Hidden Figures (****)

HIDDEN FIGURES follows the behind-the-scenes journey of NASA to put a man on the moon. With stiff competition between Russia and the thought of coming in second place in a two-way race, the need for success was palpable. We have seen movies following the journey of astronauts and the science wizards at NASA, but who would have guessed that even as man was shooting for the stars, employees at the head offices still had to use "colored" and "white" bathrooms?

Theodore Melfi directs this picture which has the feel-good attitude of "The Help," a movie that was a box-office success and sugarcoated race relations in the 1960's. Heck, even Octavia Spencer appears in both films. I can't say for sure which film succeeds more at its objective. The story of black female mathematicians surely isn't one that many people had heard of, and perhaps that's where the film's title is rooted (although I would wager that "Hidden Figures" is one of the year's worst titles...). It's a good story rooted in strong performances, but I found the overall result to be a wash of cliches and predictability.

Three friends - Katherine, Dorothy, and Mary (Taraji Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monae respectively) carpool together to the offices of NASA where John Glenn is about to launch into space to become the first American to circle the globe via spaceship. How they are friends we are not sure, but their quick wits and strong minds surely bind them together. Our central character is Katherine, who is called in to assist with the top engineers on flight reentries and landings. Not only is she the only black woman working on these most important calculations, but she is the only woman aside from a secretary who watches her with distain. She reports to Al Harrison (Kevin Costner), built up to be a firm disciplinarian but develops into a man who only wants to see the job done, regardless of race or sex. At NASA, we learn that most of the black mathematicians work in a 'holding room' of sorts, arriving each morning and assigned as 'computers' on various tasks that could result in a couple hours work or a couple weeks... It's all based on assignment. Though they are all employed, the possibility of work is not always guaranteed.

Like "Apollo 13" did so brilliantly, suspense is built during moments when we know the outcome. Even though we know John Glenn makes it back to earth safely (and only just passed away this year), there are nail-biting moments of drama when the fate of success rests on a pencil, paper, and brains. Mary (Janelle Monae in the film's best performance) is assigned to work on the capsule and heat shield. Though she excels at math, she dreams of becoming an engineer (unheard of at the time. She became the first black female engineer in NASA history as the end credits tell us). She takes no slack and acts as any man in her position would: she is straight-forward and doesn't shy away from confrontation. Dorothy (Octavia Spencer) only wants to become a Supervisor and get an according pay raise, and along the way discovers her knack for computers and electronic programming.

I admire the film and it's message, but even yet we suffer from cliche. Whether or not Katherine Johnson was called in within 10 seconds of launch to recalculate a landing formula is beside the point. There are moments in this film where I found myself saying "I've seen this before" and "I bet I know what will happen next." Ten times out of ten I was right. This isn't to discredit the stories of the real women, but rather dismiss the screenwriter for falling prey to conventionality. I highly doubt Dorothy Vaughan was able to sneak into the massive IBM Computer Room and reprogram the machine for weeks without being caught. I doubt the engineers at NASA were really so dumb as to put astronauts' lives at risk until the their math was proven wrong by the film's hero. For a film, it's exhilarating entertainment. Considering the real-life story was almost guaranteed to be less dramatic, we can cut our losses.

I should expect Janelle Monae and perhaps Octavia Spencer to reel in the award nominations for their dedicated and memorable roles. I would consider Taraji P Henson if not for one scene that screams "I want an Oscar" in which Katherine explodes about having to use a colored bathroom and face the scorn of her coworkers. Wide-eyed and full of rage, it's a powerful moment yet goes against everything we know this character to be. The film itself feels a lot like that: trying so hard to be an Oscar contender even by putting reality aside. There isn't a whole lot of depth given to these characters, and even less to the white engineers who essentially prove to be the villains (Jim Parsons gives a surprisingly monotone performance). For movies to touch on aspects of historical race relations, they must realize that it isn't all black and white.

Captain Fantastic (****1/2)

It's hard to keep up with movies throughout the year, but based on the consistent and steady buzz I have heard about CAPTAIN FANTASIC ever since it's early summer release, I'm sure glad I finally got around to seeing it. It's a magical experience from beginning to end, full of surprises and wonder.

The trailer certainly gives away some of the main plot points that move the story along. Our setup is quirky to say the least: a husband and wife decide to raise their 6 children in the woods away from the constant barrage of modern society and all it's vices. Here, they will be honest, will teach their children everything they are curious about, never say "no" and always strive for excellence. We meet the family just as word comes of the wife's death from an apparent suicide. Did I mention the story is equal parts heartwarming and heartbreaking?

Ben (Viggo Mortensen) breaks the news to his children. It's a devastating loss of course, but the rift created between Ben and his in-laws forbids him from attending the funeral. Even though his children are fluent in 6 languages and know the Constitution of the United States by heart (including a thorough understanding of the text, no less), Ben's actions are seen as being harmful to his children. There is a threat that they will be taken away should they return to civilization.

What works so well with the film is the cast of children. In any other movie, just one of these 6 performances would be hailed as a breakthrough of the year. Each child is unique, whip-smart, learned, and scene-stealers moment after moment. Yes the movie is a vehicle for Viggo Mortensen, but without the tact and skill of these actors around him he would be nothing. That's hard to say especially considering how fine of a performance he gives, maybe his best yet. Mortensen seems tailor-made for this role, expanding on a personality that is both understanding and at times a bit mad. There is a delicate balance between our understanding of this family dynamic and the possibility that he is perhaps committing child abuse after all. I think the last 30 or so minutes of the film demonstrate some of the strongest acting you will likely see all year, and I expect an Oscar nomination to follow.

The other lead of the film is the character of Ben's oldest son, Bo (George MacKay). He's a leader like his father, no more than 18, but finds our more about his place in the world throughout the film. The family takes a large school bus named 'Steve' to rendezvous with the funeral, and the journey exposes Bo to the realities that his father have shielded them from. As smart as he is (and having been accepted to every Ivy League school in the country), he has no skills with talking to girls or talking to strangers. We sympathize with him wholeheartedly. Not everything can be found in a book.

The screenplay is one of so many twists and turns. Matt Ross, the writer and director, has only made a handful of films and yet the skill on display is surely some of the most natural I have seen all year. It's a beyond clever story of hardened children who work to find a balance between two worlds. Not only did it move me to tears on more than one occasion, I also found myself amazed at how close this film comes to being a total farce. Think of the final scene where the family sings "Sweet Child O Mine" around a burning funeral pyre. How absurd it sounds out of context, and yet how marvelous it was to take a journey where that moment can be such a fulfilling climax. You would be hard-pressed to find a more original movie this year that is so overflowing with heart.

Fences (***)

FENCES is an okay movie that masquerades with the bragging rights of having been based on a Pulitzer-Prize winning play. I can think of many cinematic instances of  a movie-adaptation failing to meet expectations (most recently I recall 'August: Osage County') and here is no change. What was once fine source material falls into a rut of theatrics and an artificial feel.

The story is a close-knit family in an urban Pittsburgh setting. Troy (Denzel Washington) and his wife Rose (Viola Davis) struggle to make ends meet. Troy is a garbage collector with a son aiming at becoming a pro-footballer. His son shoots for the stars, and time again Troy works to keep him level-headed on the ground. Like the great characters we remember from Denzel's filmography, this is not a man we come to like or even begin to understand. He's the anti-hero. Rose, his caring and sociable wife, works to counteract her husband's stubbornness while never overstepping.

The film seems to be a faithful adaptation to the play (the likes of which I have not seen), and here is the root of the problem. What I think filmmakers fail to realize is that although theater and movies run a similar vein, they are not interchangable. Washington, who also directs the movie, lets his camera linger in wide shots while characters recite their lines as though memorized. They shift blocking periodically to create more interest in the frame, and then the dialogue continues. Think back to 'Doubt,' which was also an adaptation of a Pulitzer-prize winner. That movie used visuals and framing to help develop the story beyond words, and trust me that movie had a lot of words. Think of the snowy setting, the wind, the canted framing in the cinematography... It's not enough to just let an actor read dialogue. On film, audiences need to be wowed.

I did find myself wowed only 2 times, and that was with the leading performances of both Washington and Davis, Oscar-caliber in every regard and such shining examples of why these two are some of the best. Denzel always has a control over his scenes, an eerie focus on his presentation, and even when we know that the film is falling flat, it is he that continues to wow scene after scene. Same with Viola, twice an Oscar-nominee (Doubt & The Help) and perhaps this year's winner, she doesn't so much surprise as demonstrate her fiery focus to her craft. I remember her major debut in Doubt and few minutes of screen time she had. It was an electric moment, acting like we have never seen... Viola's performance is not better or worse than those brief scenes, but it's hard not to get chills when you see a woman performing at the top of her craft.

While I would give the movie a so-so rating, the acting is surely the only reason I could recommend seeing this movie. It's not often that a great play can be adapted into a great movie, but you have to commend the filmmakers for trying. If I had to be completely honest, the movie overall is a bore.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (****1/2)

I could easily write a negative review about ROGUE ONE, slowly dismantling this movie for the few flaws it has. I'll be the first to admit that there are some glaring issues with the movie. Most movies have flaws, and with a series with so much story and such a strong fanbase, it is impossible to please everyone. Let me just say this as a preface: this could very easily be one of (if not the) best Star Wars movie on merit alone. This makes me rethink the praise I had for "Force Awakens" last year, or at least wonder if that film should go down a notch or two (I also rated that movie four & a half stars).

It's a stand-alone film that we were told will have no sequels nor prequels. That's tricky to maneuver since the movie is a direct follow-up to the prequels and takes place in the days before "A New Hope." This film is so closely tied to the original 1977 film that they could be played back-to-back and we would notice very little in terms of a change of tone or style. The filmmakers clearly went to great lengths to recreate sets and costumes to blur the lines, and it works marvelously.

It's a simple story that was mentioned in "New Hope" in nearly one sentence: that Rebels went to great lengths to capture the plans for the Death Star to expose its weaknesses. Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) is that Rebel, daughter of the man who designed the weapon and leader of a Rebel Alliance co-helmed by Cassian Andor (Diego Luna). The front-half of the film establishes their relationship, their plans, their struggles... It's not Star Wars without a funny sidekick, and here we meet K-2SO, a repurposed Imperial droid that works with the Rebels as an assistant. Like C-3PO, he's the comic relief, somewhat prissy, and yet fully realized and wonderfully incorporated. We learn about Jyn's back story and how she was separated by her father after the Empire all but kidnaps him to help with the Death Star's construction. Yes, Jyn is a Rebel, but having a father with such a reputation doesn't make her a woman that people want to rally behind.

The set up to the movie is at times slow and more often than not forgettable. The climax is absolutely inspired. Set on a tropical planet where the actual plans to the Death Star are housed, here is the meaning of "war" when we mention "Star Wars." Combat on the ground, fighters in the air, and the search for the electronic data inside the base, this is a beyond brilliant finale that builds and builds and builds with razor precision. This is not to mention the incorporation of characters from the original trilogy (included with a bit of movie magic and some wonderful nostalgia). I never thought Star Wars was a movie that could be gritty and certainly didn't need to be. This movie ends so perfectly that it surely puts all the other films to shame and leaves on such a euphoric high note that I can't imagine a reason to dispute it. Someone once said that the story doesn't matter as long as you "wow them in the end," and my is this a good ending.

Flaws. Like I said there are several. The clever filmmaking and style of the movie all but washed over me and helped me look past it. As I mentioned the set up to the movie is at times slow and mostly forgettable. The Rebels fly from planet to planet and we find ourselves at a distance with very little to care about. Second, the special effects. I'm sure this movie will be a front-runner for an Oscar this coming year, but not without questionable moments. Grand Moff Tarkin (the sly villain from the first film and Vader's second-hand man) is recreated with a bafflingly-eerie use of CGI, replicating Peter Cushing's persona on screen to reprise the character. Why he wasn't just cast with another actor is beyond me. Every moment he is on screen I found myself disturbed by the almost-human appearance of the character and completely lost as to focus of the story. The same goes for a quick glance of Princess Leia... Yes, today's CGI is good, but it's not that good.

I strongly recommend the film if only because of the end. It works so hard to tie up loose ends and create a unified story that it could almost get away with murder if it wanted to. I didn't even mention Darth Vader's reprise. This is famously the first Star Wars movie not to feature a Jedi or a lightsaber battle, but the final scene with Vader takes the cake as one of the most sinister and perfect moments in the entire series. A quick moment where we finally see all that Darth Vader can accomplish with the dark side. There's no other way to say it: it was "bad ass." Thank God George Lucas finally sold the rights to these movies. Of course we thank him for the ideas, but look at the two movies that have been released back-to-back. This is a golden age of space operas.

Jackie (***1/2)

I feel compelled to begin making bets on this year's Oscar ceremony, particularly in the Best Actress race. In my mind's eye, there can't be a performance that will top Natalie Portman as Jackie Kennedy. It's calculated and convincing in a way that is undeniable. From looks to voice, what we see on screen is far and away Portman's crowning achievement. The buzz has been entirely around this performance, and having now seen the film, it's easy to understand that it's really a one-woman show.

The story is told in flashbacks (as many historical films do) as an unnamed reporter (Billy Crudup) comes to meet with the elusive Jackie in the weeks after her husband's assassination and her relocation away from the White House. With a temperament that is already biased against publishers that have elaborated about her life to more closely resemble a tabloid, she negotiates the basis for their dialogue and what will and will not be included. Her voice is deep, calm, and her face never breaks from the reporter's eyes. This is not a happy meeting.

"Jackie" is certainly a slow-paced story, focusing more on character than plot. Through flashbacks, we essentially see the breakdown within the First Family of the immediate aftermath of the shooting. There isn't an 'Oliver Stone-like' scene in which the assassination is played out in graphic detail, and in fact it is shown in barely a few seconds of terror. The story is on Jackie, her inner torments... There are many scenes of her and Bobby Kennedy (Peter Sarsgaard) speaking in private, debating on the ways to handle funeral arrangements. Jackie researches the funeral procession of Abraham Lincoln, a man who was remembered after his murder in the public's eye. With barely 2 years under his belt, there is worry that JFK will go down in history like James A Garfield or William McKinley, 2 presidents also assassinated and now forgotten.

From 'Black Swan' and now to 'Jackie,' it's easy to recognize the growth and maturation of Natalie Portman the performer. This is a full role, full of nuance and fragility. Within the film, there are contrasting cuts to her famous television tour of the White House, illustrating the renovation and complete overhaul of the famous home's historical artifacts. Portman is never better than these scenes, not only capturing the walk and mannerisms of the famous First Lady, but also her weaknesses and fear of the public's perception of her. Her voice is airy and outwardly 'fake,' but as the film demonstrates, she was a well-researched woman with tact and brain power much beyond those around her. Another moment captures her washing the blood off her face just before Johnson is sworn in. The camera is so close that we can barely see both her eyes in frame. The grief that explodes off the screen is horrifying.

Pablo Larrain, the director who makes his English-language film debut, frames the story as though a dream. Rarely is the camera locked down, and oftentimes we float along with Jackie through the halls of the White House as she realizes that this quite literally the end of one side of her life. Coupled with an almost-experimental film score that so perfectly pinpoints emotional cues, there is certainly skill at a production level that shouldn't be forgotten come Oscar season.

Is the film great? I don't think so. This is a movie made almost exclusively to highlight the skills of our leading actress, pushing story, pace, and drama to the side. The ending itself slowly drags along, scene after scene, almost as though the director doesn't want to look away from such an amazing performance. I can hardly blame him. It analyzes a woman that is so famous throughout America and yet most people probably don't know the first thing about her. There is so much more to this woman than a blood-stained pink suit.

La La Land (****1/2)

"La La Land" is above all an experiment in filmmaking just as "The Artist" was: to see if modern audiences can accept a bygone style of movies in today's world. It's exciting to see that it works (based on the box office success of "La La" and the surge of Oscars for "Artist"). There are no cheats, there are no plot twists or modern devices to twist the audience's arm. This is a musical that is unapologetically saccharine and delivers as a crowning achievement of the year, even if it doesn't always live up to the insurmountable hype behind it.

This is Damien Chazelle's second major feature as writer/ director after his unbelievable debut with "Whiplash" (winner of 3 Oscars and maybe the best movie I've seen since beginning reviews for this website). The buzz behind this film was undeniable, and I know the pressure on Chazelle was great. In an industry of remakes and reboots galore, and despite my few issues with the film, I still think he is a filmmaker above all else. As Oliver Stone so perfectly described it: "I have seen the future of filmmaking and his name is Damien Chazelle."

La La Land is the romanticism of Los Angeles and Hollywood, and the story is aptly simple. Two people try to make a name for themselves amidst rejections galore. Mia (Emma Stone) likens herself as a great actress and yet can't get out of her part time job as a barista. Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) has a dream of opening a jazz club and reinvigorating the musical scene in the city. Through fate and circumstance these two run into each other more often than one might expect, and as luck would have it they fall in love.

As grand of a scope as the film is, it's essentially about these two people and the connection they share. SAG notably 'snubbed' the movie of an ensemble nomination, but thinking back on the story I can't even recall the side characters who occasionally dropped in. Both Stone and Gosling carry the film with humor and charm, a throwback to the simple storytelling of classic MGM musicals, and they sing to boot (live on set, too).

Yes, this is a musical. Not a gritty reboot of the genre as "Moulin Rouge!" was, or one driven by sex and jazz like "Chicago," or an adaptation of Broadway like "Les Mis." This is a pure, original story with original music in all its candy-color CinemaScope shots and costumes. I can't think of a movie quite like it, so creative and risky to fund. It's like "Singin In The Rain" or "American in Paris" and has the tone of those movies, too. The musical numbers themselves are each filmed in one long take (a popular trend after movies like "Birdman") and are mesmerizing to watch. The opening song has a moving camera across a busy highway complete with traffic. How they filmed it I will never know. Another song shows Mia and Sebastian tap dancing over a cityscape as the sun is about to set. I would have to assume it's computer generated but would believe otherwise- I'm sure they had no more than 5 minutes to film the entire scene before losing light.

There are a lot of themes at work, and a lot of the same ideas that "Whiplash" previously explored: jazz, dreams, failure... the two films, as different to ally as they are, work to compliment each other and are the beginnings of a repertoire that only could be described as "Chazelle-ian." The movie isn't all fun and games, and the final 20 minutes are full of deep melancholy and regret. I admired the film all the more for its conclusion, but still felt the ever-present fact that in following the style of a classic MGM musical, it's very predictable. I loved "Whiplash" for its unique voice and style. The style is still there, but there's only so much a script can do that is bound by rules and guidelines. The final exchange of glances between Mia and Sebastian and the last moments of the film are most certainly a reference to the finale of "Casablanca." Even if the ending isn't what we had hoped, their look says it all. "We'll always have Paris."

Go see this film if only because there is nothing else like it. I doubt anything will ever come out again like it. Go for the filmmaking and admire the year's best cinematography (a scene in a movie theater in which Emma Stone is illuminated by projection light is unquestionably beautiful, and the recreations of the green silhouette from "Vertigo" is jaw-dropping and unexpected). If you are looking for the year's best movie I don't know if this is it. Regardless, it's damn good.

Elle (**1/2)

ELLE is a confusing movie, filled with inconsistencies and characters that feel flawed from the script level. Their motivations are at times unclear, and the plot wanders in and out of reason. Watching the trailer, one might expect a thriller of the highest order. Instead, Paul Verhoeven's latest film feels like a jumble.

The film has been generating significant buzz since it's debut at the Cannes Film Festival, and I am geniunely curious about the film that I apparently missed. Here's what I gathered: a woman (Michele, played by Isabelle Huppert) is raped after a home invasion. She is in shock, but quickly recovers and moves on with her life. She does not report this incident to the police, and she only casually tells her close friends about it over dinner days later. Michele is apparently unaffected by the act, and is only curious to find out who the man is. She works as the boss for a video gaming company, currently working on a new fantasy game for PS4 consoles. She receives calls from the rapist, mysterious emails, videos, all indicating that the man knows who she is. She suspects a coworker.

At the same time we learn about her biological father, a man locked away for life for unspeakable crimes he committed when she was a child. When it happened, she was looked at as a sociopathic little girl. Growing up, we see the hardened woman she has become, closed off to everyone (colleagues, lovers, her mother, and her son). On the outside, she has all the resemblance of a successful woman. Inside, she is a complete mystery.

I will admit that while the plot had me curious, the ultimate message of the story was a complete turn-off: that a woman who is raped would be so intrigued by her attacker that she would lure him back time and again to continue his assault against her. I will tell you that she finds out who committed these crimes against her, and yet she does nothing to end his violence. In fact, Michele later goes to his house willingly where she is subjected to further abuse in his basement. It's presented as a two-way relationship in which both parties require torment in order to feel a connection. Passivity is not enough, these two get off on control.

Verhoeven is no stranger to such topics, having directed English-language films like Basic Instinct and Showirls. Here, there is craft on display but very little to show for it. Even without the "thrilling" aspects, there are funny moments in the film, particularly around Michele's son and his relationship with his vile girlfriend. She gives birth to a black baby and the son is blissfully unaware that he is not the father. Michele meets with her mother frequently who is dating a man nearly 40 years her junior. In a world where crime is around every corner, Michele is unable to escape the madness in her own life.

Though I am not familiar with Huppert's career as an actress, I will admit she gives a mesmerizing performance. With deep voice and piercing stare, she becomes a woman who is both fearful and yet able to instill fear on those she oversees. There's a commitment to her performance that is never "over-acted" and yet hits all the right notes perfectly. Were it not for such a spectacular show of acting I don't think I could have brought myself to rate this film so high.

At this movie's core there is an ugly story. I can see the appeal of such a story, but with overly-gratuitous sexuality and shock value simply there for shock, I can't understand the final message. Who are we meant to root for, and who are we meant to hate? A movie can be well-acted and well-directed, but without characters that intrigue us even in the slightest, it makes for quite a bore in the theaters.

Office Christmas Party (**)

Office Christmas Party is a dumb movie that will blend into obscurity within a few months. It's a story that we don't expect much from and only seek out to deliver some much-needed humor in a season when movies are dreadfully serious and dramatic. I will admit that I laughed at several moments throughout the movie. The sad part is that each funny part was already mentioned in the trailer. What a bore.

Set in Chicago, the movie is about a failing firm led by a silly boss named Clay (TJ Miller) and an even-sillier CEO named Carol Vanstone (Jennifer Aniston). With business failing and the threats of shutdown imminent in the new year, Vanstone says that they can keep their job only if they manage to close a deal and get the business of Walter Davis (Courtney B Vance). If he says yes, they are safe. If not, they are done for. After a first meeting goes sour, the office team comes up with the next-best scenario: asking the man if he likes to party.

So begins the festivities, with thousands of pounds of ice and gallons of liquor delivered to the office high rise in Chicago's Loop. Josh Parker (the stoic Jason Bateman) helps organize the event all the while coming to terms with his recent divorce and loss of assets in the process. He has a thing for his assisstant Tracey (Olivia Munn) and that helps to fuel a plot in between scenes of eggnog chugging, dance sequences, and the threat of a prostitute and her pimp only looking to be paid.

Kate McKinnon is the highlight of the movie, playing an HR Manager with silly sweaters and a minivan covered in bird poop. Outside of her moments on screen, the movie flows through the expected ups and downs, has a high-speed chase finale, and ends with the company staying in business (can you believe it?!). Jennifer Aniston reprises the role she had in 'Horrible Bosses' playing the straight-man in a crowd of goofballs trying to one-up each other. There are some funny lines and some accurate depictions of coworkers and their odd interactions (Vanessa Bayer, another SNL cast member, has some hilarious scenes where she tries to make out with a coworker with a baby fetish).

The movie isn't one that necessarily fell short of the mark, although I would argue that this is a movie that was ruined by a trailer that left nothing to mystery. Watch the trailer a couple times and enjoy the chuckles you get from it. I promise you that spending $12 on a movie ticket won't add to the festivities.

Christine (***)

On July 15th, 1974, Christine Chubbuck committed suicide on live television. On the evening news on a local Florida television station, Chubuck calmly informed her viewers that "In keeping with Channel 40's policy of bringing you the latest in 'blood and guts', and in living color, you are going to see another first—attempted suicide." She raised a gun to her head and fired. This was a woman who battled depression and paranoia, and the thought of exploring such a sad story in a feature film feels at times misguided and yet often transcendent. While I don't necessarily understand the merit of underpinning such a dark and trivial moment in history for the purposes of a film, I can't help but admire the art.

Antonio Campos directs this smaller indie film that was released on the film festival circuit earlier this fall. To be honest I am surprised this movie hasn't generated more buzz this season, but I suppose topic matter and budgets oftentimes prohibit such things. Whether or not you have heard of Chubbuck's sad story, Campos nonetheless works to analyze the torment that was behind this woman's struggle and the boiling points of the human psyche.

Rebecca Hall is our star, and when I say that this is a remarkable bit of acting, believe me. Unrecognizable behind dark eyebrows and a center-part of long hair, I think that this is quite easily one of the year's strongest performances and one I hope is not forgotten come Oscar time. We meet Christine as a driven reporter, oftentimes staying late or editing her segments down to the last few moments before air. She exists on the cusp of the modern news era; when stories began transitioning from human interest to violence, shock. The station manager sees a decline in ratings and asks his reporters to seek out more controversial news. "If it bleeds, it leads." A few years ago the movie "Nightcrawler" worked to figure out the public's fascination with gore. Christine could easily be it's origin story.

Not only has Christine focused her news stories on things like local chickens and the building of freeways, but the owner of the company (an aloof John Cullom) visits the station in hopes of recruiting anchors for a new station in Baltimore. Faced with the possibility of becoming a legitimate reporter, Christine has no choice but to succumb. She buys a police scanner and stays up late nights, searching for breaking news. At one point she hears about a house fire and rushes to the scene with a camera in hand. She interviews the resident in tight closeup and fails to even get a shot of the flames. Even in peril, she can't make the transition.

Hall portrays Christine as a lonely woman with glimmers of hope. During the day she volunteers at a children's hospital and puts on puppet shows to the joy of kids. She seems to enjoy it, too. Her mother is much too interested in finding a new date than to remember to meet her daughter for a lunch date. Oftentimes she plays out scenes alone, meditative, working on keeping her positive facade in prime condition. Just below the surface we see a growing menace and distance that ultimately leads to the chilling finale.

If you are to see Christine, see it for Rebecca Hall. What a wonderful morning it would be to hear her name called out as an Oscar nominee. She's that good. The film overall sways in and out of interest, trekking through a story that seems constructed only to justify an end when a woman kills herself on live TV. What do we learn from the story? Where is the deeper understanding of depression and mental illness? Rebecca Hall keeps our interest with absolute hypnotism but in doing so allows us to sidestep the fact that this is a flawed movie at it's core.

Hacksaw Ridge (***1/2)

Mel Gibson is certainly a director of considerable talent, and excusing his brushes with scandal, he is still a man who knows his craft and exudes a confidence on screen. "Hacksaw Ridge" is his first directorial effort in 10 years, and although at times the films fails to reach it's full potential, it's still a reminder that Gibson isn't someone we want banished from Hollywood.

In a time when it feels like World War II movies have been tired out, here comes another one that tells the true story of Desmond Doss. Unlike most soldiers, Doss is a Seventh Day Adventist who refuses to go against the 10 Commandments, particularly the one against killing. Enlisting to serve his country, his only slight is that he will not touch a gun. At first he is told that this will be acceptable. Boot camp certainly proves him wrong.

This is a movie that is told in two very distinct parts: the blossoming romance on the eve of enlistment, and the hellfire of battle itself. When you think of a war movie you must introduce the characters as everyday people. Doss is raised in Virginia, son to a drunk and lover to a nurse at a nearby hospital. On their first date he can't help but stare at her in the dark, ignoring the newsreel footage of battle. In another film that black and white image would be enough to spark Doss to enlist. Instead, he just smiles and smiles and wonders whether he should kiss her or not.

We see the fragments of why he is so against violence. His father (Hugo Weaving) who at one time lost his friends in World War I, is now a raging alcoholic who takes out his anger on both wife and kids. His only solace is the cemetery where his friends are now buried. Guns are expected in war, but in life, Doss sees them as a tool to only incite destruction. When so many people arm themselves to fight, he decides to work as a medic to try and save people instead.

Boot camp sees all the typical scenes one might expect, including peer bullying, obstacle courses, and a barrage of insults from the drill instructor (Vince Vaughn in a curiously non-comedic role. His performance and delivery of lines is astonishingly bad in an otherwise fine cast. This is the first true time I can honestly say that an actor was absolutely miscast). As he continues to refuse weapons training, Doss is thrown in a military prison and threatened to be locked up the duration of the war. We know he won't be, but it's still required in the film to establish the drama of the scenario.

As I said, the film is very clearly two stories, and part two hits the audience like a freight train as the nightmare of battle manifests on screen. Gibson, the director whose battle scenes in "Braveheart" are still considered some of the best of their kind, knows how to film action. The left-to-right path of the allies move across screen at Hacksaw Ridge; a precipice of mud and trenches on the shores of Okinawa. Taking this fortress means changing the tides of war. The battle which is filmed in extended sequences that truly are horrific, show blood and gore the likes of which we haven't seen in a war film in quite some time. Steven Spielberg didn't necessarily revolutionize war films with "Saving Private Ryan," but the intensity certainly harkens back to it.

Doss is remembered as having saved nearly 100 wounded soldiers from the battlefield when all other troops retreated. Through the night and into the next day, he worked to slowly drag men from the mud and lower them down a 50-foot cliff to their salvation. It's almost too fantastic to be a true story, and yet Mel Gibson himself said he was drawn to this story because it was about "a real life superhero without the spandex." After the war Doss even became the first conscientious objector to receive the Medal of Honor.

The film (nearly 2.5 hours) wraps up so quickly that it felt like a 3-hour movie that was missing the final reel. A quick montage shows the final moments of the battle and show some incredible real-life footage of the elderly men who actually knew Doss. Aside from some moments of cliche (how can a war film ever seek to be original when so much has been seen) and that brisk wrap-up to such an unbelievable story, I still would recommend the movie. Andrew Garfield in the leading role is at times a bit too hammy to demonstrate the depth a character like this would have, although such selflessness is maybe 100% accurate. I was happy to learn a bit more about one of America's unknown heroes.

Nocturnal Animals (*1/2)

I wanted to love "Nocturnal Animals," Tom Ford's long-awaited return to the director's chair following his artistic achievement with 2009's "A Single Man." The beauty is here, and Animals is certainly a gorgeous film to watch. The look is right, and the score is lush. It's a shame that for all the individual accomplishments such efforts add up to become such a thorough snoozefest.

I would describe the plot, introduce the characters, etc., although for the most part all I can gather is that the movie is about Amy Adams reading a book with great intensity. The book itself, of course titled "Nocturnal Animals," is a murder mystery written by her estranged ex-husband (Jake Gyllenhaal). Written as a manuscript on the verge of publication, Adams (her character is named Susan) reads the book in the bathtub, on the couch, in front of a fire, in her bed, etc. The emotions it draws out of her cause many reactions of shock, of horror, as she continually has to pause mid-sentence to let out a sigh and remove her glasses. This continues for the majority of the film. What a chore it is to be a wealthy woman reading a book. When she isn't reading, she is a failing artist whose most recent gallery featured life-like statues of obese women in the nude. Speaking of which, the opening credits to this film are quite an eyeful.

The novel itself follows a man (again portrayed by Gyllenhaal) who gets pulled over on a lonely Texas highway by a group of men who are anything but friendly. In a scene of building tension, they are kidnapped and unspeakable circumstances befall the man, who gets involved with the law in attempts to track down the criminals. He works with a sheriff, played so aptly by Michael Shannon, who works outside of the law to save the day in the end. If it weren't such a travesty of a movie I would bet money that Shannon had a likely chance of receiving a Supporting Actor nomination at the upcoming Oscars. He's that good.

At the conclusion of the novel, after Adams has run out of breath to sigh and warm baths to take, she contacts her ex in hopes of meeting him to discuss the book. So leads to an ending that is just as contrived as the rest of the film. It's a level of pretentiousness that I could sense with "A Single Man" and still admired for it's boldness. Here, in a story that precariously balances 2 or 3 stories simultaneously, it's a traffic jam of tone and theme. I can understand how there are interpretations to be made about the book, it's metaphors in regards to murder and abortion (there's a lot of plot I have failed to cover), revenge and healing. I don't blame Tom Ford entirely for the film being so convoluted, however when you see that he wrote, produced, and directed the picture, we have to draw the line somewhere, don't we?

Manchester By The Sea (*****)

One of my all-time favorite movie scenes is in 1980's "Ordinary People." The story follows Conrad, a high school student who is dealing with the sudden death of his brother and living with two parents who have no idea how to cope. Behind a picturesque middle-class facade, things are slowly unraveling. The final moments of the film, after we learn that Conrad's parents have decided to separate, shows him and his father in a quiet and cold backyard. Even though these two have rarely seen eye-to-eye, and in a conclusion where everything seems hopeless, Conrad simply tells his father "I love you," and in response his father breaks down and says the same. I think the reason I love this scene so much is because it offers a movie so full of darkness the slightest suggestion of hope. It suggests that the love of family is still stronger and cannot be overcome.

I only mention this scene and "Ordinary People" in particular because almost 40 years later here is a movie that is a spiritual equal. "Manchester By The Sea" is a massive undertaking that deals with loss in such an intimate way that it would be hard to call it anything but profound. There is something entirely universal everyone can grasp and yet watching this movie feels like a peek into a very real life of a family.

Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck) is a man whose life is stagnant. He works as a handyman in a series of apartment buildings, fixing leaking pipes and whatnot. He lives in a basement studio apartment that is sparsely decorated and lifeless. He drinks by himself, and he is rude to those around him. In the first half of this film, Lee is not a character we understand or even like. In fact, he is oftentimes despicable. He gets into bar fights and swears at women. When he takes a phone call to learn of his brother's sudden death, he calmly says he will get there within the hour.

Manchester-by-the-Sea (the town's actual name) is where Lee seemingly grew up, raised a family, as evidence by many flashbacks that pepper the film with glimpses into his memory. We recall the moment when his brother, Joe (Kyle Chandler) was first diagnosed with congenital heart disease, or when he took his nephew Patrick on a fishing boat. Now in the present time, Patrick is a high school student with no mother and only Lee as his seeming guardian.

The movie becomes an evaluation of the stages of grief and we focus on the relationship between uncle and nephew. Lee, who remains shut off from the community, and Patrick, who invites friends over for pizza and stories on the very day his father died. No one is to say which way is the preferred method for mourning, and of course the emotions begin a series of highs and lows as the two men begin the process of moving on with life. Lee, who is adamant about living in Boston, faces pushback from Patrick who is adamant about finishing high school in Manchester among friends. Here, he has a boat, friends, a band, and two girlfriends (I know). In Boston, all Lee has is a sad apartment. There's no arguing there.

What is surprising about the film (where can I start) is the stark humor that comes amidst moments of such melancholy. This is easily a story that could have sunk into our hearts and left us feeling cold, but there is a joy that comes from the way these characters talk to each other and interact. There is an established history that is evidence in the writing. What else is mesmerizing is a score that incorporates classical pieces as opposed to an original soundtrack. There is something so powerful about the contrast between the New England setting and such complex music. Maybe more impressive still is the tight structure of the script, which weaves back and forth through time and gives us such a sense of depth and backstory. Kenneth Lonergan (the director and screenwriter) has surely written the favorite for an Oscar nomination.

Casey Affleck, an actor of considerable talent, seems to have finally become his own person outside the shadow of his brother. His performance is quite simply jaw-dropping. Closed in and reclusive and yet with hints of a broken heart, there are glances and gestures that are so nuanced that you can't help but think that this could be the best performance of the year. As with Michelle Williams playing his wife, this could very easily be her best role to date. Her brief screen time in all but 4 or 5 scenes encompasses the themes of the film and reveal the deeper heartbreak just below the surface of their relationship. The same can be said of Lucas Hedges playing Patrick, a young actor full of promise and grace.

There were several scenes when I found myself genuinely moved, mouth agape at how honest this movie actually was. When Patrick finally comes to term with his father's loss while looking for a snack... When Lee and his wife exchange a hug at the funeral and a surge of emotion sweeps through both of them... A scene where Lee picks up a gun... These are candid moments that are so real, so perfect, I can't help but think that "Manchester by the Sea" is the year's best film.

Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them (**)

Fantastic Beasts is easily one of the most misguided films of the year. Following on the global success of Harry Potter, it made sense that studio heads would seek to milk this cash cow for everything it had to offer. Even with JK Rowling penning the screenplay (which would seem to be promising as a pure extension of the wizarding world) this is a story that a) didn't need to be told, and b) is a chore to sit through.

The story is of Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne, who plays this role with the personality of a thumb tack), a famed Hogwarts dropout who penned the title book; a guide to the care of magical creatures found throughout the world. The story begins with Scamander arriving in New York City in 1926 with a trunk full of animals, hoping to catch a rare specimen from a trader in the city. The story begins when one of his animals escapes and he must try to find it. In the world's largest city, this will prove to be quite the chore.

As you recall from the original Harry Potter films, the set up was the marvel of the stories - introducing us to the world of magic, learning spells, understanding the world.. In fact, the first few films were remarkably cheery and innocent in a way, only getting darker as the evil forces developed over time. With Beasts there are two distinct stories happening: the innocent Scamander trying to find his lost animals, and a dark wizard named Grindelwald terrorizing Europe, all the while the American wizarding community fearing exposure with the arrival of a dark force that is ripping the city apart. It's a contrast of two extremes, and the story can't really decide what kind of tone it should take: one that is family-friendly, and one that is not.

We get to know a bit more about the American side of witchcraft which proves to be an interesting concept but delivers very little on what different cultures would look like. We see their head government office concealed behind an office's revolving door, very much like the Ministry of Magic only everyone has a Brooklyn accent. We meet the President of their community (of America or just New York we can't be sure) whose only focus is to make sure that magical-born people and "no-maj" (the American equivalent of "muggles," which definitely doesn't roll off the tongue as sweetly) remain separate.

For Rowling to have penned this screenplay (and this being her first, no less) it's an admirable attempt and yet completely overwhelming. There are countless scenes that appear to add depth and yet do little more than muddle the story. A prominent subplot features the political campaign of a newspaper head's son, and yet by the end it's inclusion is a puzzle (especially since they cast John Voight in such a throwaway role, no less). Another subplot shows the a woman (Samantha Morton) who preaches "end-of-times" sermons about the presence of witchcraft in the community, and behind the scenes she adopts and occasionally abuses orphans. Even further, a mysterious being ravages entire buildings around the city, chalked up to gas explosions by police, but investigated by wizards as some mysterious dark being. When the title of the movie is "Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them," these beasts ultimately felt like they had been pushed to the back burner in favor of a Harry Potter prequel and NOT a free-standing movie about magical animals.

The good parts come with the cast, especially the character of Jacob (Dan Fogler) who, like Harry Potter in the first film, acts as the outsider to guide the audience through this new world with a questioning and funny persona. He plays a nomaj who gets tied up with Scamander after an unsuccessful loan application at a bank. Exposed to magic for the first time, he acts as comic relief to the ridiculousness of situations at hand. He slowly falls in love with the Auror's sister, Queenie (Alison Sudol) who is both a skilled mindreader and whimsical cook.

This is the first of a 5-part series. I shudder to comprehend the reasoning of studio head honchos who put up so much money on such a gamble (the same can be said about Avatar and the 4 upcoming sequels planned for the near future). It was such a pleasant time when Hollywood valued originality and not a quick cash grab. There is such a fascination with sequels and prequels and reboots (oh, my!) that to find a truly original piece of cinema is becoming harder and harder. For the average movie-goer faced with only these options, the current selection sure looks boring.

The Edge of Seventeen (*****)

If I could only shower enough praise on this film I would. I don't think such volumes are possible. Few films I have seen began with more tepid anticipation and finish with such wonder. As the credits rolled I realized I had a wide grin on my face that I wore the entire 90 minutes while watching. Such is the wonder of "Edge of Seventeen," a directorial debut by Kelly Fremon Craig that joins the ranks of "Juno" and "Breakfast Club" to become a quintessential high school flick. More so than that, this movie rises above the tropes to become something I'm sure many people will be talking about for a while.

For such high praise I will tell you that this is a predictable movie. It follows many of the conventions we would come to expect about an awkward girl navigating her Junior year of high school. Our heroine, Nadine (Hailee Steinfeld) is an awkward, confrontational girl who has always lived in the shadow of her popular brother, Darian (Blake Jenner, who also starred in "Everybody Wants Some!" earlier this year). Her one friend, Krista, is a source of strength throughout her education, and they grow up as the closest friends. One weekend with their mother out of town, Krista and Darian meet up and soon begin dating. Nadine sees this as an ultimatum: her best friend must choose either her or her brother. There can be no compromise. She chooses the boy.

What follows is a descent into the awkward stages of high school that so many films in the past have glossed over. In the years before college, social status is what makes or breaks you. If you don't have friends you have nothing, and with Nadine losing all her chips in one fell swoop, she is forced to analyze her life and what little meaning is left in it. Her mother, a control freak with a few shining moments but little knowledge of how to raise a girl, is oftentimes absent and unhelpful in her advice to her young daughter. Her father, who passed away when Nadine was 13, was the one source of solace in her life, and now it would appear that she is unhinged.

So begins a fiery relationship with her teacher, Mr Bruner (Woody Harrelson as one of the great teachers in movies). She criticizes his lectures and only seeks to belittle his efforts. Bruner, in turn, dishes it back to Nadine and makes fun of her lack of friends and social status. It's a complicated dynamic that eventually shapes itself into one of respect as Mr Bruner slowly fills that gap left in the absence of her father. Along with the professor, Nadine begins chatting with a classmate, Erwin, who is clearly infatuated with her in the most lovingly-awkward portrayal. Nadine only has eyes for Nick, the hottie rebel who spent time in juvie and works at the local pet store.

There is a strong identity I felt with Nadine, a girl who hides behind a rough facade to protect a more fragile heart. Hailee Steinfeld (herself an Oscar nominee for "True Grit") hits all the right notes and with any luck would return to the Oscar ceremony for a richly-deserved nomination playing a young girl simply navigating the hardships of maturation. Her delivery of the dialogue presents some of the funniest moments, and her timing is impeccable. Kelly Fremon Craig, a first-time director no less, dazzles with a thought-provoking script that has all the workings and understandings of a tenured filmmaker.

There's something very special about "Edge of Seventeen" that isn't blatantly apparent when I rethink it. It's a straightforward comedy with the expected rising action, an emotional climax, and a happy ending with a bow on top. Predictable, yes, but boring, not in a million years. I think there is a lot that audiences could identify with, and I'm sure that accounts for it's enormous success among critics and audiences so far. This isn't a story that sugarcoats childhood and youth and makes it something inconsequential. This is a story where we understand the full weight of any given situation and find ourselves utterly invested in the outcome. That's all thanks to a great cast and talented writer/director. What an achievement.

Arrival (****1/2)

"Arrival" is the kind of movie I wanted to watch with as little information as possible. The trailer intrigued me and roused my interest: a story of aliens finally making first contact, and our inability to understand them. How that could sustain itself for a 2-hour run time was beyond me, but this (I'm thrilled to say) is a movie full of beauty that just about left me spellbound.

Our heroine is Louise (Amy Adams in what has got to be one of her best roles), a linguist who teaches at a college and lives alone in a glass house overlooking a lake. We learn about her daughter, a smart young girl who died of cancer at a young age. It's a heartbreaking opening to the film, a set up to a story that has more emotion than the sci-fi genre would have you believe. Suddenly, large orbs appear all over the world. It makes the news and interrupts the class with a barrage of phone calls and texts. No one can verify them as man-made, and the locations around the planet seem strategic. This is indeed first contact. People are glued to the TV and buildings are evacuated. I wonder what would happen if aliens ever were to touch down on earth. I would assume this is as accurate as I would imagine.

Louise is contacted almost immediately by a Colonel (Forest Whitaker), who confirms contact has been made with the alien beings, and yet no promising communication can be made. He asks her to decipher an audio clip that sounds as much like a language as a whale's call. It's impossible. Louise confirms that the only way to actually learn would be to have a face-to-face encounter; to teach them the rudimentary words and go from there... You start with the word for "human" and end with the answer to the complex question "what are your intentions here on earth?"

The spaceship is one of the many striking aspects of the film, first revealed in a grand shot in the wilderness of Montana. Fog spills over green hills, and there on the horizon is a black mass 1,000 feet in the air, hovering just above the ground. A military base is set up nearby, and work is quickly underway. The entrance to the ship is a 10-foot hole that opens at the base every 18 hours. A cherry picker raises the crew inside the chasm, and a change in gravity allows them to literally walk up the walls to a meeting chamber. I wonder how they first made this discovery, or who was the first to agree to venture inside the menacing ship.

There is a twist of sorts at the climax of the film that leaves you reeling over the images and moments leading up to it. It still has me scratching my head by the complexity of it, and left me somber at it's implications. This is a deus ex machina to end all deus ex machinas, and yet I was moved by the way it worked out (rather than feeling cheated). The climax ends in a way that could only happen through specific series of events, and if you think too hard about what is happening you will only hurt yourself. How badly I want to ask you questions about the movie, the ending, the aliens (10-foot tall beings that look like upright squid), and the expansive questions of fate and choice. This is a brilliant movie directed by Denis Villeneuve (he made one of the decade's best movies last year with 'Sicario') and the talent displayed is bar-none some of the best filmmaking around right now. The score by Jóhann Jóhannsson is surely an Oscar-contender for it's ease in slipping back and forth between sounds of horror and orchestral moments of harmony. For a film this complex, giving a concise review is hard. It's better to just advise you to see this movie as soon as possible, and perhaps plan ahead to see it twice.

Tower (*****)

TOWER is an important movie for all the right reasons. It is an artistic feast; a cinematic marvel that recreates a tragedy with a simple beauty without falling into the tropes of documentary filmmaking. This is not a documentary, rather it's more of a non-fiction retelling that casts actors to read lines in place of the real people. It recounts a school shooting that happened long before memories of Columbine - on a sprawling Texas campus where a sniper took a town hostage and murdered a total of 17 victims (including an unborn child) and shooting a total of 49 people. In a time when mass shootings have become a standard scroll on the nightly news, this was a new kind of crime. It only seems fitting that the movie uses a new form of craft to tell it.

It was the summer of 1966 on the sweltering campus of the University of Texas at Austin. Summer courses were just beginning, and the college town surrounding the buildings were bustling with excited youth and students. It was just after noon. From nowhere, people recall hearing "pops" and suddenly the air was filled with targeted bullets, first striking down a pregnant woman and her boyfriend in the stone plaza outside the central clock tower. Soon after, a boy on his bike was shot several blocks away. Chaos ensued.

On a day when the top news was going to be little more than the heat, here was suddenly a national emergency that gripped the country. A local news director hopped in his car and broadcast the scene from a portable radio. His voice was heard all over America. From the clock tower, the rumors that a sniper was preying on those below with no regard and no sense. Why don't more people talk about this tragedy today?

The film is designed to be a documentary (although I would argue it doesn't fall into that specific genre for a variety of reasons) with talking heads of students and police officers explaining what happened. We know they are actors, and their accounts strike us as surprisingly modern in expression and tone. The rotoscoped faces keep the past at a safe distance, and it's almost easy for the audience to distance themselves from the horror that actually happened here. Through black and white recreations and grainy archival footage, the film crafts a landscape of southern comfort and familiarity with those living nearby.

There is a moment like a bombshell midway through the film, when we suddenly cut from the illustrated actor to an actual aged woman, continuing her story without a moment's hesitation. This woman (now in her 60's or so) is one of the survivors: the woman who lost her unborn child at the hand of the gunman. It's a revelation - splicing the animation with the real, creating a moment that is all the more impactful by bridging that historical and visual gap. Now we understand that these actors are not reading from a script... They are telling the actual words by those who survived it.

There are beautiful moments that are beyond words - like when a red-headed woman rushed to the aid of this pregnant woman even though she remained completely vulnerable to the shooter. They begin a conversation to keep their minds off the terror and carnage. Another moment when a couple of students act heroically in order to save victims from the slow death that awaited them. They run out in the face of danger and carry victims to safety. This was a time that separated the heroes amongst us, and there were unbelievably brave people that were caught in the midst of it all.

By the end, "Tower" became a movie that commented on the string of recent shootings, the prevalence of violence in our culture, our unwillingness to stop it... There have been several movies made about the ideas of school violence and mass shootings. I recently rewatched "Elephant" which is a great Gus Van Sant film that recreates a Columbine-like shooting and yet does nothing to answer the simple question of "why?" "Tower" is great not because deals with the same question, rather it adds to it: why can't we stop this from happening?

Moonlight (*****)

There's a tender beauty in MOONLIGHT that, despite an oftentimes glacial pace, surprises as one of the more artistic endeavors of 2016. Oftentimes a movie will follow a character through life, hitting the high and low points, and come out on the other end with little more to say than "this person existed." Here, the ultimate message touched me to the core. Regardless of where we were born and raised, "Moonlight" somehow captured humanity in a perfect way.

We follow the story of Chiron, a meek boy who is raised in the rougher parts of Miami. His mother a drug addict and his classmates a constant source of bullying. The story is broken down into three concise chapters that tell specific stories pertaining to his identity. Chapter 1 is titled "little," where young Chiron is discovered in an abandoned building by a local drug dealer named Juan (Mahershala Ali, a great performance). For the first time in his life, Chiron has a father-figure who he can look up to and seek guidance amidst the lack of support from his mother. Chapter 2 is "chiron," where we find a lanky Chiron navigating a solitary life of high school. One night, he has an intimate encounter with his friend Kevin, an act that boils to a breaking point the next day in class. Chapter 3 ("black") concludes the tale with a hardened Chiron, muscular and menacing as a front, works as a drug dealer and reuniting with Kevin after years apart.

The movie is wonderfully-written and these characters become people we can identify with if only because they have dealt with pain and loss in their lives. There is truth in their words. Chiron, a young boy who keeps his head down and speaks little, finds a voice through Juan and his girlfriend Teresa (Janelle Monáe). Contrasted to his life at home with his mom (Naomie Harris in a surefire Oscar nomination), Chiron begins to see that life is not only a place of torment. There are people out there who can make life worth living.

The craft on this film is exceptional. The camera is in a constant state of motion and tightly-focuses on our characters with so much out of focus that their worlds become a state of confusion and disorientation. The first shot of the film is a simple scene, where Juan meets with a dealer and finds out how things are going. He soon leaves. A simple shot would have sufficed, framing both characters in medium. The camera instead whirls around these two men, floating through the street and immersing us in a the scene that is unexpected and memorable. It's the little things that count. The music, a combination of classical and choral, contrasts the images we see on screen and somehow heightens the emotions.

The story, amidst characters and interactions, ultimately boils down to the relationship between Chiron and Kevin. In part one he is little more than a childhood friend (and in fact I had to check to make sure it was the same character in all three instances), and by the end we see him as an adult with just as many bottled emotions as Chiron. Though the two boys start off relatively similar, the finale shows the way that paths of life can diverge and flow. One of the final scenes is a simple scene where Chiron seeks Kevin out at his diner, where Kevin has promised to cook dinner. The exchanging of glances and the way the camera idly drifts in and out of the conversation is simply beautiful. Chiron has worked to build up his body and physique to appear intimidating, maybe threatening, but when he speaks with Kevin we catch glimpses of the shy little boy from the top of the story. For having 3 separate actors, the consistency of Chiron's personality is a crowning achievement in a film so full of great aspects.

It's hard to put into words a movie that is so good that nothing can accurately describe. The perfect words have already been written in the script, and talking about the movie simply does nothing to improve on the fact. All I can say, wholeheartedly, is that you must make time to see "Moonlight" sooner rather than later. It's that good.

The Handmaiden (*****)

THE HANDMAIDEN is a great film. It seems to glow with creativity and beauty with each new scene, and during the entirety of its over 2 hour run time I found myself entranced by a slow-churning mystery that left me once again excited by the craft a good movie can make appear so easy.

The film is a South Korean production helmed by director Chan-wook Park, known mostly in America as the director of 'Oldboy.' People often say that foreign films demonstrate a higher quality in comparison to the stuff of Hollywood; that stories are daring and the craft is not as pressured by executives who would rather turn a profit than make something truly substantial. Did they ever get it right.

The movie is a period piece that is lush in costumes and sets. Each new shot paints a picture on the screen that simply pulls one into the world of South Korea in the 1930's. The cinematography, a lush landscape of vibrant hues and meticulous staging, keeps us engaged as though by hypnotism. The story follows three people, each scheming in their own right, telling the audience information that might only be a passing thought in their mind. In the simplest form, the story is of a conman who hopes to rob a wealthy woman (Lady Hideko) of her inheritance by feigning love with her and posing as a Count. Once married, he will find her mentally unsound and throw her in a mental institution, leaving him to bask in a newfound fortune. In order to make the most of his plan, he sends a maid (another con artist named Sook-Hee) to infiltrate the Lady's home and gain information and insight into the mind of the woman.

The film opens with a scene of forgers and thieves who meet to hear the "Count's" plan. He runs a business of sorts, forging money, legal papers, and jewelry. He promises them a cut of the fortune assuming they can help pass himself off as a man of means. Sook-Hee, for her troubles, is promised $50,000 and a new wardrobe once Hideko is institutionalized. She is a simple girl, illiterate, but the prospects are insatiable.

In the night, she takes a car ride down the coastline to the estate of Lady Hideko, a grand estate built in two parts: one half designed as though an English mansion, and another half in traditional Japanese style. It's truly East meets West, and the blatant metaphor of clashing cultures and ideas only becomes more potent as the story progresses.

Lady Hideko lives on the estate with her elderly uncle, a man who uses an ink pen so fervently that his tongue is stained black. He is a collector of antique literature and texts which are entirely erotic in nature, and uses Hideko to recite the texts to potential buyers who frequent the mansion in hopes of bidding on what is essentially pornography. We learn about her past, raised by her Uncle in a disciplinarian manner, losing her aunt to a suicide as a child, and an eternal fear of ever leaving the confines of the estate. For Sook-Hee, the innocent maid come to spy on her, it might already seem like a mental institute is not too far off.

As these two women begin to know each other, they become friendly, with Hideko using Sook-Yee to model her clothes and confine dark secrets in the privacy of her room. Sook-Yee, who sees the potential wealth she will soon inherit, seems hypnotized by the beauty of her boss, and in some of the most beautiful moments of glances and gestures, we can see a dark romance forming between the two women.

The story is broken up into three parts, and to venture in even discussing the array of twists and turns would do no favors to the structure of the story, so expertly-written and brilliant that at any one time we may have flashbacks within flashbacks told simply to act as footnote to a line of dialogue or interpret the actions of a character. Never are we lost or in over our heads; this is a masterpiece of story and style. In fact, Part 2 nearly replays the entire first act of the film but through the perspective of an entirely different character. Scenes are repeated in their entirety and yet the insight we gain only leads towards understanding of the next moment, and the next...

The movie is based on an English crime novel called "Fingersmith," and we can see how this story could easily be (at first glance) a serial crime novel with a predictable plot. The story is tense at times and deeply erotic at others, showing these two women in moments of ultimate vulnerability and strength, sometimes in the same instance. I would expect many audience members to be offput by the graphic nature of several scenes, and yet I can do nothing but praise the artistic endeavors to use sex on film as a means to tell an emotional story.

The Academy Awards have created a shortlist of potential nominees for Best Foreign Film, a list that does not include 'The Handmaiden' (South Korea instead nominated a film called 'The Age of Shadows'). It's a shame that a movie as wonderful as this could be looked over, even if by technicality that a country needs to pick one film only to represent it. The soundtrack is haunting, the story compelling, the look is heavenly. I know I will see many more films as the Fall rolls along, and yet I know that when I come to make a list of my favorite films of the year, this is now the one to beat.

The Birth of a Nation (**)

The problem with THE BIRTH OF A NATION isn't the controversy surrounding the title, which it reclaims from the acclaimed 1915 silent film by DW Griffith. It also has nothing to do with the stigma surrounding the film's director Nate Parker and cowriter Jean McGianni Celestin, accused of raping a woman back in 1999. The simple fact of the matter, amidst a film festival circuit buzzing about Oscars for this little film, is that it is not that good.

This is described as being a passion project for first-time director Nate Parker (who also stars in the lead role of a slave named Nat Turner), who financed much of the film with his own money and worked tirelessly to bring the forgotten story of a rebellion to the big screen. Based on true accounts, this is another film in the lives of the Antebellum south where slaves are brutalized on screen and audiences are meant to both marvel at the art while feel shame for living in a country with such dark historical chapters. There seems to be a resurgence of slave-based films, going back to Tarantino's "Django Unchained" and followed by the masterful "12 Years a Slave" and "Lincoln." In a time when race relations are at the centerfold of a political election cycle and splatter the front pages of the news every day, the subject matter has never been more relevant or controversial.

There are certain moments in the film where an emotion rings true, or the camera catches a glance of something remarkable. Overall, I felt like I was rewatching a copy of better films. For a first-time directorial effort, this is in no way a failure of intent. Watching the film, I think Mr Parker simply paid one too many homages to similar films that have come before.

Nat Turner is a slave who is raised to read and write by the wife of his master. Growing up, there is little evidence that Turner or his family experienced an onslaught of torture, and in fact his relationship with his mother and grandmother is in many ways the center of the film. When grown, Turner begins preaching the gospel, and word spreads of the "colored preacher" who may have a way to reach slaves in various plantations and bring them to the salvation of the Lord through sermons and prayer. He becomes a celebrity of sorts, brought house to house by his master, Samuel (Armie Hammer). Along the way, he marries, has a child, and begins to ponder the true meaning of the Bible and whether or not it flies in opposition to slavery itself.

The story goes that Turner formed a militia of slaves from nearby plantations, murdered their owners, and worked their way to the center of town in attempts to overpower the whites and bring about a coup where slaves all over the South would rise up in opposition. Set in 1831, this occurred no less than 30 years before the Civil War, and the idea that tensions were bubbling up for so long only helps one to realize the fragile state of the country during the time of slavery.

The story of Nat Turner itself is a beautiful testament to God and the idea of self-worth. In the hands of a more skilled filmmaking team, there is no doubt that this story could have been a movie worth remembering come Oscar season. There is simply no subtlety in the film, which recreates similar movies nearly shot-for-shot, including a final execution scene that is all but plagiarized from the finale of "Braveheart." We have seen movies that deal with outsiders coming together to overcome a great challenge before, and when watching "Nation," there was very little to distinguish it as more than white noise in a tapestry of repetition. Even the final fight and coup amounts to little more than 20 minutes of the film and features the standard villain who eventually faces his death in a moment meant to illicit cheers from the audience (in fact, this scene felt like something straight out of "The Patriot," another Mel Gibson film about revolution and war).

As an actor, I can attest to the strength of Nate Parker's performance as a man who comes to term with his own destiny. I can also praise Aja Naomi King who plays his wife, Cherry - a woman bought as a throwaway slave but ultimately becomes the catalyst that gives Turner his strength and devotion. I can separate the controversy from the film itself. I think most artists should have their work judged separately from their personal selves, regardless. It's just a disappointment that there's not a whole lot to write home about.

Deepwater Horizon (*****)

DEEPWATER HORIZON is about as good of a disaster movie as I think I have ever seen. Recounting the tragedy in 2010 in which an oiler rig caught fire and claimed the lives of 11 men on board, the movie follows the events in sequence as an ensemble cast brings to life one of the most horrific events I think I could ever imagine. Stuck in a fire is bad, but imagine being stuck in a fire 45 minutes from land, with the ocean 3 miles deep below you? That's terror.

The movie is told from the perspective (mainly) of one man, Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg), who is now regarded as a hero for his quick-thinking and rescue of several of the crew on board. We are introduced first to his family. His wife, a stunning Kate Hudson, and his whip-smart daughter who wants her dad to find a fossil at sea for bragging rights at school. Before Williams leaves at work, the daughter demonstrates the way an oil rig works using a can of soda and a metal straw. Like that scene in Titanic where a computer generation simulates the entire sinking of the ship so that the audience knows what to expect, so does this throwaway scene give us a rudimentary knowledge of the happenings on the rig later on. When they are talking about cement and pipes and negative pressure, we have less cause to question what is happening. It's brilliant filmmaking.

On board, we meet the rest of the crew, captained by Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell), who argues constantly with the BP executives on board about cutting corners. The construction of the pipeline leading to the ocean's floor is already 43 days behind, and construction is abruptly finished to cut corners and save the multi-billion dollar company a little money. BP is, of course, the villain of this story since their actions led to the largest oil spill in US history. The face to the company is John Malkovich playing a conniving investor with a Cajun accent and knack for time saving. His dialogue with Russell is great, and we see the rival sides of two arguments: the crew is trying to work in the safest environment possible. BP wants the job done on schedule.

The events on board play out in the course of 24 hours or so. We meet the workers on board, all chummy and casual with each other. They practice songs with each other, joke, work like friends... The atmosphere is that of comfort, and there is lots of clever writing in the way small talk turns into startling character development and the candor of speech places these characters so specifically in southern Louisiana.

All the while we see bubbles slowly rising from the ocean floor, an omen of what is to come. When performing a standard 'negative pressure test' to gauge the strength of the newly-built pipe, a surge of pressure forces mud and natural gas to erupt into the Horizon with the force of a bomb. The facility fills with gas, and the overdrive of engines causes an explosion. In the darkness, we see massive amounts of black oil rise into the sky thousands of feet above the platform. With a spark, it is ignited... The entire ship is a floating firebomb.

Luckily many survive, and the action once the flames start is less plot driven and more or less a fight to escape. With Mark Wahlberg's character, he is knocked unconscious in his bed chamber and must work through the darkness to find safely. Kurt Russell, caught in the explosion in the shower, is nearly blinded and impaled by shards of glass and metal. It's utter chaos.

The most effective aspects of this film (and there are many) is the set piece of the Deepwater Horizon, itself. It has been called the most expensive movie set ever built, and watching the movie I would never have second-guessed that this was not a real rig that has been long weathered and worn. We learn it is not anchored to the oceanbed but rather a floating raft of sorts that uses propellors to center it constantly above the delicate pipeline bringing oil to the surface. Without propellors, the craft shifts off-centered, risking the pipe bursting and oil flowing freely into the ocean. In a moment of absolute startle, we are with the pilot in the control room when suddenly all power goes out. The silence is matched in terror by the instant knowledge of an oil spill unlike anything they had seen before and the dire need to regain power of the motors.

This is surely an intense film, but it is matched equally with heart, which is an aspect I think many disaster movies gloss over in the end to create a cookie-cutter ending with a bow on top. Here, when the survivors are rescued and brought to safety they are not happy and cheering to be alive. Mike Williams breaks down on his hotel room floor and is unhinged by the horror he had just lived. Families become angry in an attempt to locate their son or daughter on board. Yes this is a true story, and the filmmakers respected the subject enough to give it a bit more weight that a typical blockbuster might have bestowed.

It's hard to rate movies on a scale since it's purely objective and driven by emotion. Deepwater Horizon may not be a perfect movie, and it may have slight flaws, but the feeling of immersion into the story and the characters left me breathless from opening to the final credits. The visual effects add to the story and create images that I won't soon forget. The final moments brought a tear to my eye. From the movies I know are currently playing in theaters, this is the one movie I would want to go back to a second time.

Denial (**)

"Denial" attempts to bring to the screen two of the Oscars' favorite genres: courtroom & Holocaust dramas. The story is prime: that of a woman who was taken to court over her statements about a Holocaust denier, claims that allegedly tarnished his reputation as a notable historian. The woman in question, Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), an American, was brought to an English court in the late 1990's to prove her case: that the denier, David Irving (Timothy Spall), knowingly altered the facts to support his own beliefs. In America, the defense is innocent until proven guilty. In England, the burden of proof in fact falls on the defendant. Stuck in court with years of preparation, Lipstadt simply has to prove one thing: that the Holocaust actually happened.

Thus is the set up for what could have been a brilliant movie about thinking minds and the the nature of historians and differing views. In a time when the Holocaust is in danger of becoming a cliched topics to garner awards and praise, the trailer for "Denial" looked nothing short of eye-opening.

History is a broad topic, breathtaking when captured effectively and dreadfully dull when it goes wrong. This is a movie where they got it wrong. Lipstadt (played by Weisz with perhaps the worst American accent we have seen on film in years) is the heroine this movie doesn't deserve. We meet her as a professor who teaches passionately about the nature of World War II and the losses it accrued. A Jew herself, the Holocaust is a passion of hers. People who refute evidence as candidly as David Irving are simply not worth her time. When faced with Irving, Lipstadt freezes, becomes argumentative, can't prove her point. The next time they meet is in court, where she promises that she will not testify. In order to win the case, she must remain impartial.

Her defense team is made up of a team of lawyers and scholars, the leader of which is Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson), who is a calculated criminal lawyer who knows his facts but can't grasp the emotions of the case itself. Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) is the would-be villain who wants to win the case but in the process loses all sense of respect for the survivors of such tragedy. It's a crack team, indeed.

The problems with the movie are vast, but they are rooted in the simple fact that Timothy Spall as David Irving is simply the more compelling character, regardless of him being the villain. How wrong it is for someone to so plainly deny the events of the 1940's that led to millions of deaths, but Irving is played as a man who still lives honestly, presents plain facts, and seems to truly believe that he is in the right. Weisz on the other hand plays her role like a whiny girl who can't get a word in and is simply a hindrance to the plot. For a movie so devoted to this one woman's story, boy is she an annoying person to get to know.

The court scenes themselves are small fragments of the 8-week trial that offer little insight into the actual arguments themselves. A brief snippet here and a tiny sentence here. The movie is padded so vigorously with fluff that by the time the verdict is read we are truly too tired to care and too distracted to have any real reaction. There is a good movie in here somewhere, and many will recall this case making the international news no more than 10 years ago. It would start with a new writer, a new cast, and a new director... In fact, with so many garbage movies being remade nowadays, here's a worthy candidate.