmas Eve he is called away on another assignment, and immediately after proposing to Kelly (and following her non-commital response) he gets on a plane to fly away. The plane loses radio contact as it diverts around a major storm, then suffers engine trouble and is forced to crash land in the south Pacific. In the tumult of the crash, only Chuck escapes the plane and ends up alone on a small island.

Luckily, the island is habitable. There is enough natural flora on the island to sustain him, and once he gains some rudimentary ability to find fresh water, start a fire and to catch fish, he finds he can survive there. Which is fortunate, since as his plane had tried to divert around the storm front nobody is looking for survivors anywhere near where the plane actually crashed. He may be marooned forever, despite his obsession with getting back to Kelly, the love of his life.

Much was made at the time of the film of Hanks' commitment to the part. Chuck is on the island for 4 years, and Hanks lost some 50 pounds and grew his hair and beard very long to account for the lapsed time. And I agree – this is, I believe, the greatest performance of his career. Not only because of his commitment to the physical changes required, but to his acting – there are points in the movie where there is almost no dialogue for as long as a half hour at a time, but his ability to convey ideas and thoughts through body language and facial expressions has never been more evident.

HOWEVER...... there are two things that prevent this movie from working as the four-star classic it should have been, and they are both related. This is where I expect to lose some of you.....

When trying to start a fire, Chuck loses his temper in frustration and has a little tantrum. To my eye, this is the ONLY thing about Hanks' performance that seemed forced and unnatural. But it was required so that his bloody handprint could end up on a volleyball. This handprint looks a little like a face, and as a result Chuck christens the volleyball “Wilson” and starts to have conversations with it.

SPOILER ALERT (plot resolution points discussed in the following paragraph)

Now I am not against this as a plot device, as it allowed the viewer some insight into Chuck's thoughts as he discusses them with Wilson. However, I found the “Wilson” aspect to be utterly unnecessary to both the plot and the film as a whole. Because of Wilson, Chuck clearly seems to be a few aces short of a full deck (which is understandable), but after Chuck's rescue he is completely sane again. Ridiculous. Director Robert Zemeckis loves whimsy and I believe that's why Wilson because such a front-and-center part of the film, but I think that without it, the film would have been smoother, more dynamic and have much less of a continuity issue. What Chuck is doing would have become clear even without the plot device of an inanimate object to talk to, and I think the film would have been much better without it. Tom Hanks' magnum opus, even.

Overall this is still a great movie. There are some scenes that drag a bit leading to the film being a tad overlong, but I love the performances and especially love the resolution at the ending. The line, “Tomorrow the sun will rise. Who knows what the tide may bring?” may be one of the most uplifting expressions from a man in sorrow I have ever seen in the movies.

Much recommended, even if I feel it could have been improved.

Dracula Untold (2014)

* ½ out of ****

While I was watching “Dracula Untold” it suddenly occurred to me that there has never been a really good movie about the character “Dracula”. Ever since Hollywood has been making movies they have been trying to cash in on the most legendary vampire of them all, and cash in they have. What they have failed to do, despite dozens of tries, is make a film about him that is actually entertaining. I suppose the version "Bram Stoker's Dracula" (1992) was the best attempt (as it was truest to the source material) but it came out deadly boring and not scary at all.   “Dracula Untold” is the latest in that not-so-grand tradition.

Did you ever wonder how Dracula became a vampire? Neither did I, but that doesn't mean it couldn't be interesting. In fact, upon viewing the trailers this movie looked like it had some potential. Vlad the Impaler, a prince of Romania, strikes a deal with an ancient and imprisoned vampire in order to save his people from the tyranny of the Turks. The deal is that he will have vampiric powers for three days, a time during which he can wipe out the invaders, and if he can resist the temptation to drink human blood he will return to humanity as he had been before. But if he could not resist and consumed blood, he would become a vampire for eternity and his creator would be freed.

Ultimately, the tortured Vlad succumbs to temptation at the last second, after his grand experiment ends in almost total failure.  This frees his creator (played, in the lone "kind-of scary" role in the film, by Charles Dance) to come out and terrorize the world.  Luke Evans is actually pretty good in the role of Dracula, but there just isn't much good stuff for him to do.

While Dracula hasn't always be completely villainous, this is the first attempt that I recall of making him heroic. And the theme isn't bad, but the script is just terribly weak. The visual effects are actually really good, and I had no qualms with the CGI, but the dialogue is awful and the plotline is full of holes. But more damning is the way certain aspects of the plot are treated. For instance, Draclu is weakened by silver, and in a key scene this is used against him in a fashion that leaves all credibility behind. The rescue of Vlad's son at the end is equally silly, as well as pretty much everything in the final 15 minutes.

I think the concept behind the movie was interesting, but the script, battles and overall treatment were all an attempt to make a movie that the tweens/teen would find “cool” rather than to offer a real treatment to the subject matter. Ultimately a big disappointment.

The Judge (2014)

* ½ out of ****

Sometimes I think that it's a shame that Robert Downey Jr. is so good looking, charming and affable that Hollywood has made him the star of major blockbusters. Iron Man, The Avengers and Sherlock Holmes have made him known the world over, and while that is terrific for him (and the audiences of those relatively mindless action-fests) it places him in vehicles where his star is dimmed. He really is one of the great actors of his generation. It's too bad he so often finds himself in roles that don't offer him much of a challenge. “The Judge” is a case in point.

Downey is Hank Palmer, a bad boy turned success story as a rich and successful defense attorney in Chicago. He is estranged from his family because of the hate/hate relationship he has with his father (Robert Duvall), a small town judge in Indiana. Hank's life, though opulent, isn't exactly ideal as he is a workaholic and he and his wife are on the downward side of a divorce. So when he gets word that his mother has passed away, he heads back to his hometown alone to say his goodbyes.

There he meets up with his brothers, one a failed athlete running an auto shop and the other mildly retarded and having never left home. Hank and his father basically ignore each other for a couple of days through the funerary process, and Hank readies to return to Chicago. But just before leaving he finds that his father has been involved in a hit-and-run accident that left a former (and hated) acquaintance of his dead. Hank hangs around to make sure his father is afforded a decent defense for his arraignment and trial.

As a premise, this isn't bad. As a cast, you can't ask for much more. But the film just doesn't work, probably because it tries to be too many things. The redemption of the father/son relationship, the resolution of all his childhood issues, including the long lost girlfriend, a courtroom drama, a coming of age story, and an emotional “he's dying” film all in one.... there is too much going on to dedicate more than cursory attention to any aspect of it.

As a result, it ends up being a movie that it's hard to care about. Dad might die in jail? Oh well. Hank might lose his family? Too bad. Is that 20-something really Hank's daughter? Maybe. Can Hank get his father off on the charges? Possibly, but who cares? If the writers had eliminated some of the extraneous subplots, the primary story (the story of the relationship between Hank and his father) could have been better developed. As it is, you are more than ready for the film to be over long before it is. Duvall (normally a terrific character actor) also contributes to this be playing the father role as utterly without charm or redeeming qualities. How are we supposed to care if he goes to prison or makes up with his son when he is such a complete jackass all the time?

I love Downey as an actor. Early in his career he gave performance in “Less Than Zero” (1987), “Chances Are” (1989), “Chaplin” (1992), and “Natural Born Killers” (1994) that certified him as a tremendous talent. Throughout his drug issues he continued to do great work (though often in bad movies and TV shows), and I still think he is a terrific talent. Even in this role he has moments of greatness (usually where he is required to be subtle, which he does better than anyone ever gives him credit for). But he isn't challenged much by Tony Stark, Sherlock or even Hank Palmer. I wish he would get back into some the grittier work he had been doing like “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” (2005) where he could really sink his teeth in. But this film isn't particularly good, and I can pretty much assure you that I won't ever watch it again. Which, coming from a film addict like me, might be the most damning assertion of them all.

Benji (1974)

**** out of ****

I think I was in 4^th grade when one spring afternoon my class and a couple of others were herded into the school library to watch the movie “Benji” on TV. It was probably my first encounter with a VCR. Since that day I have loved this little film, and watch it at least every couple of years.

Despite my four star rating, it isn't without flaws. The movie was made on a shoestring budget and many of the actors are pretty amateurish, especially the two child actors, whose performances would most kindly be called “wooden”. The sets are often poorly lit and in a coupe of cases look more like houses that were convenient to shoot in instead of actual movie sets. And in the first reel all of the dialogue is dubbed, leaving it feeling strangely eerie due to the lack of ambient sound.  For that first half hour the sound recording of the footage must have been very poor for the filmmakers to prefer dubbed dialogue......

…..but none of that matters. It's still absolutely impossible not to fall in love with this story, and more impossible not to love the lead character. “Adorable” just isn't a strong enough adjective for him.

“Benji” is a little stray mutt that lives in an old abandoned house. He spends his days roaming around town visiting the various human friends he has made over the years, always starting with a couple of kids named Paul and Cindy who clearly love him to death. Most of the first half of the movie deals with getting to know this little guy and what he does every day. His schedule gets altered when he runs across (and falls in love with) a Maltese cross named Tiffany, and when a couple of strange guys keep visiting his abandoned house, but basically Benji lives a very carefree life.

But then it all gets tied together when the strange guys turn out to be con-men turned kidnappers when they snatch Paul and Cindy (the same kids he visits every day) for ransom. It's up to Benji to try to save the day.

One of the things that makes this movie so wonderful is the cinematography. It's simple but ingenious in many places where just the sequencing of the shots and the angles used clearly show you what Benji is thinking – this adds so much to the enjoyment of the film that it's probably the best thing about it (other than it's canine star). Succinct and smart, without a wasted frame, the story is told in a way that makes this small independent effort one of the great family movies ever.

And of course, there is Benji himself. Played by Higgins (already well known from the TV show “Petticoat Junction”) there are few more loveable characters in cinema, and no better canine stars. Already quite old when “Benji” was shot, this is the best dog-actor you'll ever see. The little guy could convey his mood with just his walk or his eyes – I bet people used to fight just to pet him on the set. He is the undeniable star of the show, and his ability (and the ability of his trainers) is why this movie works as well as it does.

I watched this most recently with two 9-year-old kids that had never seen it before and they never looked away from the screen once, showing this movie holds up as well today as it did when I first saw it 35 years ago. There would be very few people of my generation that haven't seen it but for the newest generation, brought up on Pixar, the Avengers and Transformers, this would be a great find. Movies don't have to be $100 million extravaganzas to entertain the kids – get yourself a copy of the little indy film (made for a mere $500,000) and you won't be sorry. And your heart will ache for the little stray today just like it did when you were a kid. I promise.

The Theory of Everything (2014)

** ½ out of ****

I was so looking forward to this film that I was completely disappointed when, for some strange reason, it never came to my hometown. Not to be deterred, I went out of my way to go see it as I have read a couple of Stephen Hawking's books and thought his life story to be worthy of a film. And while the film does tell his story and tell it very well, it ends up not being much more than a fairly milquetoast biopic and not much more.

Most people already know Hawking's basic story; he is most famed for unifying several scientific theories and findings into the so-called “Big Bang Theory” describing the creation of the universe. He also has several more universally accepted scientific discoveries to his credit, all despite suffering from a motor neuron disease that has turned him into a voiceless virtual paraplegic who can only communicate through a computer interface. Even if you don't know his science, you may have seen him guest-starring on television on “Star Trek: The Next Generation” or “The Big Bang Theory”. But this film is not dedicated to his stature as a man of science (if that's what you're interested in, the documentary “A Brief History of Time” is a nice effort at it) but rather to the man himself, and more specifically to the love story between he and his first wife, Jane.

What is really, really special about this movie is the performance of Eddie Redmayne as Hawking. He is utterly amazing in this role, both as the young Hawking bounding around the Cambridge University campus and as the deteriorating physical shell we know today. Throughout the first hour of the movie I was entranced by what I saw on-screen, as Hawking and Jane (Felicity Jones) meet and fall in love – it is extremely well told and very heartfelt. You see Hawking as the brilliant mind he is, and how Jane's love for him helped him overcome much of his social awkwardness. Then as he discovers his disease (and is initially told he could expect around two years to live) he tries to send her away to save her from himself, only to find that her love was powerful enough to overcome the struggles they could see on the horizon.

Unfortunately, at the point of the film where they marry it starts to lose steam. Redmayne is fantastic throughout (and to be honest, most of the performances are thoroughly first-rate) but the story is far less intriguing than it was initially. The film-makers presentation of his discovery that black holes lose mass (a phenomenon that was named for him – Hawking Radiation) is nicely done, but one of the few compelling sequences of the second half. It remains a great platform for Redmayne to evoke Hawking's physical deterioration, but really not much beyond that. I would have preferred to see more of what Hawking and his wife were thinking and feeling rather than what they were doing. Because in all honesty, they don't appear to be doing much.

It's a good film to be sure, but only half a movie if you are looking for great entertainment. The first half is definitely that, but it doesn't maintain steam throughout. That being said, I will state emphatically that the final sequence of the film is extraordinarily wonderful - it's only a minute or so long but is good enough to be almost worth the price of admission on its own.

One astounding performance, many more exceptionally good ones, and a true story that didn't quite make for great entertainment. But for any Hawking fans out there, you should go see it; it will give you some more insight into a true giant of modern science.