The Wolf of Wall Street (*****)

3 hours long and I wore a smile on my face the entire time. A Scorsese movie that is his greatest achievement since "Goodfellas," over 20 years ago. A stellar cast, an explosive screen experience, powerful, extremely funny, and far too controversial for its own good, I dare you to try and find a fault with "The Wolf of Wall Street." Go ahead, try me.

Cinema, yes, has its roots in characters, and it seems like most characters in modern film find their roots in Martin Scorsese. From "Raging Bull" to "Taxi Driver" to "The Departed," the films become less about plot and more about the on-screen portrayal of something transcendent, whether it's a violent boxer or a gangster or Howard Hughes. It's not always easy to pinpoint a Scorsese movie outside of the fast cuts and nostalgic soundtrack. Each of his films are as varied as they come, and on the heels of his recent triumph that is "Hugo," "Wolf" is a burst of energy into the comedy genre, full and grand and smart.

The story concerns Jordan Belfort, a broker who narrates his story (in a similar style to Ray Liotta's character in Goodfellas). He ascends the Wall Street ladder, moving to New York, only to form his own brokerage when his first job goes belly up. He tells us how he made $49 million his first year, which annoyed him because it was just shy of $1 million a week. If that doesn't surmise a character in one sentence, then I don't know what will.

He meets Donnie Azoff (played by the incomparable Jonah Hill), a heavy, bleached-tooth guy with a passion for money. My God, he drops his job the second Belfort is able to show him one of his own paystubs. He is driven yet no less eccentric.

The underbellies of the stock market are spelled out plainly in the first act by Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey in yet another stellar (if short) performance), Belfort's first boss. Jordan's idea is to please the customer, make them money, do a service to the community. Hanna's advice? Jerk off twice a day and capitalize on greed. The scene, which takes place over lunch in a fancy New York City restaurant, is one of the best of the film - sharply written and perfectly balanced between comedy and the darker elements at play.

And capitalize Jordan does. Pretty soon, his company "Stratton Oakmont" (how professional sounding) moves from selling penny stocks (literally 3 cents a share) to being featured as a headline in Forbes Magazine. The money is rolling in, but so is the suspicion of the FBI, and in true Scorsese form, crime is always coupled with some sort of balance in the end.

What a ride. As a person inpartial to Leonardo DiCaprio's more recent work, his performance shows flashes of brilliance, echoing elements of Charles Foster Kane and Jake LaMotta. He has power in his position, and Jordan Belfort is a man I would believe could start up a successful brokerage. There are two scenes in which he addresses the company on stage with a microphone, and the level of focus he has in delivering the message is staggering. I was almost taken back by the power of the words he was saying, and though we know him to be a con man, he was someone I would follow right off a cliff.

His interactions with Jonah Hill as Donnie are classic, slapstick routines, and it is clear that the level of craftsmanship in filmmaking was matched toe-for-toe with on screen chemistry. Donnie is about as memorable a character as any I have seen this year, and though he is reprehensible to the bone, it's all the more admirable a performance. Does Scorsese know how to cast, or what.

From "American Hustle," to "Nebraska," and now "Wolf," 2013 might become the year of the unconventional comedy. How to decide on a favorite movie in a year as diverse as this is becoming all the more complicated. The more I reflect on this film, the more I appreciate. We see a man essentially living the American Dream, yet through illicit means, is his fulfillment of the dream any less real? His company has brought so many good people wealth, but since he is a criminal, is it all void? Perhaps Gordon Gekk has a point when he figured that 'greed is good.' Afterall, these men are not prone to charity...

The movie shocks viewers with its level of graphic content (think office party orgies, heaps of cocaine in the air, language that would turn your mother's cheeks red), and for sure this is a film that will throw off many viewers and offend that many more. No one ever said characters in films had to be likable. They just have to be real. And through lines of cocaine and prostitutes and bottles of quaaludes, there is truth to be found at the heart of "The Wolf of Wall Street." Whether or not any modicum of it can relate to us is debatable. I don't care. My God, after all this movie put me through, getting rich quick still sounds like a pretty good deal.....

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (DiCaprio), Best Supporting Actor (Hill), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Sound Mixing)

Frozen (****1/2)

"Frozen," following in the footsteps of "Tangled,"  "Wreck-It Ralph," and "The Princess and the Frog," represents a return to form for the original Disney Studio (not to be mistaken with Pixar, mind you). Now in a full-fledged swing with computer animation, we may be on the verge of a new Golden Age of the Disney Studio. In terms of animated films this year, this is one to beat (again, my apologies to Pixar).

When you think of Disney Princesses, I'm sure your mind immediately races to Cinderella, Ariel, Belle, all strong-minded women who can control the course of their fate. The Prince in all instances is merely an afterthought - the icing on the cake, so to say. What a pleasure to discover that here, we have two Princesses; sisters named Anna and Elsa. They live in an unnamed kingdom that resembles something along the lines of northern Russia or perhaps Sweden. It's remote, it's gorgeous, full of people and colorful characters.

Elsa, though, has a terrible secret, one that she hides from Anna - she has been born with (and not cursed, perhaps a little room here for the sequel) the powers of winter. And by winter, we mean she can literally summon snowfall and freeze anything on touch. She spends her life wearing gloves. She is afraid, with her powers mostly out of her control. In a moment of emotion during her coronation, she accidentally slips the Kingdom into an eternal winter and flees to the mountains, leaving her younger sister, Princess Anna, to try and solve the problem.

Along the way, she meets Kristoff, a blonde-haired northern European type with a reindeer. Together, they haul snow for a livelihood. As you can expect, business goes sour when ice is suddenly in abundance. He joins with Anna to try and end the sudden winter wonderland. You can guess what might happen to them along the way.... Let's just say the term "true love's kiss" is thrown around a few times.

I really admire this movie, and in a broad range of categories. Yes, it's a musical, and the songs are catchy and never overly-hokey. The wide range of details from costumes to sets are all miraculous, as are the animation sequences themselves. One scene depicts Elsa building an ice castle for herself far up the side of a steep slope. Set to a show-stopping song sung by Broadway legend Idina Menzel, it's simply gorgeous.

The theater I was with was absolutely packed, half kids, half adults, and though the running time was nearly 2 hours, the film managed to hold the attention of all watching. It's very much refreshing to see a movie that pulls from the best of your childhood favorites (Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, The Lion King, etc), and to see it done with such skill is even more special. Expect to be wowed.

(Awards potential: Best Animated Feature, Best Original Score, Best Original Song ("Let It Go," "For the First Time In Forever," "In Summer")

Saving Mr Banks (***1/2)

Who doesn't remember the joy of watching "Mary Poppins" as a child, or as an adult for that matter? My God, I still watch it, and the more I see it, the more I appreciate the technical aspects of the film, not to mention the unique and moving storyline. Who never wished to have their room swept up with the snap of their fingers, or fly into a painting at a moment's notice?

What "Saving Mr Banks" attempts to do, then, is find the source of such rich source material. The year is 1963, the author: PL Travers (Emma Thompson), a cold-hearted woman who only agrees to sell the rights to her beloved book on the condition that they do it "her way," meaning: no animation, and no singing. It looks like we're in for a bumpy ride...

Apparently, her books have been plaguing Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) for years, 20 to be exact. He's written her every year, trying to secure the film rights, and Travers ("please, please, Mrs. Travers") has repeatedly denied him.

The marvel of "Saving Mr Banks" is the feeling of the genuine. We see her sit in on the script revision sessions, where she is pitched everything from costumes to song ideas. She insists on tape-recording every session, and only when she feels content will she sign the papers to make Mary Poppins a reality. The fate of the film is in her tightly-clenched fists.

We see Disney, in an iconic performance by Hanks, as a man who clearly knows how to charm his way into a deal. He's Walt Disney, afterall. However, for reasons he can't even begin to grasp, he is unable to win over Mrs. Travers. To her, Poppins will be just another brick in the Disney legacy. For Disney, himself, it's a promise to his children.

Emma Thompson, who I haven't seen in a good performance in a while, is perfect. She is highly unlikeable, but as we get to know her, and her childhood, we begin to see the humanity in her absurd reasonings (she will not have pears present in her hotel, and there can be absolutely NO color red in the picture. Period). It's a marvelous role, simple, taught, and expertly acted. I would be surprised if this Oscar-winner did NOT receive an Academy nomination this year.

Same for Hanks, who at times is indistinguishable from the real Disney we know from video clips and photographs. He is a businessman, yes, he smokes, he flirts, but in the end, he is still a father trying to fulfill his own dreams, perfectly summed up in a scene between he and Travers in which we hear about Disney's childhood in rural Missouri.

The film is not without flaws, and for me, we are trudgened with extended flashbacks to Travers' childhood in Australia. Her father, a drunk, and her mother, a seemingly unhappy woman who begins to lose grip of her own home. Yes, I know we are trying to figure out why Travers is such an unhappy woman, but the awkward transitions between past and present are more jarring than anything. Of course, being produced by Disney, the film at times feels self-congratulatory, and we wonder what PL Travers would think of the adaptation of her own story to the big screen... Perhaps she would find that Disney, once again, white washes everything under a blanket of fairy dust and happy endings.

We are treated to a fabulous score by Thomas Newman (always an Oscar nominee....) and the set pieces are truly fantastic (both in Australia, London, and Los Angeles). Truly though, the strength of this film is in the two leading performances. John Lee Handcock (director of "The Blind Side" fame) is not necessarily a director one would call 'subtle,' but he manages to yield some great film moments. Perhaps they made the film simply to boost "Mary Poppins" sales on its 50th anniversary, or perhaps the story behind such a marvelous film was too good to pass up. In no way does "Saving Mr Banks" surpass its subject film, but it is still a well-rounded and entertaining movie, nonetheless.

(Awards potential: Best Actress (Thompson), Best Supporting Actor (Hanks), Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Original Score)

American Hustle (***1/2)

Jo says:

(I have revised my review of this film in lieu of a second viewing. The rating has been adjusted from a perfect ***** to ***1/2)

David O. Russell. A man of many films. A man of many actors. His past 3 films alone have garnered an unheard of 25 Oscar nominations. 11 acting nominations. He's obviously doing something right. His films are evocative, natural, focused on characters over story, and herein lies the problem with his latest caper. What initially struck me as a masterpiece comedy - the best con film since perhaps "The Sting" - has simply pulled the wool over the eyes of the audience. The con, in fact, seems to be on us. Here is a film that is glitz and glamour, yet with a simple repeated viewing, I realized it was merely a flash in the pan.

The film still functions on the merits of its plot. We meet Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale, in his career-best role), the great con artist who teams with Sydney Prosser aka Lady Edith Greensly aka Amy Adams, a woman from New Mexico posing as a lucrative Londoner who simply overflows with sex appeal. They are having an affair, because guess what? Rosenfeld is married with a child, and his wife is nutty in all the wrong ways (the ingenious Jennifer Lawrence). No matter, they meet FBI Agent Richard "Richie" DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). Together, they hope to bring down the Mayor of Camden, New Jersey. Together, they plan the ultimate heist. Or so we think. Or do we?

Simple, right? Not so fast. The film is littered with tidbits and supporting characters and locations - they weave together as though part of a larger story waiting to be revealed. Take DiMaso's supervisor (Louis CK) - throughout the film, we hear his story of a childhood ice fishing trip. The story itself is told in fragments, seemingly aimed at giving DiMaso some sort of moral compass. Or something. Or is it? We never hear the end, we never see what the purpose of CK's character was, let alone the absurd dynamic between these two men. In individual scenes, his narration of his time spent on a lake engages you, pulls you in. Watch the film again, and you're left in the dark, wondering why these scenes were ever included to begin with. That seems to be the case with the majority of the film: scenes work beautifully on their own, but what does the final product amount to?

I'll hand it to O. Russell, though. This film is a touchstone in acting, and without a doubt it belongs to Christian Bale. You remember he won an Oscar for "the Fighter" a few years ago. This performance in "Hustle" is astonishing. Gaining 40 pounds and developing a comb-over, Bale slips into character and absolutely floored me with every scene. Masterful acting, and with any justice he will receive a Best Actor nomination. Lawrence is equally good as a scene-stealer, slowly developing into a leading lady (or is she blending with her public persona as a comic relief of sorts?). Amy Adams also delivers the goods, and reminds us why we need her starring in more leading roles.

The film remains gorgeous, with stunning sets, costumes, and hair. Perhaps, then, it's a film that might be even better watched on mute. In a way, I wish I never saw the film again. I wish I could preserve that sense of magic I had the first time I saw it. I wish I could still think of it as one of the year's best films. In the end, I can't lie to myself. American Hustle is a major misfire.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Bale), Best Actress (Adams), Best Supporting Actor (Cooper), Best Supporting Actress (Lawrence), Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup)

Inside Llewyn Davis (*****)

My filmgoing experience today has taken me from one emotional extreme to the next (see my "American Hustle" review). With the Coen brothers, I can always trust them to deliver a story with real characters and great dialogue. What caught me off guard with "Inside Llewyn Davis," then, was the emotional punch it brought. Known for their technical brilliance, Joel and Ethan have outdone themselves in capturing the Greenwich Village scene pre-Bob Dylan.

With a bookend technique that perfectly crafts the film like a brushstroke, we meet and get to know Llewyn Davis (the name is Welch, though his mom is Italian) over the course of a few days. In typical Coen fashion, he's down on his luck, hopping from couch to couch, playing gigs but getting nothing for it. The film is a slow, churning reflection on the times, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see people walking out of the screening instead of listening to song after song in their entireties. What we lack in plot is made up for in characters and imagery.

Davis is trying to start a solo gig, after the recent suicide of his musical partner. The problem is that he can't get anyone to listen. On top of it, his friend's cat escaped their apartment and he is locked out. What else can a man do but carry around an orange cat through the cold of a New York winter?

Oscar Isaac is the man. You may recognize him from "Drive?" Here, he shines. The film depends wholly on a man we can sympathize with and yet demonstrate a broad range of talent. This is a star-making performance, and I hope to see more from him soon. The cast is littered with great roles (Carey Mulligan playing his ex who has nothing but profanities for him, John Goodman as a mysterious man who uses two walking canes, drugs, and a chauffeur). Their scenes are perfect and yet too short. We could make an entire film out of Goodman's character, and yet we see him for mere minutes!

The real star is the music, but what else is new? The soundtrack is manipulative to the point of being sentimental, but I didn't mind in the least. It sounds of sadness that seems to mirror the sense of foreboding as the innocence of the times is almost over.

As per the Coen's emphasis on craftsmanship, the film is gorgeous, and the best moments are the short scenes of little to no dialogue, beautifully shot and conceived. A car on a snowy highway, the glance of a cat, a puddle of slush in the snow.... Breaking from long-time collaborator Roger Deakins, the film is still a marvel of photography with Bruno Delbonnel (Amelie) as the helm.

The film moves mountains in it's slow, dark journey, and what a pleasure it was to watch. As far as Coen brothers go, their streak of unique filmmaking and first-rate writing continues. "Inside Llewyn Davis" is simply fantastic.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Isaac), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Soundtrack, Best Sound Mixing)

State of the Oscar Race...

Let's begin by simply stating: this is a drab year for quality movies. Sorry, that's this blogger's humble opinion. One year after one of the most exciting Oscar races in memory (Argo, Lincoln, Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained, The Master, etc, etc, etc), we're having trouble naming more than a couple films that could theoretically WIN the big prize: Best Picture. As of now, and based on our recent SAG Nominations/ Golden Globe Nominations/ Critics' Choice Nominations, we have but one possible winner: 12 Years A Slave. Let's discuss this logic. 

BEST PICTURE

With Golden Globe nominations, we saw an interesting split between the Comedy/Drama categories. In Best Picture, we had the following nominees: 12 Years a Slave, Gravity, Captain Philips, Rush, & Philomena. Comedy saw the following hilarious films nominated: Her, American Hustle, Inside Llewyn Davis, The Wolf of Wall Street, and Nebraska. As little as the Globes matter anymore (and as irrelevant, too), we did see some trends with the SAG Best Ensemble nominees (the Best Picture equivalent for actors: The Butler, 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club, August Osage County, and American Hustle) and the Critics Choice nominees (American Hustle, Captain Philips, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity, Her, Inside Llewyn Davis, Nebraska, Saving Mr Banks, 12 Years a Slave, The Wolf of Wall Street). Ignoring the overwhelming mess of trying to interpret, there are a few basic rules with gauging Oscar potential: Getting a nomination from all 3 is almost crucial (12 Years A Slave & American Hustle), a SAG Ensemble Nomination is required to win Best Picture, and generally the film with the most cast members nominated wins (The Butler leads with 15, followed by 12 Years A Slave at 13). Meaning?: 12 Years A Slave is our front-runner, and American Hustle is not far behind. Sorry Gravity....

Locked and loaded for a nomination:

1. 12 Years A Slave

2. American Hustle

3. Gravity

4. Nebraska

5. Inside Llweyn Davis

6. Captain Phillips

Most likely:

7. Wolf of Wall Street

8. Her

It Could Happen:

9. Dallas Buyers Club

10. Saving Mr Banks

11. Philomena

12. Rush

BEST ACTOR

When dealing with actors, SAG nominations (Screen Actors Guild) are your best bet. Not only does it gauge the overall tone of the voters, but it shows where the support is amongst the Oscar's biggest group of voters: actors. Our nominees are Chiwetel Ejiofor (12 Years a Slave), Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club), Bruce Dern (Nebraska), Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips), and Forrest Whitaker (The Butler). Save for Whitaker, who may easily get bumped off for Robert Redford in All Is Lost, this has been the consistent lineup all season. McConaughey will finally break into the 'big boy club' by scoring his first nomination (ala Bradley Cooper last year), Tom Hanks will receive his first nomination since 2000, and Best Picture will most likely secure a win for its main actor (think The Artist, The King's Speech, No Country for Old Men, Million Dollar Baby, Gladiator, etc). It helps to star in a critically-acclaimed movie when you're looking for Oscar gold. Expect to see Chiwetel Ejiofor as the front runner for the rest of the race. 

Locked and loaded:

1. Chiwetel Ejiofor

2. Bruce Dern

3. Matthew McConaughey

4. Tom Hanks

Battling for the last spot:

5. Robert Redford

6. Forrest Whitaker

7. Leonardo DiCaprio

8. Christian Bale

BEST ACTRESS

Then again, sometimes you don't need an Oscar juggernaut to push you through to an Oscar, all you need is to be a female starring in a Woody Allen movie. SAG nominated Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine), Sandra Bullock (Gravity), Meryl Streep (August Osage County), Emma Thompson (Saving Mr Banks), and Judi Dench (Philomena). That's a strong lineup, one that will most likely secure all ladies Oscar nominations, too. Outside of Blanchett and Dench, each woman has already won Best Actress, and ALL have won Oscars before. Bullock is expected to be the biggest threat to Blanchett's win here, but being in a science fiction film doesn't fare well for Oscar voters (remember the last time someone in a science fiction film won an Oscar? Me neither...), nor does Bullock's recent win (which some found undeserving to boot). Cate Blanchett stands out from the pack. 

Locked and loaded:

1. Cate Blanchett

2. Sandra Bullock

3. Meryl Streep

4. Judi Dench

5. Emma Thompson

It could happen:

6. ..... cough.... ?

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Some surprises here, with SAG nominating Barkhad Abdi (Captain Philips), Daniel Bruhl (Rush), Michael Fassbender (12 Years a Slave), Jared Leto (Dallas Buyers Club), and James Gandolfini (posthumously, for Enough Said). Replace Gandolfini with Bradley Cooper in American Hustle and you have the Golden Globe lineup. Include both and you have Critics Choice. Who will miss a nomination on Oscar morning? Abdi and Bruhl were surprises to say the least, but they were consistently nominated across the board. Are they in Oscar lineup for sure?? It's no guarantee. Who can say for sure at this point. All we know is that Fassbender and Leto will have to duke it out for the title. Interestingly, both play somewhat historical characters in an American historical film, one a villain, and one a hero. Supporting Actor loves themselves some villains at the Oscars (No Country for Old Men, Inglourious Basterds, Dark Knight...) so perhaps Fassbender. Then again, the Academy has yet to prove their love for him, and he plays a very unsettling role. As of now it looks like Jared Leto is a few paces ahead (if only because of other critics awards he has already picked up). 

Locked and loaded:

1. Jared Leto

2. Michael Fassbender

Most likely:

3. Barkhad Abdi

4. Daniel Bruhl

Battling for #5:

5. James Gandolfini

6. Bradley Cooper

7. Tom Hanks (Saving Mr Banks)

8. Will Forte (Nebraska)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Julia Roberts (August Osage County), Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave), Jennifer Lawrence (American Hustle), June Squibb (Nebraska), Oprah Winfrey (The Butler). Those are our SAG nominees. Sally Hawkins (Blue Jasmine) bumped Oprah out in a shocker at the Globes, and Critics nominated all our SAG ladies on top of the Scarlett Johansson for Her. Wow. Will Oprah make the final cut? Most likely. Will she win? No. Who are the front-runners? Tough call. Lupita Nyong'o is powerful in 12 Years a Slave and has a powerful debut. June Squibb is a veteran playing a colorful character in a great movie that has little chance of winning other awards. For now, bet on Lupita, but June stands in the shadows of great older women who have won this category in the past.

Locked and loaded:

1. Lupita Nyong'o

2. June Squibb

3. Jennifer Lawrence

Most likely:

4. Oprah Winfrey

5. Julia Roberts

It could happen:

6. Sally Hawkins

7. Scarlett Johansson (well, maybe this one can't...)

BEST DIRECTOR

Globes nominated 12 Years A Slave, Gravity, Captain Phillips, American Hustle, and Nebraska. We won't have a good grasp of this category until DGA nominations, although last year, that only translated into 2 Oscar nominations (remember when Ben Affleck was snubbed and Ang Lee won? Oh yeah). For now, things will correlate closely with Best Picture, meaning Steve McQueen for 12 Years a Slave has all the right ingredients right now. 

Locked and loaded:

1. Steve McQueen (12 Years a Slave)

2. Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity)

3. David O. Russell (American Hustle)

Most likely:

4. Alexander Payne (Nebraska)

Need to fill the last spot:

5. Martin Scorsese (Wolf of Wall Street)

6. Paul Greengrass (Captain Phillips)

7. Joel & Ethan Coen (Inside Llewyn Davis)

We'll see how the race shapes up with PGA (Producers Guild) DGA (Directors Guild) WGA (Writers Guild) nominations in the coming weeks. So far, the crystal ball is becoming clear....

Her (*****)

“Why do people have to be this lonely? What's the point of it all? Millions of people in this world, all of them yearning, looking to others to satisfy them, yet isolating themselves. Why? Was the earth put here just to nourish human loneliness?”

"Her" is a film unlike any other this year. In a screenwriting debut, Spike Jonze (of "Being John Malkovich" and "Adaptation." fame) single-handedly turns in a story on par with the best of Charlie Kaufman, a story of humans and machines and the crazy world in which we live (and perhaps the world we will soon be experiencing). 

The time is the near-future. The date is not important. Nor is the setting, a massive expanse of high-rises and skyscrapers with lights, images, color, people. It's an entire world, and yet the people in this world inhabit their own, with earpieces that are reminiscent of the smartphone fad. Heads down, focused on reading emails, people pass through the most beautiful settings unaware of any special significance. 

Theodore Twombly (Joaquin Phoenix) is one such man. He is freshly-single from a divorce, still haunted by memories of their life. He works in an office where he is hired to write love letters to people as though penned by the lover, themself. He is a genius of the craft, able to eloquently ghost write a love note to an elderly couple, but lacks the social skills necessary for anything else, least of all his relationships with women. 

A new software becomes available, an operating system with an artificial intelligence. She names herself Samantha (the gorgeous, scratchy voice of Scarlett Johansson).  She begins to charm Theodore with her knowledge, her insight, her programming. She asks about his life, his past wife, his thoughts.... They fall in love. 

As far as you are concerned, that is the plot of the trailer, cryptic and beautiful, and yet there is an ocean of depth to this film! We discover other people are falling in love with their OS's (operating systems), though it's rare. Theodore begins introducing Samantha to his friends, colleagues. Some are surprised, some are not. All the while while watching, I was aware of my own distaste with the subject matter. So radical, nearly warped, and yet not without the slightest hint of self-reflection. 

Can a man and machine truly love one another? Can an artificial intelligence honestly feel emotions, especially towards a human being? As Theodore's neighbor, Amy (Amy Adams) puts it: how can you decide what's real if you're not actually experiencing it? 

The ending leaves as many questions and puzzles as the film's beginning. Through the gorgeous futuristic settings and against the somber Arcade Fire soundtrack, "Her" was one of my most pleasurable movie experiences this year. This is not to say I was laughing, although it is a comedy. Nor is it to say I was depressed, though it is a hard-hitting drama. Spike Jonze manages the near-impossible, telling a science fiction story with the most humanistic focus possible. That's a rare feat, indeed. 

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Phoenix), Best Supporting Actress (Adams, Johansson), Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography, Best Soundtrack)

Philomena (****)

Oh how I adore you, Judi Dench. One of the most remarkable actresses that has ever graced the screen. Can she do no wrong? What seemed like a slight comedy in the trailer comes a powerful and emotionally honest story of a woman looking for her adopted child. Directed by Steven Frears (you know him for directing 'The Queen'), 'Philomena' is as well-rounded as any movie this year and features one of the best leading performances to boot.

As a young girl, Philomena becomes pregnant. Taken in by a group of Irish nuns, she is forced to work off her sins as penance and her son is adopted to an American family against her will. The memories of her son haunt her to this day, and it's the realization that her lying about the truth for all this time is a sin in itself is what sets the story in motion.

Well, not entirely. Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) is a recently-fired as a political advisor and is looking for work. Maybe he'll write a book on Russian history... Maybe not. Like fate, he comes to hear of Philomena and her struggle to find out what happened to her now 50-year-old son, Anthony. Taken by the 'human' element of the story and the appeal of getting work published, they set off to America, where they search for records of the adoption (how convenient that the nunery had a massive fire destroying all records?)

Judi Dench gives such a natural sensibility to Philomena. She is kind, complimentary, worried more about burdening Sixsmith than finding out the truth. She is almost his opposite. Sixsmith is solely concerned with finding the ending to his story and returning to London with Philomena, happy or not. Likewise for Steve Coogan. He is stern, non-religious, interested only in facts. And yet he grows to care for Philomena. They're subtle but great performances, both of them.

The film has a strong conviction against the Catholic Church and its policies regarding children born out of wedlock, but at the same time it does not entirely rule out forgiveness as a final option. For every day in the last 50 years, Philomena has prayed for her son. She hasn't the heart to hate the nuns that brought her pain about. It's not the Christian thing to do.

It's easy to recognize the work of a great director, and Frears effortlessly directs the film. At times I felt too spoon fed, and as an audience member I wished certain aspects of the film weren't spelled out so neatly for me. The film shows flashbacks of Philomena with her son and at the convent, but these contribute next to nothing to the story and are distracting to say the least. The film opens with an extended flashback of her getting pregnant and having her child. My God, the film just started! Sometimes mystery is a good thing.

Nonetheless, the film is joyous and oftentimes powerful. Alexander Desplat lends himself to a beautiful score and the film has some beautiful moments. Yes, filmmaking is a combination of elements, from the screenplay to the editing, but without a great leading actor, your film is finished. Thank God for Judi Dench.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Actress (Dench), Best Supporting Actor (Coogan), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score)

Lee Daniels' The Butler (**)

Like Tyler Perry, Lee Daniels' is learning to create a name for himself in Hollywood. Branding his films in the same fashion, 'The Butler' has proven a box office hit, and we will surely see many more films by the Oscar-nominee in the near future.

Hopefully we can see a bit more focus next time...

'The Butler' is a mess of near-catastrophic proportions. From the script up, the film itself is flawed in nearly every regard. The 'loosely-loosely based on a true story' of Cecil Gaines (in reality a man with a very different story named Eugene Allen), a man who worked in the White House as Lead Butler from Robin Williams to Severus Snape. The facts surrounding his position are astounding, and it's a wonder he didn't run into Forrest Gump at least a few times during his amazing odyssey through life and American History.

I don't want to spend a review bashing the film, because there are some okay (alright, good) performances by Forrest Whitaker and the beloved Oscar-nominee Oprah Winfrey. And heck, the makeup in the end is pretty good, too.... And I also liked when it ended?

The problem is the structure. When you are making a movie about a man's life and the influence of American history upon it and vice versa, we need a plot, we need reliable characters. As far as I can gather, Cecil liked being a butler, his son rebelled against it by joining the Black Panthers, and then Cecil decides to join him for no clear reason? The emotional conclusion to the film is seeing Cecil share a prison cell with his son, Louis. Oh, and the tears of joy with the election of Barack Obama. You know, because it's a race-themed movie and what a great conclusion.

From the cotton fields at the film's start (I didn't actually know Mariah Carey was black until this movie) to the elderly Cecil waiting to meet with the new President at the White House, we see the story unfold, with scene after scene of the most ridiculous-cast Presidents (each more ridiculous than the next, too). It's like a bad month of SNL hosts in a row giving it their best shot. No President is given more than one scene or two, adding to the confusion of their purpose in the film at all. No matter. I guess it's more a story of father and son, anyways.

For the acclaim this film received upon its release, I would be surprised to see it receive more than one Oscar nomination, if that at all. It's a slow-moving film that drudges along at the speed of an elderly Forrest Whitaker. It's like the continuation of 'Forrest Gump,' were they to make a sequel documenting the life and times of Bubba. Yes, it's kind of a true story and there's a general glazing of facts and time, but in the end, is that enough to warrant a full-length movie?

(Awards potential: Best Supporting Actress (Winfrey), Best Makeup)

Dallas Buyers Club (***)

Ron Woodroof is a man of few pleasures. He drinks, he's a rodeo cowboy, he's promiscuous, and he's got a nasty cough that leads him to pass out on more than one occassion. The year is 1985. The diagnosis: AIDS. Faced with the stigmas attached to the surging 'gay disease,' Ron is given a bleak 30-day diagnosis. With a lack of accessible medication, he begins searching outside the country for alternative medicines. Soon, the whole bandwagon is on his side, and he begins an illicit drug trade, dubbed 'The Dallas Buyers Club.'

The film is a legal drama in every sense of the term, based in part on a newspaper article published on the topic over 20 years ago. It was a scary time, and the film presents the viewer with a harsh look at the HIV/AIDS community at the height of its exposure. The Food and Drug Administration begins testing a new drug (AZT) through human trials, and much of the gay community will pay top dollar to have even a portion of the medicine. One such person is Rayon, a trans woman who is selected for the trial period. She is delicate, sassy, and determined, as much on the other side of the spectrum as Ron is homophobic, fearful, and rugged. They join up, creating a business that involves the Dallas community and draws the attention of the FDA.

There is much to admire in this film, notably for Matthew McConaughey's career-best performance (following in the footsteps of Bradley Cooper as second-rate comedians-turned Oscar-nominated actors). He is in no way a likable character, but he follows the appropriate character arc that we come to expect, and by the end you will be cheering. The same goes for Jared Leto, always a solid method actor, bound to finally get a long-deserved Oscar nomination. He's funny, a scene stealer, and carries much of the emotional weight of the story.

It's not that I have problems with this film, but that I've seen it before, and done better. Think 'Erin Brockovich,' thing 'Norma Rae,' think 'Silkwood.' 'Dallas Buyers Club' doesn't take risks in terms of story telling. It merely follows the traditional plot points and arrives at the finish line with Oscar buzz by default. I don't care for Ron's romantic relationship with a hospital doctor (Jennifer Garner), nor do I find myself on the edge of my seat when the FDA comes knocking at their door to seize their drugs. Perhaps you can even guess how the film ends, too! The strengths are in the 2 lead performances. The rest is just white noise.

(Awards potential: Best Actor (McConaughey), Best Supporting Actor (Leto), Best Adapted Screenplay)

Nebraska (*****)

Alexander Payne's latest flick is unquestionably a fine achievement. Quiet, fleeting, beautiful, blink and you may miss it, laugh too hard and you may miss an opportunity to reflect. Almost the pinnacle of his work thus far, incorporating themes from 'About Schmidt' and 'The Descendants' to name a few, Payne creates a road trip movie that is just about as good as anything I've seen in theaters this year. 

Woody Grant is a man of few words, married to his wife (Kate) and father to two awkward sons (David and Bob), he's slowly slipping into a state of unconsciousness. Perhaps its Alzheimer's, perhaps not, all we know is that Woody has won 1 million dollars, and he intends to collect his winnings in Lincoln, Nebraska, even if he has to walk there himself.

What follows is a story of a father (Bruce Dern) and his son (Will Forte), as Woody is humored into taking a trip to prove that it is simply a marketing ploy, not a promise of eternal fortune. 

What a funny film this was! As they travel from Montana to Nebraska, they stop at a relative's home, one of Woody's brothers, where we meet the aunt and cousins, as well as take a peek at the town where Woody was raised. There's the garage he used to own. That woman was who he dated before getting married to Kate. Or maybe not. To Woody, it's all the past, a blur of faces and places, nothing more. He wanders through town like a ghost, a man who has come to use alcohol as a crutch. To his son, his younger years are a mystery. 

Bruce Dern (who I admit, am not well-versed in) is a God-send in the leading role. He is quiet, stubborn, losing grip on reality. He captures a man that is not always likable but is entirely sympathetic. It's a quiet performance but truly one of the great leading roles of the year. In a genius scene with his son in a bar, for example, he summarizes marriage in the most brutally honest ways, so matter-of-fact and surprising to his son, and Dern maneuvers the dialogue like a master. His character has no motives or deception, he does not lie, and he has no agenda. Woody is only truthful, hard of hearing, and stubborn in his quest to collect his money.  

How funny that he finds himself married to the loudest mouth in Montana. In a performance sure to go down in history, June Squibb all but steals the show in every scene, Oscar-worthy in every sense of the term and likely this year's winner for Best Supporting Actress. She is a fiery woman, put up with her husband's antics, and the nail that holds the film together. Visiting the cemetery where Woody's family is buried, for example, Kate goes stone to stone, picking apart her deceased in-laws with insults and commentary. "Here's Woody's sister. What a whore. I liked Rose, but she was a slut..." It's undoubtedly the funniest scene of the film, perfectly encapsulating Kate's character and her relationship with her distanced husband and her ever-uncomfortable son. Squibb is sorely missed any moment she is not on screen, and she's a character just dripping with sass, charisma, and warmth. Give this woman an Oscar, dammit!

The black and white landscapes are remarkable, something we all recognize, as are the characters, so well-written and so Payne-ian in their depictions. The score is unique, simple, yet iconic. Humor isn't found in slapstick or funny visuals, but the way we find a disconnection with the elderly, with different groups of people, the awkwardness that comes from new scenery and change of pace.

Like all Alexander Payne films, we conclude on a masterfully-crafted shot, simple yet so effective, the son and father drive off into the sunset, driving over a hill and disappearing in the distance. What Woody fails to accomplish with his winnings, his son eventually fulfills for him anyways, and the movie concludes with such a sense of completion and love. What more needs to be said? So poignant and fulfilling, the perfect end to a perfect little story, 'Nebraska' had me floored long before the credits were rolling. 

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Dern), Best Supporting Actress (Squibb), Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score)

Blue Is The Warmest Color (Jo *1/2)

This year's controversial (and do we mean controversial) Palm D'Or winner at the Cannes Film Festival has weaseled its way into American cinemas, despite the hard NC-17 rating, and despite it's 3-hour run time. The film, an allegory for some sort of sexual awakening or perhaps blossoming adulthood, is flawed, and there lies the very core problem of this film.

Let's begin by being quite clear: as one who is an avid film fan and has seen his fare share of 'queer cinema,' this film is not a member of that company. Queer cinema identifies itself as being made by, starring, even exploring what it means to be gay in the world. Perhaps this film explores, but never does it settle on anything genuine. Here is a film made by, starring, written and directed by heterosexuals. Plain and simple.

We see young Adele (newcomer Adèle Exarchopoulos, an actress whose nose runs so easily that she definitely needs an abundance of Kleenex with her at all times), a high schooler who dates a few guys, whatever. She is quiet, reserved, yet beautiful. She dates a guy, though it does nothing for her. She eats her feelings away yet gains no weight (aside from those adorable chubby cheeks).

And just as her English class begins discussing 'love at first sight' and 'predestination,' she meets Emma, a blue-haired wild girl, a meeting so fated that it feels almost like the two read the script and knew all about 'love at first sight' before even filming the scene. She feels something - a passion inside of her. We know what happens from here: they eventually fall in love, they begin dating, and the love falls apart in the end. It always does.

The process by which this happens is where the film draws much of my criticism. After moving in together, Adele becomes bored with the relationship, and like any level-headed lesbian in cinema does, she strikes up an affair with a man. Duh. This, of course, drives a spike through their relationship, and the two are parted forever. What is it with mainstream cinema that says lesbianism isn't valid? That a woman ALWAYS needs a man in order to feel fulfilled (both figuratively and literally, in this scenario). How offensive is that, knowing that films are still made (even in liberal France) that insist upon heteronormality, even in a film so proud to be called 'a revolution.'

And of course, with a lesbian movie, we are bound to see some sex scenes. Of course, these are the controversial and oftentimes graphic moments in the film that clearly are boosting the box office numbers. In a film so beautifully photographed and lit, the fact that all lesbian sex scenes are shot in wide angles and with the brightest studio lights is problematic to say the least. Hearing stories that the 10-minute scene took over 10 days to shoot (by the director's insistence) is so disturbing, and why this film draws praise for it's 'realism' is beyond me. These 'intimate' moments are the film's downfall: hokey, unrealistic, and jarring. This director could surely hit it big in the adult entertainment industry.

Perhaps this director could have taken the millions budgeted for this movie and made something of substance, instead of a 3-hour porn fest. Don't get me wrong, I am not in any way offended by nudity, or gratuity in film. Quite the contrary. What troubles me is the lack of regard given to the LGBT community by all involved with this film. What a sheer and utter waste of film, of time, of man power, of my $10.50, and my Saturday afternoon...

(Awards potential: Best Actress (Exarchopoulos), Best Supporting Actress (Léa Seydoux))

12 Years A Slave (*****)

'12 Years A Slave,' Chiwetel Ejiofor, and Steve McQueen will soon be Oscar winners, mark my words. There, I said it. How else can I begin a film review of a movie so marvelous that it literally stole my breath away on more than one occasion. A film that pulled me in quietly and still has me pondering over it the next morning. The reviews so far have been stellar. To have a movie surpass even your wildest hopes is rare. McQueen has made a full-blown masterpiece.

The story is just as you would expect - a freeman is sold into slavery amidst a drug-induced kidnapping, and with his rights stripped, he is sold throughout the South, working plantation to plantation. This man is Solomon Northup. This man is also Chiwetel Ejiofor. You may recognize him from some smaller roles (Children of Men, for one), but start practicing that pronounciation. We will be hearing his name many times this award season.

What an ode to life, to God, to identity, to faith, to hope, and to despair. The absolute good and absolute evil in men. I can't recall a movie that has come remotely close in terms of packing such an emotional punch. Ever. Forget last year's saccharin 'Django Unchained,' this is the movie that cinema has been afraid to show - delving deep into America's dark, brutal past in regards to slavery, perhaps the best movie made on the subject yet.

The power is in little scenes. We see a mother have her children ripped from her arms and sold, the salesman casually demonstrating how high the woman's 8 year old son can kick his knees. It's in scenes where Northup is strung up by a noose, barely supporting his weight on his tip toes and slipping in the mud, and his fellow slaves continuing their work without a care as he grasps to life (one long, unsettling take, no less). A scene where a slave woman is beaten to within an inch of her life, not only by her master, but by her friend (perhaps the single-most disturbing and powerful scene in any movie I can recall).

We have only Steve McQueen to thank. Known for his one-word indie flicks (Hunger, Shame), he makes a powerful debut to mainstream cinema with one of the best-directed movies in years. He guides a miracle cast through the darkest of times, but never without hope that freedom will one day come.

McQueen is a regular employer of Michael Fassbender, who here plays a villainous plantation owner named Epps. Villainous isn't even remotely close - think Amon Goth from 'Schindler's List.' He is fowl, cruel, drunk, pitiful. A terrifying performance, all the more impressive having seen Fassbender's previous work. The object of his desire happens to be one of his slaves, Patsey (played in a startling debut by Lupita Nyong'o). She is young, shy, and unlike Solomon, she has absolutely given up hope, settled in a life of constant rape and torture. We hear her beg Solomon to end her life, and when he protests, she reminds him that God is merciful. She has some of the quietest (and best-written) scenes as well as some of the most tragic.  If there is any justice in the Academy, Nyong'o and Fassbender will soon be graced with deserved Oscar nominations.

But of course, Chiwetel Ejiofor. In years to come, perhaps they will say this was the role he was born to play. He is a kind man, smart, talented at the violin and with manual labor. He works to survive, holding on to the last shred of hope that his wife and two children will see him again. His work is an emotional powerhouse, draining and so full of passion. Can they simply give him the Oscar now?

From Hans Zimmer's brooding, oftentimes modern score (oftentimes reminiscent of 'There Will Be Blood'), the gorgeous cinematography that emphasizes the setting of the deep south, to the breathtaking dialogue adapted from the memoir Solomon Northup wrote himself, the movie flows effortlessly into the realm of 'great cinema' even as you're watching it.

Every now and again, a movie comes along that is the perfect marriage of talent and craftsmanship. It's extremely rare. Think 'Gone With The Wind,' 'The Godfather,' 'No Country For Old Men,' 'Casablanca...' This is one such film. To linger with my thoughts after seeing it only heightens my adoration. I can't remember the last time a movie left me with so many tears, so many thoughts, so many emotions. This movie has left an indelible mark.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Ejiofor), Best Supporting Actor (Fassbender), Best Supporting Actress (Nyong'o), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Editing, Best Sound Mixing)

Captain Phillips (****1/2)

Richard Phillips is an everyday man, lives in Vermont, has two children, a wife. His job as captain entails his occasional trips around the world, commanding a freighter ship that carries cargo from country to country. The Horn of Africa, though, proves to be quite dangerous, and Paul Greengrass's latest film is a mindbender of action, suspense, and humanity.

When we think of an everyday man, perhaps two actors come to mind: Jimmy Stewart, and Tom Hanks. I can imagine no other actor filling the titular role as passionately as Mr. Hanks, who seems assured for an Oscar nomination (his first since Cast Away in 2001, another high-stakes movie set on the open seas). Hanks, at first, makes Phillips a distanced man. He does not associate with his crew, and they don't seem to like him in return. His conversation with his wife (in the one clunker the film has: the opening scene, which carries on as though it were written and shot by film students) is monotonous and cool.

And then the drama. With a high threat level (do they really send emails to ship captains warning the threat of pirates in any particular area?), Phillips spots two small boats in the distance carrying armed Somalians. Led by a man named Muse (played to perfection by newcomer Barkhad Abdi), 4 men manage to board the ship and take over.

And here is where we think the suspense will happen. Or is it? Perhaps the trailer is misleading. Shortly after they board and search the ship for the crew (hidden away in the darkness of the engine room), Phillips is taken hostage as the pirates board an escape boat and set off towards their home country. They have optimistic goals: exchanging the captain for 10 million dollars. Perhaps one day Muse will be able to journey to New York City and buy a car. Or so he hopes.

The cast is largely unknown actors, which lends believability to the 'docudrama' stylings of Greengrass (the Oscar-nominated director of the brutal 'United 93'). Perhaps you know how it ends, recalling the story on the news back in 2009. Or perhaps you don't. Regardless, here is a film that follows in the footsteps of films like 'Apollo 13' by taking a true story and completely immersing its audience in the plot. Even if the story ends on a positive note, we are on the edge of our seat the entire way. That's the sign of a director who is entirely in control of the medium.

Largely an 'action' movie, we see the arrival of the Navy, bringing 3 battleships to the scene. Muse assumes they are escorting them back to Somalia. His 3 crew members are clearly less optimistic. We get to know our pirates through small moments, largely through the eyes of Hanks, and though we can't always understand their motives or their actions, these are not nameless villains, these are people with dreams and goals and fears.

'Captain Phillips' soars only because of Greengrass and Hanks, both at the peak of their powers. It's been a while since we've seen Tom Hanks in anything terrible (we can look the other way in regards to 'The DaVinci Code') but this is easily his strongest role in several years, perhaps of his career. Yes, he is largely at the mercy of pirates, and his performance is subdued and quiet, but the climax of this film is perhaps the most emotional endings I can recall. I would prefer to skip details, but the final 10 minutes of this film brings all the suspense and ferocity of the film to a realistic close, and Hanks demands our attention. I will only say that I was perhaps slightly weepy in the closing moments, unaware anymore that Tom Hanks was possibly acting. That's power, that's talent, that's a legend.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Hanks), Best Supporting Actor (Abdi), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Original Score)

Gravity (Jo***** Mo****)

John says:

Where does one begin to discuss a film so full of ambition and talent and power? Yes, this is what some consider a 'science fiction' film, though nothing I have seen in theaters has felt more visceral and real this year. 'Gravity' could very well be a crown jewel in the career of Alfonso Cuaron, the ambitious director behind films like 'Children of Men,' 'Y Tu Mama Tambien,' even 'A Little Princess.'

The film is without a doubt the technical masterpiece of the year. Hands down, case closed. Take the first shot, for example. We see earth, slowly passing below us as we look down from space. A tiny speck appears amongst the stars; this is the space shuttle our heroes are based around. And the shot keeps going, and going, through dialogue, and stunning visuals, to a crash, to separation, panic, confusion - perhaps a single take lasting 20 or more minutes. Done entirely in computers, but that's what makes it all the more thrilling. This is filmmaking at its best, when it leaves the audience wondering how any of this could have been practically done!

And yes, the crash. We learn through Houston radio interface that a nearby satellite broke apart, leading to a chain reaction of shrapnel and debris that is flying through space faster than a bullet. In perhaps the most thrilling and haunting crash scenes I can remember, the horror unfolds as the crew and shuttle are broken apart in a cloud of flying metal. Biblical in proportions, it's all the more terrifying in that it occurs with no sound (don't forget, sound does not carry in space).

The mission is changed, and we are left with the two remaining crew members: Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney). Stone is assigned to this mission as a first-timer, she is no astronaut, just a scientist. She panics under pressure, she doesn't follow orders well, she's running out of oxygen. Kowalski, alternatively, carries a calm demeanor that allows the fear to mellow out.

The performances are great, especially Bullock. Her acting range has been questioned by me for some time, but here she represents a believable character thrust into cataclysmic events. I was all the more impressed with the acting considering how the majority of this film must have been done with wires, blue screen, and computer trickery. Reacting to nothing has never felt more real.

Back to our technical praises, though. Like 'Life of Pi' and 'Inception,' this film seems guaranteed to take the cake as Best Visual Effects and Cinematography at next year's Oscars. The two awards seem to go hand in hand now, and it's impossible to imagine a win for any other film (seen or not). Emmanuel Lubezki, perhaps the second-best cinematographer currently working (we never forget Roger Deakins!), has been snubbed time and again by the Oscars (5 to be exact: A Little Princess, Sleepy Hollow, The New World, Children of Men, and Tree of Life (that being one of the most appalling snubs in Oscar history, mind you)). This film seems like his final ticket to Oscar gold. The gorgeous camera direction, the raw lighting during sunrise and sunset, and the ever-important maneuvering of visual effects. You won't see another film like this in theaters, and might I suggest seeing it on the largest screen possible (and in 3D, I promise).

The film has been compared to the likes of '2001,' but I think comparing the two is a tad overreaching. Both films are masterpieces of technical filmmaking and visuals, both seek towards a deeper human meaning. Perhaps the best comparison would be to classify each film as some of the best of the genre. Bravo, Mr. Cuaron!

Maureen says:

"I hate space."

Those three memorable words perfectly describe Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock)'s trip to outer space in Alfonso Cuaron's action/suspense/sci-fi thriller, "Gravity." This film is unique, impressive, and incredibly well-envisioned. I have rarely, if ever, seen production value as high as this or experienced - because it IS an experience - entertainment at this level. I was quite literally on the edge of my seat and/or completely tense, adrenaline pumping, throughout most of the film's 90 minutes.

The story begins aboard the space shuttle as Dr. Stone (Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) attempt to repair some equipment outside of the spacecraft. The "abort mission" warning comes quickly and urgently from Houston, though for those who have seen the trailers, not quickly enough. Destruction and chaos ensue in an incredibly visceral and frightening action sequence. The sound and visuals intertwine immaculately to produce a scene so realistic, you nearly feel that you yourself are a part of the madness. In fact, a couple of times Ryan is spinning through space, I nearly lost my dinner just sitting there in my 3D glasses. (Yes, complete agreement with John - see it in 3D on the biggest screen you can.) The action continues throughout the duration of the film, with barely a moment to catch your breath before the next crisis occurs.

This film is exceptionally good in a few notable and important categories. The visual effects, sound editing, and sound mixing are stunning. "Gravity" compares incredibly well to the level of visual achievement reached by the best of the best - "Avatar," "Inception," "Life of Pi," to name a few. Not only are the effects technically impressive, the cinematography is beautiful. You'll see the Earth like you've never seen her before. On top of this, birth/creation symbolism throughout is striking. Emmanuel Lubezki is sure to be recognized for his work, hopefully for the win.

The beautiful imagery is complemented by a terrific performance by Sandra Bullock. Her portrayal of Ryan is human, sensitive, and real. You are with her every turn of the journey and feel her every emotion. Her performance is emphasized with the knowledge that she is essentially reacting to computer-generated nothingness... She is, of course, well supported by George Clooney, a calming presence in a situation that is anything but.

"Gravity" is not perfect, however... as a story and emotional tapestry typically required of Oscar-winning films, it falls short. Despite attempts of character development and emotional attachment, I never felt connected to Ryan or Kowalski's characters - this is where Bullock's acting was a saving grace, because the writing wasn't helping her out all that much. A few stereotypical "Hollywood-y" lines/moments also detracted from the film as a whole. "Apollo 13," which tells a similar story, achieve character development in a very real and emotional way, connecting the audience to the human characters themselves rather than just the situation they find themselves in. Although "Gravity" is arguably superior to "Apollo 13" in its visual prowess, to me, it doesn't do nearly as well in its storytelling.

Despite its shortcomings, "Gravity" is incredibly entertaining and a masterpiece of technical and cinematographic achievement. It is sure to do very well, if not sweep, the technical Oscars this year, and it is easily one of the best films so far.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress (Bullock), Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, Best Original Score)

Blackfish (***)

Blackfish offers little to the documentary genre, and instead offers viewers a glimpse into a world that we all recognize - or so we think. The enchanting theme parks like Sea World are merely a mask for the horrors experienced by trainers and animals alike, namely the captive Orca whales. 

The narration moves from interview to interview, beginning with the humble origins of marine parks and the brutal capture of the wild animals. We see the means by which these animals are contained, oftentimes in containment no larger than a few trucks. The whales were kept in the dark, isolated, alone, and it is these conditions which the film argues has led to more than one occasion of human attacks. 

One whale in particular, Tilikum, is the focus of the plot. One of the larger male specimens ever captured, Tilikum is a whale kept for breeding purposes and for the more impressive displays in the live shows. 

Dawn Brancheau was one of the trainers paired with Tilikum. One of the top trainers at the park, she was brutally mauled and killed by Tilikum during one of the shows. The blame was tossed around, from Dawn's lack of focus during the show, to her ponytail, to the conditions surrounding the performance. Regardless of the number of attacks, though, and the number of trainer deaths globally, the Orcas are continued to be contained as though there were no problem at all. 

The documentary itself is effective, with a clear opinion of the means to a solution. We feel for these whales, and the trainers. The trainers themselves are bright people, aware of the hazards that come with their line of work, but protective of the animals to the point that leaving their position feels like abandonment. 

On the heels of other docs relating to marine life (I'm thinking heavily of The Cove, for one), Blackfish doesn't carry as powerful of a punch. Yes, I can follow the plot and absorb the details the filmmakers give me, but the film as a 'film' fails to move gracefully from point to point. This is not to discredit the film itself, or the arguments it makes - on the contrary it is definitely a must-see. In terms of documentaries, the world has seen better. 

(Awards potential: Best Documentary (slim))

Prisoners (****1/2)

'Prisoners' is the best movie I hope to not see again for a long while. First brought to my attention with the gripping trailer, the movie has lived up to all expectations and then some, and through the brutality of the plot, here is a great crime thriller. 

The film begins on Thanksgiving. A working-class family headed by Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) arrives at a neighboring family's house for dinner. The Birch family (with Viola Davis & Terrence Howard as the loving parents) enjoy their meals, and the two youngest daughters go off to play outside. They are never seen again. 

What follows is a terrifying series of events. The older son recalls seeing a strange RV parked down the road, but now it is gone. Police find the vehicle parked in a gas station miles away, and it is driven by a man named Alex Jones (played to a shocking perfection by Paul Dano), a man with a low IQ, soft-spoken voice, and an overall 'creepy' demeanor. The case is taken up by Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal), and through interrogation and CSI, Jones is ultimately assumed to be not guilty. 

If only Keller Dover could take the decision easily. He, along with Franklin Birch, decide to take matters into their own hands and kidnap Jones in order to ascertain the location of their daughters. Through torture and days of senseless beatings, they come no closer to finding their girls, and Detective Loki is left cold to determine the answer to the increasing riddles and mysteries. 

How much more the plot reveals, right up to the final few minutes. The film clocks in nearly two and a half hours, but the majority of my time in the theater was spent on the edge of my seat. The film moves at a deliberate pace, slow at times, but never with the feel that everything we are seeing isn't absolutely crucial to the overarching  plot of the story. It's masterfully directed and written, and the actors are more than up to the challenge. 

The cold, bleak Pennsylvania winter is captured perfectly through the lensing of the always-great Roger Deakins. Colors are washed out by rain, and dark shadows loom over every scene. Coupled with a menacing and ominous score, the aesthetics are as gripping as the performances. 

And what acting from all. In what could very well be the best cast of the year (so far), we are witness to some of the best performances of the year. Hugh Jackman as the tormented father turned to alcohol and abuse is both appalling and genuine; here is a man who has lost everything, and we never doubt it for a second. He is bested by Jake Gyllenhaal as the tough detective. His hands and neck are sprinkled with tattoos, and his sullen features suggest some sort of dark past to his life. Devoted to work and never once seen in his personal settings, he highlights the film with some of the best acting of his career, and his character is one of the most intriguing I've seen in a crime film in some time. And Paul Dano, what more can be said. He is building a reputation for 'weird' roles (from Little Miss Sunshine to There Will Be Blood), but here he takes his method to the next step. Jones is a character we fear, simply because we don't understand him. Another actor could have taken this role to varying extremes, but Dano is restrained, leaving a haunting demeanor and quiet presence to emote his character. Without a doubt the best work of his career. 

Viola Davis, Terrence Howard, Melissa Leo, Maria Bello, the list continues. There is not a flaw to be found. The success of 'Prisoners' comes from the marriage of each aspect of filmmaking, and from the directing, to the writing, to the acting, to the photography, there isn't a flaw to be found. Yes, this is a dark film that will polarize its audience in regards to subject matter, but this is a film that could very well rival 'Zodiac' as one of the century's best thrillers. 

(Awards potential: Best Actor (Jackman, Gyllenhaal), Best Supporting Actor (Dano, Howard), Best Supporting Actress (Leo, Bello), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing) 

Blue Jasmine (*****)

'Blue Jasmine' follows in the footsteps of Woody Allen's classic pictures of the 70's and 80's, what I consider his prime (though he has been making great films ever since, too). Modest in scope yet dripping with some of the most juicy characters of the year, 'Blue Jasmine' delivers as one of the strongest films of the year so far, and almost guarantees its spot amongst Allen's best. 

Like any story, the film begins with a conflict, in this case, Jasmine (played by Cate Blanchett - more on her later) moves in with her sister in San Fransisco following a 'nervous breakdown.' She is of high society, a Birkin always in the crook of her arm, a closet to die for, dripping with pearls, and a diamond wedding ring that could choke an elephant. Her husband (the ever-sly Alec Baldwin) caters to her every will, spoils her to no end, indulging her every whim, all the while operating an illegal scheme that leads him to prison and Jasmine left broke. 

Her new house, a quaint apartment with her adoptive sister, Ginger (the beautiful Sally Hawkins) and two noisy boys. Jasmine describes the setup as 'homey.' She seeks to rebuild her life. With mountains of debt (yet enough to still fly first-class, excusable due to force of habit), she decides to continue her education in Anthropology. Or perhaps interior design. Or computers…

Ginger, seeing a man Jasmine describes as a grease monkey, begins to fall in love with someone else, concurrent with Jasmine falling in love with a charming Ambassador-soon-to-be-political-figure, of course dripping with money. 

Shall I continue to describe plot, or can I at last begin shoveling my praise on this film! Allen directs a stellar cast, with a tightly-written script that flows with the ease of an auteur. There is perhaps no other filmmaker alive who can write women like Allen, and with Jasmine, he has perhaps created one of his most memorable characters. There is something so powerful in the cadence of Allen's dialogue, written with such simplicity but bursting with extraordinary depth and humor.

Blanchett more than delivers with her best performance of her career, hands down. Midway through the film, I sent a text to Maureen informing her that we have found the year's Oscar winner. There is simply no other option here. Blanchett is funny, heartbreaking, manic, delusional, walking a fine line between Academy darling and 'Mommy Dearest.' As the credits blackened the screen over Jasmine's searching face, sitting on a park bench, I moaned, wishing I could raise the lights back up and continue to watch in amazement at such a revelatory performance. This is surely the role Blanchett was born to play - and in her, Woody has found a new muse - one of his absolute best. 

This is not to outshine the rest of the cast, as Sally Hawkins is exceptionally good. She plays the 'plain' sister who is self-declared as having bad genes, a woman who aims low and seems cursed to date schmucks for the rest of her life. 

Woody Allen, bravo. 'Blue Jasmine' is a film of colossal intent, slipping through the radar as just another one of Woody's stories. Mark my words, this is one of the best films of the year. I intend to return to the theater soon, eager for more. 

(Awards potential: Best Director, Best Actress (Blanchett), Best Supporting Actress (Hawkins), Best Original Screenplay) 

The Bling Ring (****1/2)

There seems to be an emerging genre in film this year. Maybe we should call it the "grunge-teen-crime" genre.  First seen in 'Spring Breakers' earlier this year, Sophia Coppola's remarkable 'The Bling Ring' touches on many of the same ideas. From one of the most original voices in American cinema today, Coppola reminds us of her talent behind the camera. 'The Bling Ring' is yet another revealing, entertaining piece of eye candy that will surely cause many people to stop and think. 

Perhaps you remember the story, a group of teenage hooligans made their rounds to an impressive amount of celebrity homes (Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, etc) and robbed them silly. The absurdity comes from the ease with which they entered each home, the amount they got away with in luxury goods (over $3 million), and the blatant attempt at fame. 

Coppola dives deep, creating touching, disturbing, and oftentimes hilarious moments. Though the film is based on actual events (a magazine article, to be exact), it plays like a true drama, as though the events themselves were always meant to become told through film. We meet Marc, a quiet kid, newly transferred to his current high school. He meets Rebecca, they bond, and naturally their after school activities lead to burgalry - first cars on the street, then to houses, then to the homes of their idols. 

A film is only as good as its cast, and boy, what a case. The mostly unknown actors are flawless, but we must gives praise to Emma Watson. From Harry Potter to her continuing progression into more adult-themed films, she is flawless in the role of Nicki. Home-schooled by a crazed mother obsessed with 'The Secret' and without a sense of consequence, she steals scene after scene after scene. 

The film is met with criticism, mostly for the director's inability to dive below the surface and truly analyze her characters. Nonsense. Coppola herself has said this is a story that could not have been told 10 years ago, that the actions of these kids is so boggling and in many ways foreign to common sense. Her direction proves this point. None of the actors are playing overtly likable people. In fact, they could be classified into the category of 'brats.' How can we relate to someone whose motive is driven by the mere hope of becoming famous? Were any lessons learned during the course of the story? I will not spoil the ending (aside from them being caught, obviously), but I don't think any film this year has concluded with such a spot-on final line. It's left me thinking, days later. Isn't that what 'good' movies are supposed to make you do?

(Awards potential: Best Supporting Actress (Watson), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction)