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?