(*** out of five)
This film was a victim of the Sony hacks, but keeping it in independent cinemas has actually kept its audience numbers high. I think a benefit from the hack was having all of the critics, who supposedly didn't see the film before its release, talking about the performance that Julianne Moore gives. Yes, she is my pick for Best Actress, and I think she will win. If you want to know how emotionally stressful this movie is, I'd say to just watch the preview. Still Alice is about a woman, fifty years of age, who is diagnosed with Early Onset Alzheimer's Disease.
Julianne Moore plays the role of Alice. A renowned professor at Columbia University, she teaches on the subject of linguistics and how humans communicate. At first, the signs of her disease seem small and normal; there are times when we forget a word we are looking for. The movie progresses and she gets worse. With her family by her side to support her, she begins to explore the possibilities of what is happening to her. Alice meets doctors and has several scans before an early diagnosis is made. Her husband, played by Alec Baldwin, seeks to keep her daily life as normal as possible. The family knows they will need to continue with her through the struggle.
Alice finds a connection with her youngest daughter, Lydia, played by Kristen Stewart. Alice and Lydia are the ones of the family who are constantly arguing, but are also the ones that struggle the most. In their struggles, they find a deeper connection and understanding of each other. Lydia wants to establish a good relationship with her mother before she mentally leaves.
This movie was a tear-jerker. As soon as things start to get better, something happens and it gets worse. Alice does make a valid point about her disease: that she is not suffering, but is struggling. She practices memorizing words, uses her phone to send her reminders, and even records a few things on her computer to help her when she can't remember anything. She attempts to remain a professor as long as she can, and tries her best to not disappoint her family.
While I hoped for Alice, the story remains depressing. There is a scene further in the film that deeply saddened me, as it is the moment the audience and Alice realize that she can no longer be on her own. Many of us can say that we have known someone with Alzheimer's, so it makes it all the harder to watch. I was glad I saw it, but the story doesn't answer the major questions that I had. I do recommend this film, but it is not one that requires a visit to the theater. Also, you need to be in the mood for a downer. I'm happy with Julianne Moore's performance, and believe it or not, Kristen Stewart did not annoy me. She does seem like more of an adult in this film, and I hope to see future roles like this from her.
(*** out of five)
For me, it's always hard to watch a movie based on a true story, especially when I know how it is going to end. I think American Sniper really captured a crucial moment in American history and will captivate audiences around the nation. Our nation enjoys patriotic movies, as we should. The riveting story of Chris Kyle's service to our country is grounded in the roots of our soldiers. The movie is entertaining, but does not seem as pivotal as other 9/11 movies. Yes, I know, I can't really compare it to Zero Dark Thirty, but parts of the movie felt stagnant, especially when the movie constantly shifts from missions to his relationship with his family.
Nominated for several Academy awards, I was actually impressed that Bradley Cooper was able to portray a soldier. Sure, Silver Linings Playbook showed off his dramatic acting skills, but it still allowed him to have his comedic moments. Don't expect any of that in American Sniper. Cooper remains serious, intent, and ambitious towards his constant goal of protecting the United States. He does not ever appear arrogant, and does not take compliments well.
This movie is not for the faint of heart. There are several gruesome scenes where I felt truly disturbed. This is not necessarily a bad thing, because the facts of certain events remain accurate, but this is not a film you would want to take your kids to see. I don't want to spoil anything, so if you are wanting to remain cautious, you can read the parent's guide here.
While Kyle's story of being a sniper remains quite unique, the director also wanted to focus on what many soldiers go through in their life at home. Kyle struggles to maintain a relationship with his family, not because he doesn't want to, but because he doesn't want to leave a task undone. This eventually takes a toll on his mental health, but he seeks a way to fix this.
Overall, it was definitely a film worth watching, but I didn't feel as moved by the story as I am sure the book he wrote would do. I recommend seeing it in theater, and if you can't, see it as soon as it hits the shelves. I do expect it to be in theaters a while as it is making a ton as the box office. There is a lot of debate centered around the integrity of the story, but my review remains strictly to the cinematic elements.
(***1/2 out of five)
I really wanted to see what the critics have been raving about. Boyhood has been nominated for several Academy Awards including Best Picture. As the academies get closer, I will publish a blog on my predictions. However, even though I didn't like Boyhood as much as I thought I would, it will probably win Best Picture. Who wouldn't give an award to a movie that took twelve years to film?
I don't feel like there is a strong plot, but the title does do it justice. The movie is, essentially, about a boy growing up. Beginning when he is just a child, the film shows him grow into an adult, dealing with most things boys deal with, and a few more dramatic paths. Mason (Ellar Coltrane) it trying to discover who he is, and if the life he is living is one that he belongs in. The director, Richard Linklater, is known for his original style of directing. He has worked with Ethan Hawke on several movies, and also directed the well-known Dazed and Confused. I believe he truly encapsulated the story of a boy growing into a man.
The mother, played excellently by Patricia Arquette, tries her hardest to make her children happy. She believes that the way her son and daughter develop into an adult will truly affect the way they view the world. Her ability to reason, even when her children are being immature, is delicate. She is always riding on a thin line between making herself happy and her whole family happy. Her children need to experience as normal as a childhood as she can give them, especially with her early divorce from the father, played by Ethan Hawke.
The father is also growing from a boy into a man. Perhaps he got involved in a relationship too early. Or perhaps he chickened out from his duties as a father, as the rest of the family sees it. He sets out to repair the damage he has done and to make his children as happy as possible. Dad must learn boundaries with the children, like how late they are allowed to stay up and what they are allowed to eat. The mother helps him to learn these crucial rules to childhood. At one point in the film, there is a touching scene in which he thanks her for raising the children the way she did, even when it got difficult.
It is interesting to watch not only the characters age, but the actors age, too. While I do not think it was the best film of the year, I do think it was innovative and original. The plot is ambiguous; there is no common goal prevalent until the audience is discussing the movie after. The running time for a drama was a little too much, but having to cram twelve years of filming into an almost three hour movie is difficult. I do recommend it for a night viewing. Watching it during the day would have caused me to lose focus. Boyhood is highly recommended for movie buffs and those who seek a film with an artistic edge, but I'm undecided on whether the general audience will like it. I'd say to give it a try. It will be an iconic film.
(**1/2 out of five)
As the final chapter in the series, I was thrilled and saddened to see the voyage of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) finally coming to an end. With a cast that I truly enjoyed, and a large battle, I should not have compared it to The Lord of the Rings. For those that have seen the others, the Hobbit did not match up to the epic proportions of its predecessors. It was definitely worth the watch for fans like me, but don't expect to be on the edge of your seat.
The last of the Hobbit films focuses on a war between several armies. Bilbo is not only forced to be a burglar, but he also becomes the voice of reason. Even though Gandalf knows that Bilbo has the ring, he knows that Bilbo's heart will allow him to have self control. Bilbo wants to prevent conflict, but he knows the war is inevitable. As a dragon sails to destroy towns, Bilbo has to keep the elves and the dwarfs from destroying each other, all while other armies are marching to the same mountain and killing anyone in their path.
What I didn't expect was for Legolas (Orlando Bloom) to become such an important character. He spectacularly fights off Orcs and other large creatures, while Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) takes a disappointing step back in the third film. Tauriel was definitely the solider the of the second film, but in the Battle of the Five Armies, she seems to lose her strength as fighter. This lasts only until she begins fighting for her true love, a dwarf named Kili. Legolas and Tauriel know they will be banished from their kingdom if they chose to fight a battle that is not theirs. They are willing to make the sacrifice, sealing their fates to the end of the movie.
The action and story keep the audience focused to an extent. There were times when I felt bored and maybe even nodded off for a few minutes in the theater. While it is definitely a film for fans, I am not sure a general audience would truly enjoy it. The film does end with a nice little transition into the Lord of the Rings. I went home and immediately wanted to start the trilogy. The graphics are easy to watch, but the film truly lacked an emotional connection between the audience and the characters. If you aren't a fan, wait to rent this one. If you are, you'd better go see it while it is still in theaters.
(*** out of five)
From the director of Dallas Buyers Club, comes his new film, Wild. It's a beautifully shot movie about a young woman who travels the entire Pacific Crest Trail over a period of three months. It is a true story and from the book about Cheryl Strayed. I have not read the book, but I'm sure it's good. Also, don't confuse Wild with another movie that just came out called Tracks. While the two have a similar plot, the characters are extremely opposite.
The film opens with Cheryl (Reese Witherspoon) setting off on her trip. With little to no experience in hiking, she is so unprepared that she cannot even put on her own pack, which receives the nickname "Monster" by some other hikers. Along the way, she has flashbacks about her family and her life before the hike. Cheryl was a good kid growing up, and then after a traumatic event, she becomes promiscuous, and a heroin addict. After her husband cannot take care of her anymore, he files for divorce. Cheryl realizes the place she in, and believes the hike will help her rediscover the girl she used to be.
The cinematography is beautiful. I knew there were several different terrains along the Pacific Coast, but it is breathtaking to see. It made me want to bust out my old hiking gear from storage. Much of the film takes place in the Mojave Desert. It gradually changes to grasslands, mountains, and forests. It is scary that she is by herself. She has a few dangerous encounters with men along the trail. But the good news is that she does make some friends, too.
The opening scene is quite gruesome, and we know that she has been hiking a while before the story starts from the beginning. There is always a part of her that is wanting to quit, and she is constantly tempted. The only contact she keeps on the road is with her ex-husband. It hurts her to contact him, but it also teaches her an important lesson about the mistakes she made and the affects they have on others. Cheryl reflects on wisdom given to her by her mother, Bobbi (played by Laura Dern), and recognizes what to do in uncontrollable situations. This hike is teaching her how to grow up, how to mourn when it is deserved, and how to be strong without the expectations of others.
I didn't feel extremely moved by Wild. It might have been that I recently saw Tracks, or that Into the Wild was such a great movie. Either way, it is a movie that I will watch again soon. It was entertaining and emotionally moving, but not to the extreme. Some people might describe it as a "feel-good" film, and every now and then, I need to see a film like this. It won't be a hugely nominated film, and Witherspoon has taken on tougher roles, but it'll be fun to talk about.
(**** 1/2 out of five)
Wow! This film was a shocking surprise. You may have to visit a local independent theater to see it, but it is definitely worth every penny. I originally thought Jake Gyllenhaal would be winning the Academy Award for best actor after seeing Nightcrawler, but I have never seen such phenomenal acting from Michael Keaton. And honestly, I didn't expect him to pull off a performance like this. I probably would have skipped this one if I hadn't read the other critics raving about it. Now, I understand what they meant. It also took some real balls for Michael Keaton to play the role that he did, considering it is partially shadowing his real life. So, what's Birdman about?
Michael Keaton plays a washed-up actor. He was famous for two Birdman movies he did years ago (obviously the Batman films). The entire movie is set in a theater, shot in eight continuous shots. Yes, this was a little distracting to me. I kept waiting for edits, but they barely happened. I went home and researched the cinematography. Eight shots. And I only noticed one. Basically, it feels like watching a play. The actor is trying to put on a Broadway show, rejuvenating his previous fame, but struggling with his identity throughout the movie. Emma Stone had an amazing scene in which she tells him that he is a failure and his glory days are over. Another character, a theater critic, tells him that he is a celebrity, not an actor.
As opening day approaches, a new supporting actor is needed, and Edward Norton is introduced into the film. Just like Michael Keaton, Norton is obsessed with himself and his importance, causing a thrilling clash between the two. Keaton is reappearing into stardom, and he cannot have Norton getting in his way. The Birdman actually speaks to Keaton several times in the film, and even appears a few times as his malicious voice of reason.
What makes the movie so edgy, is that, yeah, this is where Michael Keaton is right now. He hasn't done any movies in several years. He probably misses the gossip about him. Think about it. When's the last time you heard about a movie starring him? He is trying to make his big comeback. In Birdman, he does. Congratulations Keaton. You nailed this one.
Birdman is a fast-paced drama, and it will keep you entertained the entire time. It has its deep moments, specifically when Birdman is telling Keaton that the audience doesn't care about his thought-provoking play; they want explosions and gunfights. The viewer might feel a bit guilty. I know I did. Birdman is a film that cinema has been missing. It will entertain and move you in many ways. Do not miss out on this spectacle. And good luck to Keaton! You deserve the Best Actor award for this one.
(*** out of 5)
Mockingjay Part 1 is the film that is starting to wrap up loose ends. If you haven't seen any of the other films, then you will most likely not understand what is going on in this one. The first two films are now readily available on Netflix if you are needing to get in the game. Pun intended. I was slightly skeptical as to why the last book was being split into two films, but after seeing it, I completely understand. I do not consider Mockingjay an action film, but a drama buzzing with sci-fi. Here is what to expect.
*SPOILER ALERT: IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE FIRST TWO FILMS, DO NOT CONTINUE UNLESS YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO SEE THEM, AND, FOR SOME UNKNOWN REASON, YOU WANT TO READ THIS REVIEW. I DON'T JUDGE.*
Mockingjay Part 1 is an intriguing flick, but it struggles to find its independence from its predecessors. The Hunger Games presents us with Katniss Everdeen, a teen struggling to protect her mom and sister in a community that is barely alive. After she and Peeta win the Hunger Games, a small spark of rebellion has started to appear in the other districts. In Catching Fire, she is thrust into the political world, trying to comprehend how she can be a public figure. Unhinged from the terrors of the first games, the President throws a broken girl into a second round of games. As turmoil heats up in the districts, she is rescued during the games, but her beloved, on-screen boyfriend is left.
This new film is dark. Hunger Games and Catching Fire are all about the games; the audience is rooting for a winner. Mockingjay not only shocks the characters into reality, but the audience as well. The lives of countless others now count on the direction that Katniss takes. Just like fighting for freedom in the Hunger Games, she now has an army at her disposal. However, she must prove that the war she sparked is worth fighting for.
The dark undertones carry throughout the film, from beginning to end. It opens with Katniss in a hospital, tinted with dark yellows. She hears someone crying and gets out of bed to find Finnick sobbing on his bed, wishing that everyone were dead. Shortly after, several people are shown getting executed at gunpoint in the districts. Later in the movie, Katniss is asked to sing for the Mockingjays. The Hanging Tree is haunting. She sings while the audience sees a group of rebels attempting to bomb a dam at the Capital. Yes, like everyone else, I was dreading that this was about to turn into a corny musical number, but it doesn't. It's probably one of my favorite scenes in the movie.
Under the advisory of the rebel leader, President Coin, Katniss must learn to accept that she may never see Peeta again, and if the battle is worth fighting for. Can she stir the rebellion and get them to wage war? Or will she fail, leaving the other districts at the mercy of the Capital?
The movie lacks action. I felt a little empty after leaving. While the story was required in order to set up for the final film, it didn't seem to stand out. I did enjoy the drama and hope that the last film follows in its steps, yet giving it the action that it deserves. The running time is around two hours, but it goes by fast. If you have a free night and nothing on your plate to see, this one won't disappoint.
