Cake (2014)

** 1/2 out of ****

I always knew she could do it......

I'm going to draw a bit of an odd parallel here..... is it possible that Jennifer Aniston could become this generation's Michael Keaton?  After success in a bunch of fluffy comedies (“Night Shift”, “Mr. Mom”, “Gung Ho”, "Beetlejuice”) at the age of 37 Michael Keaton proved what had long been suspected – that he was a hellova actor.  1988's “Clean and Sober” put him in a role that challenged every aspect of his abilities – rage, vulnerability, fear, ego – and he knocked it out of the park.  But you always knew that he had it in him – even in his lightweight films you could see the talent was there.  Since that film he has appeared time and again in extraordinary roles (though admittedly in plenty of goofy ones too) such as in “Pacific Heights”, “My Life” and “Jackie Brown”.

Aniston has had a similar early career in film.  She has been in little beyond run-of-the-mill rom-coms, though many of them have been extremely successful.  But always there have been clear flashes that she has “it” - that given the right opportunity to shine as an actress, she will deliver in spades.

Much like “Clean and Sober” for Keaton, “Cake” is the role where she finally delivers.  In a rather dull drama about addiction, loss and mourning, Aniston's performance is easily the best work she has ever done.  She carries this film all alone, and despite a lack of depth of virtually every other character she makes your heart ache for her.

Claire (Aniston) is a woman in pain.  For much of the early movie we don't know why.  She has survived a devastating car accident, is covered in scars and has pins throughout her lower body.  She lives in agony, barely able to move about and downing Percosets and Oxycodone like they were tic tacs.  Little explanation is given about the background of the accident through the first hour, though we later find that in it her young son was killed.  Her misery over his loss and her guilt at her inability to save him has driven her husband away, leaving her to deal with everything alone with her maid (Adriana Barraza).

As a part of her physical therapy Claire attends a “chronic pain” support group, which is where we first meet her.  She begins to become slightly obsessed with Nina (Anna Kendrick), a member that committed suicide a month earlier and she befriends Nina's widower and young son.  She is, in general, thought of as a moody bitch and to be honest that is exactly how she sees herself.  Her obsession with the suicide victim is based around her desire to end her own life and suffering, and she even hallucinates Nina encouraging her to end it.

Very similar to Keaton, there is a scene that is simply crushing.  With “Clean and Sober” it was a scene where Keaton, as a drug addict on the run from a $50,000 embezzling problem, makes a phone call to try to convince his mother to mortgage her home to cover his debt.  In “Cake”, it is a scene where Claire walks into her living room to find a large blown up photo of her dead son.  The pain and loss in her eyes is amazing – she sells it completely and I wanted nothing more than for Claire to find comfort.  Incredible scene.

Overall the film is simply okay, but it is made that good only by Aniston.  Without the power of her lead this would have been an awfully dreary and depressing ride.  But as it stands it is worth watching just to see that she really is a great talent.  I hope she follows in Michael's footsteps and spends the next 20 or 30 years taking more roles where she can really stretch her legs as an actress.  I knew she had it in her, and here it is to see.

The 87th Academy Awards; Predictions and Comments

Sunday night is the 2015 Academy Awards, so it's time to weigh in on what I think are the most deserving nominees.  Of course, the deserving don't always win, so I will also weight in on who/what I think will actually win.....
------------------

Best Picture

 

American Sniper

Birdman

Boyhood

The Grand Budapest Hotel

The Imitation Game

Selma

The Theory of Everything

Whiplash

What will win:  Boyhood

What should win:  The Grand Budapest Hotel

Sadly missing from this list are what I thought were the two best movies of the year: “Blue Ruin” and “Wild”. I also think “Nightcrawler” deserved a nomination. But of those on the list there are some very good films – I especially enjoyed “The Grand Budapest Hotel”, “American Sniper” and “Whiplash”. But bet the farm on “Boyhood” taking the big prize. Too much hype for anything else to happen, even though it really is a very so-so movie. If it wasn't for the 12 year production, I don't think it would even have been a blip on the Academy's radar.

Best Director

Wes Anderson – The Grand Budapest Hotel

Alejandro González Iñárritu – Birdman

Richard Linklater – Boyhood

Bennett Miller – Foxcatcher

Morten Tyldum – The Imitation Game

Who will win - Richard Linklater - Boyhood

Who should win - Alejandro González Iñárritu – Birdman

For the same reason, count on Richard Linklater, the brains and driving force for “Boyhood”. Man, I wish I liked this movie more. It will win, and I feel it just isn't good enough to deserve it. Though I will love it if Alejandro González Iñárritu wins for Birdman – it was totally unique and adventurous, even if it wasn't always firing on all cylinders.

Best Actor

Steve Carell – Foxcatcher as John du Pont

Bradley Cooper – American Sniper as Chris Kyle

Benedict Cumberbatch – The Imitation Game as Alan Turing

Michael Keaton – Birdman as Riggan Thomson

Eddie Redmayne – The Theory of Everything as Stephen Hawking

Who will win - Eddie Redmayne – The Theory of Everything

Who should win - Redmayne, Cumberbatch or Keaton – all would deserve it

I think Cumberbatch, Redmayne and Keaton all deserve the award. If you stuck a gun in my face and asked what I thought was the “best” performance, the most unique and impossible for anyone else to duplicate, I would go with Keaton. But I believe Eddie Redmayne will win, and he will deserve it too. Any of these three men would deserve it.

Best Actress

Marion Cotillard – Two Days, One Night as Sandra Bya

Felicity Jones – The Theory of Everything as Jane Hawking

Julianne Moore – Still Alice as Dr. Alice Howland

Rosamund Pike – Gone Girl as Amy Elliott-Dunne

Reese Witherspoon – Wild as Cheryl Strayed

Who will win - Julianne Moore – Still Alice

Who should win - Reese Witherspoon – Wild

When the nominees were announced I thought that Reese Witherspoon would win, and I personally will be rooting hard for it to happen - it was a career performance from her. But since Julianne Moore won both the Golden Globe and the SAG Award, it seems inevitable that she will get the big prize. A great performance for sure, but I still think Witherspoon's was the better one.

Best Supporting Actor:

Robert Duvall – The Judge as Judge Joseph Palmer

Ethan Hawke – Boyhood as Mason Evans, Sr.

Edward Norton – Birdman as Mike Shiner

Mark Ruffalo – Foxcatcher as Dave Schultz

J. K. Simmons – Whiplash as Terence Fletcher

Who will win - J. K. Simmons – Whiplash

Who should win - J. K. Simmons – Whiplash

Simmons has won both the Golden Globe and the SAG Award for “Whiplash”, so it seems a safe bet that he'll take the prize. And he'll deserve it too – he was outstanding.  Probably the safest bet of all the categories.

Best Supporting Actress

Patricia Arquette – Boyhood as Olivia Evans

Laura Dern – Wild as Barbara "Bobbi" Grey

Keira Knightley – The Imitation Game as Joan Clarke

Emma Stone – Birdman as Sam Thomson

Meryl Streep – Into the Woods as The Witch

Who will win - Patricia Arquette – Boyhood

Who should win - Emma Stone – Birdman

Emma Stone absolutely should win. End of story. Patricia Arquette absolutely will win. End of story. It will be a crime.

Best Original Screenplay

Birdman – Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. and Armando Bo

Boyhood – Richard Linklater

Foxcatcher – E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman

The Grand Budapest Hotel – Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness

Nightcrawler – Dan Gilroy

Who will win - Boyhood – Richard Linklater

Who should win - Birdman – Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. and Armando Bo

Again, I have to predict that “Boyhood” will win. Call “The Grand Budapest Hotel” the dark horse, and I would love to see “Birdman” win this. Of the big ones this is the one I have the most doubt about...... but the “Boyhood” love-in will probably prevail.  Very nice to see "Nightcrawler" recognized here.

Best Adapted Screenplay

American Sniper – Jason Hall from American Sniper by Chris Kyle, Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice

The Imitation Game – Graham Moore from Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges

Inherent Vice – Paul Thomas Anderson from Inherent Vice by Thomas Pynchon

The Theory of Everything – Anthony McCarten from Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen by Jane Wilde Hawking

Whiplash – Damien Chazelle from his short film of the same name

Who will win - American Sniper – Jason Hall from American Sniper by Chris Kyle, Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice

Who should win - American Sniper – Jason Hall from American Sniper by Chris Kyle, Scott McEwen and Jim DeFelice

I think this one really is a a crapshoot; the only one I would say out of hand has no chance is “Inherent Vice”. So I will pick “American Sniper”, as adapting that book to a screenplay was a major achievement.

Best Animated Feature Film

Big Hero 6

The Boxtrolls

How to Train Your Dragon 2

Song of the Sea

The Tale of the Princess Kaguya

What will win:  How to Train Your Dragon 2

What should win:  Big Hero 6

In a pretty weak category, "Dragon" has to be considered the favorite.  But I just can't get behind a sequel winning a Best Picture award.  I wouldn't even have voted for "The Godfather Part 2" for 1974......

Best Documentary

Citizenfour

Finding Vivian Maier

Last Days in Vietnam

The Salt of the Earth

Virunga

What will win:  Citizenfour

What should win:  Citizenfour

...but don't count any of them out.  The Academy likes to have surprise winners in this category more than any other.

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)

*** out of ****

As a kid I had a good friend who was a monstrous fan of the James Bond movie franchise. When we were about 11 or 12 he would invite me to stay over at his house to stay up half the night watching old Bond movies, eating popcorn and basically acting like we were considerably more sophisticated about the ways of spies (and women) than we really were.

Luckily the camaraderie was excellent, because for the most part the movies were not. The occasional Connery-as-Bond one was watchable, but for the most part they were sophomoric drivel full of cartoon characters. The modern ones are much better, but the old ones for the most part stink.

While it's clear that the writer and filmmakers of “Kingsman” were also big fans of James Bond, and offer considerable nods to that franchise throughout, they have gone out of their way to create their own identity for the"Kingsman". Colin Firth is Harry Hart, a longtime member of this society of secret agents, and he dives into the role with gusto. A proper English gentleman who also happens to have combat moves straight out of the Matrix and a pocketful of gizmos that would make Q jealous, Harry blames himself for the loss of a comrade 17 years ago. As a result he has kept an eye on his friend's son Eggsy (Taron Egerton) and when an opening in the “Kingsman” society becomes available, he proposes him as a candidate.

Much of this comes straight out of “Men in Black” (1997) where Eggsy is the Will Smith character, the one candidate from the wrong side of the tracks that doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of the group. But as the trials get more and more challenging, Eggsy is one of a couple of candidates that seem the clear favorites.

In the meantime, uber-villain Richmond Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) is plotting a world domination scheme that Dr. Evil himself would envy. He is giving away free internet and cell calling in an altruistic manner similar to giveaways from other super-rich tech geniuses. But what nobody knows is that he actually has an agenda for this – the sim cards can cause the phones to release a sonic pulse that turns everyone into the “rage disease” freaks from “28 Days Later”. Basically, it makes them kill anyone they see or even know is nearby.

Valentine's reason for this despicable plot is his obsession with climate change – to prevent man's ongoing consumption of every natural resource, he needs to cull the population back to manageable levels. Having them kill each other seems perfectly logical, right?  The Kingsman society need to figure out what he's up to and put a stop to it.

Oh yeah, did I mention that he has a personal bodyguard (Sophie Cookson) that makes Gogo from “Kill Bill” look like Darla from the Little Rascals? She has no legs but walks on razor sharp Oscar Pistorius-type artificial blades, and shows early in the film that she can cut you in half with them. Vertically.

Most of the film is all in good fun, though I felt that some of the fight scenes are overly long and gratuitously violent (though beautifully choreographed). The nods to other film franchises come often and are usually entertaining (though a particular nod to Bond at the end of the film – where James always gets the girl – was a bit over-the top). Basically good fun and enjoyable throughout, it's non-stop action and I hope there will be a followup.

That's the good. But there is some bad.... namely Samuel L. Jackson as Valentine. I have great respect for Jackson – especially when he takes on roles that really challenge him. Jules in “Pulp Fiction”, Ordell in “Jackie Brown”, Stephen in “Django Unchained”.... all excellent. But when he takes on rather milquetoast roles where he isn't challenged, I generally find him hard to take. This film is a perfect example – any number of actors could have played this role, which is critical to the plot but pretty simple from an actor's point of view. Jackson tries to salt it a bit by adding a silly lisp and over-the-top colourfulness to the part, but I found it all rather painful. Valentine is supposed to be some kind of genius but due to the treatment the part gets he is just a fool. I would have much preferred someone to take on the part who would play it more straight and draw out the folly of the character through irony instead of idiocy.

But those small criticisms aside it is a fun movie for action movie fans, and great fun for spy movie fans.  If your looking for high drama you won't find it, but if a good time at the theater is the goal, you'll be very satisfied with "Kingsman".

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006)

*** out of ****

I think finding a hidden gem of a horror movie is more exciting than finding a hidden gem from any other genre. Why? Because horror movies are by-and-large utter crap, senseless and stupid and insulting to the audience's intelligence. So stumbling onto an obscure good one is a real find. “Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon” is such a gem. 

Imagine you lived in a world where Jason Vorhees was real, nightmares on Elm Street could really kill you, and you never let the kids out on Halloween because Michael Myers was actually out there. Then further imagine that you make documentaries and stumble upon a guy planning to commit his own horror-movie massacre, and you find he is agreeable to having a film made about his plan's preparation and execution. This is the world of “Behind the Mask”.

Leslie Vernon was a kid that was murdered in days of yore by rioting townsfolk. The modern-day killer is Leslie Mancuso (Nathan Baesel) who builds a whole revenge scheme around the legend to satisfy his own blood lust. A young journalist (Angela Goethals) is making a film about how Leslie picks out and stalks his victims, how he orchestrates every second of the upcoming bloodbath, and how he builds tension amongst his intended prey, particularly his “survivor girl” (Kate Lang Johnson). She is the virginal youth that he plans to leave for last, as she is the strongest and most likely to give him a fight.

He has a mentor, a retired mass murdered named Eugene (Scott Wilson) who helps him with his preparations as well as an arch nemesis, a cop played (in a real casting coup) by Freddy Kreuger himself, Robert Englund. Leslie knows where the group of teens will be on the night he plans the slaughter and he seals exits, saws off tree branches so they can't be climbed, sabotages every possible weapon that could be used against him, and lays the whole thing out for the cameras. But when the big night comes the documentary crew are torn about letting it all play out or trying to save the group of kids, knowing that if they interfere they will themselves become characters in Leslie' blood orgy.

While this film is satirical, is is played pretty straight so it has that really hardcore edge of true satire. Whereas a movie like “Scream” (1996) was more comedy than satire, the funny parts of “Behind the Mask” occur naturally as parts of the story and not as the ultimate goal of the filmmaker. The switching back and forth from the “documentary” film footage to the view of an observer to the whole process makes it even more interesting. The performances are not overly special but everyone is good in their parts, with the one standout being Angela Goethals as the documentarian, who transforms into horror-movie scream queen later on in the film.

In any case, this is an exceptional horror movie with tension and scares (though they happily keep the gore to a minimum), but if you're not a fan of the genre you won't like it. As a lover of good horror movies though, take it form me – if you enjoy a good scary movie you'll love “Behind the Mask”. Anything but the typical slasher film, this is one that allows you to use your head a bit and enjoy some of the satirical behind the scenes looks at the preparation of a thoroughly-planned mass murder. Really enjoyable movie.

Life Itself (2014)

*** ½ out of ****

It's funny – sometimes the death of someone we never met resonates more than the loss of someone we knew well. Often this happens with TV or movie stars – people that you had come to feel emotionally connected to from characters they played. I generally write those kind of reactions off because we really didn't know them at all, we just knew the characters they protrayed. But I was really deeply saddened by the passing of Roger Ebert in 2013 because I really DID know him. Not personally, as we never met, and he would never have known of my existence. But through his writings, which as a journalist, critic and blogger were deeply personal and often remarkably intimate, I really did know him. And I had such deep respect for him that I greatly mourned his passing.

“Life Itself” was the name of Roger's autobiography, which was exceptional. This film is equally exceptional, though extremely different. The book traced Roger's life, his experiences and his feelings about the world (in particular as viewed through cinema) while the film is mostly a tribute to the man and a depiction of his difficult final months. The film spends time describing his origins and his career, and more exploring his relationship with his TV partner Gene Siskel. All of that is interesting, though covered much more in-depth and intimately in his book. But what the film succeeds in is really personalizing the plight at the end of his life.

After several surgeries to remove cancer from his face and jaw, Roger was left literally voiceless. His lower jaw, much of his tongue and the entire bottom half of his mouth had been removed, with his lower lip and chin dangling in an odd perennial grin. From that time on he was only able to communicate through his keyboard, and writing his blog became a big part of his life. In “Life Itself” we see Roger through several months in the hospital after cancer was discovered in his hips and spine, and then through his final days.

And though I hate to say it, as it seems morbid, macabre and almost indecent, but watching this happen is fascinating. Roger found love later in life with his wife Chaz, and their love and relationship form the real heart of the film. She is clearly an incredibly tough lady, and though I'm sure she had her moments of weakness, she always shows Roger a brave face and provides an assurance of her devotion to him that I'm certain gave him a great deal of peace. I didn't enjoy watching him deteriorate, but I greatly enjoyed watching them love each other as it happened.

Roger estimated that he had reviewed some 6,000 films. Personally I think that's a bit of an underestimation – I think he wrote more. But what I loved so much about his writing was how personal he made it. Sometimes he wrote about technical details and the finer points of movie-making, but what I loved was that he wrote about how the film made him feel. And in at least nine out of ten instances, he would describe exactly how it made ME feel. That was my connection to him – I felt he and I must share a lot of personality traits, because so often I would be nodding along, agreeing how he hit the nail right on the head.

One recent example was for the lovely comedy “About Time” (2013). Roger wrote: “I cannot help but fall for Richard Curtis's rather self-indulgent romantic comedies. My level head might be crying 'No,' but my lopsided heart can't help but say yes..... Something about Curtis's films allow cinematic endorphins to be released into the brain and generate a state of euphoria that is akin to absolute bliss. To experience it, you just have to allow the analytical parts of your mind to unclench during the dodgier bits of business—all these pasty well-off people and their problems, oh woe is them!—and go with the feel-good flow.”

This summed up my feelings exactly. There are time-paradox and metaphysical issues galore in “About Time” but it is a heart-wrenching, glorious film that leaves you feeling wonderful despite the tears in your eyes. I have a hundred examples of when Roger reached me personally with his writing, but they are all the same. His unapologetic love for films, and his insistence of seeing each movie for what it was meant to be rather than through the stodgy glasses of the typical critic is what made him so special.

I am glad that Roger's suffering is over. I'm glad that he leaves a wonderful website behind where his life's work will always be available to read. I'm glad that he wrote a wonderful autobiography that allowed me to know him even more intimately. And I'm glad he was a brave enough man to let them film much of his final months so a proper tribute could be given to him. But most of all I'm glad he lived here on earth and shared himself with us. This film is a nice tribute, and loving farewell to a meaningful life. 

Good bye Roger. See you at the movies.

Taken 3 (2015)

** out of ****

As an actor, Liam Neeson seems to have had a charmed life. He doesn't have movie star looks, he's long and lanky without a hint of muscle, and while he's a good actor nobody is ever going to think of him as one of the great thespians of his generation. Yet for a while he made a great impact with terrific historical and period dramas (“Ethan Fromme”, “Schindler's List”, “Roy Roy”, “Michael Collins” and several others).

But somewhere deep inside he always wanted to be an action movie star, and throughout his career he's shown up in a few (“Next of Kin”, “Shining Through”, “Star Wars”, “Batman”). But a few years back a funny thing happened – despite being in his late 50s, the world accepted him as an action star. “The A Team”, “The Grey”, “A Walk Among the Tombstones”, “Nonstop”.... it seems that they're all he does lately. Of course none of them are very good, just mindless little fluff pieces that encourage you to shut your brain down for a while, but there's a place for those films too.

“Taken 3”, much like the first two in the trilogy, is a perfect example. The first film took a far-beyond-silly plot and made it fun through Neeson's cold assassin-like manner. “Taken 2” was in my opinion a much better movie, though not as much fun. The third installment is unquestionably the weakest of the three, not being a very good movie and not retaining much of the fun, and requires “suspension of disbelief” in epic proportions..... but given what the film is supposed to be, it's not all bad.

Bryan Mills' life seems to be a lot more peaceful these days. He and his daughter are close, his ex-wife Lenore likes him again, and he's happy. There even seems a good chance of he and Lenore reconciling, though Bryan is too honorable to act on those impulses while she is still married. Everyone lives in L.A. and life is good. But one night Lenore's wealthy husband stops by Bryan's place to ask him to step back from Lenore to let them try to save their marriage without him being in the way, and Bryan agrees.

So far so good, but get ready to suspend disbelief. In a really big way. A day later Bryan gets a text that Lenore is coming to see him, so he runs out for breakfast for them. When he gets back he finds Lenore dead in his bed, the murder weapon on the floor and the police beating down his door. Clearly he has been framed, but why (and by who)? Rather than succumb to the police he escapes and begins his own investigation.

What he finds and where it leads him is pretty ridiculous, but hey, it's an action movie. The director (Olivier Megaton – what a great name; sounds like a James Bond villain.....) presents everything as though it is all dead serious, but for all that still doesn't go overboard with the tone. There are great chases, plenty of special effects and explosions, intrigue and a ridiculously convoluted conspiracy to wend through. But still in all it wasn't a terrible flick, if you can keep in mind that it isn't supposed to be “Citizen Kane”, and Forest Whitaker is really enjoyable (as he tends always to be) as the LAPD Inspector hot on Bryan's trail.

My biggest issue with the film was the cinematography of the action sequences. Megaton decided to go with the “cut-cut-cut” theory for those scenes, presumably to make it more “action-packed”. Each cut is about a half second and jumps all over the place in point-of-view and camera angle. To be honest, it's a bit dizzying. I generally like it when directors use cuts to make the action more intense, but this was way overboard. Luckily though that is only through the fight and chase scenes, so you don't have to deal with it for extended lengths of time.

My only other real issue is in the plot's resolution, which without giving it away, totally forgets everything that Neeson did throughout the film that the police would have taken issue with. Stealing cars, assaulting officers, enormous highway pileups..... Bryan Mills doesn't have to reckon with any consequences of these things. But hey.... him ending up in the slammer for endangering public safety and destruction of property would have made for a crappy ending.....

Don't go expecting to see a great movie. Don't even go expecting to see a great action movie. But it's a reasonably enjoyable one, and if you liked the first two you will probably enjoy this one. At age 62 I don't know how much longer Neeson will be an action star, or if he will ever make a really good action movie (something I don't think he has done yet). But he keeps cranking out decent ones, and while “Taken 3” isn't one of the stronger efforts, I thought it was worth a watch.

Selma (2014)

*** out of ****

Some years ago Spike Lee did his biopic “X” on Malcolm X, which many liked but I thought was merely okay. My biggest issue with it was that Malcolm was a truly historic figure and the movie, in attempting to show his entire life, did justice to very little of it. “Selma” is a story about Martin Luther King Jr. and it doesn't make the same mistake – it focuses on a very specific time in King's life, and as such tells the story much more effectively.

King is played by David Oyelowo, who despite being the same age as King during the events of the Selma to Montgomery March seemed to me to be much too young to play Dr. King. Perhaps it was King's stateliness, but he always seemed to me to be far older than his years and Oyelowo doesn't possess the same presence. Beyond that he does an admirable job in the role, displaying King's “calm fire” throughout, and the film itself tells the tale extremely effectively.

Oprah Winfrey plays Annie Lee Cooper, a woman who is prevented from registering to vote in Selma, Alabama. At the same time in America there were thousands of similar race-related inequalities happening, as well as incredible acts of violence in the wake of the increasing power of the civil rights movement. Dr. King and his team decide that Selma is the perfect battleground to bring the fight to greater national prominence, and after a meeting with President Johnson (where Johnson attempts to dissuade him from inciting unrest) he heads to Selma to lead the protest.

Selma was the perfect battleground for several reasons. It was in the deep south, was governed by notorious segregationist George Wallace and it still had a deeply racist population determined to keep people of colour “in their place”. The film displays King's intention to basically allow his followers (as well as himself, if it came to that) to be beaten and brutalized during the protests on national TV to increase awareness of the fight. He knew that their peaceful protests would be met with heavy-handed retaliation from the white authorities, and being weary of trying to fight the battle only through diplomatic channels, this was the place and time for action.

In retrospect this sometimes seems (and is displayed as such in the film) excessive – sending people out to be beaten or killed. However, virtually everyone involved understood what was at stake and willing to risk their own lives for the greater good. I loved the way the movie simply accepted this fact and played it as such instead of make martyrs of the Selma protestors, which would have been easy but disingenuous. The marches themselves are also well portrayed – the senseless violence and brutality of the authorities against the protestors leaves you with an appropriate sick feeling. I think it would be vital for young people to see this film in order to understand the importance of their humanity and the evil of racism, because even as foul as the violence is shown on screen it is nothing really compared to what the real protesters suffered. I believe the film-makers didn't want to go too far in showing it, and while their approach was right for the film, the knowledge that it was even worse nearly brought me to tears at points while watching it.

The ongoing backroom politics being played on a state-wide and national scale are also very interesting. President Johnson was always known as a champion of the civil rights movement, but I personally always viewed that as a continuation of Kennedy's policies rather than something he felt strongly about personally. Whether that is true or not I am not sure, but that is certainly how the movie plays it out. Tim Roth is outstanding as George Wallace, though I think they went a hair overboard with his character – I don't think of Wallace as an evil man, just as a badly uninformed one that started down a road he eventually wanted to abandon but carried too much momentum to stop it. But for the purposes of the movie, he needed to be shown simply as a terrible racist, which is effectively done.

Martin Luther King Jr. is one of the most important figures of the 20^th century, whether you are discussing American history or world history. Selma is an effective tribute to his importance, and how he was not only a statesman but a grass-roots leader that knew the right thing to do wasn't always the easy thing to do.  He was a true leader of men.  I'm glad that they were able to do him justice with this film, which a full biopic would have been unlikely to do.

History teachers take note – this is an important movie about the most important movement post-WWII in the 20^th century. Watch it. Show it to your students. It is another example of why intolerance must continue to be defined, recognized and crushed out.

I will descend from the soapbox now..... good movie. Go see it.

The Good Lie (2014)

*** out of ****

In the early and mid 1980s the African nation of Sudan was torn apart by civil war. As a result of mass executions of civilians and the burning of villages, millions of people were left homeless and forced to travel hundred, and often thousands of miles to find safe haven. These people were collectively called “The Lost Boys of Sudan” and the lucky ones ended up in refugee camps in Kenya. “The Good Lie” is about a group of children fleeing the war during this conflict, and their eventual move to and integration into the United States.

While watching, it seemed the first half hour was going to be the most heartfelt part of the film as we witness the murder of the adults in the childrens' village, and their exhaustive, dangerous 1000+ mile migration to safety. Theo is the oldest and the leader, and the rest of his bedraggled group consists of Memere, Jeremiah, Paul, Daniel, Gabriel and Abital. Not all of them make it, as Theo sacrifices himself to capture to save the rest of the group, Gabriel is killed by troops and Daniel succumbs to disease. While some have claimed this part of the story has been given a “Hollywood treatment” I still found it compelling and fascinating to watch.

But the really heartfelt part was yet to come. After thirteen years in the refugee camp, the remaining four (Mamere, Jeremiah, Paul and Abital) are selected via lottery for relocation to the United States. The rest of the film, which shows their difficulties with learning their new country's customs, as well as giving a very interesting insight on how immigrants must view life in the USA, is even more fascinating. Abital ends up being sent to Boston while the other three go to Kansas City, though they swear they will be together again. In Kansas City they meet Carrie (Reese Witherspoon), an employment placement officer who first tries to find them jobs and then befriends them.

Watching Mamere, Jeremiah and Paul adapt to Missouri life was a joy. Their shock at how electric lights work, their confusion about the “alarm” (the telephone), how they try to figure out what the straw is for at McDonald's..... all wonderfully described. And it is their sincerity that makes it all so intriguing – you genuinely like them and want good things for them. When they first say good bye to Carrie - who picked them up at the airport, got them some lunch and dropped them at their new apartment - Mamere says, “Our hearts throb with the many kindnesses you've shown us today.” I mean, how could you not like anyone so sincere?

They struggle with some aspects of American life. Throwing away old produce at their job at the supermarket clearly pains them, and Jeremiah is eventually fired for giving some away to a homeless person (saying “It is a sin not to give to those in need.”). Paul is introduced to marijuana by co-workers and acts suitably stupid. Mamere tries to be the head of the household, holding down two jobs while going to college, but his guilt over Theo's sacrifice of himself in Sudan consumes him, as well as his desire to reunite his “family” with Abital. Your heart aches for this group of lovely kids.....

Solid performances all around, and Witherspoon shines as Carrie. Happily, no attempt is made to give her character the “starlet” treatment – Carrie is just an average girl with an average job who tries to help some extraordinary people. Corey Stroll is excellent as the owner of the employment agency, who seems to have been detached from his job until meeting these people, when he finally figures out he'd do anything to help them.

The story is very simple, and no special effects and no (or minimal) stuntmen were used. Just a darn good story well told, with a terrific cast and good production. It is the hearts of the three principal characters that really take hold of you for the last hour or so of the movie, and you celebrate their every success and mourn their every setback. A really enjoyable film.

Nightcrawler (2014)

*** ½ out of ****

Edgy, intriguing and exciting to the point of madness, “Nightcrawler” is one terrific movie..... even if the lead character might be one of the creepiest characters ever seen on screen. 

Lou Bloom is a small-time loser living in LA. He has no job (not for lack of initiative) and gets by committing petty crimes. Then one night he witnesses a car accident, and is fascinated by the free-lance videographers that show up to film the police rescuing a victim from a fiery car. He decides to give it a shot, stealing a racing bicycle to pawn in exchange for video equipment and begins trawling the LA streets at night.

Despite having no real idea of what he is doing, Lou's absolute lack of any morality, decency or recognition of boundaries allow him to get some film of crime and accident scenes that nobody else dare try. His natural flair for the dramatic catches the eye of the program director of KTLA News (Rene Russo), and Lou beings contributing regularly to their broadcasts. But this is no “boy from the wrong side of the tracks makes good” story – there is a serious underlying problem: Lou is a psychopath.

Rather than being content to film the action as it happens, Lou actively becomes part of the action. He gets in the way of police and paramedics in order to get the bloodiest footage. And if he happens to beat the authorities to the scene of an accident, he actually manipulates it to make for better film. Lou also hires an assistant, a homeless sometimes-male-prostitute named Rick for $30 a night to help him listen to the police scanner and be his navigator on the best paths to the crime scenes.

Gyllenhaal is better in this role than anything I've ever seen him in before. He's always offered compelling performances, but here he is absolutely stellar as an incredibly intelligent, utterly insane master manipulator with superiority issues bordering on God Complex. Lou MUST HAVE exactly what he wants, or there will be hell to pay. When he realizes how important his footage has become to the KTLA Newsroom, he uses that importance to try to manipulate the program director (Rene Russo) for sex. Nothing will stand in his way, and his immense personal charm disguises the fact that he is a veritable madman.

The key event in the movie occurs when Lou reaches the scene of a home invasion where there are three dead victims. He arrives long before the police, capturing footage of the killers' escape and ridiculously graphic footage of the victims. He then uses the value of this film to put in motion a “master plan”, the process of which is absolutely spellbinding to watch. Even when you figure out what he appears to be doing, it seems almost beyond belief – it's hard to wrap your mind around the idea that anybody could possibly be that crazy. The storyline becomes so intense that I found myself literally on the edge of the seat. This film is simply riveting, enthralling viewing.

Nominated by the Academy for Best Original Screenplay, I am going to state right up front that it is utterly criminal that Jake Gyllenhaal didn't also receive a nomination for Best Actor. His “Lou Bloom” is so downright sinister, menacing and frightening that he just might make an appearance in your nightmares.

Easily one of the coolest, creepiest films of 2014, and a tour-de-force performance from Jake Gyllenhaal, made for one hell of a great film that keeps you completely engrossed throughout. Do not miss it.