Review: The Book of Life

Release date: October 17, 2014
Running time: 95 minutes
Starring: Diego Luna, Zoe Saldana, Channing Tatum 
Who to see it with: Your kids or childhood friend

David:

An animated movie from 20th Century Fox from a relatively unknown animation studio, The Book of Life didn't inspire a ton of confidence in me going into the screening. However, what I experienced was a colorful, imaginative, and beautifully animated film. The imagination and creativity shouldn't come as much of a surprise, given the attachment of Guillermo del Toro, but what was surprising was how much I enjoyed it the story.

Starting with the animation, it's absolutely beautiful with some detailed characters and really spectacular touches. The story is told as if being reenacted by puppets, so the characters in the main film all look the part. It's a small touch, but one that definitely helps the overall feel of the movie and the sense of story. Additionally, the style is downright amazing, with vibrant colors and imaginative sets. The movie definitely gets its style from the Mexico inspired setting, which gives you some bright sets and wonderful costumes. 

The story itself is fairly typical kids story, but it is an enjoyable journey with some really fun characters. Although it seems to start with a sexist premise, it ends up being much more than that, with some good lessons for kids about expectations, friendship, and machismo. Additionally, the music is wonderful. The film uses contemporary songs that are redone by the main character, who plays a Spanish guitar. It's a treat to hear a song that you recognize redone in a Latin style, and I was definitely smiling as the film worked some contemporary hits into the story. The Book of Life is a vibrant and imaginative kids movie that will entertain while teaching some valuable lessons.

Watch it.

Review: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Release date: August 8, 2014
Running time: 101 minutes
Starring: Megan Fox, Will Arnett, William Fichtner 
Who to see it with: A Michael Bay fan or someone who watched these as a kid

David:

I fully expected to hate Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. With the turtles being such a large part of my childhood, and already having starred in a few movies, a Michael Bay-produced felt like a Hollywood cash grab. However, after seeing the new film, I can safely say that although the film isn't perfect, it's still pretty radical. TMNT attempts to introduce a new generation of kids (and possibly adults) to this storied franchise. In it, young reporter April O'Neil (Fox) is attempting to break out of her unimportant fluff stories by investigating an underground crime gang called the foot clan. This investigation leads to a random encounter with four teenage mutant ninja turtles who are trying to fight back against the foot clan.

The first and most immediately noticeable part of the new movie is the heavy use of CG, whereas previous iterations used make up. For the turtles, this was less distracting than I thought it would be. I hardly noticed the CG and it rarely took me out of the movie. For Splinter, however, it looked pretty bad; he looked more like a rat corpse than a furry mentor. But, if the movie is going to get one or the other right, I'm glad that they got the turtles; I just wish they could have nailed both. The movie is clearly a Michael Bay movie, with some of his trademark effects: certain sounds reminded me of transformers, some of the characters look like they could be in transformers, and there were plenty of elaborate set pieces, like in transformers. And, in true Bay fashion, the story is serviceable enough to move but not very deep--basically a perfect summer movie. 

But, the best part about the new films was that they got the turtles personalities right. Leo leads, Donatello invents (although not as much as I would have hoped), Raph is hot-headed, and Mike is silly and provides a lot of the comic relief. The film also captures the series's blend of humorous and serious moments. There is a particular scene leading to the climactic final encounter that had the entire theater laughing. TMNT is not a cinematic masterpiece, but then again it doesn't want to be. It's like Rocky Road ice cream: it's enjoyable, it will bring you back to your childhood, it's not very complex but has plenty to keep you entertained, and it is perfect for a hot summer day. 

Cowabunga! See it.

Review: Calvary

Release date: August 1, 2014
Running time: 100 minutes
Starring: Brendan Gleeson, Kelly Reilly, Chris O'Dowd
Who to see it with: A fan of DARK comedy

David:

One of the aspects of Calvary that I loved was that there is no single theme that permeates the film. The movie deals with some complex issues in a refreshingly nuanced way, issues such as good vs. evil, old vs. new, orthodox vs. revisionist, hate vs. forgiveness. The film follows an old school catholic priest, Father Lavelle (Gleeson), who refuses to adopt to the modern approach to religion. He is not married, lives a relatively simple life, and dons the older-style cossack as opposed to some of the modern, kinder garb of the priesthood. Set after some truly horrific discoveries about the Catholic church in Ireland, Lavelle's flock is completely disenfranchised with the church and religion in general. 

The film is a DARK comedy, kind of the darkest of the dark. Lavelle is constantly under fire from his parish because of the sins of his institution, but doesn't help the situation with his old school mentality and unapologetically honest assessments of people. The movie is divided into three acts, with the mood becoming progressively darker as the film progresses. It works as a sort of who-done-it film, opening with a shocking revelation and then progressing as the priest deals with this information. The third act of the film loses most of the comedy, and although it doesn't bolster you mood, the experience of watching Father Lavelle is so great that you probably won't mind.

The heart of this movie is its acting, specifically the performance of Gleeson. Gleeson is phenomenal and really carries the film. His acting is believable and unforgiving, and seeing him plod away through the film is a joy despite the fairly depressing story. His daughter (Reilly) is another treat and the connection between the two actors is obvious on screen. Most of the other characters are good to serviceable, but some of them feel like they are extreme caricatures that can be entertaining, but also unrealistic enough to break the mood. Some of them feel like less stylized Wes Anderson characters. Additionally, as I mentioned earlier, the town is completely against Lavelle, which can be grating at times. However, part of that is by design because as the film progresses and becomes darker, you really start to feel the weight that Lavelle has to carry. Rarely do you get so invested in a character, and Calvary is one such opportunity. The film is a great, meticulously crafted experience that explores some common themes in a nuanced and unapologetic way. 

See it.

Review: Boyhood

Release date: July 18, 2014
Running time: 166 minutes
Starring: Ellar Coltrane, Patricia Arquette, Ethan Hawke, Lorelei Linklater
Who to see it with: Anyone who has had a childhood

David:

I tried to think of something that I've done that's taken 12 years. I originally thought of my education, but despite many, many years in college, it doesn't cross the 12 year mark. The closest thing would be my longest (and essentially only) relationship, but even that hasn't quite lasted a dozen years. What director Richard Linklator has done is nothing short of astounding; dedicating himself to filming a family for this period of time. This allows the audience to watch Mason (Coltrane) literally grow before their eyes from ages 5 to 18. You get to see young Mason go through school, move to a new city, experience puberty, have dreams and expectations, and experience hardship; basically, the audience gets the opportunity to watch him experience life. And as Mason grows, so does the cast around him: his sister, his mother, his father, and some special people throughout his "life."

Additionally, the film acts as a sort of time capsule, authentically reminding you of past periods as the story progresses. Cell phones become more modern, musical tastes change, the internet becomes more prevalent; essentially everything that movies try to do to capture a specific period in time is done perfectly because of the unique situation of this film. 

If there is one criticism of Boyhood, it's that there aren't many overly dramatic moments. Life has highs and lows, and so does this movie, but nothing really earth shattering happens to young Mason or his family. I guess the director wanted to simply focus on the intricacies of life, the subtle changes that happen as we grow up, or maybe Linklater wanted to portray a more normal, non-Hollywood life. Either way, I kept expecting a tectonic shift to occur that never did. However, I can't fault the movie for realistically portraying life when that is the point of the film.

Boyhood is a masterpiece due to the dedication and care that Linklater takes to craft this experience. Just thinking about the risk that the director took for this project blows my mind: what if one of the actors quit acting or died, what if Coltrane ended up being a poor actor years later, what if any number of things happened in the intervening 12 years? However, all great art carries with it inherent risks, and like all great risks, the potential payout is immense. 

See it.

Review: Obvious Child

Release date: June 6, 2014 (DC area June 13)
Running time: 85 minutes
Starring: Jenny Slate, Jake Lacy, Gaby Hoffmann, David Cross
Who to see it with: Anyone who has lived in New York

David:

One of the things I love about independent movies is the opportunity those movies give to lessor known actors. You can see some stars you've never heard of--or only seen tangentially--shine when they're finally given the chance. I didn't know who Jenny Slate was, but after Obvious Child, I'm excited to see what she does next. The movie doesn't bill itself very well; it seems like a vehicle for a stand-up comic to make the jump to major films. But don't let the terrible trailer steer you wrong. What you get with Obvious Child is a unique movie that feels very genuine in its humor and message.

What I loved about the film are the various personalities that you meet. The characters are all fairly extreme caricatures of individuals you would meet in New York, but in the context of the film, they fit perfectly. The humor is fairly modern and pretty raunchy at times, but those hoping for a little more edge to their movies will appreciate it. And the humor is not all stand-up; Jenny Slate's routines make up an important part of the film but they are not even a majority of the movie. The rest of the humor is in the context of ridiculous and realistic conversations between the characters. The plot of the film focuses on a situation that is easily relatable to. And that is probably the great thing about Obvious Child, it's a film that straddles the line between believable and silly, and does it perfectly. It's a genuinely funny film, with an equal combination of crazy and heart. 

Watch

Review: Edge of Tomorrow

Release date: June 6, 2014

Running time: 113 minutes

Starring: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brendan Gleeson

Who to see it with: A fan of sci-fi films or video games

David:

Edge of Tomorrow follows an unlikely soldier who gets the ability to restart his day whenever he makes a mistook.... Edge of Tomorrow follows an unlikely soldier with the ability to restart his day whenever he makes a mistake.  It's a premise that is instantly familiar to anyone who has seen Groundhog Day; in fact, I imagine the pitch for this film was "It's Groundhog Day, with guns."  And you know what, that's a pretty great premise to start from.  PR manager turned soldier Cage (Cruise) is thrown into the battlefield and then discovers that every time that he dies, he goes back to the previous day. As he slowly tries to figure out why this is happening, he also begins to learn the battle and be able to avoid pitfalls that had previously caused him to restart his day.

It's a great premise and made all the more enjoyable by Cruise's performance. His character is not likable at first, and he plays it to perfection. As he experiences the same day over and over, he slowly learns from his experiences and changes in important ways. In fact, it's another similar premise to Groundhog Day, but instead of Cruise becoming a lovable town hero, he becomes a super soldier. Blunt plays another badass soldier who believes Cage's crazy story tries to train him to fully utilize his gift. The surprise performance is by Bill Paxton, who plays the field commander / drill sergeant to perfection. His performance is so enjoyable that you see the same sequence over and over again but still are surprised by what happens. And I guess that's the best part of this movie; that you can see the same basic sequence of events for two hours and still enjoy the surprises that come from it.

The effects of the film are top notch, however I could have used a better antagonist. The enemies of the film are designed to be scary, and successfully at that, but do look a little too ridiculous. But, that being said, the movie feels a lot like a video game, with many similar themes. The "rebooting" mechanic is the most noticeable, but also the unrealistic enemy and dire situation just scream triple-A game. And I loved it! As games have become more cinematic in their presentation and mechanics, it's only natural that those two areas begin to bleed over. And, like many video games, the ending of the film is ambiguous. Some people may not like this, but I enjoyed having a conversation with someone right after about our different, legitimate, conclusions. Edge of Tomorrow is another very good Tom Cruise sci-fi film (following last year's Oblivion) that you should make sure to see.

Review: X-Men: Days of Future Past

Release date: May 23, 2014
Running time: 131 minutes
Starring: Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence
Who to see it with: Comic movie lovers or anyone that liked First Class.

David:

What do you do when you have two popular X-Men story lines, one from the original series that went off the rails in the end, and the other from a surprisingly good prequel? Combine the two threads, obviously, and what you get is another surprisingly good X-Men movie and a perfect way to kick off the summer. In Days of Future Past, Wolverine (Jackman) travels back in time to stop a series of events that lead to creation of the deadly sentinel program. In order to do that, Wolverine must attempt to get Professor X (McAvoy) and Magneto (Fassbender) to work together at a time when they despised each other. 

With a plot line that aims at preventing the apocalypse, you can expect an epic story. There is an overarching sense of dread that permeates the story, and the events in both the past and present are especially apocalyptic. The plot jumps back and forth between the past and the present, with the events of the past theoretically determining the outcome in the future. This past / present dichotomy does provide some nice tension in the film, and gives you a chance to see some more mutants using their powers, but it doesn't necessarily make sense. But, then again it's a movie about mutants who can travel back in time, so I can forgive some temporal issues. 

Most of your favorite characters are back from both the original X-Men and First Class, and the new mutants that are introduced are fun to see and great additions to the already large Marvel roster. I especially liked Quicksilver, who has one of the most enjoyable action sequences in any of the Marvel movies. The special effects are top notch, as usual, and although there is a lot of CG, it is very well done and not instantly obvious. There are also some good callbacks to the previous movies that will have fans smiling. But, all in all, the movie is just fun; it's fun to see the various comic book characters on the big screen and the movie has a nice blend of action and humor. Overall, Days of Future Past is a worthy sequel to the surprisingly good First Class and a great way to kick off the summer movie season.

Watch it.

Review: Godzilla

Release date: May 16, 2014
Running time: 123 minutes
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen, Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins, Bryan Cranston
Who to see it with: Giant monster lovers

Lee:

It's been almost exactly sixteen years since the release of America's last production featuring Japan's best-known giant monster. (Godzilla 2000 was imported from Japan for a brief theatrical run.) Unlike the 1998 film, in which scientists and soldiers battled the creature, Godzilla has more in common with the series' films that pit the beast against similarly sized opponents. Conspiracy theorist Joe Brody (Cranston) and his soldier son Ford (Taylor-Johnson) join together to investigate a suspected cover-up of a nuclear meltdown's real cause, ultimately bringing them face-to-face with a seemingly unstoppable, radiation-seeking MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism). The appearance of another creature—one that, while destructive simply due to its huge size, seems primarily interested in fighting the MUTO—leads two scientists (Watanabe, Hawkins) to propose a controversial alternative.

Godzilla presents its story of humans dealing with giant, fighting monsters in a very grounded, restrained manner. You see very little of the title character until the final act. Earlier appearances by the creatures are often brief, shrouded in darkness or presented through distant perspectives, like news footage of one fight feels like a bit like a tease. More attention is paid to the less interesting humans' reaction to the madness. There's more restraint than expected in a summer blockbuster, giving the less frequent, more spectacular scenes a greater sense of anticipation and satisfaction. The sense of scale is awesome—even when the creatures are off-screen, the shots of their massive caves and trails of destruction make their presence felt and really make the humans seem puny in comparison.

The early portion of the story that builds Joe and Ford's relationship provides a solid emotional foundation, but once the military begins pursuing the creatures the plot mostly serves to string together massive, special effects-filled events. Aside from Joe, the characters have little to do other than speak the usual action/disaster story dialogue and run from their fearsome tormentors. Fortunately, the great special effects and the impressive direction make up for the average, sometimes boring characters. Brief glimpses of innocent bystanders running to safety sometimes seem unnecessary, but they stop the longer sequences from becoming tiring, tedious special effects showcases. Godzilla's plot and human characters are nothing special, but its cool visuals and effects impress more than most blockbusters'.

Watch it.

Review: Cuban Fury

Release date: April 11, 2014

Running time: 98 minutes

Starring: Nick Frost, Rashida Jones, Chris O'Dowd, Olivia Colman, Kayvan Novak

Who to see it with: Someone who loves the Cornetto Trilogy

David:

Bruce Garrett (Frost) used to be an international salsa dancing sensation, until a run in with some teenagers squelched the fire under his feet and ended his love affair with Latin dance. However, when he uncovers that his attractive new boss (Jones) also loves the dance of fire, he's determined to rekindle the flame of salsa to win her over. If this sounds like a ridiculous premise, it's because it is. The premise of the film makes no sense but it doesn't have to. The film itself is surprisingly funny and Frost is a loveable character that you want to see succeed. He's joined by a funny supporting cast including his sister (Colman) and a surprisingly outrageous friend / dance companion in Novak. All the characters are over the top, especially Garrett's teacher (played by Ian McShane), and are enjoyable to watch. I didn't care much for Garrett's coworker (played by O'Dowd); I know that he's supposed to be an annoying antagonist but at some point his antics went from being annoying to being absurd.

As I said before, the film has a pretty ridiculous premise and, as a result, the plot is equally comical. But it's supposed to be and it works for this film. Like the dance that inspired the film, the pacing is steady with very little slow down. The dialog is mostly sharp with what appears to be a nice mix of written dialog and improvised content. And, since the film is based on dancing, the dancing itself is mostly enjoyable. Frost, understandably, does not shine as a dancer but the film does what it can to minimize you noticing. He does an admirable job trying to showcase this difficult dance, but there are some noticeable moments that just look off. But, that being said, part of the draw of the film is seeing Frost do the salsa and for fans looking for that won't be disappointed. In the end, Cuban Fury is a ridiculous, but funny, movie that fans of the Cornetto Trilogy should definitely check out.

Watch it.

Review: Need for Speed

Release date: March 14, 2014
Running time: 130 minutes
Starring: Aaron Paul, Dominic Cooper, Scott Mescudi, Imogen Poots, Rami Malek
Who to see it with: Someone who loves the Fast and Furious movies, or fast cars, or video games.

David:

Those looking for a Fast & Furious fix while Universal reworks the seventh movie should check out Need for Speed. Based on the EA video game franchise, Need for Speed follows Tobey, a talented racer who never got a chance to race in the big leagues. Tobey enters an underground, winner-takes-all street race to get revenge for a past wrong (which is set up earlier in the film). However, in order to participate, Tobey must both acquire a fast car and get to the race, a journey all it's own. 

Need for Speed really seems like a movie based on the game, with a predictable story, bad writing, transparent and stereotypical characters, over-the-top action, and crazy events. But, since it is based on a video game, this all seems natural. The story itself is more involved than I expected it to be. Need for Speed doesn't live life a quarter mile at a time, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. The movie does a lot of setup to introduce the main characters and their predicament, so it's understandable that this translates into a long film. It does seem like some of the back story and certain scenes in the middle aren't necessary, but the movie didn't seem overly long and I enjoyed having a story with some depth in a video game film. Plus, Tobey's main crew are a fun group of characters; they're not as tight as the group in Fast and Furious movies, but they all have great roles to play and it was nice to see characters in a support role for the main racer. 

The film also has little touches here and there that evoke the source material: certain camera angles from within the car cockpit, funny lines that fans of the series will understand, some of the in-movie graphics, and the use of race check marks. The racing itself is very well done with crazy speed and exciting moments. It feels like there aren't as many set pieces as in Fast 6, but maybe that's because that movie bordered on the ridiculous. And like the video game, Need for Speed has some very sexy cars. One of the races in particular is a wet dream of amazing automobiles, something that Fast and Furious--with a more tuner mentality--doesn't have. In the end, Need for Speed might be the first good video game movie. It has a fun cast of characters, great racing, and some of the sexiest cars you'll ever see. 

See it.

Review: Mr. Peabody & Sherman

Release date: March 7, 2014
Running time: 92 minutes
Starring: Ty Burrell, Max Charles, Stephen Colbert, Ariel Winter, Allison Janney
Who to see it with: Someone with nostalgia for the cartoon and doesn't care about the most accurate history.

David:

In Mr. Peabody & Sherman, the cartoon made popular by the Rocky and Bullwinkle show gets a feature-length film. Peabody, a supremely brilliant and talented dog adopts Sherman and teaches him about history by going back in time. Peabody, as the overconfident, overprotective parent, feels the need to take care of Sherman completely, which translates well with what occurs in the cartoon. In the cartoon, Peabody lectures Sherman and holds his hand throughout their adventures; however, in the movie, he must learn to let Sherman be more independent if he's going to grow up.

The animation is beautiful and Dreamworks has done a great job translating the original, hand-drawn cartoon (and much of the original story) into a computer generated movie. They've also made the time machine itself, and those sequences utilizing it, much more impressive than what occurred in the cartoon. Much of the film takes place in the past. Although history buffs might not enjoy that aspect of the film, I thought that it provided fun glimpses of history. Additionally, these short takes on historical events might encourage some of the kids (and adults) watching it to do their own research and learn about the past. These sections are not the most accurate depictions, and plenty of them are highly stereotypical, but for a cartoon I thought it did a pretty good job of entertaining while introducing these historical time periods. The place where the movie shined were the jokes. There was plenty of humor for both young and old to enjoy, and plenty of jokes that kids aren't going to get but will have adults laughing out loud. The best animated movies can be enjoyed by all moviegoers and this is no exception. Additionally, although the film touches on some good lessons for kids to learn, such as bullying and family. I wasn't expecting great things out of this film, and if I could I would go back to tell myself to give the movie more credit. Mr. Peabody & Sherman is a perfect example of Hollywood translating a beloved old property into a modern, and enjoyable movie.

Watch.

Review: The Lego Movie

Release date: February 7, 2014

Running time: About 95 minutes

Starring: Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Alison Brie, Morgan Freeman
Who to see it with: Anyone with kids.

David:

If there's one toy that pretty much every kid has played with, it's Legos.  The little building blocks are available in every toy store and in probably any kid's play room.  Although the toys have been around forever, the brand has recently started moving into new territory, starting with a successful line of Lego-themed video games.  The Lego Movie is a natural extension to the video games, a computer animated adventure through all things Lego. In the movie, an ordinary Lego man is forced to go on an extraordinary journey to save the Lego world. 

The animation is beautiful and imaginative.  As would be expected, the Lego theme permeates everything about the film, from the sets and environments, to the props and effects. It's amazing to see the creativity of the animators, with little touches like an entire desert with rolling hills or a vast sea that, on closer inspection, are made completely of individual blocks. It's so subtle that you don't notice it at times, but when you do it's simply amazing. The animation is also solid, although there are spots when it's too jerky for my taste. I'm not sure if that is by design to simulate how they would move in an actual Legos play session, but it's distracting. Fortunately, it's not a normal occurrence.

The story takes a lot of cues from various other Warner Brothers properties, most notably the Matrix. It is a pretty typical children's movie with a message of being happy with who you are. Lots of the lines and themes seem drawn from many other kids films, but it's not necessarily a bad theme to reinforce. The Lego license is in full effect with cameos from a variety of Lego-licensed properties including DC Comics, Lord of the Rings, and more. The plot jumps around a lot, which makes it tough to follow, but at the same time allows you to visit many different areas. The voice acting is good, with some very well known personalities lending their voices to the film. In the end, the animation is wonderful and the imaginative sets and Lego themes make up for a story I've seen many times before.  

Watch it.

Review: August: Osage County

Release date: December 25, 2013 (January 10, 2014 in DC area)

Running time: 121 minutes

Starring: Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Chris Cooper, Ewan McGregor, Margo Martindale
Who to see it with: Someone with a dysfunctional family, or who wants to see some spectacular acting.

David:

Dysfunctional families have been done before in movies. However, it is rarely done as genuinely as in August: Osage County. The movie doesn't just do a dysfunctional family, the movie builds one from scratch, adding layer after wonderful, terrible layer to this situation. Each member of the Weston family has their own quirks, phobias, and conditions, but it doesn't feel contrived in this movie, it feels like a natural extension to a terribly messed up family. Each new revelation is fitting to the characters and situation that this family is living under; and as they build, the characters grow gradually and naturally. 

As mentioned above, the characters are all dysfunctional and feel like a natural cast of differently messed up people. None of the family members are the same, or are even similar, and their growth throughout the film is wonderful. And those characters are brought to life by some truly amazing acting. Rarely do you watch a movie where every actor gives such a natural and amazing performance for so complex a character; each one could be nominated for their own respective best actor/actress category. And the writing is also great. Probably because the movie was originally a play, the dialog is sharp and economical while still providing plenty of context for the viewers to follow along. It doesn't feel like any lines are throw away lines, each one is placed for the benefit of the audience.

This care also translates into the overall movie. The film has a relatively simple setup, with most of it taking place in the old family house with a small group of characters. And yet, there is plenty for the audience to see, plenty of new situations and locations for the audience to experience. The dinner scene is probably one of my favorite scenes in any movie, simply because it was a simple setup that highlights how great the characters and writing are. There really isn't much to criticize about August: Osage County. It's a decidedly dark movie, much darker than any of the trailers let on, but it's an experience that is worth having. The performances, the characters, everything about it feels genuine and lovingly crafted. 

Watch it.

Review: her

Release date: January 10, 2014

Running time: 120 minutes

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Scarlett Johansson, Rooney Mara, Chris Pratt
Who to see it with: Someone looking for an original, genuine, and off-beat romantic movie.

David:

her is a fresh, interesting romantic movie. After watching the trailer, I had an inclination that I would love it. After experiencing this complex look into both traditional and more abstract relationships twice, I can honestly say I loved this film. Spike Jonze's film is set in a believable near future where Theodore (Phoenix), a lonely writer, develops a relationship with an artificial intelligence. This seemingly preposterous setting acts as a launching pad for a deep look into both traditional and unconventional relationships in an increasingly connected and tech dependent society.

What stands out about this film is the brilliant performance of Joaquin Phoenix. By being the only on screen presence for the majority of the movie, he is asked to carry much of the film and does so amazingly. His conversations with "Samantha," the AI (Johansson) have a very real quality to them, from an initial hesitance born of the new situation and inherent awkwardness, to a more comfortable honeymoon stage in a relationship, you are easily drawn into these two characters and want to believe that their romance can succeed. Part of the credit also goes to Johansson for delivering a great performance that is both realistic but also pleasantly confined to the limitations of what a artificial intelligence might be able to know. 

Additionally, Spike Jonze's cinematography is absolutely stunning, with some beautiful shots lit to perfection. He has an amazing eye for film and the beauty of the "paradise" world is perfectly contrasted with how lonely a large portion of the population are. It's such an interesting premise and is realized perfectly. Everything about this unbelievable story is believable. The technology, the fashion, and the mannerisms of the populace all feel like something that we could have in a couple decades. In the end, what Spike Jonze has managed to accomplish is create a genuine, believable movie about a wholly unbelievable situation. 

Watch it.

Review: The Wolf of Wall Street

Release date: December 25, 2013

Running time: 180 minutes

Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler
Who to see it with: A Scorsese fan, or someone who likes over the top situations

David:

The Wolf of Wall Street is Scorsese’s debaucherous announcement that he is still at the top of the filmmaking game. It tells the story of millionaire Wall Street investor Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio) who created a stock brokerage firm, Stratton Oakmont, that quickly rose to be a multi-million dollar Wall Street player. The firm started earning Belfort millions overnight and he spent that money quickly and lavishly on insane outings and office events. As crazy as this sounds, the movie is actually based on Belfort's book and appears to be a somewhat accurate retelling of his story (assuming you believe his own account). 

For this film, Scorsese reunites with his movie staple Leonardo DiCaprio who masterfully portrays a complicated character. Belfort was an amazing salesman, inspiring corporate leader, and ruthless stock broker. DiCaprio’s portrayal is stunning, with a wonderful take on this complicated, and consistently intoxicated, person. His performance is inspired, ridiculous, and amazing. Joining him is Jonah Hill, who I usually find annoying, but is perfect as Belfort's right-hand man Seth. Like DiCaprio, he is required to be consistently intoxicated and over-the-top and answers the call every time.

The movie is not without it’s flaws. It’s a LONG film--the runtime is about 3 hours--but I honestly didn’t notice the length as I was watching it. Additionally, the story is pretty absurd, but on a quick read it appears to be a fairly accurate portrayal of what happened (depending on who you ask of course, Seth apparently disputes some of the events). Finally, for a movie featuring this much debauchery, there is a good amount of nudity, sex, and drug use. If that’s not your thing, this isn’t the movie for you. But for those of you that would like to see Scorsese at his best, buy some stock in The Wolf of Wall Street. The movie is one of the year’s best, has style, drama, and debauchery, and is something that should not be short sold.

Watch it.

Review: Saving Mr. Banks

Release date: December 20, 2013

Running time: 125 minutes

Starring: Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Annie Rose Buckley, Paul Giamatti, Colin Farrell
Who to see it with: A Mary Poppins fan (so pretty much anyone)

David:

Saving Mr. Banks has a very interesting premise, it sets out to tell the story of how Mary Poppins was made, from securing the rights to the original novel to some of the design and musical choices for the film itself. Although it doesn't sound very interesting, the story and the presentation are fascinating to see. Much of the film showcases the back and forth between Walt Disney, who promised his children to make their favorite book into a film, and P. L. Travers, who absolutely does not want to sell the rights to Mary Poppins. While telling this story, the film flashes back to Travers childhood to reveal aspects of Travers herself and some of the inspirations for her famous book. Although it could be jarring, it's done amazingly well, revealing a little bit of the story at a time that tends to parallel the events that are happening in the "present."  

The first thing you'll notice about the movie is that the acting is wonderful and all the characters are perfectly cast. Emma Thompson is practically dreadful as Ms. Travers; Tom Hanks absolutely transforms for this role and takes on a completely new persona for Walt Disney. Paul Giamatti is genuinely endearing as Travers's driver and Colin Farrell might be the most impressive of the bunch--I haven't seen him in a role where he can be so genuine, charming, and complicated at the same time. The writing is fun and the interactions between Disney and Travers seem genuine and horrible at the same time. But, the most important thing about this film is that the movie has plenty of cues to the original Mary Poppins. The musical cues, sayings from the film, and other reference instantly evoke a sense of nostalgia and brought a smile to my face. And when the music is not drawn from the original film, it does a great job of setting the mood and evoking the proper emotion from the viewer.

Very few movies come along that are practically perfect in every way. Saving Mr. Banks is a wonderful experience both for the nostalgia that it evokes as well as the amazing story it tells.  Although it takes some liberties with the story, it is still an interesting one to experience. 

Watch it.

PS - There is a stinger that occurs right after the credits start. Make sure to stay for it because it's well worth it!

Lee:

I haven't seen Mary Poppins so I have no nostalgia for it, though it's been referenced enough that I am familiar with the character and a few of the songs. Nostalgia and familiarity will surely benefit your time with this heartwarming family film, so heartwarming that it occasionally seems a little too sweet. I agree that the actors are great, especially Emma Thompson. Ms. Travers is pretty cold and stubborn, but Thompson and the writing manage to make her concerns valid, her bristly nature funny and her pain sympathetic. Unfortunately, Ms. Travers is a character in a Disney film, and the plot goes through fairly predictable motions in its second half. One major moment wouldn't seem out of place in a Disneyland commercial, dramatically changing the mood in a way that seems to imply that the place is truly magical.

Still, I think it's worth seeing just because it's an entertaining tale of a stubborn writer repeatedly clashing with an overwhelmingly cheerful movie studio about an increasingly loose film adaptation. I could easily see someone adapting this story in a much more cynical way. Hanks's Disney is charming, perhaps too charming. A pivotal conservation near the end between he and Travers is designed for sentimentality, but if presented slightly differently would seem like an example of a clever executive slyly manipulating his desired source material's owner. I doubt the relationship between the real Ms. Travers and Disney ended in such a tidy manner. Despite the excess sentimentality and abrupt character changes, Ms. Travers is such a good character that she elevates what could have been just an overly predictable family. Watching others grapple with her chilly personality is always enjoyable. SMB will be popular with anyone wanting a more lighthearted, but not silly, alternative to more serious and edgy awards season movies like Mandela and The Wolf of Wall Street.

Rent it.