Snowpiercer (2013)

4/5

Joon-ho Bong's first English-language film Snowpiercer takes place in a fascinating, utterly absorbing dystopian world where all the survivors of an apocalyptic winter live in a constantly-moving train. Curtis (Evans), a member of the lowest class tail car, plans a rebellion with Edgar (Bell), Gilliam (Hurt), and Tanya (Spencer) to take over the upper class cars. They enlist the help of the train's security expert (Song), who is now confined to the prison car, to advance past each locked door.

The journey from tail car to head car serves as an obvious allegory for class systems, climbing the social ladder, and the inherent injustices within. It provides a canvas for characters to illustrate the searing traumas they must endure when pushed to extremes. But it also outlines the entire film, providing a structure that helps situate the audience within each scene and helps mentally prepare for the film's plot progression. Also, seeing what's in the next train--whether an underwater aquarium/sushi restaurant or a nightclub/opium den--is one of the most enjoyable parts of the movie.

Bong has always been able to turn the most bizarre premises into gripping, provocative stories (The Host, Mother). His movies turn horrifying and unpredictable because we've never seen anything like them before and we lack the context with which to appropriately process them. Snowpiercer continues that tradition, and Bong makes it work.

He makes it work most of the time, that is. The movie has some pretty basic CGI. And a lot of weird scenes, including one that involves gutting a fish with an axe followed by Chris Evans slipping on said fish. And a lot of lingering on strange images, including a smiling soldier or a slow-motion shot of the aforementioned fish. It's all very uncomfortable without any clear benefit. But taken as a whole, Snowpiercer is entertaining and strangely compelling; I highly recommend it!

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706620/

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/

The Internship (2013)

3/5

The Internship is a fairly predictable buddy comedy that I've come to expect from the likes of Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn. The movie focuses on two middle-aged salesmen who lose their job and apply for an internship at Google in the hopes of rebooting their career. As you might expect, they have no technical background but a wealth of people skills and they eventually triumph in the face of much smarter but less experienced college-age kids. The movie has its fair share of laughs, romance, and feel-good moments. There's honestly nothing surprising at all about this movie. It's a light piece of fluff that will brighten your day if you have it on in the background while doing some actual work.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2234155/

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

2/5

Thor 2 is just as bad as Thor 1, but mired in even more CGI nonsense than its predecessor. The characters are boring, the plot is boring, and even the action is boring. It's like watching a bad video game. I really have nothing more to say about this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1981115/

Begin Again (2013)

4/5

John Carney's Begin Again is a touching musical drama. Keira Knightley plays a songwriter who discovers her boyfriend, celebrity singer Dave Kohl (Levine), has cheated on her. Alone in New York, she meets up with an old friend (Corden) and they sing at an open mic night. The simple, unvarnished ballad she delivers grabs the attention of a music producer (Ruffalo) who was just fired from the studio he founded. They form an unlikely partnership and work together on a bold idea for a new album, in which every song is recorded live in the streets of New York.

If it sounds familiar, it's because it's written and directed by the same person who made Once: John Carney. The songs are tender and soulful, well-made and heartfelt. With indie filmmaking and an indie spirit, the movie as a whole absolutely delights. The big problem is that Begin Again feels so much like Carney's previous musical. That doesn't make it bad, just tired and old. The only reason I like this more than Once is that it takes place in New York and is targeted more toward American sensibilities. But redoing the same type of story filled with the same type of songs for a different time and place isn't enough. I want to see new stuff from this brilliant musical director. I want to know what else he's capable of.

The acting was fantastic. Knightley delivers another stellar performance, filled with small looks and movements that carry enormous weight to them. Her singing voice isn't bad either. Adam Levine is like her opposite, with awesome singing but mediocre acting. The rest of the cast is fantastic, somehow bringing a vivacity to the movie that gives it an instant nostalgia, like you're watching a once-in-a-lifetime event unfold before your very eyes. I think that's Carney's strongest aspect as a director, creating an urgency to his movies and compelling you to watch them. I can't wait for his next one; I just hope he brings more to the table that we haven't seen before.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1980929/

The Spectacular Now (2013)

2/5

The Spectacular Now is a depressing and infuriating film. It stars Miles Teller as an alcoholic high school student who has confidence and charisma but no plans or hopes for his future. After being dumped by his "hot" girlfriend (Larson), he befriends an "unattractive" girl (Woodley) and she is smitten by his charms. They begin a romance that everybody around them knows is bad for both of them. Instead of some introspection, they just keep chugging along and enjoying the oh-so-spectacular moment.

I'm not really sure what the point of the movie is. It presents itself as a coming-of-age tale but nobody actually learns anything or comes of age. It's frustrating and painful to watch. Shailene Woodley gives a superb performance, emanating high school vulnerability as she is drawn to the debonair Teller, who also gives a stunning performance. But the rest of the technical aspects of the movie are either mediocre or subpar. Underage alcohol consumption in films should come with consequences, and this movie all but pretends there are none. (Or there are some, but then it gives the characters "second chances" without anybody learning anything.)

And just to complain some more: I'm still not clear why there needs to be any voice-over, at any point during this movie, given the fact that there is nothing particularly insightful that needs to be passed on to the audience. By the way, the college essay motif has been so entirely overplayed that it is hard to imagine that even an amazing movie could bring something new to the table. Avoid this movie, unless you're a rabid fan of Woodley and/or Teller's acting.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1714206/

The World's End (2013)

4/5

The World's End is a delightful finale to a delightful pseudo-trilogy about friendship, aliens, and the end of the world. The movie starts with Simon Pegg reuniting with his high school buddies (Nick Frost, Martin Freeman, Paddy Considine, Eddie Marsan) on a quest to relive his adolescent dream of drinking a pint of beer at each of the 12 pubs in his bucolic hometown. A few pubs in, they discover that the town has been taken over by aliens masquerading as good-natured townsfolk.

The movie is just as outrageous as Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, with exciting fight scenes, well-written dialogue, and rapid-fire British jokes. But two-thirds of the way through you realize that the filmmakers deceived you: it will not end as predictably or simplistically as you might have thought or hoped. It will stretch the limits of your expectations and your imagination in a way that will put a smile on your face and a twinkle in your eye. The World's End is a smart movie, sharp-witted with lots of insight and inside jokes that will keep you glued to your seat, but there is nothing formula about it. If you prefer the winding path of uncertainty to the well-trodden one of genre filmmaking, then The World's End goes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1213663/

Philomena (2013)

4/5

Philomena is a tremendously tragic true story that pulls at your heartstrings and uplifts your spirit in profound ways. The movie follows Philomena (Dench) as an aging woman trying to reconnect with her adopted son, who was conceived out of wedlock and sold by the convent she was living in as a young woman. A reporter (Coogan) takes on the human interest story after he loses his job as a political correspondent and faces writer's block researching Russian history. So begins the unlikely duo's adventure to uncover the mystery of Philomena's lost son; and so begins their budding friendship.

The movie reveals pieces of information bit by bit to keep you hooked on the twisting, turning plot. The story alone is fascinating enough to make the movie engaging, but it is the performances that make the movie so compelling and ultimately so heartbreaking. We become intensely attached to the characters and we feel their pain and anger. The subject matter is challenging and difficult to stomach, but the pathos and humor infused into each character makes it all worthwhile. The actors reveal humanity at its best and its worst in portrayals that vibrate with truth and honesty. It is hard to separate yourself from the characters and their emotions once the film ends, but it gives us one of the most satisfying endings I can recall in recent memory. Philomena is a treasure to watch and to behold.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2431286/

Man of Tai Chi (2013)

2/5

Keanu Reeves's directorial debut is a shallow, plodding mess. It has an enormous number of problems, seemingly unending in quantity, although I will attempt to enumerate them all below. First, it is multilingual, with half of it filmed in Chinese and the other half in English. This wouldn't be an issue if the story and acting were compelling enough to make you want to read the subtitles and find out what's going on, but they're not. Second, the plot and performances are subpar, even for a basic action movie. The plot follows Tiger Chen as a character named Tiger Chen, a budding tai chi fighter who finds himself in an underground fighting club in order to make ends meet. (Does tai chi even have a combat component?) Third, there is an abundance of characters without any real purpose (e.g., the camera guy who films everything, the girl who tells the combatants to fight). Fourth, Reeves casts himself as the evil villain (i.e., the final boss that Chen must fight), and his hubris is the film's undoing. He concludes the film with a disappointing, sluggish, awkward fight scene that is painful to watch. The choreography is actually the best part of the movie, with some truly awesome fight scenes, and there are more fight scenes in this movie than a lot of other kung fu movies. But all in all, there's nothing about this movie that's compelling enough to recommend it to any but the most diehard of action buffs.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2016940/

The Hangover: Part III (2013)

1/5

The Hangover Part III is simply awful. The movie reunites the "wolfpack" once again (Cooper, Helms, Galifianakis), only this time without any roofies or hangovers. Instead, Marshall (Goodman) has kidnapped them and sent them on a mission to find the wolfpack-adjacent international criminal Leslie Chow (Jeong). What ensues is not so much hilarity as it is vulgarity. Director Todd Phillips confuses humor with shock, using the winding plot and the $15 million paychecks of otherwise reputable actors to gross us out in whatever way possible. The first two were funny; this one is nauseating. The pre-credit epilogue is truly gag-worthy, and I remain thankful that they never found any pictures explaining how they got in that particular predicament. The story lines, the performances, and the directing were never the trilogy's strong suit, so what does this one have to offer us? A few uncomfortable laughs in an otherwise filthy mess. Not even Melissa McCarthy can save this garbage. Ugh.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951261/

The Conjuring (2013)

4/5

James Wan's The Conjuring is a compelling piece of horror entertainment. It will make you jump out of your seat while watching it and make you afraid of the dark for days after finishing it. The movie claims to have been extracted from the case files of the same real-life self-proclaimed "paranormal experts" (Wilson, Farmiga) who brought you The Amityville Horror, but it won't convince any skeptics. I'm not sure why they spent so much of the movie emphasizing the "based on a true story" premise when the story and acting turn out to be so forgettable. If anything, it made the movie less scary. While we can always go back and try to poke holes in the "facts," we will automatically suspend our disbelief for a film that is up-front about being fictitious.

Where the movie shines is in its pacing, cinematography, and atmosphere. The movie starts slowly, building up an unease and tension that gives you a chance to exhale just frequently enough so you don't pass out. Wan conceives of haunting imagery that will stick with you, from dolls to jack-in-the-boxes, and lets your mind run wild. He lulls you into a state of calm before a torrential storm that you know is coming. And he does it so well. The Conjuring does just about everything right in a horror movie, but it doesn't do anything extra. And that is my biggest frustration with this movie. Nothing elevates it past its genre status, and it remains a one-trick pony for the people who already like that one particular trick.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1457767/

Dallas Buyers Club (2013)

4/5

Dallas Buyers Club is a truly phenomenal piece of filmmaking and a truly remarkable work of art. It sets its story in the early AIDS epidemic, when AIDS was stigmatized as a "gay disease" and effective therapy was just starting to hit clinical trials. Matthew McConaughey plays a young homophobic man whose life is turned upside down when he finds out he may die in a month from AIDS. Unable to take part in an AZT trial and concerned that the drug itself may make patients sicker, he goes on a quest to bring non-FDA-approved drugs across the border into the US to sell to people who have no other options. Surprisingly, the medicine feels accurate and true in a way most movies get wrong, from simple turns of phrase to minor background details. And although the specific details of the story are dated, the FDA approval process feels just as frustrating now as it must have been then.

The movie is filled with tour de force performances from McConaughey and Leto. They embody evocative and tender portraits of imperfect humans doing the best they can in an unfair world. It is heartbreaking watching their trials and tribulations, their successes and failures, their joys and their miseries. They give unforgettable (Oscar-winning) performances. The directing undeniably places artistic tendencies first, treating every shot and scene as creative canvases instead of necessary storytelling elements. It has the occasional misstep and hollow ring to it, even bordering on the melodramatic from time to time, but it's so good that it's easy to forget its imperfections. Dallas Buyers Club is a fantastic film

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0790636/

The Grandmaster (2013)

2/5

Wong Kar-Wai's The Grandmaster is an overwhelming disappointment. It tells the story of legendary fighter Ip Man, whose only claim to fame seems to be that he was Bruce Lee's teacher (which is how they advertise the movie to get you interested in it, then never mention it again any time ever). Wong's filmic lyricism seems like a perfect fit for the acrobatic beauty of martial arts, but here--as in his previous "action" movie Ashes of Time--it feels overbearing and clunky. Wong slows down fight scenes shot at normal FPS, so we get to see them as choppy, blurry messes. If only he had filmed them in a high shutter speed to begin with, we would have been able to enjoy some of the most beautiful, crisp fight scenes in recent memory. But no, he ruins it.

If that weren't enough, the fighting is less than half the movie, and midway through the movie the mood switches from action to romance without telling anybody. However, the love story is between a married man and a lover instead of the man and his wife. I guess that part could have been interesting if it weren't presented in such a banal and trite manner. But it was. There's not much to say about this movie. Avoid it. Trust me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1462900/

Don Jon (2013)

3/5

Joseph Gordon-Levitt's Don Jon is a bold directorial debut that succeeds on many fronts but doesn't fully satisfy. The movie stars Gordon-Levitt as a New Jersey twenty-something whose life revolves around a few things. One of them is online porn. His hook-up, Johansson, questions why he would watch porn when he can have "the real thing." And the movie spends a fair amount of time trying to answer that very question. It's actually an interesting one, one I think perhaps might be better served by a documentary-style investigation rather than writerly musings.

As far as the plot goes, it's a fairly predictable, well-worn story arc without a bunch of surprises. Gordon-Levitt infuses the movie with humorous ironies (I love his road rage when he's going to church) that make it feel fresh and fun. But the movie also has plenty of annoyances. For one, Gordon-Levitt's hair is horrific. It is eye-searing. And their New Jersey accents grind through your eardrum and drill into your brain. The subject matter is still somewhat unseemly for many people, and the movie isn't nearly charming enough to overpower their disgust.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2229499/

Epic (2013)

3/5

For some reason, I had developed an irrationally strong desire to watch Epic when it was first announced, and this compulsion persisted even after all the middling reviews came out. My guess is that it had something to do with Snow Patrol's The Lightning Strike playing over the very first trailer I saw. Regardless, I came in to this movie with high hopes. But the reviews were accurate: it's not as epic as I wanted it to be.

Epic is a perfectly fine movie. It is entertaining and funny and moving just when it needs to be. The animation is crisp and beautiful and the voice-acting is surprisingly adept (although I kept imagining the actors instead of the characters they were supposed to be playing because their voices were so distinct). Aziz Ansari and Chris O'Dowd just about steal the show as the bumbling sidekicks. The romance between Seyfried and Hutcherson--and even between her and her father, played by Sudeikis--strikes just the right balance between innocence and affection. The plot is a little convoluted and it whips along at a pretty good pace, but it doesn't nearly have the thematic depth or complexity I've come to expect from other animated films. All in all, I would describe this movie as sufficient. It pleases enough to justify the time you spent on it, but it's no Pixar movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848537/

Her (2013)

5/5

Spike Jonze's Her is an expertly-crafted and beautifully-told love story. Although it is set in the future, it is a love story through and through. After a painful breakup with his girlfriend (Mara), Theodore Twombly (Phoenix) finds himself unexpectedly falling for his personal assistant, Samantha (Johansson). Their mutual attraction blossoms into a tender romance that some view with prejudice and others with acceptance. Despite the occasional false steps and fights, their relationship feels promising. But that is when the specter of doubt begins to rear its ugly head.

The movie's conceit is that Samantha is a piece of software, an operating system with an artificial intelligence that rivals and perhaps surpasses human intelligence. In fact, the film is advertised that way, banking on its strangeness to be the talk of the town. But it is so much more than a simple gimmick.

As far as storytelling goes, Her is a masterpiece. It is Annie Hall for the tech generation, and I do not say that lightly. It embodies the ups and downs of love, the sidesteps and detours of life, the frailty and imperfections of people. Her is somehow all those things delivered in a crisply-shot and sharply-written film. It is ferociously funny and manipulatively tender. It matches an unparalleled ebullience with a debilitating dread. It pulls at just the right heartstrings at just the right times.

From the subtle use of grain and POV to the story's fundamental architecture, Jonze directs masterfully. He elicits nuance out of the actors, whether it's the flicker of their facial muscles or the timbre of their voice, that elevates their performance well past our expectations. He uses flashbacks to tell the backstory so simply, so effortlessly, so precisely, that I cannot believe they are fictional at all. I cannot imagine that someone has not had those exact emotions before. They are silent reveries, uncontrollable daydreams, pure nostalgia.

The movie is not unassailable. For the life of me, I cannot fathom the thought process behind the movie's absurd fashion choices. I sincerely hope we don't dress like that at any point in the near or distant future. But even if this movie is eerily accurate about what we wear in the future, what's the point? It only serves to distract. It is the elephant in the room instead of the painting in the background. Is the movie supposed to be about love or is it supposed to be about navel-hugging belt-less tweed pants pulled up as high as possible around multiple layers of collared shirts?

Perhaps Her bites off a bit more than it can chew, but it is easily one of the best movies of the year. It has already taken hold of our culture, as evidenced by the innumerable parodies floating around online, and tickled something inside all of us. It is a magnificent film and a magical film. It is unique but universal. Watching Her is an experience everyone should get to enjoy.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1798709/

Despicable Me 2 (2013)

4/5

Despicable Me 2 is the sequel to the endearing animated family film Despicable Me. While trying to raise his three adopted daughters (Cosgrove, Fischer, Gaier), ex-supervillain Gru (Carrell) is contracted by Lucy (Wiig) to locate and eliminate a new supervillain. Along the way he unexpectedly falls in love with Lucy, but higher forces conspire to pull them apart. From a technical standpoint, this movie is better than the first. Beautiful animation and first-rate voice-acting give it a brilliant polish and shine. The movie has plenty of good jokes--I was laughing the whole way through--but they did not have the same oomph that the first one had.

Something about Despicable Me 2 just feels staid, old, and contrived instead of feeling fresh, unexpected, and new. It is more childish, or maybe just more child-oriented, than the first one was. While many animated movies have parts for kids and adults, it seems that Despicable Me 2 uses adult humor (e.g., sexual double entendres) to placate the 20+ crowd instead of delivering mature, thoughtful themes (e.g., on parenting). While there's certainly nothing wrong with making a movie focused predominantly on kids, it definitely loses something that the first one had. It loses a certain gravitas, an opportunity to stand the test of time, a chance to be a classic. It's a terrifically entertaining movie, but it's also just a little disappointing.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1690953/

Elysium (2013)

4/5

Neill Blomkamp's Elysium will, of course, draw comparisons to the director's previous work, District 9, since both are sci-fi action movies employing hyper-realistic special effects, cinema verité-style camerawork, and plots that play like morality tales about the maltreatment and subjugation of a population's citizens. While the combination of all those things felt exhilarating and unprecedented 5 years ago, here they feel a bit tired.

Elysium, like District 9 and Children of Men, delivers a precisely-detailed and complexly-envisioned future. But the characters with which it inhabits that world are unexciting; their quest is uncompelling; the stakes are underwhelming. It is not enough for the background to be thematically interesting, because the foreground is what will get our blood pumping and bring us to our feet cheering. Instead the story feels like a pretty barebones excuse for fights and explosions. Luckily, the (rather sparse) action is exceptional, leaps and bounds better than most of what we are seeing in theaters today. Some scenes are so visually arresting, so stunningly beautiful, that they seem somehow operatic and timeless. That they are simultaneously violently graphic and viscerally horrifying does not diminish their value, but simply brands them in our minds.

Elysium is ultimately not as good as District 9. While perhaps more technically impressive than his previous work, it needed a stronger story to unlock all the potential it had. What frustrates me is that we know Blomkamp can do better. And I sincerely hope he pulls through on the next one, because I love watching his movies.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535108/

Saving Mr. Banks (2013)

3/5

Disney's Saving Mr. Banks is an expectedly heartwarming story about the creation of the Mary Poppins movie. Walt Disney (Hanks) has been trying for decades to woo P.L. Travers (Thompson) into giving them the rights to adapt her Mary Poppins books for the silver screen. Due to recent financial difficulties, she finally agrees to meet with the Disney songwriters (Novak, Schwartzman, Whitford) as long as she gets the final say in what ends up in the film. Upon first blush, she appears to be a crotchety old fart with a bug up her butt; she is senselessly rigid and unreasonable in her demands. But as the movie progresses she opens up, first to her chauffeur (Giamatti) and then to Disney himself. We discover what her childhood was like, why she wrote the Mary Poppins stories, and why she clings so closely to the words she put on the page.

Immediately after exiting the theater, I remember thinking how life-affirming and rewarding the movie felt. But looking back, it seems extraordinarily Hollywood-ized. Disney is basically advertising itself, which heavily limits how much we might believe that this was "based on a true story." If you've seen the trailer, there really is nothing particularly surprising about Saving Mr. Banks, from the saccharine atmosphere to the predictable storyline. After all, the ending "reveal" is so obvious they made it the title of the movie.

But the movie is not about twists and mysteries; it's about characters and their motivations. And there again the movie stumbles. Travers feels like an obstacle the entire time, who is eventually overcome by American bravado and intelligence, instead of a complex character with nuance and subtlety. Instead of framing the movie as a character study, Hancock directs it so conservatively that it loses the depth that Thompson worked so hard to infuse in her character. There is so much more to P.L. Travers than her childhood, but that is all we get to see. The movie rides on her ability to generate empathy within the audience members, and Hancock shoots himself in the foot by making her the enemy at the outset.

Now, that's not to say that this isn't an entertaining or enjoyable film. It very much is. It's delightful and funny too. And it will have you reaching for your tissue every once in a while. But it doesn't feel honest to me. It feels deceptive and inauthentic. And it's such a shame because so many fine actors deliver impeccable performances here. It's a good movie, but not as good as it could have been.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2140373/

American Hustle (2013)

5/5

David O. Russell's American Hustle is a phenomenal piece of entertainment. The plot is what it is: interesting but predictable. It is very loosely taken from real-world events, so much so that Russell doesn't even say that it was "based on a true story." Instead he writes that "some of this actually happened." Who knows what did and didn't. But does it even matter? While parts of the story may proceed out of historical necessity, I get the distinct sense that Russell's real joy in writing act after act was to unveil backstories, to reveal motivations, to delve into his characters. He focuses on the people rather than the plot.

Russell's directing is a bit more on point than last year's Silver Linings Playbook. He downplays the camera as an active participant, although it is not quite the invisible observer we are accustomed to. The cinematography and editing are unexciting. He steps back as a director to showcase his actors, and it was the right move. Russell allows his actors to breathe, to inhabit their characters, to follow them wherever they go.

Christian Bale somehow offers us a charismatic, sympathetic view of an intensely unlikeable, unattractive man. Underneath his bad combover is a hyper-functioning brain and below that still is a broken, aching heart. We care for him, although any rational person seeing his character in real life and hearing about his actions would find him repugnant and deplorable. That we are able to cheer for him at the end is a testament to his acting ability. Jennifer Lawrence gives an equally impressive turn as his wife. She unwittingly manipulates, she foolishly destroys, she ferociously loves. She is a mess, a chaos of emotion that falls apart and builds itself anew daily. She finds strength amidst mental illness in such a way that it tears us up. Lawrence makes her character human in the most unexpected of ways, in the simplest of words, in the subtlest of gestures.

I could go on and on about the rest of the cast--Amy Adams and Bradley Cooper deliver perhaps the finest performances of their careers--but I would rather you experience it for yourself. It is one thing to read about these characters; it is an entirely different thing to watch them light up the screen. And seeing this ensemble perform is absolutely mesmerizing.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1800241/