My Top Ten Films of 2015

Now that the Oscars are over and the winners selected, I can say that for the most part I was pretty much OK with the picks. I was terribly disappointed that Stallone didn't win Best Supporting Actor, just for the fact that I thought his was the best performance of the bunch and that he will never, ever have another chance. I also disagreed with the “Best Picture” winner, but not by a lot – I didn't think “Spotlight” was the best picture of the year..... though it was the most important.

I tend to judge a movie by rather atypical standards. The Hollywood critics spend a lot of time examining the cinematography, set and costumes, the technical details. I focus SOLELY on “how much did I like the movie”. A couple of years ago I thought that a little $400,000 Indy movie was easily the best film of the year (“Blue Ruin”) even though it had such “issues” as being able to see the cameraman's reflection in the windshield of the semi truck it was riding in while following a car. Yes it was there, but it didn't take away from what an absorbing film experience it was.

That being said, below are MY picks for the best films of 2015. That is, these are the movies that I enjoyed the most thoroughly, in order.

1. Room. A nearly perfect film with two flawless lead performances. It made me laugh and cry and squirm and cheer. In my opinion, this year there was “Room” and then there was everything else.
2. Brooklyn. A movie that was just about a girl and her rather unremarkable life. But somehow made remarkable by how much you cared about the lead character and her hope for a better life.
3. The Revenant. Oh all the pissing and moaning that it was dull and dreary and DiCaprio spent half the movie only groaning. But I love a western (even a frontier one), and I love a revenge picture, and I love seeing a truly great villain. So there was nothing in this for me NOT to love.
4. Ex Machina. I was sooooo happy it won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects, just because it deserved to win SOMETHING. Three impeccable performances, a really riveting story that combined Frankenstein, Terminator and Body Heat. Absolutely great film.
5. The Martian. Robinson Crusoe in space. A great turn from Damon and while I found it a bit of a letdown after reading the book, I can't deny just how enjoyable a movie this is.
6. Spotlight. It's a movie that made me more angry than happy, but no denying it was a terrific film.
7. The Hateful Eight. Honestly, if you remove a 3 minute scene just past the halfway mark (the one where Samuel L. Jackson describes his murder of the the General's son) this might have been number two on my list. That scene nearly ruined an otherwise fantastic movie.
8. It Follows. A low budget classic. Seems to me that it is meant to be an allegory for AIDS, but spooky and creepy and wonderful.
9. Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I wasn't quite as enamoured by the new Star Wars as many were, but it was undeniably a great achievement in movie-making, and thoroughly enjoyable.
10. Creed. Personal bias here – I love “Rocky”, not just the movie franchise but the character. In a performance that was every bit as good as his original portrayal of the character 39 years ago, Stallone chewed the scenery and we had a new character that was nearly as likeable to root for.

Near misses: “Mad Max Fury Road”, “The Big Short”, “Sicario”, “The Walk”, “Black or White”, "Love & Mercy", "Jurassic World" and “Cake”.

The Danish Girl (2015)

** out of ****

Who would have thought that a movie that had the stunning Alicia Vikkander stark naked would be a film that I really don't much care to ever see again....

Vikkander is Gerda Wegener, a promising Danish artist who has never realized her potential. She is married to Einar (Eddie Redmayne), a moderately successful painter himself, and they are passionately in love. But then one day Gerda asks Einar to wear womens stockings and shoes to help her finish a portrait and things change. Einar is clearly excited and fascinated by seeing himself in the clothes, and when Gerda realizes this, she encourages him to explore it. Clearly, she thinks this will be a fun role-playing game that will enhance their already active sex life.

But for Einar it is something more. The era is the late 1920s and “transgender” wasn't even in the national vocabulary. His behavior is seen as a sickness and several doctors try to “cure” him through such progressive ideas as radiation treatment. But Einar is losing his old identity to his new one (a female persona he calls “Lily”) but he is sure it is not schizophrenia, rather a realization of his true self.

Meanwhile, Gerda is becoming more and more successful for her emotional portraits of "Lily" leading her to great confusion about the benefits and drawbacks of Einar's confusion.

The movie explores the evolution of Einar's transsexuality and his relationship with his wife. Eddie Redmayne is fully committed to the part, being completely authentic in a challenging role. Vikkander is every bit as good in a different type of role, as a more traditionally tormented woman. But despite the quality of their performances, I simply didn't like much of the way the film portrayed their stories.

Obviously, this isn't subject matter that most people are comfortable with in real life. Personally I consider myself extremely liberal in each individual's right to self actualization and rights to equal treatment..... but that doesn't mean I really want to see everything about it. Redmayne staring at his naked body in a mirror and tucking his genitals between his legs to appear female is just not something I have any need to see. It just felt it wasn't essential to the story. Conversely, when Ted Levine did exactly the same thing in “The Silence of the Lambs” (1990) it WAS essential to the story and therefore less disquieting. Here, I simply found it exploitative.

As Lily explores her new persona it leads to some other awkward scenes that I just didn't find to be treated particularly tastefully. There are some beautiful scenes and interactions in the movie, and I thought it was a story worth telling, but the filmmaker's treatment of the subject matter I found often to be told poorly and in a manner meant more to shock or titillate that simply tell the tale.

Redmayne and Vikkander are excellent in the film, doing better than just about anyone else could have with challenging material. However, I didn't like much about the presentation and seriously doubt I will ever be compelled to revisit it.

Spotlight (2015)

*** out of ****

I realize that there are a lot of parallels in the story type, but there were a lot of moments during “Spotlight” where I was reminded strongly of “All the President's Men” (1976). Both tell the story of news-people trying to investigate a cover-up, fought by the system and forced to be surreptitious about their activities, and as they go deeper finding the conspiracy is much bigger and broader than they thought.

But that's not the only reason I felt they were similar – just like “President's Men” this film often sacrifices entertainment for accuracy, making it a bit disjointed at times. That's really my only complaint, other than the fact that watching this movie will piss you off no matter how much you already know about the subject matter.

Michael Keaton plays “Robby” Robinson, who leads an investigative reporting team at the Boston Globe called 'Spotlight'. Other key team members are Michael (Mark Ruffalo) and Sacha (Rachal McAdams). When a new editor (Liev Schriber) comes on board in 2001 he assigns them to investigate the sexual allegations being made against priests in the Boston area. Thinking initially that there may be as may be as many as 13 priests accused of sexual misconduct with minors, they are stunned to eventually find 87 different priests in the Boston area that have had legal or punitive action taken against them.

This changes the scope of their investigation in that they stop trying to only identify the priests, but determine if the Catholic Church, specifically the local archbishop, knew about these activities and actively tried to cover them up. Since this is Boston (very largely Catholic) they find resistance at nearly every turn, even as the size and scope of their findings shock and disgust them (and the viewer).

“Spotlight” is a really excellent film filled with equally excellent performances. Ruffalo's rage, McAdams disappointment and Keaton's calm disgust offer the watcher just about every type of reaction that he or she may have regarding their findings, allowing you to really connect with at least one of the key characters. Already being aware of most of the team's findings I was absolutely disgusted in revisiting it, but am tickled to death that it's in a film that is being widely recognized – because this kind of thing continues to go on and the more people that know about it the more chance it can be ended.

While I wouldn't call this a real contender for “Best Picture”, I think that this is largely because of it's devotion to following the story accurately, which sacrifices some dramatic opportunities that the story would have realized had this been a work of fiction. But despite not considering it one of the real “Best Picture” contenders, I absolutely think it is the most important film of the year, and that it should be seen by absolutely everyone. Really a great piece of true-story telling.

Sicario (2015)

*** out of ****

I'm still a bit torn about this film. Part of me says it was a gripping international cat-and-mouse game, and another part says it was way too slow but seemed good due to the overpowering strength of a single performance. In either case, Benicio Del Toro rocked the friggin' house in this one.

Emily Blunt is FBI agent Kate Macer, who after losing several agents in a raid on a booby-trapped drug smuggling den is invited to join a CIA task force headed by Matt Graver (Josh Brolin). The task force will be going after a Mexican cartel, the one responsible for the deaths of her agents in the raid. But Macer finds that also acting as a part of the team is Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro), who is not an agent; instead he is working on behalf of the Columbian cartel to help the CIA eliminate their competition. Macer obviously has issues with this, but Graver explains that CIA would rather eliminate one cartel to be able to focus on the other.

Slowly, they set up a major sting on the Mexican group to raid their Mexico/US tunnel at a key point to cripple their importing system, and also set things up for Alejandro to eliminate the head of the cartel. As the movie unfolds it has some slow portions, but once everything is in place and the sting gets underway, the payoff is worth the investment in time to set it all up.

Also intriguing is Jay Bernthal in his small part as a local thug.  I don't think this poor guy is ever going to play a character in his entire career who isn't a dirtbag.

And there is a performance that is simply off the charts.... Benicio Del Toro as Alejandro. Ever since “Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” and “The Way of the Gun” over 15 years ago, this guy has always been top notch, but here he takes it to the next level. He is so menacing, so incredibly brutal that he captivates every second he is on the screen. Heartless and without malice of any kind, he might be the scariest, most authentic assassin I've seen on screen in years. Many are making a big deal out of the lack of minority actors nominated for Oscars this year, citing Michael B. Jordan and the three leads in “Straight Outta Compton”, but if the Academy missed one performance that should have been considered, it was this one. He is outstanding.

Overall the film is solid if sometimes slow-moving. The ultimate action sequences and the performance of Del Toro would surely be worth the price of admission. Well worth the time.

Black Mass (2015)

** out of ****

Being a bit of a cinefile when it comes to mob movies, all I can say about “Black Mass” is, “Wow. What a disappointment....”

I've been hearing for several months what a great job Johnny Deep has done as mob boss Whitey Bulger and what a terrific crime drama this is. I wonder what those critics were smoking because I saw a long, dull bore-fest with a leading man who gives a horrid impression of a Boston thug with a little make up on. We're supposed to buy this willowy, narrow shouldered phoney as a strong-arm for the South Boston mob?  Fat chance.

That all sounds pretty strong, I know, and I have tended to enjoy Johnny Depp's performances in other films. But he is simply terribly miscast here. I have no idea why this movie is getting such acclaim.

Also prominent in the film is Joel Edgerton as FBI agent John Connelly. A childhood friend of Bulger's, he is able to convince him that he should inform on his competitors to the FBI, advancing Connelly's career and Bulger's business interests. But as with Depp, Edgerton decides to overact his part into a preening sleaze, coming off more as a used car salesman in the bad part of town than a respected career FBI agent.

The real-life story is told slowly, and some are praising the layer-by-layer unfolding of the tale. But I am here to tell you that it isn't a layered story and it just comes off as snail-like and dreary. The action, on the very rare occasion that it comes, isn't interesting enough to offset the glacial pace of the rest of the film.

I can appreciate slow moving story, if it is well told, but “Black Mass” simply is not. The best thing I can say about it is along with Depp and Edgerton, Kevin Bacon and Benedict Cumberbatch have supporting roles, so it will become a key player in “Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon” in the future.

The Good Dinosaur (2015)

*** out of ****

Before even talking about the content of this film, let me just say one thing - “The Good Dinosaur” has the greatest animation I have ever seen, bar none. The digital images are so authentic in many places you'd swear you are looking at actual footage instead of animation. Rivers sparkle over millions of tiny waves.  Trees sway in the breeze with each leaf doing it's own thing.  Dirt, stones, mountains.....everything is completely authentic  Really unbelievable.

The trailers for “The Good Dinosaur” made a big deal out of the idea that the giant meteor that hit Earth 65 million years ago instead missed, but happily in the film it takes only about 5 seconds to cover it.  This was simply a plot device to allow for dinosaurs to continue evolving until we get to the timeline of the movie. And as the film begins, it's clear dinosaurs that have really gotten along – we see a family of Apotosaurs that are corn farmers. There is the mother, father and three kids, and the runt among them is Arlo. Arlo is desperate to be seen as a valuable member of the team, but he lacks the size and courage of his father and brother.  This leads him to do more and more risky things to try to prove himself.

So when he falls in the river and is swept miles and miles from home, the trek back becomes his test of manhood. Tagging along with him is a feral prehistoric human boy, one that can't talk and acts in a very animalistic way but can think and reason as well as Arlo can. Their trip home is the central plot of the movie, and their relationship is fun and eventually emotional.  They run across other dinosaurs that want to help them, ones that want to hunt them, and generally leave their way fraught with danger.  Kind of like a dino "Incredible Journey".

I have to admit I was happily surprised by this film. After its original run of excellence, Pixar has been hit and miss for a while and this looked like another potential miss. That had more to do with the trailers leading me to think it was about something other than what it was actually about. It turns out that this is a very heartfelt and fun ride, and easily one of Pixar's better efforts in a while.

The best praise I can give this is that I watched it with an 11 year old boy who was so caught up in the story that he cried with a smile on his face during the emotional ending. So what else is there to say? It clearly accomplishes what it sets out to.

Steve Jobs (2015)

** ½ out of ****

Just a couple of years ago there was a film just called “Jobs” (2013) with Ashton Kuchar in the seminal role. That film tried to tell the story of Steve Jobs, from his origins working in a garage of a computer motherboard with Steve Wozniak through to the introduction of the iPod. I didn't think it was a particularly good movie, but it told a tale that was interesting enough to watch, and Kuchar made Jobs at least a somewhat sympathetic character despite his flaws.

“Steve Jobs” does none of the same things. It isn't interested in telling the story of the man's life, it simply has one message – Steve Jobs was a son of a bitch. I understand that to some degree that was true, but Michael Fassbender plays Jobs as one of the most unsympathetic characters I've ever seen in a biopic. This Jobs cares absolutely nothing about the mother of his daughter, denies ad nauseum that the child is even his, and like a spoiled brat is totally willing to stomp all over anyone that denies him from getting anything that he wants. They play Jobs as a tyrant, plain and simple. It is impossible to like the person the film portrays.

Now that's not to suggest that there's nothing to see here. “Steve Jobs” is a pretty decent film and has some tremendous sequences. In particular the series of scenes showing how Jobs was originally removed from the company by CEO John Sculley (Jeff Daniels) is fascinating. The dynamic between Jobs and Wozniak (Seth Rogan) is equally interesting, despite the fact that almost every scene takes place after Woz was a key figure at Apple. And in spite of the loathing you feel for Jobs during them, the scenes showing him with his daughter over a 10 year stretch are interesting in a painful way.

Fassbender does a very solid job with what he has, but I feel like the script was simply not the best. Jobs was a driven and flawed man, but I sincerely doubt he was a sonofabitch-bastard every single day of his life, which this film would have you believe. It portrays his genius as highly manipulative and solely business-based, and doesn't even try to examine his unique ability to recognize what people wanted before it was something anyone had even dreamed of.

I'm not suggesting that they should have done a warm-and-fuzzy Steve Jobs, but this one is a guy that you just can't relate to. If Fassbender's Jobs was hit by a bus walking down the street you'd have been happy to see him pushing up daisies. It's hard to make a movie centered around someone you detest and keep it interesting.