Foxcatcher: If Michael Scott Was Insane...

Director Bennett Miller has a magnificent talent.  I'm not talking his talent as a director or as a storyteller, even though those qualities are also quite phenomenal.  No, his talent is that he's able to take an actor or actors that may or may not have had some sort of stigma of not being a serious actor or even a great actor and turning them into something unseen in film before.  Phillip Seymour Hoffman was a character actor sure, but before Capote no one really knew just how GREAT the man actually was.  Moneyball showed us that Jonah Hill wasn't a total dipshit and could actually act.  However, Miller's greatest feat is Foxcatcher.  He is somehow able to transform (and not just through makeup) Steve Carell from one of the most likable comedic faces in Hollywood into an unsympathetic psycho creep.  The magic doesn't even stop there!  Guess what?  Channing Tatum... can act!  He's not just a "charming potato", but he's an actual actor with actual talent.  Go.  Figure.

So, I've learned that a lot of people don't actually know the true story that Foxcatcher tells and the unexpected ending that occurs if you're not already familiar, so I will not be spoiling anything.  However, Foxcatcher gives us the relationship between Olympic wrestling gold medalist Mark Schultz and billionaire John Du Pont.  Schultz had won the gold in wrestling in the 84 Olympics and was training for the 88.  His brother David was also a gold winner.  Mark is then contacted by John Du Pont and offers him money to come and stay at the Foxcatcher camp where he and his family reside.  He builds an entire training center and wants to be a coach and a mentor to Mark in order for him to get the gold once again.  The "funny" thing is... Du Pont doesn't know a thing about wrestling.  He's a psychotic billionaire narcissist with a mommy complex.  His mother's views on wrestling were that it was barbaric and a gentleman doesn't get involved with it.  Instead, a gentleman rides horses in competition.  He's a freaky mouth-breathing weirdo who's never been looked up to and never had a friend.  So, when he sees that he can not only use his esteem and his money to buy a trainee, he will also be able to become a mentor to someone, a friend to someone, and show his mommy he's not a total screw-up.

For those of you who've seen The Office John Du Pont is essentially the same person as Michael Scott.  His need to be liked is his sole purpose for living.  Whereas Michael Scott is a quirky and funny and harmless, Du Pont is crazy, dark, and dangerous.  His need for anyone's approval drives him and when he is disappointed his responses are overreactions and violence.  And because someone who doesn't know anything about Olympic wrestling can't be a proper coach, Du Pont recruits Mark's brother Dave to come and help.  This ends up driving a wedge between Mark and Dave because Dave is suspicious of Du Pont and Mark can't see it.  Then later drives a wedge between Dave and Du Pont because Dave only wants the best for his brother and Du Pont thinks Dave is trying to overshadow him.

Tatum is amazing as Mark.  He looks like a hulking man-ape with an overbite that never blinks.  He's always focused on his goal of winning.  If you look at him in the eyes, there's nothing going on upstairs other than wrestling and winning.  It's a commitment to character that we haven't seen from Channing on film yet and it's remarkable.  Mark Ruffalo as Dave is also a stellar performance, but this is what we've come to expect from Ruffalo.  But, it's Carell's performance of Du Pont that steals the show... that makes the film worth watching.  He is literally unrecognizable and dives so deeply into character that we can see Carell's inner dark side.  I compared Du Pont to Michael Scott, but the way the characters act couldn't be more different.  There is no light in Du Pont's eyes.  There is no child-like innocence.  There is a lonely man seeking a friend and approval that can never truly be satisfied that when the end of the movie comes, though it is shocking... it really isn't.

This has been a year for the actor.  So many actors have turned in beautiful performances and literally become other people that we as an audience can easily distinguish the actor from the character... which is what makes a great actor as well as a great film.  If the actor and the character aren't distinguishable... they've failed.  Steve Carell deserves at the very least a nomination, if not the win.  He's a villain played as great as any in the past decade.  Foxcatcher may move at a very slow pace at times, but it's carefully building it's story. It's carefully constructing it's characters.  It's carefully going into the minds of a troubled young man and a disturbed billionaire to inevitably lead up to the unbelievable (yet very true) climax of the film.

A

Unbroken: An Incredible Story, A Decent Movie

A lot of times, going into a movie I'm unable to distance myself from my own preconceived notions of what I think the film is going to be like and how I'm going to react to it.  Occasionally, I'll see a film that I'm expecting to hate and I'll force the movie to change my opinion.  Even more often I'll see a film that I'm expecting to be great and it won't live up to those expectations.  I honestly didn't know if I was going to love or hate Unbroken.  The first preview I saw of it I immediately thought that it was a film that was made solely to win all Oscar gold available for every category, especially with Angelina Jolie attached as director and the biggest selling point of the movie due to a bunch of relatively unknown actors starring in it.  But, then I read that the Coen Brothers wrote the script and my thoughts on the film changed.  It can't be bad at all if the Coens wrote it.  However, the reviews came out and a lot of them were unfavorable.  My guess is that a lot of critics had my first inclination that it was Oscar bait and it let a few of them down... so, my expectations were lowered quite a bit and my interest in the film ceased.  So, by the time my ass hit the theater seat I was expecting to be able to point out all of the points of failure and nitpick the movie down to a C grade... and I was doing that for a little while, but after most of the movie had gone by, it really did win my affection.

Louis Zamperini was an Olympic athlete, a bombardier in World War II, and a prisoner of war in a Japanese internment camp.  All three of these stories are told in Unbroken and really all three of these stories really could've been their own film.  The movie could've been a trilogy and, for once, it wouldn't have been out of greed but out of great storytelling.  However, the decision was to make one movie and tell how this one man overcame a great deal of adversity.  After Zamperini competed in the Olympics and did a very respectable job, he joined the military as a bombardier.  His plane is shot down during a rescue mission and him and two others are stranded on a raft at sea for well over two months.  Inches from death, with no hope in sight, they're finally rescued... by a Japanese freighter.  Instead of being thankful for finally winding up on solid ground, they're immediately thrown into an internment camp led by a malicious Sargent who tortures prisoners at will due to his own emotional predilections. Suffice it so say, Zamperini probably had a better experience dying on a raft in the middle of the ocean.  But, his will to survive is what makes him... yes... unbroken.

It's strange what we as a culture enjoy watching and consider "inspiring".  In this film, you take a man who is genuinely portrayed as a decent human being just get the ever-loving shit kicked out of him.  He's pushed past the brink of sanity and strength.  He's thrown every obstacle one could think of and he overcomes all of it.  Yes, it's inspiring to see what a single human being can deal with if they're strong enough, but the pain never lets up for a second.  We're watching a tortured soul, knowing full well he survives it all, but that's all we get.  Something bad happens, then something worse, then something worse, then something unbelievable (yet true), then something WORSE, and so on until the end when you realized he was able to survive.  It's a torture movie.  It's like watching Passion of the Christ.  Jesus is beaten and hung to death for two hours and then at the end comes back saving the souls of every living being on Earth.  The film is watching him get f#@&ed up, yet when everything is okay at the very end, we're able to say that it was inspiring.  I'm not sure if this is a good thing or not, but we as a society enjoy watching this type of film.  I was getting sick to my stomach watching Zamparini get handled the way he was, but I was even more impressed with the amount of physical abuse he could withstand without killing himself.  It's a strange dichotomy.

I do believe that a lot of the criticism of the film to be a bit accurate.  It's very evident that Jolie is a little bit too emotionally attached to her lead character to distance herself from him and give him a dramatic arc.  He begins the movie as a strong person, almost too perfect and great and ends him on the same pedestal he began on.  It's almost hard to paint the man in a bad light because of everything that happens to him, but he has no flaws during the entire film.  Not that he needs any, but the need to overcome inward adversity as well as outward adversity is what makes great films.  In any instance, I thought the film was very well done, especially for Jolie's second outing as a director.  It's not an easy film to watch, but it is a good film.  And while I don't expect it to win any of the awards I had assumed it was going to, there is a decent little film here about an amazing human being with an incredible story.

B+

Wild: The Meaningful Thousand Mile Journey

Less than ten years ago we were treated with another "someone goes into the wilderness to find themselves" movie with Into The Wild.  It's a good movie, but instead of coming off as poignant and important, the main character kinda has a Holden Caufield effect where the audience loses interest because they don't have the same ideals as Alexander Supertramp.  He's a privileged white kid who is sick of the greed of his upper class family and wants to shed all of his material attachment to the world and live in the wild.  He goes so far as to burn his money and his identification.  While this may be considered a noble gesture by some... by others it's frowned upon.  Flash forward to the end of 2014 and we're given another movie in the same vein only with a female protagonist in Wild.  While the two films may share a few things in common, Wild is a vastly different, as well as far superior, film.

Instead of leaving her life behind in search of being a free person, Cheryl (Reese Witherspoon) is on her own, hiking the Pacific Coast Trail in order to find out who she is as a woman.  If this sounds a little douchy, let me explain.  Cheryl was always the good girl.  She was in school, she had part time jobs in order to help her family make ends meet.  She lives with her mother, her best friend, after they've left her abusive father.  Her mother was the person inspiring her to reach her goals and be the best woman she could possibly be.  After an illness takes her mother at a very young age, Cheryl spirals into a world of promiscuous sex and drugs.  This leads to her marriage ending and her life hitting rock bottom.  Then, she discovers the Pacific Coast trail, a hiking trail that stretches from the border of Mexico in California to Canada.  There, she will learn how to grieve properly for her mother and find out what kind of woman she wants to be.  And while this doesn't sound like the harrowing journey Alexander Supertramp has, it is in no way less important.

It's a beautifully shot film, perfectly acted, and emotionally riveting.  Witherspoon plays Cheryl the way that I assume the real Cheryl would've behaved on the journey.  A woman who'd never hiked in her life, but had to finish the journey at any cost.  She's on her own in the great unknown at her most vulnerable searching for answers that may or may not be out there.  She travels from hundred degree desert heat to freezing cold snow-covered mountains, meeting many different types of hikers, hunters, people along the way.  It's also written very well.  Author/screenwriter Nick Hornby (About A Boy, High Fidelity) writes the character carefully.  We watch intercut scenes of Cheryl's past leading up to her journey, and not in sequential order either.  We get her divorce first.  Then he relationship with her mother and brother.  Then, her torrid childhood.  Then, her downward spiral until it all comes together to paint a cohesive picture of a troubled woman.  Her journey ends up making much sense and winds up being a much more important travel than anything else like this on film.

I was a huge fan of this film and it was one of those that had me thinking about it long after it was over.  It far exceeded my expectations and it's a great film to watch at the end of the year in order to inspire those worried about their future in the upcoming year.  Great movie.

A

The Imitation Game: This Is How You Do The Brilliant Scientist Biopic

Reviews like this one are difficult for me to do.  Here's why-- I don't exactly know that much about science.  I know science is a general term that can be applied to many regular things I do in my life, but we're talking about it in the sense of Alan Turing.  I don't know much and therefore can't explain or analyze much about it or the film.  The same can be said for The Theory of Everything, however it's easier to write a review about it if I didn't think the movie was great.  I can just list the reasons why it failed.  This time another brilliant Brit scientist (actually I'm pretty sure Turing preferred to be known as a mathematician) is given a biopic about the importance of his life in relation to, you know, the world.  And it's great. (Which sucks because I can't nitpick it.)

Alan Turing was a gay scientist/mathematician living through the days of World War II in England.  He is recruited, along with a few other local university geniuses to crack the enigma code-- a daily code used by the Germans to detail their attacks to each other that is reset every day and is said to be uncrackable.  Turing, a social pariah, doesn't go the math route of pen and paper and brain to try and crack the impossible code, but instead decides to design a machine to do the thinking for him.  Of the one hundred and fifty million million million possibilities and the code changing every night at midnight, these men stand zero chance of cracking it without Turing's machine.

And that's essentially it.  It sounds a little dry and a little stale and a little boring, but somehow it isn't.  It's like how Moneyball made a seriously intriguing movie about baseball stats.  It's not so much about waiting for Turing to break the code, but how he does it and the conflicts that stand in his way-- more notably about how homosexuality was illegal and he was a flagrant gay, but had to hide it.  How his homosexuality couldn't be overlooked even though his machine essentially won the war.  Benedict Cumberbatch turns in yet another stellar performance as the strange Turing.  He's suddenly become one of the most reliable actors in Hollywood.  You know exactly what you're getting if you're watching one of his movies-- a mesmerizing performance.

Kiera Knightley is also in the film as a  mathematician whose brain is similar to that of Turing, but unlike Alan, has a fully functioning personality.  The two love one another, though obviously not in the traditional sense, but have a wonderful chemistry.  What's great about this movie is it doesn't fall under the pattern of standard biopic.  There's no real structure to the plot that has become very familiar in the biopic genre as of late.  They allow us to see all of the good and bad that happens in Turing's life without seeming cliche.  It's an honest (I assume) depiction of a mathematical genius portrayed by an acting genius.  I wish I could be a little bit more articulate about why it is so good, but it's just one of those films where you don't really even need that much of a description.  It looks like it could be good, a few people tell you it is good, you assume it is.  Well... it is.

B+

Top Five: Chris Rock FINALLY Delivers

 

For as long as I can remember, Chris Rock has always been, to me, one of the smartest, if not THE smartest comedian of my generation.  There have been others before him.  George Carlin may be the smartest of all time, but by the time I was able to understand and appreciate his humor, he was already very old.  There was also Richard Pryor-- still before my time.  And, I'll even give credit to 80s Eddie Murphy.  But, one of the first stand up comedy shows I ever watched was Chris Rock: Bigger and Blacker.  I was familiar with Rock only in regards to In Living Color and Saturday Night Live.  On those shows he was... humorous.  With his stand up, he's genius.  

Next, came a series of WTF movies from the comedian I respected more than anyone.  Down To Earth came out where he actually played a comedian!  And his best joke on stage in the movie was "You've got so much armpit hair you look like you got buckwheat in a headlock."  Yeah. That's it.  He used his D material in the movie that was the antithesis of funny. Then Head of State which I still don't really understand how Chris Rock wrote that movie and the stand up material for Never Scared. With his stand-up Chris Rock was finally becoming the Carlin of my generation, but with his film choices, the next Eddie Murphy.  So, you can imagine how refreshing it is to see Top Five, a film that finally displays Rock's talent as a writer/director and comedian as well as showcases that genius we all knew he was capable of. 

Top Five takes place in a single day.  Rock plays Andre, a celebrity whose celeb life has started to go somewhat downhill.  He used to be the biggest comedian of his time and made the highest grossing comedy movies until he got sober and quit comedy.  He's now trying to promote his newest film "Uprize" about the Haitian uprising, but much to his chagrin, it's getting terrible reviews.  He's followed around all day by a reporter (Rosario Dawson) trying to get the real story from Andre about why he's quit being funny.  They stop at several places for his promotion of the film-- radio stations, press junkets, Andre's old friend's homes, etc.  What starts to develop is a relationship between comedian and reporter that transcends sex and love, but of mutual understanding and sympathy. 

It's a great love story and even more it's a great commentary of the film industry.  No one gives Andre's film a chance because it's not funny and he's supposed to be funny.  When he stops by a random theater to watch his fans waiting for the film, there's four people in the theater.  The rest of the crowd is lined out the door waiting for the new Madea movie where she spends the night in a haunted house.  It's also a commentary about how we need our comedians to be "on" at all times.  Sometimes, they're human.  They don't feel funny.  He satirizes reality television stars.  It's also a commentary on the roles black actors tend to get in Hollywood.  Nearly every supporting character in the film seems to be played by a stock black comedian.  They're either the crony, the hood friend, or the Haitian slaves uprising.  

Rock delicately weaves all of these storylines together through his day and is able to make a big statement about Hollywood as well as provide a very funny and poignant movie.  Watching what I'm sure is a partly autobiographical film, it's comforting to see Andre's vulnerabilities and be able to watch a celebrity work through problems that us everyday folk go through constantly as well.  But, down to it's very core, it's still mostly a love story.  It's a love story from two broken people trying to pick up the pieces of their lives and maybe fit well with each other.  The chemistry between Rock and Dawson is great.  It's such a pleasure to watch.  And, if nothing else, go for the cameos.  There are a few in the film that will leave you hurting.

B

Exodus Gods and Kings: A Live Action Prince of Egypt

Let me preface this review that is sure to have some rolling eyes-- I didn't really have a desire to see this movie.  I'm a big fan of Christian Bale and I recognize his ability to choose a role that comes with it, a good movie.  I'm also a big fan of director Ridley Scott (though is last few efforts, The Counselor, Prometheus, Robin Hood, Body of Lies, A Good Year, have been less than sufficient).  But, the over-abundance of biblical movies this year has pushed this movie into the backburner for me for what I wanted to spend my time and money watching.  I've already seen The Ten Commandments as well as The Prince of Egypt.  Was this a movie that I desperately needed to see... again?  Absolutely not.  It's not even a movie that needed to be made.  But it was.  And I saw it.  And I thoroughly enjoyed almost all of it.

It's the same story we've seen countless times before of the book of Exodus.  Ramses and Moses begin as brothers.  Once it is revealed that Moses (Bale) was born a Hebrew, he is exiled by his now Pharaoh brother Ramses (Joel Edgerton).  Moses is contacted by a burning bush (also known as God) to be the leader to free the Hebrews from the clutches of Ramses.  When Ramses refuses God unleashes a series of plagues such as the rivers running red with blood, locusts, the killing of the first born sons, etc.  Then, once he finally gives in, Moses leads his people through the desert, parts the Red Sea, and they're now "free".  There's nothing really new here.  It's the same story with better actors, better computer effects, and a great director.  Almost anyone who decides to watch the film... or is forced to watch the film... will find it quite enjoyable. Hey, it's better than Noah. 

But what about those who are unfamiliar with the story?  What about those who haven't seen The Ten Commandments or The Prince of Egypt?  This is one of the few problems I had with the film.  It's a writing and/or directorial choice, but hardly anything is explained to the viewer.  It's Scott's style not to baby his audience, but those unfamiliar with the source material will find a lot of the film very confusing.  Those who know the story know that the slaughtering of a lamb and the smearing of its blood on the posts of the houses shows the Holy Spirit that a Hebrew lives there and to stay out of the house.  Those who don't bloody up their houses will have their first born sons killed.  This is in response to the previous pharaoh taking the Hebrew first born sons and dumping them maliciously into the River Thames. However, none of this is explained.  It just... happens.  Someone who didn't already know the story would be very lost.  They just assume that everyone watching is familiar with the story, which then begs the question-- if we already know the story, why tell it again?

Another small problem I had with the film was that Ridley Scott decided to go semi-realistic in his portrayal of the "miracles" that happen in the film.  The burning bush sits in the background as the voice of God is personified in a little snarky child that talks to Moses.  Moses doesn't part the Red Sea with his staff... the water just kind of recedes.  While it isn't that big of a deal, the visual of the burning bush speaking to Moses and the visual of Moses physically parting the sea are very powerful and iconic moments in both the Bible and on film.  Moses is acting as a vessel for God and when he doesn't actively part the sea... and it just happens... it takes away some of the power of the story.  But, this was just a directorial choice that some won't mind, but I happened to disagree with.

Other than that, I didn't have any problems with the film.  It was very well acted and extremely entertaining.  Yes, there was a bit of racial insensitivity by casting white Brits as middle easterns, but get over it.  Stop being so sensitive, America.  We've done it for years.  Charlton Heston was Moses.  Freaking Val Kilmer was moses (I know he was drawn brown, but he was voiced by a definite whitey).  Look past that it's not skin-correct and look at it more as an entertaining retelling of a story that is still a very fascinating story from the Bible.  My expectations were exceeded greatly.

B+

The Babadook: Smart Horror Done Right

"If it's in a word, or in a book... you can't get rid of The Babadook."

So, there's not much that I can talk about here without giving away the best moments of The Babadook, so I'm going to keep this short and sweet.  I'd heard about The Babadook through word of mouth only.  I researched only it's creation... not the plot.  I'd read that it was a movie funded from a kickstarter campaign.  It's a modest $30,000 budget and it comes from Australia.  That's all I knew.  Other than that, it was what I'd read about it-- that it was damn scary.  The director of The Exorcist, William Friedkin, had watched it on an iPad and said it was one of the scariest movies he'd ever seen.  And while it may not be the scariest movie EVER... it is still an effective horror film.

The best thing I can say about The Babadook is that it's unlike any horror movie to be released in the last five years.  While there have been some classic, even well made horror films (like The Conjuring and Insidious) this is horror in a different vein.  It doesn't have the jump-scares that seem to pervade horror movies these days.  While you're in terrifying suspense waiting for something to pop out and make you jump out of your seat... you will be disappointed.  What does happen is that terror you're experiencing ceases to leave your body.  It never really lets up.  While the story does take its time to build up the fable and the mystery of The Babadook, once it's established it grabs ahold of you and never lets up.

My suggestion is to not look any further into the plot of the movie.  Don't watch the trailer, don't look into the synopsis.  Just go into it blindly expecting a well crafted and perfectly paced terrifying movie that appeals to any horror fan.  Yes, it was made for cheap, but that propels the terror in even more creative ways.  It's a wonderful film that anyone should see if you're willing to give up a night's sleep.

A-