Still Alice (****)

As the film comes to a close, the credits scroll past a ghostly image of the title "Still Alice" embedded on the screen, their appearance so dim that it's hard to even see them at all. The movie is quiet, beautiful, and oftentimes a wreck of emotion, but thinking about it the past night, I still have two thoughts that stick in my mind: the horrors of Alzheimer's disease, and the literal meaning of one's life. Without a mind, who are we?

'Still Alice' is based on a novel, presumably fiction, but the premise is so detailed and precise that there doesn't seem to be doubt that countless people have lived through nearly identical situations. We meet our heroine, Alice Howland, a doctor of linguistics and a professor at Columbia University. She is introduced before a lecture as being a world expert on language and development skills. On stage, she begins presenting her research on pronouns in regards to early child development. She loses her train of thought... There is a hesitation, and she laughs awkwardly as she tried to rediscover her ideas. "I guess I shouldn't have had that champagne," she said to the audience's laughter.

She returns home, a gorgeous brownstone that she shares with her us and (Alec Baldwin). On the outside, their life is everything we could dream of: Dream jobs, three grown kids, a solid marriage. Early in the film, Alice visits her youngest daughter, Lydia (Kristen Stewart), and like most moms would, tries to convince her to go to college in lieu of her acting dreams. Unlike her two other children, Alice sees Lydia throwing  away all her potential in search of something that may not come to fruition. Why can't she be more like her siblings?

The buildup to inciting actions are slight. Alice goes jogging and gets lost on her school's campus. She meets her son's girlfriend and introduces herself twice during the course of one evening. In another movie we might see the husband take notice and contact a doctor. Not so, Alice is resourceful and aware of her problems, and she begins seeing a neurologist to form a diagnosis: early-onset Alzheimer's. Yes she is younger than most sufferers of the disease, but it is possible. The condition also has a more rapid deterioration, and Alice becomes more prone to forgetfulness.

Her husband deals with it in stride. Her children, not so much. It is discovered that the disease is genetic and has potential to carry down child to child. Alice's oldest daughter shies away from discussion, and becomes defensive when Lydia tries talking to her mom about how she feels. Amongst her children, Lydia becomes the source of sanity as she and Alice have healthy conversations about side effects and how terrible it must be. Her other children back away into the shadows to become mere caricatures of what ones family shouldn't do in such a situation. For support, Lydia becomes Alice's go to companion. As her memories slip, it doesn't cause Alice to reconsider her daughter's acting choices, but as an audience member it sure does. If all we have are the moments we live, then why not do the things we love most?

Julianne Moore, of course, is our Alice, and her performance doesn't follow the typical course of dramatic performances. At the news of diagnosis, she is scared, nearly humiliated at having to tell her family and job about her problem. "I wish I had cancer," she says flatly in one scene, since those who suffer cancer are supported with pink ribbons and walks to the cure. Alzheimer's is simply a burden. Little by little, she disappears, and through good days and bad, she continues to deteriorate. Her performance is a revelation. What could have been a little-seen film is something that is nearly sure to win Moore her first (and well-earned) Oscar. She creates a real woman who by the end of the film can barely mumble, sits in a chair all day and stares at a blank TV. At her first diagnosis, she makes a list of questions (oldest child's name, home address, etc), questions that if she cannot answer would justify her ending her life. She continues checking her phone daily to make sure she knows the answers, but what she doesn't realize is that by the end, she will have forgotten what a phone is at all, let alone a question.

The deterioration of her mind is key, and the film chooses cinematic ways to portray her illness, from a literal lack of focus in the camera lens to jump cuts that span months. In that regard, we oftentimes are sympathetic to Alice's situation when she, for instance, wakes up in a new house wearing a bracelet marked "memory impaired." It takes a few minutes to realize she it simply vacationing at their beach house. At the films ending Alice recalls her mother and sister, both dead in a car crash from years ago. It's a rough, out of focus memory, and the film suddenly cuts to white. In a movie so full of emotional moments (having to wait while her daughter decides if it's okay for her to hold a newborn baby, or being unable to find her bathroom in her own home), the ending is all the sadder. In a life built on family and wealth and memories, the pain isn't seeing it come to an end, it is not having any resolution or closure before it is gone forever.

(Awards potential: Best Actress (Moore), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score)

Cake (***)

We're not quite sure what Claire's deal is. She's crotchety, cantankerous, hobbles around with a bad back, and is addicted to pills. The film opens on a support group as they discuss a fellow member's recent suicide. While the other women are in shock and near tears, Claire asks about the logistics of the corpse traveling 2,000 miles on a flatbed truck before being discovered. Something is off with her, and the good part about 'Cake' is that the payoff is worth the wait.

Jennifer Aniston stars in what could be a loose sequel to her film 'The Good Girl,' in which she played a woman whose marriage was dissolving and her life was beginning to plateau. Like that film, 'Cake' picks up with Claire, this disturbed woman who has pill bottles hidden throughout her house and is distanced from everyone except her maid, Silvana (Adriana Barraza). We are not sure why she has such a nice house nor why she is so promiscuous, but that adds to the allure of her character.

The film has a few storylines, and perhaps some of the problems with the movie stem from these divides. We see Claire by herself; uncomfortable and more often than not, reclined. We see Claire with her maid, a Mexican woman who finds little merit in her boss's actions and yet finds deep sympathy to continue working for and protect her. We see Claire have fantasies about Nina, the woman who killed herself, visiting her in her sleep and working out some of her more deep-rooted emotional issues. Lastly, we see Claire as she meets and gets to know Nina's widower, Roy, and their son.

The story is entirely centered around this woman, and the film's intentions are good. Tonally, the audience could become lost, as we have scene after scene of abrupt 'visits' by Nina. Of course Claire is dreaming it, but how lazy does a screenwriter get to resort to a ghost to hit crucial plot points and character changes?

If nothing else, see this movie for our two female performances. Jennifer Aniston has never been better - a full-bodied acting job that slowly builds to a crescendo that is both powerful and true. From mannerisms to emotional content, Aniston is a breakaway star that was perhaps robbed of an Oscar nomination from actresses who gave more 'expected' performances (who? I shall not say...). Adriana Barraza ('Babel') is absolutely genius in a supporting performance that hits it out of the ballpark and perfectly compliments her costar. The chemistry these two have is beautiful, and their interactions are what made the movie watchable.

Looking at the overarching story of 'Cake,' there is not a lot of originality to be found, and in fact the movie searches for inspiration and so often comes up flat. That's not to say it's bad, but that's not to say it's amazing, either. For someone who has dealt with more drastic losses in their life, this film seems like it could ring true. For those who have faced addictions in the face and attempted to quit, then perhaps there is something to be found. To each their own, I suppose. Maybe I was just hoping for vanilla cake, and the movie turned out to be chocolate...

(Awards potential: Best Actress (Aniston), Best Supporting Actress (Barraza)

American Sniper (****)

Chris Kyle is credited with being "the most lethal sniper in US history" with 160 confirmed kills. He served 4 tours in Iraq only to be killed on his home soil by a veteran suffering post-traumatic stress. 'American Sniper' is one of Clint Eastwood's better films in the past few years, and it attempts to sort out the irony that last sentence, as well as our fascination with heaping praise on a man who is famous for killing a lot of people. Why have we come to glorify a man by calling him the "best sniper" in history? It's easy to read facts and statistics on paper, but to kill a man (no matter the reason) is another story, altogether.

The film opens on a tense scene. Kyle (Bradley Cooper) overlooks a convoy moving through a destroyed city. From his vantage point, he sees a potentially lethal situation: a mother and child hurrying towards the American soldiers armed with a bomb. The decision to fire is all his. Thoughts race through his mind, including that of his pregnant wife at home, the consequences of killing a child... The nature of this war, itself.

The drama then mellows, and we flash backwards to Kyle's childhood, conservative to say the least. He learns to never put his gun in the dirt while deer hunting, and his father teaches him the importance of protecting others. In church, he steals a small pocket-sized Bible. We learn very little about this boy besides the essentials, and in jumping ahead to his time as a bullrider and rugged cowboy, we wonder what has become of his life in the meantime.

Eastwood is a very skilled director and shows us the key elements of the story and exactly what the movie needs to carry an emotional weight. At the same time, this is an extremely brutal film, one that does not sugarcoat wartime violence nor glorify any aspects of war. One of the film's focuses is on the juxtaposition between Kyle's time at home versus his active duty. On the front, he is active, empowered, and close with his fellow soldiers. At home, he sits in silence and becomes distanced from his wife. The sound of a drill at a mechanics sends his mind racing with dark images. How any soldier can make the transition from two such extremes is amazing, and one that takes Kyle the course of the war to understand.

As an actor, Bradley Cooper has made quite a remarkable turnaround, going from Hollywood comedies to three-time Oscar nominee (in consecutive years, no less). With 'American Sniper,' he is at last a leading man. It is a very calculated performance that seems to come so effortlessly - fascinating to the point of being unnoticeable. Besides the physicality behind his appearance (allegedly gaining over 40 pounds of muscle), he is a man of few words and bottled emotions. Two scenes in particular highlight his mindset: one in which he sees a child pick up a bazooka and point it at a crowd, and one in which he takes a phone call in a bar. Obviously these are two moments in the film that couldn't be more different, but look at his reactions to the outcome of each. This isn't merely acting, rather a man who understands the consequences of all of his actions and the value of life, itself.

At times the story becomes burdened with a few cliches, ones that are easily forgivable. We see an enemy sniper (perhaps with Al Qaeda), one who's name becomes as legendary as Kyle's. He picks off Americans with stunning accuracy, and the final battle becomes a match between these two rivals. For a film so focused on dealing with the inner struggles of war, this 'good versus evil' take on the plot becomes almost trivial. The audience thinks our climax of the film is the final battle between these two men, but the real conclusion (and perhaps Eastwood hoped we would see) was the final shot of battle as Kyle leaves his weapon behind in the sand... For a movie so involved with a global war, it's hard to see that this is actually a very personal, quiet film; one of reverence and compassion.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Cooper), Best Supporting Actress (Miller), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Cinematography, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Two Days, One Night (****1/2)

'Two Days, One Night' functions with little more than an idea: one woman's job depends upon the sympathy of her coworkers. Given a chance, would you forfeit your yearly bonus check in order to save a coworker from unemployment? It's an intriguing idea, one that seems to be a modern-day '12 Angry Men.'

We meet Sandra (Marion Cotillard), a mother of two who has recently overcome depression. She receives a phone call informing her that she has been made redundant at her job. She takes a few pills to numb the pain and hides the news from her children, but her husband is adamant: this is not the end. Sandra seems to have some support in her office, and they convince the boss to hold a recount of the results. On Monday morning, the staff will meet to decide whether or not they are willing to surrender their bonus. As the title suggests, Sandra has two days to meet 16 of her coworkers and attempt to reason with them. It's going to be a long weekend.

This is a film that at times falls into extreme repetition: Sandra journeys across the city, tells these coworkers she needs to keep her job, and listens to their response. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker such a story would fall apart. The beauty of the film is just that; the stunning moments that cushion the film and make it something truly great. We watch Sandra speak to a woman in the countryside who needs her bonus to build a new patio. The long take is beautifully framed as these two woman face each other, divided vertically by the corner of the home and shadows cast along their faces. Another moment sees Sandra climb several stories to an apartment due to power outage. Each visit is such a gamble for her, and the darkness is always closing in on her as she continues to battle her inner demons. The film is comprised of extremely long takes, one after the other, and with each new scene it becomes clear what a work of art this movie is - it's a careful balancing act that never loses its focus.

Marion Cotillard is stunning and carries the film singlehandedly. She is in nearly every moment of the film, and it's a wonder the Academy took so long to nominate her again for her continued commitment to excellence on screen. Compared to her previous roles, this is simply astonishing. Cotillard has come to be known for flashy performances and her portrayals of characters with great depth. Here, she is a simple woman who needs only to hold back tears long enough to make her point. We know she is on the bring of a breakdown, and her life literally hangs in the balance. There is never a 'false' moment in the film, and in fact it's quite a realistic depiction of a person going through trauma and mental fatigue.

The ending is perhaps a surprise to those who haven't read plot details, and the salvation found in Sandra's character is the crowning moment of such a beautiful film.  It's quiet, honest, and remarkable.

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

State of the Oscar Race

With Oscar nominations officially out and several key awards already presented (The Golden Globes & Critics Choice), let's take a look at the current nominees in a few categories and attempt to figure out who may end up winning the Oscar. It's a boring year for the Academy, and several races already appear over - though the various snubs and inclusions we saw on nomination morning was more than enough to keep some of these categories exciting. 

BEST PICTURE

The first time since the race has expanded to 10 potential nominees that we have seen only 8 films nominated. The one film that could have been a surprise was American Sniper, but after seeing it nominated by both the Producer's & Director's Guild, this was to be expected. Notable snubs included Gone Girl, Nightcrawler, and Foxcatcher. Boyhood is essentially all locked up to win (especially since Birdman didn't get the all-important Best Editing nomination usually required of a Best Picture. The Imitation Game was one of the top-nominated films and on paper appears to be a strong contender. Upset to come? Selma received a major slap in the face, nominated only here and Best Original Song. Ouch. 

1. Boyhood

2. The Grand Budapest Hotel

3. Birdman

4. The Imitation Game

5. Whiplash

6. The Theory of Everything

7. American Sniper

8. Selma

BEST DIRECTOR

Again, the snub of Selma's director was somewhat of a shock, as was first-time director Damien Chazelle of Whiplash. Bennett Miller became the first person nominated for Best Director to not have directed a Best Picture nominee in almost 10 years, and the first time since the Best Picture race has been expanded. Richard Linklater is still the one to beat.

1. Richard Linklater (Boyhood)

2. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Birdman)

3. Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)

4. Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)

5. Bennett Miller (Foxcatcher)

BEST ACTOR

While both Eddie Redmayne and Michael Keaton won Golden Globes, Keaton also won the Critics Choice, oftentimes a telling sign of things to come. This has only ever been a 2-horse race, so upsets like the inclusion of Bradley Cooper seem only to spread the wealth. for now, bet on Keaton. 

1. Michael Keaton (Birdman)

2. Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)

3. Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)

4. Bradley Cooper (American Sniper)

5. Steve Carell (Foxcatcher)

BEST ACTRESS

Yay, Marion! One of the year's biggest snubs was the omission of Jennifer Aniston in Lead Actress for Cake. It seems it was just too small of a movie, or perhaps voters simply like Marion Cotillard better, her first nomination since her Oscar win for La Vie En Rose. Julianne Moore has this wrapped up already, and there are no real challengers. 

1. Julianne Moore (Still Alice)

2. Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)

3. Reese Witherspoon (Wild)

4. Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)

5. Marion Cotillard (Two Days, One Night)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

The year's most boring acting race, with all nominees those we had expected to see. J.K. Simmons stands unopposed to his first Oscar win. 

1. JK Simmons (Whiplash)

2. Edward Norton (Birdman)

3. Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)

4. Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)

5. Robert Duvall (The Judge)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Another boring category all locked up. Laura Dern was the surprise on nomination morning, as she was essentially snubbed by almost every other award show and prize. Patricia Arquette has been winning a lot of trophies, and she is only building momentum. 

1. Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)

2. Emma Stone (Birdman)

3. Keira Knightly (The Imitation Game)

4. Meryl Streep (Into The Woods)

5. Laura Dern (Wild)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

This is an extremely difficult category, as the top 3 contenders for Best Picture share the same nomination here. Birdman won the Golden Globe race as well as Critic's Choice. Boyhood is the assumed Best Picture winner. Grand Budapest Hotel is a long-overdue potential win for Wes Anderson. Who will win??

1. Birdman

2. The Grand Budapest Hotel

3. Boyhood

4. Foxcatcher

5. Nightcrawler

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Since all the Best Picture front-runners are original screenplays, this makes adapted a rather interesting category. Originally entered as an Original Screenplay, Academy voters saw it fit to move Whiplash to adapting (since it was based on a short film by the same director). At first it seemed like a bad idea, but looking at the competition, perhaps it's a blessing in disguise. Aside from The Imitation Game, Whiplash looks like it could win this award in a walk. 

1. Whiplash

2. The Imitation Game

3. The Theory of Everything

4. American Sniper

5. Inherent Vice

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

In the snub of the year, The Lego Movie was omitted from this category. How is that even possible? What we are left with is a race with no clear frontrunner, aside from Dragon's recent win at the Golden Globes. This is anyone's guess. 

1. How To Train Your Dragon 2

2. Big Hero 6

3. The Tale of the Princess Kaguya

4. The Boxtrolls

5. Song of the Sea

As the month goes on, we will continue to break down the nominees and make sense of this year's race. Until then - get to the movies!

John's Top 10 Movies of the Year

Enjoy!!

1. Whiplash
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel
3. Boyhood
4. Snowpiercer
5. The Lego Movie
6. Ida
7. Foxcatcher
8. Mr. Turner
9. Life Itself
10. Gone Girl

Unbroken (*1/2)

With a more competent director or screenplay, Unbroken maybe could have been a movie of significance... Maybe. Instead, we are left with one of the year's worst, a film lacking any form of subtlety, a movie that is cruel (both to its characters and its audience), and one that is an utter waste of time, money, and the memory of one man's life.

Trouble begins early in the picture when we open on an aerial battle over a Japanese island. American soldiers are attempting to bomb a military base when the fleet is attacked by fighter pilots. We see a group of soldiers who at first seem important but end up forgetting entirely. One of these men is Louis Zamperini. Who is he? Well not to worry, we are treated to flashbacks almost immediately. We see vignettes of Louis growing up. As a boy, he was a loner, picked on, drank alcohol out of painted white bottles (to look like milk, obviously), and looked up women's skirts for fun. Running from the law, he discovers a natural ability to run, and by golly he's fast. He ends up in the Olympics years later, where he sets some sort of record and becomes a hero.

Understand his character yet? Good, back to the war. We spend some time with Louis and his crew, mostly as they run around the base shirtless and glistening in the Pacific heat. An impromptu rescue mission calls the men from base to conduct a search, and of course their plane crashes into the ocean. Only 3 men survive: Louis, the nerd, and the muscle.

What is the tone of this movie? We see them scavenge to survive, making it nearly 50 days at sea with little more than their company and a fishing line. Couple the scenery with unbelievably bad CGI sharks and more than one homage to Jaws, and we as an audience are lost as ever. One moment, Louis is telling these men about his mom's gnocchi (in a ridiculously flat scene that attempts to be emotional) and the next his arm is nearly severed by a shark bursting towards the camera. Are we meant to be scared or reflective?

Alas, Louis is rescued, unfortunately it is by the Japanese, and here is where the fun begins. He is held in confinement for days on end before being transferred to a POW camp, supervised by one of the most blatantly homosexual characters on screen since Cyril Ritchard's Captain Hook in Peter Pan. With a heavy hand of eyeshadow and an obsession with his prisoners making (or not making) eye contact, "the Bird" (or so the prisoners call him behind his back) finds a favorite in Louis and proceeds to 'go medieval on his ass.' The film sinks into an endlessly tiring and sadistic bout of torture scenes... One after another... From being punched in the face by every man in the camp (1. wouldn't that surely kill him? 2. the phrase "punch him in the face" is uttered no less than 54 times in this scene) to having his nose broken with bamboo, what is the point?

There are so many things wrong with this film, utterly boggling to the mind, and the problems are thoroughly dispersed. The level of brutality consistently on display is absolutely numbing, and the bizarre homosexual overtones makes one wonder what kind of film Jolie was attempting to make at all? (Overtones more subtle, mind you, until we are treated to a recreation of Cinderella by the prisoners in makeup and bras no less... This really happens in the movie).

Angelina Jolie has meddled in two of this years more unfortunate films (the other being Maleficent) and it's a wonder why this film missed to many marks. If you want to see a brutal movie that is also a work of art, check out the Passion of the Christ. If you want to see a movie about the redemption found in running, watch Chariots of Fire. If you want to see one of the lowpoints of 2014 on film, then maybe this is your pick. Unbroken stinks.

(Awards potential: Best Cinematography (although Roger Deakins has had much stronger films, I have a feeling the Academy will throw him a bone anyways))

Big Hero 6 (****1/2)

There was a time when Pixar was the undeniable champion of computer animated films. They were original, touching, deeply human, and always exciting. Now it seems like their filmmakers are losing steam, and the competition has taken over. Yes, Big Hero 6 is a Disney film (who also owns Pixar), but this is a movie that is both true to the Disney spirit of moviemaking and also a complete breathe of fresh air.

The story is allegedly based on a Marvel comic, and the trailers would suggest that this is a robot-boy friendship film along the lines of Iron Giant. Yes, this is a brief description, but there is so much more. The boy's name is Hiro, a child prodigy of sorts who finds fascination in robotics. He is rebellious, lacking motivation, and clever. His older brother, Tadashi, attends a school in which robotics and technology are explored and learning is nurtured. After one visit, Hiro is convinced he must attend.

Through a series of plot points and incidents Hiro comes into possession of Baymax, his brother's newly-designed robotic nurse. He inflates, treats your symptoms, and deflates upon completion. In many ways he is like Wall-E, a robot with very few emotional characteristics or facial features that any audience can find lovable. Through the course of the film, Baymax adapts to Hiro's habits and mannerisms, and it's not soon before we see a fistbump or two.

As a Marvel-based story, we know we need a villain, and Hiro discovers a man who harnesses the power of micro-robots in order to control the world (so we assume). Hiro collects some of his older brother's friends to work with him to capture the masked man, and they suit up to form a set of superheroes along the lines of the Avengers.

The moments that work are those between Hiro and Baymax. Charming and sweet, there is something so wonderful about a lonely boy coming to terms with life through a non-human friend (what a strange, frequently-used plot device as well, come to think of it). Our vigilantes arrive in the third act, and are quickly assembled and at times detract from the real story being told. Yes, it's an action movie, but it's more so a personal story about this boy who loses his brother. There are heavy themes throughout the movie, oftentimes sad, and it works along the lines of Lilo & Stitch in creating a picture of a realistic family in an extraordinary, modern setting.

As an animated film, this is surely one of the best of the year. Come Oscar-time (when this film is undoubtedly nominated), it will go head to head with another movie about loneliness and identity set in a fantastical world (The Lego Movie). Which film is better I cannot say. As movies released in 2014, they are surely amongst the year's very best.

(Awards potential: Best Animated Feature, Best Art Direction)

Under the Skin (****1/2)

Under the Skin is a movie that hopefully raises questions. For people unfamiliar with the story (such as myself), the film may seem a bit more avant-garde up until the final few minutes, when the title takes on a more literal interpretation and the audience is left with the urge to reevaluate everything they have seen. Here is arthouse cinema blended with sci-fi and horror.

How to begin talking about it without covering a few bases first. We have a woman, unnamed, played eerily well by Scarlett Johannson. She stalks the streets of Glasgow, Scotland in a large white van. She preys on men who usually come to offer her assistance or directions, after which she takes them to an isolated building and lures them into a black pit of liquid and removes their skin. Oh, and she appears to be an alien.

What we learn about this woman is minimal. In the opening shots of the film, we see a man pulling a woman's body from the beach, a woman later stripped by Johannson in need of her clothes. The story churns along episodically, as she moves from one victim to another. As we come to realize her possible intentions, it's interesting to watch how she learns to use her body as a weapon. Men find her irresistible. She's as deadly as a siren.

The movie offers very little in terms of motivation or backstory to her character, nor her accomplice; this motorcyclist who we see every now and again tidying up her dirty work and reigning her in as she begins to explore the world on her own. The story merely begins at what seems like a random point in time, and ends when it feels fit. It's an examination of situation, and as an audience member, we are oftentimes the only voice of reason as we watch senseless acts of violence and disregard. Yes, the story evolves around this woman, but her personality is so thin and motivation so senseless that the story functions without a protagonist at all.

One night, she picks up a man on his way to the grocery store. He is severely disfigured, and she speaks to him as she would any other victim. She asks if he has friends, or a girlfriend, or if he is lonely. We know her intentions are evil, and yet the way she speaks is sympathetic and kind. The man accepts her invitations without question. And here is the woman's change of heart: she feels sympathy for this man. She lets him escape.

It seems like a timeless story to have a character journey the world in search of themself. The woman leaves behind her van and journeys into the wilderness. Maybe she is growing more human, or at least a conscience. She meets a man who offers her help, food and clothing. Perhaps he is beginning to care for her, but it is clear she cannot accept his advances. She is trying to fit into the world, and yet she will never fully become one of us.

The ending is bleak and jarring, but so is the beginning. Scarlett Johannson carries the film with a very remarkable confidence, finding very minute ways to portray someone that is both human and extraterrestrial. On paper, this is a bizarre film to say the least, and even after watching it, there is something about it that is slightly absurd. Sometimes, though, its nice to see something that breaks all molds and tries something new. It will dig under your skin.

(Awards potential: Best Actress (Johannson))

Guardians of the Galaxy (****1/2)

Guardians of the Galaxy is an absurd premise mixed with a strong sense of nostalgia. The film is a Frankenstein-mix of the likes of Star Wars, Star Trek, and The Avengers. What was originally seen as a gamble for film producers has become one of the 'superhero' genres better films, and it is surely one of the more memorable films of the year.

I am not the biggest fan of the Marvel movies. At this point, they seem to be fueled only on box office draws, and since each movie makes more than the last, the need for the next great action flick is always looming. While the Avengers became one of the highest grossing movies of all time, I had troubles keeping track of characters or who's who. It was a lot of pretty scenery with a fairly standard superhero story. Big whoop.

What is so great about a film like Guardians of the Galaxy, then, is that it takes similar ideas and characters but makes them its own. We have Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) who is abducted by aliens in the late 80's, moments after watching his mom die. All he has on him at the time is a tape player with a mix of his mother's favorite songs, a medley of the Jackson 5 and the like. Can you guess what type of soundtrack this film is going to have?

Raised as an outlaw, Quill becomes a very skilled and dangerous 'treasure hunter' in a way. One such item he finds turns out to be perhaps the very key to the galaxy's undoing. Hopefully it doesn't fall into the wrong hands... But you can imagine it does.

No, I haven't read the comics for this story, as I'm sure many of you have, but what followed next was a series of events that were perhaps predictable and at the same time fun to watch. We see how these 'guardians' are assembled in prison, all due to the fact that each seeks to capture Quill for various reasons (including a bounty collector - you remember him as the raccoon). Compared to many of the Marvel films, there is a heavier dose of humor, which works so well with such an absurd story.

The success of this movie is surely in its casting and direction, and we know a sequel will undoubtedly be in the near future. Chris Pratt plays an everyman with traces of Han Solo; a womanizer with a bit of his usual Parks and Recreation dorkiness. As he faces with the main villain in the film and the world is about to be destroyed, Quill begins dancing. The villain is frozen. "What are you doing?" He asks. "Dance off," replies Quill. Guardians of the Galaxy is a movie response of the times you ask "well what if this were to happen?" in movies. It's absurd, crass, and a lot of fun.

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

Into The Woods (****)

In 2001, Moulin Rouge was released to the surprise of critics and the bedazzlement of audiences. It was, in many ways, the rebirth of the film musical, long since absent from mainstream cinemas (the last musical to receive a Best Picture nomination prior to this was All That Jazz in 1979). The next year of course, Chicago won the Oscar, and ever since, we have seen more and more Broadway adaptations, and with box office results, it seems to be working. There's something about musicals that no other film genre can mimic. It's a spectacle - a show put on for us by actors and presented as though they know an audience is present. It's kind of fun to get away for a few hours.

Rob Marshall's Into The Woods does just that, and remarkably well. Marshall has almost single-handedly help hoist the feature musical to its current stature, having directed Chicago and also released the less-than-stellar Nine a few years back. This is his first outing with Stephen Sondheim (of Sweeney Todd fame), and it's with a sharp eye that he very much succeeds at making one hell of a show.

The musical is somewhat of a tapestry of fairy tales, from Cinderella to Jack and the Beanstock. They all live within the same town, next door to an ominous wood. We get to know these characters in a very quick and witty introduction, which sets the stage for the brilliant lyricism that will continue throughout the show. It's fast, to the point, and clever writing, and Sondheim quickly reminds you why he a master at musical storytelling.

We meet the main characters; the Baker and his wife. They are tasked by a Witch to collect a variety of items within 3 days in order to break a spell and allow the two to become pregnant. It's a good a setup as any, I suppose. With time ticking, they must collect a red cape, a golden slipper, some yellow hair, and a white cow... Let's see if you can connect the items to the fairy tale?

There are a lot of characters to meet and a lot of story flying past, but rarely does it feel rushed or burdening. Of course we know some songs were cut due to pacing and time, and overall the picture has a very musical flow, and the interruption of a few songs during the climax aren't bothering - to the contrary they are almost more fun than the actors singing them.

The best musicals are well cast, and aside from the oftentimes flat Johnny Depp with his curling lip and whispy voice, Marshall has assembled a gorgeous cast. It's hard to pick a main character as it is more of an ensemble, but each character delivers. Cinderella, for one, has a particularly clever song on the steps of the prince's castle, played out in a near standstill. The Baker and his wife also play off each other as they try to protect the other from harm. It's Emily Blunt as the wife that really carries her own, silly and burdened, her performance is a highlight of the film. As is Meryl Streep's Witch, of course. What could have become bland caricature is fleshed out into a sympathetic and dangerous woman. Her final song in the film is showstopping in every sense of the word.

It's no surprise that the film is technically marvelous, it's something you would come to expect with such a subject matter. While it is at times a bit campy and perhaps a bit silly to be considered amongst the best of the year, it is nonetheless a movie that knows how to have fun. In such a bland year for movies, that's something to definitely take advantage of.

(Awards potential: Best Actress (Blunt, Streep), Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Makeup, Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing)

Mr. Turner (****1/2)

MR TURNER is a movie of extreme confidence and attention to detail. It is the latest film from Mike Leigh, known for his improvisational filmmaking style and deep human stories. With Mr Turner, he makes a film that is both knowledgable and intriguing; a portrait of a man that many in the public do not know and yet leave feeling like they do. 

The film deals with the last 20 or so years of Turner's life. You may know him for his seascapes and stormy oil paintings. He was a deeply patriotic artist and also a man of mystery. A man of England. The films chooses to let us get to know his family first and foremost. For an unknowing audience member, perhaps Turner is just a man with a hobby, not the country's most prolific and infamous artist of the time. We meet his father, a man who has grown in age and come to work for his son as an assistant. We meet Turner's housekeeper, a drastically plain woman who feels as though she has Turner's heart and devotion. 

The story follows a very episodic nature, as we find Turner both coming to terms with his life as well as profession. The film takes a smart approach in that we are merely observing, as though a play. There is little sympathy to be found in Turner throughout most of the film, and there are times he is plain cruel. We are perhaps meant to reason how a man becomes a man, or maybe how art can be influenced by it. 

The film is lucky to have a man like Timothy Spall as its star. To American audiences he is known as one of the main villains in the Harry Potter franchise. He is, in reality, one of the most versatile actors in the industry, able to transform himself in a performance with remarkable ease. He is an easily recognizable actor, with his large stomach and prominent smile- but what he manages with Mr Turner is to create a wholly realized person- not a protagonist, but a man. He talks deep and grumbles through the back of his throat, and yet never is there a time when watching the film that we doubt anything he says or does.

The other star is the films cinematography. Gorgeous and lush, the camera moves throughout the cold interiors as though a ghost. Our beautiful landscapes and exterior shots are vibrant, framed perfectly, and almost mimicking the style of Turner's paintings, themselves. 

Plot wise, there isnt much to take in. The film steps along at a 2.5 hour running time and yet there isn't a scene out of place or a dull moment to be found. Its difficult to imagine how such a film can or would end, and Mike Leigh finds the perfect note- a series of 3 masterful shots that encompass all that Turner has achieved in his life, the beauty of his work, the power of his personality, and the cruelty of ultimate loneliness. 

I've thought quite a bit about this film after it ended, and in the days following. It left a mark on me that isn't easy to understand. Yes, it's amazing to see how an artist creates and the lengths by which some of these 19th century painters went to achieve greatness. In the end, what's all the more gripping is the subtext that lies underneath everthing. There's so much more to a work of art than surface level alone.

(Awards potential: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Spall), Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup, Best Original Score)