How To Train Your Dragon 2 (***)

The old gang is back in the less-than-imaginative sequel to one of 2010's best movies. 'How To Train Your Dragon' (still not the best title) followed a boy's journey as he convinced his village that dragons were friends, not villains, and along the way won over his father's respect. It was a surprising personal story, with very real moments and one goddamned hell of a cute dragon named Toothless.

The sequel picks up just about where we left off (although 10 or so years in the future) as Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) is now older and wiser, and dragons have essentially become the standard household pet. Gone are the wild, beautiful animals we saw in the first film - here we see some accelerated domestication happening. Charting territory (or something along those lines) with his girlfriend (or fiance, or whatever), he stumbles upon an ice cave, and inside, he finds his long-lost mother Valka (Cate Blanchett). Assumed dead, he finds that she too has learned to gain the trust of wild dragons, and together they are now pitted against a new villain, Drago (Djimon Hounsou). Drago wants to use dragons to take over the world (as all villains do), and has enlisted all of the biggest and baddest dragons in the land to help...

What made the first film so special was a rare combination of animation, music, and originality. It had many extended moments with little to no dialogue, telling story solely through music and images. With the sequel, it seems like filmmakers thought the strengths were in action and one-liners. There are some tender moments with Hiccup and his mother, and John Powell (our composer) is just about on-par with his original, Oscar-nominated score.

The movie is a marvel of animation. The first film's flying sequences are truly amazing, and here again is a film that pushes limits and is first and foremost a work of art. Even character animation is so subtle; we recognize the tiniest shift in facial expression and realize it as truth. Its detractors have carried over from the first film: dumb sidekicks, the occasional lack of creative dialogue, and a conveniently wrapped up conclusion (and do I smell another sequel?).

Nevertheless, the film has moving moments and strong sense of collaboration. There is clearly a solid base on which the next film will be mantled, and the filmmakers behind these movies should be given much credit, indeed. Not the greatest movie, but hey, not the worst.

(Awards potential: Best Animated Feature, Best Original Score)

Foxcatcher (****1/2)

It's with an icy calm that 'Foxcatcher' begins and ends. With a run time no more than 2 hours, the film carefully paces along, slow and steady. This is not the action thriller the trailer would have you believe. This is a carefully calculated game of chess, whittling its way into your mind with relentless paranoia and disbelief.

It's based on a true story, but the details seem almost Shakespearian in their unfolding. The 1984 Olympics saw Dave and Mark Schultz win Gold Medals for Wrestling. Mark now spends his time training... And little else. The film opens with him giving a depressing presentation at a grade school in front of bewildered children. He tells them of his victories, and his belief in America. His brother, Dave, trains with him, and they match each other with animalistic qualities. Outside of his small apartment, Dave's life seems washed up.

A phone call invites him to Foxcatcher Estates at the request of John E. DuPont. John E. DuPont... The name stands out, not because it is familiar, but because it comes with importance. A fade in then sees Mark helicoptering onto the front lawn. He is led into a grand library, waits in the silence, until John is finally revealed, speaking softly and surrounded by a mysterious darkness. He is someone you could trust, but at the same time his works come with a sense of unease... He wants to fund training for the World Championship and in turn see Mark win Gold at the 1988 Olympics. How could you resist?

'Foxcatcher' is really a character study of these two men. Both Channing Tatum (Mark) and Steve Carell (DuPont) bring a great deal of depth to their respective characters, and the effect each has on the other is a gradual descent into chaos. Carell in particular has a beautifully calculated performance. Hiding behind a prothetic nose and dyed hair, he is virtually invisible. It is not a showy performance by any means, nor does any one scene stand out and scream "Oscar!" What he does is much more effective. Through posture and dialect he virtually becomes a new man, one that you believe is one of the richest men in the country, one who has been spoiled, and one who desperately craves attention. Likewise, Mark's brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo) is portrayed as a believable Olympian through physical alterations and attention to detail. Ruffalo walks hunched and ape-like, with a receding hairline and quiet intensity.

There is a great deal to admire with 'Foxcatcher,' and it all begins and ends with director Bennett Miller. You know him from 'Capote,' and 'Moneyball.' While his latest film is undoubtedly his most ambitious, it's also his most challenging. There's a lot going on beneath the surface with 'Foxcatcher,' from DuPont's obsessive relationship with his aging mother, to the homoerotic nature of wrestling, itself (come on, we're all thinking it). Even at the glacial pace it takes, this is a film I anticipate a second viewing of. I don't know what the Oscars will say about this film, but it is undoubtedly a highlight of 2014.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Carell, Tatum), Best Supporting Actor (Ruffalo), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Art Direction, Best Original Score)

The Theory of Everything (****)

The awards season has been somewhat lackluster thus far, and even here, "The Theory of Everything" seemed poised to be a sophisticated and elegant film bound for Oscar gold. While it is a beautifully-crafted story with all the right elements in place, the film seems to only live in the shadow of better movies, namely "A Beautiful Mind." It's nothing we haven't seen before, but that doesn't make it any less impactful.

As the film faded to black and the credits began to role, I was surprised to learn that the screenplay was an adaptation of Jane Hawking's book (his ex-wife) and their life together. Perhaps that makes sense. One of my surprises with the film was its lack of focus on Hawking's work. Even now, I'm left wondering what he ultimately believed in or what his most notable work was. Even John Nash had a pretty clear explanation of governing dynamics that was audience-friendly. Couldn't they have tried to teach audiences something?

What we are left with is an emotional plot, surprisingly intimate, following Hawking's diagnosis with ALS and their progression through the more difficult years of a marriage burdened by fame, jealousy, and isolation. Initially given 2 years to live, Hawking graduates, achieves a doctorate, gets married, has 3 children... How did he survive all these years, anyways?

We sense Jane's frustrations early on with his disease, and as an audience wonder whether or not she would break her vows with her husband. Indeed, she joins a church choir and begins to act uncomfortably close with Jonathan, her conductor. He essentially becomes Stephen's caretaker, accompanying the family on trips and assisting where possible. I wonder where this could go wrong? It's no secret (spoiler!) that Jane and Stephen were divorced, and that Jane ends up with Jonathan... Truly in the next scene after their separation, Jane and Jonathan embrace after all these years. The music swells. You begin to wonder whose love story was being made.

Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones are reaping critical praise, and for good reason. Even Stephen Hawking himself has praised the performances, famously shedding a tear after a screening of the film. You couldn't buy better publicity. These two seem assured for at least a nomination - but the combination of playing a real-life man with a motor-neuron disorder, perhaps we have already found this year's Best Actor winner. The same could be said for the musical score, lush and full of beauty, I can't see the Oscars ignoring such a clear winner.

While it's not a great film, it is one that is thoroughly enjoyable, and an interesting insight into the life of a person with a disability. The love behind this project is clear, and it is all the more admirable a story for that.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Redmayne), Best Actress (Jones), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score)

Rosewater (***)

As rating suggests, there is nothing particularly extraordinary about 'Rosewater,' nor is there much to criticize. It exists as a film that will find a humble position in history as a marginal film, and quietly disappear into obscurity.

Directed by first-time filmmaker Jon Stewart (yes, from Comedy Central), the story revolves around a Newsweek journalist named Maziar Bahari (an Iranian journalist, curiously played by Mexico native Gael Garcia Bernal) who covered the 2009 Presidential Elections of Iran, after which he was thrown into solitary confinement after accused of being a spy.

The film trods along, over 100 days of isolation (aside from his daily meetings with two interregators, one of whom is dubbed 'Rosewater' in the credits only). He is asked absurd questions, to which they receive absurd answers. Bahari also consults with his deceased father, also held in prison in the 1950's for suspected Communist activities. This, and his realization that the world is watching to make sure he survives, gives him the strength to endure and eventually return to his wife in London.

Jon Stewart has a clear understanding of the material (his show, coincidentally, is one of the reasons Bahari was imprisoned in the first place) but the film is an amateur work. After 10 minutes of confinement, we know all there is to know, and apparitions of his father are thrown in as a means to keep the plot moving (or audiences interested). It serves only as a gimmick - scripted dialogue during a time the director was too afraid to be content with silence. There is never a real threat during his imprisonment, as the guards are portrayed as incompetent and untrained. Bahari's blindfold comes on and off so frequently, we wonder why he ever bothers to put it back on at all?

In my mind, this film would have been better served as a documentary. First-hand accounts surrounding the election would undoubtedly be more impactful, and understanding the true conditions of this Iranian prison would have been even more intriguing. The film creates an emotional narrative, and the ending is fulfilling... In the end, maybe the book would have been a better investment.

(Awards potential: Best Original Score)

Interstellar (***1/2)

'Interstellar' is a movie full of grand visions and ideas. It works its way into the mind and leaves you with just as many questions as there are compliments. It attempts no less than to recreate one of history's greatest films, '2001: A Space Odyssey' and even though it fails to hit such a spectacular mark, Christopher Nolan's latest is one that will undoubtedly have everyone talking.

There is a surprising amount of mystery surrounding the film and plot. I suppose that's been the case for a lot of Nolan's films (how can you summarize 'Inception' in as few words as possible?). It's the not-too-distant future, when the world has been ravaged and society is stripped down to the bare essentials. We have intellectuals, we have farmers; the hunters and gatherers. Dust storms are frequent, crops are dying... Cooper (played spectacularly by Matthew McConaughey) raises his two children on a farm alongside his father-in-law. Life is like a Norman Rockwell painting - minus the joy, of course. There are strange occurrences in their house, particularly in the bedroom of his daughter, Murphy. Books fall off the shelf, dust seems to accumulate in morse code... Cooper rationalizes that ghosts aren't real, and Murphy attempts to prove him otherwise. Confused? The 'ghosts' seem to lead him to coordinates just on the other side of town, and to the surprise of everyone, he stumbles upon the underground offices of NASA, prepping for a series of missions to evacuate Earth and repopulate on habitable planets in a neighboring galaxy. Oh, and will you pilot the mission, Cooper?

The film requires a suspension of disbelief in nearly every scene, and for the most part the film succeeds in peaking our interest. How lucky that NASA was buried away in Cooper's backyard, and how lucky that he arrived to pilot the mission. What would they have done otherwise? Like last year's 'Gravity,' Nolan envisions space very much rooted in science. Outside of the spaceships, we hear no sound. The crew rests in hyper sleep for 2 years while they journey to Saturn. In fact, their research tells them that certain planets lie so close to blackholes that time will become relative, meaning that for every hour they spend on the surface, 7 years pass on Earth. The mission becomes as much about saving the species as it is about Cooper reuniting with his family before they die of old age.

Do I think this is a great film? No. While there is plenty of technical achievements to marvel at, the story seems to work far too hard at becoming something more spectacular than it is. Take the final few minutes of '2001.' Mysterious, out of place, and cryptic...We break away from the storyline to see a man grow old in wisdom. There is no climax, but it's equally as jarring. With 'Interstellar,' it is clear that a lot of the same imagery is attempting to be conjured, but the effect is no where near as powerful. As Cooper floats through time and space and wisdom, the film still believes it should function as an action movie. The editing is quick, the music swells... The final 30 minutes of the film feel like the epic climax that never happens. In reality the story is much more emotional, even spiritual. Combine it with crosscutting between Earth and the mission, and it becomes quite an emotional chore to keep track of all the separate stories.

The film is perhaps overly-long, and is is clear where edits could have been made. Cooper's son (what's his name again?) grows up to raise a family, and we have a few seconds worth of story in regards to a lung disease that is slowly killing them. But enough about that. On the spaceship, Brand (Anne Hathaway) discusses the ideas that love could be another dimension, just like time or space. For a character as level-headed as her, the scene feels out of character, and just as quickly as it comes, it disappears. An argument could be made that these moments are part of something deeper - a theme or metaphor.... Or it could just be filler.

Regardless, the film is technically marvelous. The effects are oftentimes dazzling, and the score by Hans Zimmer is ethereal in a way I wasn't expecting. While the film failed to live up to certain expectations, you can't blame Christopher Nolan for trying. In the end, though, his films are becoming more and more cryptic and less exciting. Compared to, say, 'The Dark Knight' or 'Inception,' 'Interstellar' is a visual achievement that lacks the usual entertainment value we have come to expect.

(Awards potential: Best Actor (McConaughey), Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Original Score, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Nightcrawler (**)

With sunken eyes and a hollowed face, Louis Bloom cruises the streets of Los Angeles, searching for the next breaking story. Like the seedy underbelly of the city itself, Bloom lurks with no remorse, no guilt, no regrets... He stalks police radios and waits for any sort of crime scene that will offer up gore and carnage. Upon arrival, he films the action, makes a quick getaway, and sells the footage to local news stations to make a fast buck.

And that's the premise of Jake Gyllenhaal's latest film, one that he pours his soul into and offers one of his best performances to date. Too bad he's one of the few diamonds in a very expansive rough.

Directed by first-time filmmaker Dan Gilroy, we are presented a simple thriller along the lines of Drive or Taxi Driver. Yes, there is crime involved, but the story levitates around this character, Bloom, and his drifting from job to job. At first it seems like stealing scrap metal and selling it is his only source of income, that is until he stumbles upon a group of 'nightcrawlers' at the scene of a traffic accident. They film a car crash with near reckless disregard for the human tragedy. All they seek is a good shot. The very next day, Bloom is armed with a cheap camcorder and a police interceptor.

Bloom rises quickly in the world of media, buys a new car, hires an assistant. There is a commentary made on the level of graphic content presented by today's media, which is topical. There is also tinkering with society's disregard for violence, which is also topical... In the end, what is the message? Nightcrawler borders on satire nearing the level of 'Network,' another film that more accurately pinned the tail on America's fascination with the obscene.

Nightcrawler has the right idea but fails in concept. The film is weighed down by some directorial errs and a soundtrack that is a hodgepodge of sappy and spooky (from the usually great composer James Newton Howard, no less). Not only is the film a mess tonally, we are treated to some filmmaking ABC's, including a very peculiar and unreasonably-dumb montage sequence as Bloom and his assistant journey from job to job.

Gyllenhaal is still brilliant, and I liken his performance to an Olympic swimmer forced to do laps in a mud puddle. The acting simply overpowers the film, and still his neurotics made the film a pleasure to watch, no matter how unsettling his performance was. Rene Russo is equally as good as the news director who only cares that the footage stay graphic and continues to roll in. Throughout the movie, these two seem to strike up some sort of romantic relationship, though it is never explored (and is truly only mentioned in passing in one or two lines of dialogue... Odd).

The film follows standard plot points and comes to an ending you could pretty much assume 30 minutes after the movie began. For what it's worth, it's a decent movie to check out should you have time and energy to go. While I can't say it was enjoyable or gripping in a way a movie of this caliber should have been, it was nevertheless executed decently and tried its best.

(Awards potential: Best Actor (Gyllenhaal), Best Supporting Actress (Russo))