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/

Interstellar (2014)

2/5

Christopher Nolan's overindulgent Interstellar is a pretentious pile of crap. It will draw instant comparisons to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, mostly because it's overlong and cerebral, but it doesn't achieve nearly the same success as its predecessor in the field of art or entertainment. The plot is the least important part of the movie, but Nolan spends an exorbitant amount of time and effort explaining all its inane details. Whereas 2001 contained groundbreaking universal ideas, Interstellar contains unexciting characters performing specific tasks in a fictitious world. Nolan adds in an emotional tug that was absent in 2001, but it almost serves as the antithesis of the existential crisis at the core of both sci-fi films. I never felt myself pulled in by the relationship between Matthew McConaughey and his daughter (it felt inauthentic) or by Anne Hathaway's silly monologue about believing in love over science.

But my biggest problem with the film is that everything is wrapped up too neatly. I normally enjoy circular stories--where the end brings everything back to the beginning--but here it feels so written, so planned, so deceptive. The movie is too tidy for the big ideas it presents. Nolan tries to lecture and explain instead of let the film exist as a jumping off point. He wants to control the discussion instead of letting the discussion occur organically. Perhaps 2001's greatest strength is that it was so unexplained, so open to interpretation. Interstellar doesn't have that, and it leaves the movie flat. Despite the gorgeous visuals, spot-on acting, and surprise cameo, the movie just doesn't do it for me.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692

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/

Mud (2012)

4/5

Mud is essentially a coming-of-age tale hidden within a character study wrapped in a crime thriller. One fateful morning, Ellis (Sheridan) and Neckbone (Lofland) meet a mysterious stranger with crosses under his boots and a gun tucked into his pants who calls himself Mud (McConaughey). Ellis cautiously helps Mud get food and supplies so that he can flee the people chasing him, but soon finds himself getting in way over his head. As the danger mounts and he gets deeper and deeper into trouble, Ellis discovers that Mud may not be who he thinks he is.

Mud is a uniquely American movie, although not because of its setting or vernacular. It projects universal ideas, but does it with an American ethos and sensibility: the loneliness of rejection, the guilt of parents' divorce, the hurt of being lied to. It echoes an honesty and authenticity that is rare in modern film, but it's ultimately unsatisfying. The resolution at the end, while exciting and stimulating, feels a little barebones. It supplants emotional truth with a gunfight, it forgoes maturation and change for a protection borne of necessity, and it wraps up way too many threads into what ends up being one very eventful night for our protagonist. But it tries so hard to be something so good that it is hard not to give it credit. It's a wonderful film with big ideas that doesn't quite meet its own lofty ambitions.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1935179/

The Lincoln Lawyer (2011)

3/5

Michael Connelly's The Lincoln Lawyer is an unexpectedly thrilling crime/courtroom drama. Mick Haller (McConaughey) is the titular lawyer who takes on the case of Louis Roulet (Phillippe), a wealthy playboy accused of assaulting a prostitute. Roulet is unwilling to take any deals or plead anything besides not guilty, so Haller considers it a challenge worthy of his skills. However, Haller discovers some information that makes him doubt Roulet's honesty and innocence, which ends up putting him in quite the pickle as he debates breaking attorney-client privilege.

The opening credits were well-done, evoking an authentic 70's feel that unfortunately was never carried through to the rest of the film. Likewise, the story started with enormous potential, but it quickly whittled its way down to the predictable and expected. Connelly's writing is exciting, but not particularly original or mind-blowing. The pacing unfortunately turned out to be one of the movie's weaker suits. The characters' motivations were revealed too early, which just left you waiting for events to unfold instead of having you sit on the edge of your seat wondering who was telling the truth and who was not.

All in all, the movie has its ups and downs, which balances it out to about 3 stars. McConaughey does a fine job as the lead, but there's something about him I just don't like in this film. I think it's his gaunt eyes and cachectic face that ooze a sense of unease and distrust. His character might be a little sleazy, but I don't think I'm supposed to find him so eerily unsettling. Some of the supporting actors are spectacular (viz. William H. Macy) while others are not (viz. Ryan Phillippe). For a mindless piece of entertainment, The Lincoln Lawyer is decent, but that's about all I'll give it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1189340/

Magic Mike (2012)

2/5

Steven Soderbergh's Magic Mike is loosely based on Channing Tatum's early stripping days in Tampa. It is essentially a dance movie like Step Up with more bare chests and pelvic thrusts. The plotting is uninspired: Tatum introduces 19-year-old Adam (Pettyfer) to male stripping, When Adam discovers he has a knack for it, he becomes entrenched in drugs and high-risk sexual behavior. Tatum is trying to get out of the stripping "business," although I personally thought his dancing was better than his custom furniture, which teetered between eyesore and offensive. It's nothing you haven't seen before, and it's not done particularly well by Soderbergh this time. The dancing was "Xquisite," but the acting was not. McConaughey did give an uncharacteristically competent and believable performance, and Tatum's acting continues to gradually improve, but I would still place both of them in the category of "would not cast in my own movie unless I wanted star power." On the whole, it's a decent enough movie but fails to introduce us to anything new or different.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1915581/