I rented, I watched, I review: "Short" reviews of SKELETON TWINS, CALVARY, LOCKE

Skeleton Twins


The thought of Kristen Wiig and Bill Hader starring in a movie together just feels right for some reason, doesn't it? They built up such a great rapport with each other through SNL so it's not much of a stretch seeing them play brother and sister. It's too bad "The Skeleton Twins" is a little too generic and goes through tropes that are a little too familiar to make this film really stand out despite the presence of such talented performers.

Yes, Wiig and Hader, two fantastic comedians, have found themselves trapped in an overly-gloomy, and dour indie drama which tries to wedge in fun, "spontaneous" moments between the two leads that just feel unearned. As if to remind the audience that, indeed, these actors also happen to be comedians. I am always curious to see how comedians handle doing more serious material. In "The Skeleton Twins," Wiig and Hader definitely show flashes of brilliance, but too often their performances are bogged down by a bland script. This is supposed to be a dramedy, but the drama isn't as hard-hitting as it should be (considering the two lead characters are contemplating suicide), meanwhile the film's more comedic scenes just don't land.

The movie opens with Maggie and Milo (Wiig, Hader) who live on opposite sides of the country and are both attempting suicide. The only reason Maggie puts away the pills is because she gets a phone call, notifying her of Milo's attempted suicide.

These characters have issues, no doubt about it. Maggie's married to a loving husband, but for some reason, she can't love him back. She's been cheating on him, in fact. Milo's depressed as he thinks his best days are when he was in high school and he recently got dumped by his boyfriend. These twins haven't talked to each other for over 10 years by the time Maggie sees Milo in the hospital. They've each lead pretty miserable lives for the last decade and what they begin to realize is that the thing they needed the most... was each other.

Sounds sweet, right? It kind of is. The sweetness comes from the natural charisma between Wiig and Hader, but their characters get so hung up in their own misery, rarely giving a chance to let the audience in and feel their pain. I don't know. This isn't a bad film, but it constantly threatens to enter Zach Braff territory when it comes to its sappiness. Not fun enough to be enjoyable, not emotional enough to feel cathartic... in the end, "Skeleton Twins" just felt flat. And I found its overall ho-hum treatment of suicide to be fairly problematic.

Grade: C

Calvary



John Michael McDonagh's young career as a filmmaker is pretty interesting. He's the older brother of fellow filmmaker Martin McDonagh and, two movies in, it's safe to say he's the darker one of the duo. John Michael was previously responsible for "The Guard," a film which also stars Brendan Gleeson. His older brother wrote and directed "In Bruges" and "Seven Psychopaths." Watching their careers unfold, it makes me wonder just how many movies we'd get if the Coen Brothers worked separately.... ok, that's a terrible thought.

Interestingly enough, of the two brothers, it's John Michael McDonagh who takes the bigger creative and artistic leap with his follow-up film "Calvary" and what we wind up getting is a deeply ponderous film that delves into religion, hypocrisy, and the way all the residents of this small Irish town deal with the various disappointments in their lives.

The film centers on Father James (Brendan Gleeson). In the opening shot, Father James is listening to a man's heartbreaking confession about the horrific sexual abuse that he dealt with when he was a child growing up in the Catholic church. He ends his confession on a chilling note, telling the Father that he has decided, in seven days, that he will murder him. It doesn't matter that Father James is innocent. Father James has been given a death sentence that hardly seems fair, but as the confessor argues, having to live with memories of being sexually abused as a child is pretty unfair as well.

I consider "Calvary" to be the Anti-Philomena. That's probably why it wasn't nominated for any Oscars this year, despite Gleeson's masterful performance. Calvary has several moments of lightness and levity, but for a McDonagh film, it's quite dark. I call this the anti-Philomena because while Sister Philomena had to deal with the hardship of never meeting her son before he died, she still manages to find it in her heart to forgive the nunnery who took her baby away. The confessor in "Calvary," on the other hand, is past the point of forgiving anyone. "Calvary" leaves us with difficult questions about the nature of forgiveness, morality, and faith. This makes for quite the powerful viewing experience.

Despite John Michael McDonagh's more dramatic approach to his second film, he still manages to fill the film with a great amount of wit. The film occasionally threatens to get too dark at certain points, but McDonagh's able to give the film enough humor and sharp dialogue to keep you going.

Oddly enough, despite not being religious, I actually quite like films like this. Some of my favorite filmmakers have made interesting films centering around a priest. Hitchcock's "I Confess" comes to mind, as well as Jean-Pierre Melville's "Leon Morin, Priest" and Ingmar Bergman's "Winter Light." Sometimes a film can be powerful and resonant just by asking questions the audience was previously too afraid to ask. Did the confessor deserve to have all those terrible things happen to him? Absolutely not, but Father James doesn't deserve to die either. But "Calvary" deals with these issues head-on and never pulls any punches, and the results are quite stunning.

Grade: A-

Locke

For 84 minutes, Tom Hardy's character Ivan Locke is driving his car to London. The only characters he talks to are via his car phone. Let me repeat this. Tom Hardy is the only actor that physically appears in this film. The only one. And it's just him sitting in his car for 80 minutes! Yet, in that brief timespan, we watch Ivan Locke's world slowly crumble down before him and it's thrilling as hell to watch.

How the hell did they pull this off? It's simply the right combination of a script that unravels at a perfect pace with an actor that's absolutely at the top of his game right now. There's really not much more to say about this film, or if there is, I'll save it when it inevitably ends up on my year-end list, but I honestly could not be more impressed with this film. It was absolutely a thrill ride and because the film is made in a way that I never experience before, it made the experience even more thrilling.

Writer/director Steven Knight does a superb job here and while I've already given Hardy deserved props, the secret star of this movie is the cinematographer, who manages to capture the England highways in a way that feels poetic and colorful. This is a richly layered film, like a nice little cake. Everyone, I demand you, take a bite out of this cake. It's fucking delicious.

Grade: A

Now on Instant Netflix: "Short" reviews of IDA & FRANK

I took quite the hiatus during the holidays, but I did see quite a few movies that came out in 2014. Four 2014 movies that I saw either via Redbox or Netflix. Here are my brief reviews of two of those films.

Ida

They say an image is worth a thousand words, but what about an image of a face? There's so much to take away from a person just by studying their face and there have been some strikingly beautiful films made in the past, like "The Passion of Joan of Arc," which uses close-ups of the title character's face to evoke several different feelings at once.

That's what Pawel Pawlikowski's "Ida" immediately made me think of... and for good reason. "Ida" is about a young woman who grew up in an orphanage, now poised to enter nunnery, but first she's encouraged by an elder nun to visit her aunt first. When she visits her Aunt Wanda for the first time, secrets are uncovered about herself and about her parents which could completely change her whole outlook on life.

"Ida" is a story that's largely told on the visual front. If you are studying film, "Ida" is worth checking out just for its exquisite shot compositions alone. Shot in black and white and in an old school 1.33 : 1 aspect ratio, often, Pawlikowski chooses to leave a considerate amount of headspace when he shoots close-ups of Anna, strongly suggesting that she's not alone in these shots. Throughout the film's 80 minute running time, there's that nagging feeling that there's some sort of force, spirit, or God that is guiding Anna on her journey.

This is a very strong and, sometimes, remarkable film about a young woman who, in a way, loses her innocence but never seems to lose her faith. But, a month after seeing it, my overall takeaway of the film is just how gorgeous it looks. There is not a single frame wasted here. Each shot in "Ida" looks like a painting. Just remarkable.

Grade: A

"Ida" is available currently on Netflix Instant.

Frank


If you don't take to "Frank" immediately after seeing it, don't worry. I was in the same boat for much of the film's running time. But I've thought about it quite a bit since and I think I realized why it makes for a rather disappointing first viewing: "Frank" is the anti-feel-good music film. We've seen stories like this before. Guy joins a rock band full of misfits and leads them to great success. Well, "Frank" is a complete reversal of that trope. In "Frank," a young, enthusiastic keyboardist joins an experimental, avant-garde rock band lead by a musical genius who insists on hiding his real face inside a giant fake head.

It's a concept that dares to wear out its welcome with its quirky premise and yet the movie has an overall sadness to it and the aura of unrealized talent to it, that the end result may leave you feeling disappointed, but only because this is a movie that insists on zagging instead of zigging. You think you didn't want a feel-good movie until "Frank" deliberately makes you feel bad. But, looking back, it's really kind of hilarious the way the film plays out.

Frank is played by Michael Fassbender, but the only way you know it's Michael Fassbender is from his voice and his body. This is a role that would be difficult to pull off by an ordinary actor, but Fassbender is no ordinary actor. He absolutely shines here. But, the main character is Jon (Domhnall Gleeson), the aforementioned keyboardist who is presented as if he'll be the catalyst that gets this band on the right track.

Here's the joke: he's not. The cast is rounded out by Scoot McNairy, who plays the band's manager, and Maggie Gyllenhaal, who plays the theremin. Gyllenhaal is brutally mean to Jon, obsessed with Frank, and is largely thought to be the one who's holding Frank back. But, upon further review, that's not what is really happening here. Jon, despite the rest of the band not really taking his musical talents seriously, insists on remaining the band's keyboardist as he hopes that Frank's musical genius will rub off on him. But, at every turn, Jon fails to see that he's merely meant to be a piece of the puzzle, not the main attraction. He thinks the key to band's potential is getting rid of the theremin player, but the truth is that he's pinning all his hopes and dreams on a promise that just isn't there.

The film's interesting reversal, coupled with its study of a man (Frank, that is) who turns out to be dealing with a mental illness, makes "Frank" a much deeper and engrossing film that you would expect. It may not be quite the joyous romp that you hope it would be, but I found a lot to love about this movie and I hope you do too.

"Frank" is available currently on Netflix Instant.

Grade: B+

TOP FIVE review

While I remember there being word of Chris Rock doing a movie with producer Scott Rudin a little over a year ago, I must say I was fairly surprised to see "Top Five" pop up out of nowhere towards the end of 2014. And while the film hasn't exactly taken the world by storm and has had a modest box office intake, it's still exciting and refreshing to see such a great comedian like Chris Rock finally realize his talents as a writer and director.

Rock has been in the comedy biz for over 25 years, but he's often left a lot to be desired when it came to his acting career. His previous attempts as a writer/director lead to 2003's "Head of State" and 2007's "I Think I Love My Wife." The failure of those two movies left people wondering why it was so hard for Rock to translate his comedic worldview into film.

But perhaps it was all simply a matter of the third time being the charm. "Top Five" is not perfect. It doesn't really do anything particularly new. And yet, it does feel like a breath of fresh air. There's an underlying charm to it that's been lacking in other Rock movies and it has sort of a thrown-together feel, as if Chris Rock called up his comedian buddies, told him he wanted them in his movie, and they just kinda showed up. Then, from there, he formulated a plot and a story centering around a actor/comedian character as an excuse to bring in all his favorite comedian buds without needing a reason for them to be there.

From that perspective, "Top Five" works just fine. This is a breezy, laid back film that goes by in a brisk 102 minutes. Chris Rock plays Andre Allen, a comedian who's decided to try his hand in more serious dramas. Rosario Dawson is journalist Chelsea Brown, who has been assigned to interview Andre for the day. Through this simple construct, we get to delve into Allen's life. We see the neighborhood where he was brought up, we get a glimpse of his lavish life with fiancee Erica (Gabrielle Union), who is a reality TV star. And we get to know Andre's entourage, including his right-hand man Silk, who's played by JB Smoove. JB Smoove, most definitely a highlight in the last few seasons of Curb Your Enthusiasm, finally gets a chance to shine on the big screen.

The cast doesn't end there though. Kevin Hart, Sherri Shepherd, Romany Malco, Leslie Jones, Jerry Seinfeld, Adam Sandler, Tracy Morgan, Anders Holm of Workaholics, Cedric the Entertainer, Michael Che, Whoopi Goldberg, Brian Regan,  and Jay Pharoah... they're all in this movie! I wasn't lying when I said Chris Rock called all of his friends.

"Top Five" is really just a fun, light comedy in many ways, but what makes it stand out is that it actually has something to say. It has something to say about the nature of celebrity. It's about someone who has a natural talent of making people laugh but worries that he's only actually funny when he's on some sort of substance.

There's a refreshing amount of honesty in this film, which helps smooth out some of the movie's more glaring flaws. Rock's depiction of some of the women in this film feels a bit glib and out of place in what's otherwise a sweet movie. There's also a couple of scenes that deal with a closeted gay man with a viewpoint that feels embarrassingly dated. No one should expect a Chris Rock movie to be politically correct, but my complaints here have more to do with how these depictions impact the movie itself. Rock can be as un-PC as he wants, but "Top Five" is at its best when the humor feels honest and true-to-life. So, that makes the cheap jokes against women and gays stand out in a negative manner.

I've never been 100% enamored with Chris Rock as an actor. He's a brilliant comedian, but he mugs for the camera a little too much in his movies. His comedic cadence often doesn't blend well on celluloid. That said, "Top Five" is probably the closest Rock has ever come to creating a character that actually feels like a real character in a movie, as opposed to just mouthpiece for Rock to do his stand-up comedy.

He doesn't completely turn a corner with this film, but if he keeps going down the Woody Allen-inspired path that he started with "Top Five," we might be in for quite a wonderful surprise. In a movie climate where the majority of black actors and actresses can only get work playing historical characters, we just might need writer/director Chris Rock now more than ever. I didn't love "Top Five," but I admire what Rock was trying to accomplish, and I can't wait to see him build off this film's success.

Grade: B-

THE INTERVIEW review

At this point, nearly a month after the height of the hacking controversy, anything that could be said about "The Interview" almost goes without saying. The movie has been think-pieced to death. By now, everyone's simply sick of talking about it. However, having seen the movie over a week ago, and giving myself time to let it all sink in, now is actually the best time to talk about the quality of the movie itself. You already know the behind-the-scenes insanity that surrounds this film, I'm just here to talk about the movie. Is that cool?

Cool.

James Franco is his own worst enemy. Correct that. The overexposure of James Franco is his own worst enemy. But, then again, Franco is pretty much solely responsible for that overexposure. He writes and directs nearly a half-dozen movies a year. They are usually poor adaptation of famous novels that everyone wishes he'd leave alone. They limp into theaters, nobody watches them, and then they wind up on Netflix. So it goes.

He's been in a cult-hit TV show, he co-starred in a blockbuster trilogy, and he has an Oscar nomination under his belt. It's almost passe to talk about Franco's accomplishments because it's frequently what people talk about when they talk about the actor. He just loves being prolific. The problem for him is that most of the product he puts out there is subpar.

"The Interview" is his third major film collaboration with Seth Rogen. For some reason, even though Franco could've probably capitalized on his Oscar-nom success that was "127 Hours," it actually feels like he needs Rogen more, at this point, then Rogen needs him. Seth Rogen already had a pretty huge hit this year with "Neighbors," where he co-starred with Zac Efron. His directorial debut "This Is The End" was also a huge critical and financial success.

Thing is, regardless of where they're both at in their careers, we should all be giddy at another collaboration between these two actors. Franco and Rogen has the potential to become a classic comedy duo. They were extremely fun to watch together in "Pineapple Express" and "This Is The End," and from the outset, "The Interview" looked like it could be another riot too.

The overexposure of James Franco has made that not the case, however. And despite, all the hype, the buzz, and the craziness that surrounded this movie, in order to really capitalize on all the controversy, it needed to be great. The actual movie needed to be the icing of this clusterfuck cake. Unfortunately, "The Interview" isn't a great movie, it's merely good. It had the undeniable hook: Rogen and Franco, playing TV producer and an "entertainment news" journalist (respectively) are given the task of assassinating North Korea leader Kim Jong-Un under the guise of an interview.

I always loved the ballsiness of the premise and, actually, I love the ballsiness of this movie in a lot of ways. It's just a shame that script does not necessarily sustain a level of satire that is needed in order for the film to really work. Each pointed joke regarding either American foreign policy or North Korea's complete disregard for its citizens is countered with a tired dick joke.

The slack mentality of the Pineapple Express and This Is The End characters made it ok for Rogen and co-writer Evan Goldberg to slather the film with an abundance of dick jokes. But, in The Interview, those types of jokes tend to get in the way of what is otherwise some pretty good satire.

The movie definitely has its fair share of highs, don't get me wrong. A surprise cameo at the beginning of the film was good for a nice, hearty laugh. The initial interactions between Franco/Rogen and North Korea was also pretty great. "The Interview" had some hilarious moments, especially when it incorporated elements of the spy movie into the comedy. It was even better when it took a surprise turn in the second act, where Franco's character Dave Skylark actually finds himself indentifying with North Korea's supreme leader. I thought the movie really entered into some interesting territory there.

Unlike "Pineapple Express" though, the movie really loses steam when the action starts. I'm usually not put off by violence in movies, but the extreme violence in some of the action sequences here just did not seem to fit within the movie's overall tone. Of course, I've always been a proponent of showcasing violence for what it really is, but in a movie like this? I just want to laugh at the end of the day.

And you know what? I laughed a great deal. Rogen delivered a solid performance, James Franco laid it on thick here and there but he still had his moments. Randall Park, portraying Kim Jong-Un was the movie's MVP, however, he portrayed the dictator with just the right inflection. You despise him, but a part of you really wants to like him. And in that respect, I felt Rogen and Goldberg did a great job in their portrayal of Jong-Un.

The bottom line, though, is that the movie needed to have more clarity in its satire. Much like "Pineapple Express" was Rogen/Goldberg's riff on the buddy-action film and "This Is The End" was their stoner take on the apocalypse, "The Interview" should have been their riff on the spy movie, but they didn't go all the way. "The Interview" wanted to be too many things at once. "Team America: World Police" was able to balance the right amount of dick and poop jokes with good satire. But "Team America" was pure goofiness all the way through. "The Interview" just doesn't have a goofy, "anything goes" feel to it. It's shot pretty conventionally, especially in its action scenes. And it doesn't have enough manic energy to fully sustain itself for 110 minutes.

Having said all that though, this is far from being a bad movie. It's above average, for sure. It does not deserve to be in the conversation for Razzie awards, and while I understand some people were let down by the movie, thanks to all the hype, it's really a lot better than people are giving it credit for. So, yes, I quite liked "The Interview," I just think Rogen, Goldberg, and Franco could all do better than this.

Grade: C+

ANNIE review

Great musicals play out like pure fantasies; reality is usually thrown out the window. The musical sequences tend to have dazzling dance moves, coordinated color and decor, an elaborate production design. Even if a musical is set in "the real world," like "Once," at least something is done to make the musical scenes seem special as opposed to feeling like an after-thought.

"Annie" is an interesting case study of what not to do when you're making a musical. Look-wise, this is as bland as it gets. The original musical took place during the Great Depression; this Annie is set in modern day New York City. OK, so perhaps the filmmakers feel this material is ample grounds for an update. I agree. We've been through a rough recession and casting Annie as a young black girl instead of a curly redhead is an inspired choice. It doesn't hurt when you cast the endlessly charming Quvenzhane Wallis. She already has a well-deserved Oscar nomination under her belt, following that up by playing Annie in a brand new, updated version of the musical seems like a no-brainer, honestly.

Wallis is perfectly fine as the title character, it's just too bad the actors around her seem to have no idea what to do with the material. To make things worse, the co-writer/director Will Gluck has placed her in the aforementioned setting of modern day NYC, but makes zero attempts to make the city look special. That's where the blandness comes in.

There's no attempt to make New York City seem magical, or conversely, nothing is done to emphasize any harsh, ghetto conditions. Annie is supposed to be living in an orphanage, but here it seems she lives in a safe, gentrified version of Harlem (I haven't been up there in quite some time, perhaps it really looks like that nowadays). There's just no semblance of taste when it comes to the look and cinematography of the film. There's nothing special about the film's use of lighting. It all just looks so... bleh. There's no pizzazz here. None.

The only thing that makes "Annie" watchable is because of how hilariously awkward this whole thing is. Because the movie looks so plain and boring, the actors that surround Quvenzhane Wallis act as if they're in an entirely different movie. They seem to think they're in this big, wacky, weird fantasy world so they act wacky. As a result, the "comedy" in this film feels embarrassingly over-the-top. Director Will Gluck made three comedies before "Annie," but that's hard to believe because of how off the comic-timing is in this film. Too often, there are little jokes in the film that are spoken and then just go nowhere. You know when you think you've said something funny but nobody seems to have heard you so nobody noticed? That's "Annie" in a nutshell.

The acting in the film ranges from uncomfortable to horrid. Bobby Cannavale and Cameron Diaz both give equally  cringe-inducing performances. The 1982 version of "Annie" featured Carol Burnett as Miss Hannigan, Cameron Diaz couldn't shine Burnett's shoe. Her performance is an insult to all that is funny. Maybe it's not completely her fault, but I'm reminded of her performance from last year's misfire "The Counselor." Two years in a row, two bad performances. Was she always this bad? Or is she simply trying to stretch herself, failing miserably in the process? I don't hate Cameron Diaz, but if I could erase her performance in "Annie" from my memory, I would be a much happier man.

Cannavale is just as bad, but his problem is more of a symptom of poor directing (and, to be fair, that sentiment could be applied to Diaz in many ways). Jamie Foxx, Rose Byrne, and Quvenzhane Wallis each approach their performances with at least an ounce of realism, so Cannvale's cartoonish-ness stands out like a sore thumb. It's just awkward. And because this movie was seemingly written by people who have no real sense of humor, each joke that comes out Cannavale's mouth is the equivalent to a stand-up comedian bombing on stage.

"Annie" is almost like a car accident that you can't look away from. It had potential. It was the right idea. But the overall execution is just so lazy and dull, it ultimately winds up feeling like a giant waste of time. No memorable musical sequences to speak of and the original songs in the film are as exciting to watch as a Yanni music video. Yanni. What a terrible reference. This movie is so bad, it's making me say dumb jokes. I think it's time to end this review before I say something even dumber.

Grade: F*



*Though Quvenzhane Wallis gets an A- 

The Imitation Game Review

 

Whenever a biopic is made about an important figure, it should be understood from the outset that liberties will be taken with the source material. Of course. This is pretty standard. That doesn't stop all the countless internet articles from pointing out all the factual inaccuracies from such a film, but I guess it's all part of the process. Any story based on fact warrants fact-checking, we can't avoid that. What ultimately matters is how much you let those inaccuracies affect your overall viewpoint of the movie you just saw. Does the movie work on its own? Even if it's not completely accurate regarding its subject, is it at least emotionally truthful?

"The Imitation Game" attempts to be emotionally truthful towards its subject, mathematician Alan Turing. Turing developed a machine that cracked Germany's Enigma code during World War II, which helped the Allies win the war. He, in fact, played a very detrimental part in the victory, an essential part, but he received no official credit for his achievement until long after his death.

Turing's story is ultimately a tragic one. He was gay during a time when it was illegal. He subsequently was prosecuted because of his homosexuality and was given a choice between spending time in jail or chemically castrating himself. He choose the latter because he wanted to keep working, but the effects of the drugs he was given ultimately lead him to a brutal suicide.

That brutal suicide was something I had to read up on after I saw the movie. "The Imitation Game" wants to delve into Alan Turing, the mathematician, but it doesn't really want to dive in. It wants to shed light on Turing's homosexuality, but the light they shine is rather dim. This is to say, the filmmakers tried their very best to make both the math and his sexuality easy to swallow and this was ultimately very problematic for me. We never see Turing commit suicide nor do we even watch how he descended into such a fate. We are only given glimpses of the last years of his life, as the movie's primarily told in flashback. Of course the film's primarily interested in how Turing cracked the enigma code, but even then, the filmmakers take so long to get to the heart of that story.

Instead, so much time is wasted on portraying Turing as this socially-awkward, arrogant jerk who doesn't want to be friends with anybody. He doesn't want anyone's help with the machine. But, thanks to a bright young woman (Keira Knightley), he realizes he actually does need to work with these other brilliant people in order to successfully build this machine.

So much unnecessary drama is added in the first half of the movie. Clearly, screenwriter Graham Moore wanted to focus on all these different aspects of Turing's life, breaking the movie down to three time periods. Moore insists on giving Turing an arc that's riddled with so many cliches on how the movies portray scientists and mathematicians. While Benedict Cumberbatch is certainly game to play such a cold, calculating character, I can't help but wish that the writer gave Alan Turing (and Cumberbatch) more layers to work with. As it is, Cumberbatch's performance largely comes off as one-note. When the film finally gets going and Turing cracks the code, it's pretty exhilarating stuff. There's an oft-talked about scene where Turing and his team have to deal with the moral consequences of the work they're doing and it's the most gripping part of the movie.

Unfortunately, for a movie that intends to be a World War II thriller, "Imitation Game" largely comes up short. Too often, the movie goes the cliched, inspirational drama route, playing all the familiar notes one would get from a typical biopic and it's hard not to feel as if so much of this stuff was tacked on to appeal to a certain Academy. The most audience-insulting example is this line of dialogue, which is repeated three times: “Sometimes it is the people who no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine."

It's repeated so often that it's as if Graham Moore started the script with that line in mind then worked his way backwards. "The Imitation Game" just lays it on way too thick too often to be really effective. For a movie that intends to celebrate this unique hero, this biopic simply feels standard. Instead of portraying Turing as a tragic hero whose fate in life would surely anger even the most cold-hearted, the movie puts all its emphasis on Turing being a hero while making his tragic downfall feel like such an afterthought.

I give all the credit to Benedict Cumberbatch for keeping this movie watchable and somewhat enjoyable, but simply put, "The Imitation Game" is merely average. It's an insultingly average film.

Grade: C

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 Review

"The Hunger Games" franchise has been a weird one, I must say. I was not a fan of the first film at all, as evidenced by my C- review over two years ago. My criticisms largely stemmed from the directing. The movie just didn't feel like a blockbuster, the actual hunger games came across as rather bland, and it was unsettling for me to see the filmmakers gloss over the gruesome nature of kids killing each other.

Thankfully, the producers righted the ship for "Catching Fire" by replacing director Gary Ross with Francis Lawrence. There wasn't as much emphasis on shaky camera movement, the hunger games actually had an interesting look, the characters weren't one-dimensional. Suddenly, it felt as if the world of Panem was finally coming to life. My only issue with the second film was the abrupt ending.

I ended my review of "Catching Fire" by saying the series was "on thin ice" and I really meant it. "Mockingjay - Part 1" was a tough sell for me from the beginning. I hate splitting up one movie into two. I reviewed the first "Hobbit" movie and have never bothered to watch the second one, probably won't see the third. I never reviewed the second "Deathly Hallows" film. I don't like movies that are just one large act 1, that are just a giant setup for the sequel. Movies should work by themselves. Period. This is simply something I won't budge on.

BUT, I will say, "Mockingjay - Part 1" actually satisfied me when it came to its ending. There were just as many instances where the film was confirming my fears concerning the pitfalls of "Part I" movies, but when the credits rolled - I felt relief. This movie has an ending. I want to see Part 2. As it turns out, I am actually quite enjoying this franchise as a whole. It's just a shame the first film was not very good, the second one has no ending, and the third one doesn't really know what it's trying to be until the final 15 minutes.


Katniss was rescued in the previous movie by rebels and in "MJ - Part 1," she's taken to an underground rebel facility - lead by President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) with Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) as her right hand man. It's pretty clear what President Coin wants from Katniss. She's to be the "Mockingjay," the leader of the rebellion. Katniss is hesitant to accept this role and a good part of the movie goes into her initial hesitance, but once she sees what they're doing to Peeta in the Capitol, she ultimately decides to take on the challenge.

Katniss's initial hesitance is palpable, but the movie takes a little too long to get the obvious next step. Of course she'll be the mockingjay otherwise, we have no movie. Since this is part 1 and the book itself is actually a page shorter than Catching Fire (which wasn't broken into two parts) that means much more lingering, much less plot propulsion. It's interesting to see Katniss visit other districts, as the Mockingjay, but it's difficult to get a visual sense of just how effective she is as the symbol other than what we're told.

The Capitol has Peeta. The majority of the rebels think Peeta is a traitor. Katniss wants to save Peeta. It's weird to see just how focused Katniss is on the safe return of Peeta. I have never really bought that Katniss has any emotional connection to Peeta at all, I don't think we were supposed to in the first two films, so her overwhelming emotion and loyalty towards Peeta kinda falls flat for me.

As it is, and I hate to say this, but Jennifer Lawrence is asked to go big on the emotions in this film and the results are a bit mixed. The first two films, she's tough, stoic, angry---these are things that suit Lawrence well. And maybe it's because the overall tone of the film makes the emotional moments feel hollow, but something felt off about Jennifer Lawrence's performance here.

Part of that could also be because of how her character takes a backseat to much of the action. Towards the end, the movie starts to kick into gear when they make it their mission to capture Peeta, but... Katniss is not among those who help capture him. She stays at the facility while the men take care of business and we only see snippets of their plot to take Peeta to District 13. We only know how they captured Peeta because of how they explain it to us. There's just a little too much telling and not showing in this film.

This is basically a movie with no climax. There is one, but we don't see it. You could get away with not showing the capturing of Peeta if this was the first half of the movie, but if his escape from the Capitol is to be the centerpiece of the film, then you better show it!

I kept starting and stopping when it came to writing this review. I don't get excited about writing reviews to "Part 1" films, I just don't. Because, despite the film ultimately satisfying me on a basic level, this is still just half of a movie and I don't like writing about half a movie. I'll give the filmmakers credit for making this feel big and having "Part 1" come to a conclusion we can all be happy with, but they better deliver with "Part 2" or this whole franchise just might turn out to have been one gigantic waste of time.

Grade: B-