The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Pt I (***)

Hollywood continues to puzzle me. I know the reasoning a studio would want to split one story into two separate films: greater box office yield, more DVD sales and related merchandise... What hurts is realizing that these producers are willing to compromise artistic endeavor and story for a fast buck. This is not to say Mockingjay is a bad film - in fact I enjoyed it for what it was worth. My problem is that I don't even know if I'm invested enough to see the final film when it releases next year.

Mockingjay moves past the macabre futuristic children-killing genre the past two films were to become something more reminiscent of a good military story. We have the villains and heroes established, and now they are put to the test. In fact, the lack of the titular "Hunger Games" that have been the centerpiece of the first two films makes this a difficult movie to define. There is perhaps one true action scene, and a majority of the film is spent trying to understand Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and why she feels like crying all the time. Maybe we can settle on sci-fi for now.

After breaking the game, quite literally, in the abrupt ending to Catching Fire, here we see a new District, District 13, housing weapons and soldiers and civilians who have joined a rebellion against Panem and its leader: the Santa Clause-esque President Snow. Their main mission becomes unifying the separate districts to make such a rebellion possible. They will need all the help they can get. My God, Panem soldiers are futuristic as we would expect, with automatic weapons and full body armor. These rebels are armed with sticks and stones... It's going to be a bloody, epic finale (if my knowledge of 2-part sequels is any good).

Is there enough material in this film to justify it on its own accord? I would say no. So much of the film is shot in dark, gloomy underground settings, and we see Katniss have constant nightmares and emotional traumas... For being such a best-selling book, I'm wondering why readers don't feel compelled to find something with a little more joy. The film is essentially a buildup to a climax that never happens (in fact, I think that will be the final film). The question then becomes, what's the point of the first half at all?

(Awards potential: Best Costume Design)

Wild (***)

Living in a busy city, it becomes easy to forget about the appeal and beauty you find in nature. The smell of a burning fire, the sound of crickets in the night. There's almost something therapeutic about it. In a way, that becomes the hypothesis of Jean-Marc Vallee's latest film, as a woman hikes up the Pacific coast (nearly 1,000 miles) in order to find some sort of self-redemption.

As the director of last year's Oscar-winning Dallas Buyers Club, it's easy to see the touch of Vallee's direction. In many ways these two are stories on opposite sides of the same coin. After a tragic death in her family and a nasty divorce from her husband of 7 years, Cheryl Strayed (stray like a dog) decides to cleanse her body and mind of toxins and restraint. She packs a large pack filled with water, food, and a tent, and decides to make a 3-month trek north to Oregon, where she plans to spend the rest of her life.

The movie, like Buyers Club, functions with subtitles illustrating the amount of time spent on her journey, and a minimal soundtrack as Cheryl spends some time soul searching and cooking up some hot mush on the campfire. We are thrust dead into the middle of her story, and learn through flashbacks and narration the means by which her life has led to this point.

As far as acting goes, Reese Witherspoon does a grounded job of holding the film together - as it is essentially a one-woman show. Unlike the "good girl" we have come to know her for in films like Walk the Line and Legally Blonde, here she gets down and dirty. Laura Dern as her mother also has a very simplistic truth to her. In the face of abuse and hardships, here is a woman who just keeps smiling, if only for the sake of her children.

The assembly feels like a student film, and we are barraged endlessly with voice overs and brief flashbacks as if to explain every single thought Cheryl has running through her head. My God, when the tent is dark and she repeatedly turns on the flashlight, we don't need to hear her say "I'm scared of the dark." You can understand the director's idea, but in the execution it becomes a muddled assembly of cuts and almost pretentious narration where simple emotion was intended.

Like Into the Wild, this is a film based on a personal memoir. Here, Cheryl comes out with a happy ending, for Christopher McCandless, the ending was much more absolute. There's something about being one with nature that has clearly fascinated people over the years, and the written word is a beautiful way to communicate ideas and thoughts. For a film to work in this regard, though, a bit more caution is required. Nothing ever needs to be spelled out in full.

(Awards potential: Best Actress (Witherspoon), Best Supporting Actress (Dern))

Ida (*****)

Ida is a movie of immense beauty and startling discovery. Unlike most movies we see today, Ida is near-glacial. At times, individual shots seem like they are still photographs, and only as one character moves from one corner to the other do we realize that we are watching something unlike anything else this year. To say it is a miraculous movie is perhaps a bit reaching - but this is without a doubt a story that is absolutely compelling and important.

We meet Anna, a teenage girl living in a convent in Poland. It is sometime in the 1960's. There are dirt roads, few cars, a few birds chirping. The silence becomes a character to itself. Before taking her vows to become a Catholic nun, her Mother Superior advises she meet her Aunt Wanda - long estranged and nearly forgotten about. She obliges.

Her aunt is unlike anything we can expect. She drinks, she is rude and empowered, and she has a secret. Anna was raised as a Jewish girl named Ida, her family long-since deceased. What Anna perhaps envisioned as a simple family meeting becomes a story of discovery as the two women journey to discover what happened. A road movie of sorts, although it it more a journey of inner discovery, both for Anna and Wanda.

The intrigue of this movie comes from a multitude of things, and there is so much to ponder over as the minutes tick by. First of all, we have the unique dynamic between niece and aunt - polar opposites and yet the same in many ways. Both women find ways to deal with their solitude, and yet who is the better person? Ida admits she has never fantasized about boys, she is quiet, she speaks little. To an outsider she would appear a little weird, with her pale skin and dark sunken eyes. Wanda, on the other hand, is a judge of the Communist Party. She loses herself even at work, drifting in and out of reality. She drinks, acts reckless, and at first cares little for her family.

This movie falls into many categories and yet it doesn't fall into any. In a way this is a more modern Holocaust movie in terms of its repercussions on future generations. We have the mystery of Wanda's obsessions with finding the man who sheltered their family during the war. It's coming-of-age as Ida meets a jazz musician with an allure she can't quite put her finger on. Is she wrong for beginning to doubt her devotion to God, or is this a healthy part of becoming a woman?

In stark black and white, the film is a beautiful demonstration of purposeful cinematography. Characters are framed so low in the shot that oftentimes we barely even see their mouths moving as they speak. The camera allows them space within each frame, perhaps emphasizing the loneliness these people feel or maybe just to remind these characters that God is always present...

At no more than 82 minutes, Ida still works very slowly, and the film is so calculated and precise that I don't think any moment is uncalled for or unnecessary. Ida will not be a film for everyone, but it succeeds on so many levels that it's no wonder it is on the shortlist for the Academy Award for Foreign Film.

(Awards potential: Best Cinematography, Best Foreign Film)

The Imitation Game (****1/2)

THE IMITATION GAME is a marvelous film, one that grips you from beginning to end. Tightly-wound and nearly impossible to sit through in boredom, here is a movie that understands how to tell a story accurately, astutely, and beautifully.

The man is Alan Turing (played by one of our finest actors - Benedict Cumberbatch). Perhaps you haven't heard of him. It's okay, most people are likely to draw a blank. According to Winston Churchill, Turing "made the single biggest contribution to Allied victory in the war against Nazi Germany." With a small team and little else, Turing was able to crack a Nazi cipher known as "Enigma," a machine the Germans used to conduct military strategy via radio.

The film sets up our story perfectly. We are introduced to the team, to Turing's isolation and awkwardness around social settings. We also learn that Germans alternate Enigma's settings every night at midnight. Everyday spent trying to solve the puzzle is a countdown of increasing difficulty. Alan has the theory to fight machines with machines, and devises a computer named "Christopher" to attempt to solve the German's code. Of course, being 1940's England, not much hope is placed in electronics.

The movie comes across as a fiction-pulled thriller, and by that means the film is wildly entertaining. Cumberbatch works slowly at building up Turing's loneliness, both in flashbacks and voice over, and as the final credits began to role, it was amazing to think back at all that we learned about a man that time will not soon forget. It is a masterful acting job. The same goes for Kiera Knightly, who's performance is about as honest and memorable as anything I have seen this year. Through slight mannerisms and habits, Knightly hits it out of the park as a woman who views saving the world as just another Sunday crossword puzzle.

The film also delves into Turing's later years, when he was charged with the crime of indecency as punishment for homosexuality. For the film to use it as such a main drive of the plot, his personal relationships are surprisingly lacking from the story, and only a small subplot revolving an elementary school friend even attempts to work out his emotional traumas. All the power for trying, but in many ways it felt as though this was one aspect that was toned down in order to appeal to a greater audience.

Without doubt, the world has Alan Turing to thank (a realization that comes in the film's final scene, a beautiful dialogue between Cumberbatch and Knightly). This was a movie that was quite literally being developed since the 1950's. Thank God they got it right.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Cumberbatch), Best Supporting Actress (Knightly), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Editing, Best Original Score)

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (**)

Peter Jackson ought to be ashamed of himself. Years in the making and many more years of waiting, at last the cinematic adaptation of this teensy 300 page book is complete. Too bad there's not much to show for it. While The Hobbit-and-whatever-the-rest-of-the-title-is doesn't settle into "bad movie" territory, what it represents is far more upsetting: the George Lucasification of Peter Jackson's career.

I will admit right away that I have not been a fan of this trilogy (save for the cleverly-written and oftentimes beautiful "Desolation of Smaug"). What could have made a very fine epic fantasy film was sliced and diced until it was unrecognizable as anything but a fast cash grab by greedy producers, studios that now feel encouraged to split adaptations into more than one film in order to maximize profits and box office revenue (Twilight, Harry Potter, Divergent, and The Hunger Games to name a few). As Bilbo would say, these movies are "like butter scraped over too much bread." It's all fluff.

Picking up from the cliff-hanger of an ending, the film stumbles along and tidily wraps up Smaug's story and then hurries to this grand battle. The battle of 5 armies, no less. Let's see, there are Men, Dwarves, Elves, Orcs.... And then Eagles? Or worms? Or was the fifth army more Orcs? Or maybe those bats we saw... I will not lie that I have little recollection of the book (having read it no more recently than grade school) but the movie hurries forward assuming all filmgoers are well-versed on the lengthy Appendices of The Lord of the Rings novels.

The original trilogy of Middle Earth was grand for so many reasons, least of all it told a beautifully-human story amidst all the magic and goblins and what. The films were such successes because they bridged the gap between book and screen, tweaking here and there to become something fans and non-fans would enjoy. 17 or so Oscars later, it's hard to argue with...

The Hobbit, then, is everything wrong with Peter Jackson today. These films are nothing but effects-laden action flicks that care little for cohesiveness, instead choosing to focus on obscurities to stretch out the runtime to the allotted window. Five Armies, in particular, seems to rehash specific moments from "Return of the King" purely out of laziness, from the villain attacking with a ball and chain, to the very iconic line of "the Eagles are coming." It's a wonder Gandalf wasn't stumbling around Minas Tirith years later going "you guys this is serious deja vu..."

In the end, what could have been? Jackson has dwindled from his roots and lost track of the art behind these movies. Like George Lucas, he oversaturated these movies with an obscene amount of visual effects and flat dialogue. It's quantity over quality. Yes, he helped create this world years ago for Lord of the Rings, but was he the best director for the job with this series? Perhaps Gulliermo Del Toro would have made a better adaptation. Perhaps not... Perhaps what's done is done and Middle Earth can go back to remaining a pleasant memory in our minds for years to come.

(Awards potential: Best Costume Design, Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing)

Snowpiercer (*****)

Snowpiercer is without a doubt one of the more stunning films of the year. I found myself drawn to its story and compelled in a way I rarely experience while watching a film. With a small release earlier in 2014 and a quiet jump to Netflix this past month, this little-seen action flick is something that will reinvigorate your sense of "movie magic."

The film falls into a few genres, incorporating each and becoming something a little bit more. It's the near future, and the world has been destroyed by man in attempts to solve global warming. In a truly post-apocalyptic setting, the population is whittled down to a small collection of humans riding the Snowpiercer. This train, over a mile long, journeys through the world and makes a full trip every year. The cars are divided into a caste system - wealthy in the front and going down from there.

The back sees the most horrific settings, as the poor live in tight quarters and are given black, gelatinous cubes as a source of protein. They stage a coup. Working their way from one car to the next, a small group of men and women plan to work their way to the front car and gain control of the engine. Perpetually-running and helmed by a mysterious man named Wilford (who also owned the company that first created the train), the journey through the train becomes something of a march to meet God... Or perhaps more appropriately: a futuristic Dante's Inferno that descends deeper and deeper through rings of corruption.

The rebellion is led by Curtis (Chris Evans), a stern figure who oftentimes becomes narrow-minded in his self-appointed quest. He is joined by Gilliam (John Hurt), one of the more elder passengers who has lost all but one of his limbs to injury and punishment. Edgar (Jamie Bell) is a young second-in-command who seems to have hope for the future when it's clear to us that it's all but impossible.

On the reverse side is Mason, a cantankerous creation of a Yorkshire woman played by Tilda Swinton. She speaks on behalf of Wilford to the back of the train, and through violence and a flair for the absurd, she jumps from the screen as one of the film's highlights. She leads the soldiers helmed with restoring order to the train, and yet her allegiance seems to go with the wind.

There is a lot of beauty in this film, even though it is sprinkled with some very graphic and bloody moments. The train itself is a wonder of art direction. From the back to the very front, we see civilization summed up into such a wide variety of rooms, but all contained to the standard dimensions of a train. For a story with such a claustrophobic sensibility, the visuals never lose our interest. The cinematography, too, finds a perfect balance of intimate and action. We fear for what is to be found at every door, and every sliver of light through a window or crack serves as a reality for the darkness these people find themselves in.

Sometimes movies surprise me. I begin with lower expectations and conclude feeling a rush of emotion. Like "Drive" or "2001," Snowpiercer follows in mighty company. A grand film that is a surefire classic in the waiting.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Swinton), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Makeup, Best Cinematography, Best Visual Effects, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Enemy (***)

WHEN A FILM requires multiple viewings and research and discussion, is it fair to rate it upon first viewing alone? Enemy has got to be one of the most cryptic movies I've seen, filled with an atmosphere somewhere between a dream and a nightmare. This is a movie with spectacular qualities about it, and yet in the end I am left feeling puzzled and disoriented. Don't call me stupid for saying "I don't get it."

Where to start. We have Adam, a history teacher (Jake Gyllenhaal) who is neurotic and paranoid as only an actor like Gyllenhaal could portray. He stumbles upon a film at the recommendation of his coworker, and upon viewing finds a cast member who looks identical to him. In fact, their looks are so similar that Adam begins to stalk his double. He visits the talent agency that represents him, his home... He manages to get the actor on the phone and insists they meet.

Our other character, Anthony (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a troubled husband to a pregnant wife in a marriage anything but spectacular. She suspects him of cheating and it seems like there have been past incidents. He reluctantly agrees to meet, and the two men find themselves face to face in a seedy motel room an hour away from the city. They compare scars, hands... There's no denying that something is very peculiar about the whole situation.

What happens next is partially expected, partially shocking. Keeping this review spoiler free, it is clear that many ideas in this film have been explored before. The success comes from the tone. Denis Villeneuve. the director (remember Prisoners from last year) does a believable job at creating a menacing cityscape without much more than a minimalist music score and some compelling acting from his cast. From hotel to apartment and streets in between, Enemy shines with thorough attention to detail and planning.

After the film finished, I rushed to news articles and message boards as a way to better understand the movie i just watched. Rarely have I felt so lost after a film has ended. While fans have come up with pretty admirable suggestions for the meaning behind it all, what makes it a good film? The fact that a movie sparks debate and theories does not make it great. The burden of that title comes from each individual audience member. While I was at times compelled, Enemy turned out to be a somewhat disorienting movie that would probably look a lot better on paper.

(Awards potential: Best Cinematography)

The Babadook (*****)

THE BEST HORROR movies don't answer all your questions, they don't leave you fulfilled, nor do they often leave you content in your bed at night. So it goes with "The Babadook," the Australian hit that is making waves across the world, heralding in a reinvigoration of the horror genre (even though we are a few months past the Halloween season). Most 'horror movies' have the ability to scare an audience with cheap thrills and jumps that make you throw popcorn in the air and laugh about it moments later. It's rare for a movie to really unsettle you; to burrow under your skin and send chills up and down your back. Horror is hard, but the set up is even harder. This movie is a masterclass.

We have Amelia, a single mother raising her son Samuel. Her husband died in a car crash years earlier, leaving her alone with her thoughts. To her family, she says she is over it. She doesn't speak of her husband and his possessions are locked away in the basement. The only evidence she casually displays is her wedding ring.

Samuel is no older than 6. He is a typical boy: plays by himself, has a collection of toy guns, talks about monsters under the bed... To his teachers, he is seen as a disruption and is advised to be taught under supervision. After bringing a weapon to class, Amelia decides to relocate him to a different school rather than try and get to the root of the problem. At a Birthday party for his cousin, Samuel pushes her out of her tree house. There are clear issues visible to everyone but Samuel's mother.

One night, they find a bedtime story to read. "Mister Babadook." It's innocent enough... Until it's not. With nightmarish images that pop out of the pages and rhymes that are peculiarly morbid, Amelia hides the book and attempts to calm Samuel's inevitable nightmares. Where did the book come from? The movie cares and it also does not. What motivates most of the film is essential to understanding its meaning, and yet some things are left up to the imagination, which oftentimes do a better job at scares than any movie ever could.

Night after night, and in a progressively intense nature, their house seems visited by a creature whose silhouette is easily identifiable as the Babadook. Lights flicker and doors knock. It's a wonder they don't keep all the lights on in the house... As I sat watching this film, I knew what the horror conventions were and what the heroine should not do in certain situations (don't open that door!). Yet even under the safety of her blankets, there is no protection.

What elevates this movie above the traditional horror flick is the attention to detail and the incredibly rich set up the film gives us. We know so much about these characters by the time they read this book that we are truly invested in their well-being throughout the nightmare. Maybe you think you know how it will end, or that the "twist" will reveal the true monster. Not so, and surprisingly the end was just as invigorating as the beginning; offering so many more ideas and theories than I initially could have conceived.

"The Babadook" understands horror and pulls from a rich tapestry of source material. It crawls under your skin and slowly settles in. It's one of the most exciting movies I've seen all year, and bar none the best horror movie I've seen in years.

(Awards potential: Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Gloria (****1/2)

"Gloria" is the little film that could, and actually does quite well. A small, arthouse film from Chile, this is a fantastic portrait of a woman who doesn't allow her increasing years to put a stopper on living. Quirky, odd, and at times melodramatic, this movie focuses on a very particular story to cover a wide range of emotions.

We meet Gloria. She lives vicariously. Smokes, drinks, a woman who seems to be the life of the party. She is divorced. Throughout the film, we learn little tidbits about her: her two children, her ex-husband, her upstairs neighbors who constantly bicker, and a Sphynx cat that constantly finds its way into her apartment.

As the story goes, she meets a man, Rudolfo. He owns an amusement park of sorts, and the two strike up a passionate affair. He also is divorced, has two children, and a strong attachment to them. Part of the drama comes as the two find different ways to cope with their families. Gloria feels perhaps more entitled - in a seat of power. Since she has been single longer, perhaps she knows more about how to live as a divorcee. Rudolfo, on the other hand, supports his family financially and doesn't see their relationship as anything inappropriate. One scene shows Gloria taking Rudolfo to her son's Birthday party, where he meets Gloria's ex-husband and her children. To Gloria, this is the way to bring a significant other to a family event. To Rudolfo, it's anything but appropriate.

The main reason to talk about this film is Paulina Garcia, the wonderful actress who plays Gloria. At times happy-go-lucky and at times borderline neurotic, its a fantastic performance that should generate more praise that I feel is being delivered. In a time when major movies fail to write strong female roles for older women, this is a movie that shows exactly what Hollywood is missing.

There's not a lot to cheer about, nor is the film satisfied in leaving us with all the answers. In fact the movie bookends with nearly the same scene. Is she unaffected by her past romances as she would lead others to believe? Or perhaps she lives a lonely, little life beneath a glowing facade of exuberance and socializing. I think depending on how you interpret "Gloria," we have either the most uplifting or depressing films of the year. Who's to say for sure?

(Awards potential: Best Foreign Film, Best Actress (Garcia), Best Original Screenplay)