Whiplash (2014)

4/5

Whiplash is a phenomenal film about ambition and the lengths people will go to create something great. After beginning school as a first-year jazz musician in a prestigious music conservatory, Andrew (Teller) finds himself recruited into the awe-inspiring studio band. He soon discovers that his instructor, Fletcher (Simmons), is verbally and physically abusive to his students in the hopes that he will direct them to greatness. And Andrew pushes himself to his limits to earn Fletcher's respect. The plot grips you from beginning to end, even as it takes you down some unexpected turns, and concludes with a finale that is somehow simultaneously satisfying and ambiguous.

The movie is full of fantastic music--that's a given--but it is also full of fantastic cinematography and editing that elevate this movie past its constituent parts. The camerawork is stunning, whether grandly swooping into a complicated scene or using a simple rack focus, and is supplemented by dramatic lighting and singularly beautiful compositions. The editing was playful and precise, adding another dimension to the music on screen. I was truly flabbergasted at the level of cinematic technique on display in this film.

However, I found the message to be a little simplistic and a little overdone. The film tackles a fairly clichéd question and doesn't add all that much to the discussion. Still, this movie is such a joy to watch that it's hard to come up with anything negative about it at all. JK Simmons is absolutely incredible, always going one step past acceptable behavior to be both eminently entertaining and instantly horrifying. Watch this movie. You won't regret it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582802/

Foxcatcher (2014)

1/5

Foxcatcher, set in the 1980's, tells the troubling true story of an enigmatic multimillionaire wrestling enthusiast (Carell) who enlists two Olympic gold medal-winning wrestlers (Tatum, Ruffalo) to help him start a training camp for the US Wrestling Team on his enormous estate. I won't go into more detail so as to prevent anyone reading this review from getting too interested in the movie.

The trailers for the movie give it a creepy, chilling atmosphere. And indeed it starts out intense and brooding, but the mood doesn't last and the pacing turns awkward and slow. The cinematography is bland and lingering like the worst kind of indie films. There is an obscene amount of silence to make the whole movie unendingly boring. A lot of shots seem to be nothing more than random events without any context. Nothing feels concrete (except the ending), which makes for an infuriating and unsatisfying film filled with nothing but hints and suggestions. And it was somewhat unsettling that I couldn't tell if there were homosexual undertones or not. That's how subtle everything was.

I will admit, though, that Steve Carell gives an impressive acting turn. The same could be said for Channing Tatum, although all I really got out of his performance is that he gets slapped in the face a lot. The problem is that the characters seem to perform actions with either unclear motivations or intentionally veiled ones, both of which are frustrating to watch. But the biggest surprise of all was when the credits rolled and I realized that this garbage was directed by Bennett Miller (Capote, Moneyball). I ended the movie asking myself why I spent the last 2+ hours watching it and I didn't have a good answer.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1100089/

The Imitation Game (2014)

4/5

The Imitation Game tells a fascinating story spectacularly well. Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Alan Turing, a British math professor who gets enlisted into a covert military mission to break the Nazi's Enigma Machine and help win WWII for the Allies. (Spoiler alert: he succeeds.) He plays the role to perfection, although I fear that Cumberbatch is well on his way to getting typecast. Here he plays an unlikeable genius lacking any interpersonal skills, nearly identical to his equally uncharming title role on BBC's Sherlock.

The writing somehow simultaneously represents the best and worst aspects of the movie. It is expertly paced, engaging from beginning to end, continuously drawing you in. But the timeline is also unnecessarily complicated, going back and forth between three distinct time periods much too frequently. Also, the film seems to use Turing's homosexuality sometimes to great effect and sometimes for shock value. It ends the movie in a surprisingly sad light and gives the title enormous new weight, but it also deviates from the character study we signed up to watch to tackle Britain's abhorrent policy on the matter.

There was also a little too much old timey footage, and its inclusion feels more like laziness rather than value-added benefit. Or maybe it's just a pet peeve of mine, like unnecessary voiceover narration. Still, The Imitation Game is an engrossing and compelling watch. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2084970/

Fifty Shades of Grey (2015)

2/5

Fifty Shades of Grey is a surprisingly successful movie about a college graduate (Johnson) who begins a dominance/submission relationship with a young business magnate (Dornan). It originally started out as fan fiction for Twilight, with the titular Christian Grey originally written as a non-vampire billionaire version of Edward Cullen in an alternate universe. It makes sense, then, why the writing feels particularly amateurish and the bare-bones plot feels long and drawn-out. It also makes sense why it feels so much like a fantasy, a dream-like series of events filled with tension and delayed gratification devoid of any actual content.

Despite the awful writing and acting, this was not a 1 star movie. It largely succeeds at stimulating the audience's imagination with its BDSM eroticism, exposing flesh right to the edges of the screen. And although it tries too hard to be provocative, I actually appreciated how it forces non-traditional ideas about sex and pleasure into the mainstream. I did, however, find all the side comments about the main character being gay alarming because it conflates all non-heterosexual experiences as "not normal."

As a side note, I have never been more embarrassed in my life than when I asked for 2 tickets to see Fifty Shades of Grey. I hope you never have to go through something like that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2322441/

Boyhood (2014)

2/5

Richard Linklater's decade-long experiment Boyhood is not a very good movie. It feels honest and true, with almost voyeuristic and documentarian authenticity, but those qualities don't make it engaging or compelling. It's a great idea, filming short snippets in real time across years, and I'm amazed that it was accomplished at all given the industry's eagle eye on quarterly profit margins. It could be the future of filmmaking, but I hope that better storytellers can do something more with it. While it tackles some strong emotional threads, including domestic violence, alcoholism, and abandonment, Boyhood feels incomplete and unsatisfying. Even though it recycles a number of themes, it all feels like one big unfinished thought. The only thing more frustrating than a slice-of-life movie without an ending is 12 of them stacked together. Linklater delivers an emotion instead of a story, but perhaps the same people who appreciate Terrence Malick's evocative but empty films will also appreciate Boyhood.

It should have been called Before Adulthood, because it feels very similar to Linklater's previous series of interconnected films where the predominant architecture of the film involves a couple walking around and waxing poetic across the expanse of time. No matter how intriguing the discussion is, the Before series is just a bunch of talking heads. In Boyhood especially you realize that even when things besides conversations happen, Linklater prefers writing to acting, prefers telling to showing. Is there any reason this was a movie instead of a book or a podcast? Did we gain anything at all from having this appear on screen? No. This is not a movie. This is a piece of prose that just so happens to involve cameras and actors.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1065073/

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)

4.9/5

Martin Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street is a riveting, sensational film by a master storyteller. The movie follows a young trader named Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio) who quickly rises to the top by starting his own firm and using manipulative sales tactics to sell high-risk stocks with large profit margins. Along the way, he engages in reckless behavior (mostly drugs) and revels in excess (million dollar parties on his million dollar yacht) while being chased down by the SEC and FBI (Chandler).

Scorsese uses frenetic filmmaking to show us his vices in all their glorious detail, combining fast editing with long shots to tell exactly the story he wants to tell. And he fully embraces the idea of storytelling, reminding you who is narrating and what their motives are: whether through a Porsche changing from red to white mid-shot, "thought bubbles" between Belfort and his Swiss banker (Dujardin), or re-editing his stories in retrospect. Scorsese is so convincing, so compelling, that it's hard to think trading is not normally like this.

Here Scorsese is dealing in his own trade. Both Scorsese as a filmmaker and DiCaprio as Belfort sell their audience, bit by bit, on why their product is not only good, but necessary. They are able to create demand out of thin air. And that is why Scorsese is the best at what he does. Quite honestly, Scorsese can make a movie about anything and make it enthralling, engaging, and explosive. Here he does it again.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0993846/

This Is Where I Leave You (2014)

4/5

This Is Where I Leave You is a tender, funny film about a dysfunctional family reuniting after their patriarch's death. The title comes from one son (Bateman), who leaves his wife (Spencer) after he finds her cheating on him. His sister (Fey) knows about their separation but must hide it from the rest of their siblings (Stoll, Driver) until he is ready to tell them. But their mother (Fonda) forces them all to sit shiva for a week after his funeral and all their neuroses comes out.

The brilliant script is full of meaningful writing, espousing big ideas on a small scale. Watching it makes me wish I had grown up with Tina Fey as my sister. It also makes me want to watch Girls just to see more of Adam Driver. Because this movie is hilarious. That being said, This Is Where I Leave You contains pretty ho-hum cinematic technique other than the writing/acting. Still, I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1371150/

Jaws (1975)

4/5

Steven Spielberg's Jaws is an iconic film. From its classic line, "We're gonna need a bigger boat," to its ominous two note staccato, Jaws is unforgettable. Much like Psycho, it is often parodied but never duplicated. Watching it with fresh eyes, I'm surprised by how intentional and pointed the editing is. You can see when Spielberg resists cuts, instead focusing his creativity on shot composition and allowing the action to occur in the background. But you can also see him use cuts to great effect, by intercutting subtly tighter and tighter close-ups to build tension.

It's by no means a perfect movie. Much like MASH, it feels more like a collection of random, loosely-related events than a single coherent story with inevitable narrative progression. Some plot points seem a bit ridiculous or unbelievable by today's standards and the dull colors and plain costumes certainly cement the movie in a distant time. But it's a landmark film for a reason--and it actually stands up pretty well. Even now, Jaws is still as much of a white knuckle, edge-of-your-seat experience as ever. That's a testament to the skill of the storytellers, who are able to engage and involve the audience in a timeless, universal way. Jaws is required viewing for any film fan.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073195/

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

5/5

Alejandro González Iñárritu's Birdman is a cinematic masterpiece. The movie follows a washed-up actor (Keaton)--made famous by gaudy superhero movies--as he prepares for opening night of his Broadway debut after years of ignominy. He must hire an abrasive but extraordinary actor (Norton) at the last minute, ingratiate himself to a prejudiced theatre critic (Duncan), and combat his own personal neuroses and psychoses in the form of his Lycra-suited alter ego, the titular Birdman.

Sometimes a movie has all the right elements for success but they just don't fit together right. That is not the case with this movie. Here every spinning plate makes every other spinning plate that much more impressive, all building together to create an unforgettable experience. The screenplay is filled with smart observations, textured discussions on the differences between movies and theatre, performance and criticism, art and entertainment. The actors take that sharp and incisive writing to the next level with equally dynamic range--subtlety and loudness, introspection and histrionics--whenever the script calls for it. And it has one of the most genuinely ambiguous endings I can recall in years.

But Birdman will be remembered most for its inspired cinematography. The entire movie is filmed as if in one long camera take thanks to advanced CGI and unerring, excruciatingly detailed pre-planning. Not only is it visually mesmerizing and logistically jaw-dropping, it enriches the film by adding an element of claustrophobia to Keaton's mental deterioration. Movies like this are why movies exist, why creativity cannot survive in the world of books and music alone. It is a wholly fulfilling work of artistic genius. Birdman is a cinematic masterpiece.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2562232/

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

1/5

Matthew Vaughn's Kingsman is an abhorrent exploitation film masquerading as a delightful action flick. The movie serves as a modern send-up of the British spy movies from the 60's, but it does everything it can to distance itself from James Bond. It trades in dry humor for vulgar jokes, action for violence, and style for looks. It's self-referential in a way that outdoes even the countless satires of the genre. It's funny and fun until it's not. It takes a sharp turn and quickly becomes dark and disturbing. The ultra-violence is grotesque and nauseating, seemingly thrown on screen with gleeful abandon and disregard for taste. It's hard to imagine a world where people enjoy the stomach-churning images and call it entertainment, but the success of this film means that we are apparently living in it right now.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2802144/