Boyhood

Down & Dirty: Epic coming of age drama, worth the time investment
Director: Richard Linklater
Big Names: Ethan Hawke, Patricia Arquette


SO PROUD to announce my first guest review........courtesy of my Mom!!!

Take it away Suze...

BOYHOOD is an epic drama tracing the life of a boy and his family as he grows up from age 6 to age 18. The film takes viewers seamlessly through the years with scenes from young Mason’s life, evoking nostalgia, warmth, and sadness. Strong characters Mom, Dad, and Mason develop incrementally along the way—flawed, yet genuine and sympathetic. Viewers will identify with different characters in particular scenes. In one especially poignant moment, Mom (played by Patricia Arquette) breaks down as Mason is about to leave for college, crying out “You are so happy!” capturing the gulf between the rocky emotions of the soon to be empty-nest parent and the eager-to-leave home adolescent.

                It is impossible to watch this movie without looking forward, backward and inward at one’s own life. The film, through character studies, explores the themes of human resiliency and redemption, questioning “what’s the point?” from the perspectives of Mom, Dad, and son. Without directly answering the question, later scenes allude to a spiritual aspect in the father’s life revealing how he has matured emotionally, vocationally, and spiritually. The film compels the viewer’s respect for Mom’s survival instinct and tenaciousness. Meanwhile, Mason’s teenage sloth behavior morphs into philosophical exploration; later into more mature reflection and signs of an emerging work ethic.  All three main characters explore the question of timing in relationships with the benefit of doing a “fly over” of their lives over the last dozen years.

                As a person who is very picky about watching 3-hour movies, I am glad I did not know the length before watching the film. It was well worth the time.

-Suzanne Keating 

The Best Film of 2014

The Imitation Game

Down & Dirty: The best film of 2014

Director: Morten Tyldum

Big Names: Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley

Occasionally a film will come around that does a little bit of everything perfectly. Solid amount of drama. Tiny dose of comedy. Good bit of intrigue. Snippets of romance. These elements are interwoven seamlessly to create a flush montage – a well told story. Of course none of this is possible without a good premise. And where do the best premises come from? True stories. Drama rooted in reality.

The Imitation Game does what Unbroken could not do. It takes a true story and makes it so powerful, so urgent and personal that it commands your full emotional attention. Angelina Jolie’s film focused on human triumph in the face of unfathomable adversity. But in that movie the viewer only knows Louie in the context of several mostly horrific situations. It doesn’t feel real until you walk out of the theater and remind yourself, “Wow that legitimately did happen.” The Imitation Game suffers no such delayed empathy. This is the tale of Alan Turing, an Einstein-like genius who accelerated World War II about five years in the Allies favor. How? He cracked the unbreakable Nazi communication code known as Enigma using the earliest computer engineering. To tell you the machinations through which he did it and the opposition he faced throughout the process would be to rob you of a most fulfilling cinematic experience. But I will give a shameless sales pitch on why it is worth watching.

The penmanship of the script can and should be appreciated by all. A World War II political thriller revolving around the life of a mathematician is such a mundane premise to history-handicapped millenials, but the dialogue is sharp enough to stay relevant. Cumberbatch’s Sherlock-like demeanor captivates the viewer right off the bat. Don’t know about WWII? Don’t sweat it. The film does a phenomenal job of informing the viewer without condescending, unlike the character of Alan Turing.

Turing can truly be a prick. His abrasive nature is seemingly the social deficiency manifested in his genius. I’ve never seen an actor so completely embrace this stigma of genius. Cumberbatch is believable in every moment of bewilderment at his own unpleasantness. The ticks, the arrogant looks, and the obsessive behavior - it’s all beautifully portrayed in Cumberbatch’s committed performance. The Oscar nomination for Best Actor is fully deserved. As is the film’s overall nomination for Best Picture.

(SPOILER AHEAD)

I will spoil one bit for you because it deserves talking about: Alan Turing was gay. You might be asking yourself why you haven’t heard of Alan Turing before. The answer is shocking, unfortunate, and straight-forward.

England buried him. Both figuratively and literally.

His country failed to recognize him for his accomplishments (War-time and otherwise) until one year ago due to the fact that they persecuted him for his sexuality back in the 1950’s. He was forced to undergo hormonal treatment which eventually drove him to suicide. Take that in. It took until one year ago to recognize this man’s accomplishments because he was attracted to the same sex. Just remember that we as a society have the capacity for extraordinarily inhumane treatment and we often still refuse to own up to those mistakes in retrospect. Forgiveness is consigned to oblivion.

During the Oscar campaign, the film’s promoters really pushed the angle of The Imitation Game being a platform for the rights of homosexuals and the historical persecution homosexuals have faced. Rightfully so – but it would be a shame to pigeon hole this film as a socio-political rallying point.  It’s so much more than that. The entire filmmaking process blends together to create an unforgettable cinematic experience. Movies like The Imitation Game only come around once in a while. Don’t miss it.

Mockingjay Part 1

Down and Dirty: Is it a set-up for the finale? Yes. Is it a worthy addition to the franchise? Absolutely.

Director: Francis Lawrence

Big Names: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Philip Seymour Hoffman (RIP)

Why all the hate? Especially during the holidays.

A large portion of the critical reviews I’ve seen about the latest Hunger Games installment refer to it as a ‘filibuster’ or ‘monetary filler’ for the eventual finale due out November 2015. This of course suggests that Mockingjay Part 1 does not have the legs to carry an enthralling story arc – and while it has more drawn out instances of exposition than the previous movies, this film stands on its own quite well.

Francis Lawrence returns to direct his second film of the franchise after his wildly successful adaptation of Catching Fire. A wise decision. The continuity felt from the get go of Mockingjay Part 1 allows the viewer to slip right back into the environment, story, and emotion that define the hallmark of this generation’s dystopian storytelling. That uninterrupted flow is the single ingredient that awakens the viewer’s nostalgia after a yearlong hiatus from Katniss’ butt-kicking sass. It is the seamless transition from friendly banter to politico debate one can always count on at Thanksgiving dinner – you know Aunt Carrie will bring the liberal hammer down, it’s a welcome expectation. 

That’s what this movie did. It provided the smelling salts to reinvigorate our love for revolution and then it set out the mouthwatering sample for what is to come. But that’s all it really needed to do. There’s no reason to knock this film for executing plot set up in a meaningful way. This iteration of Hunger Games was going to carry the weight of the story no matter how the producers chose to slice it. By breaking Mockingjay into two films they have allowed for vast swaths of space to develop characters that will undoubtedly make or break the authenticity of the final movie. Francis Lawrence definitely makes the most of this opportunity.

He develops Katniss’ pain like a sculptor. You get the breadth of her sorrow in one fell swoop and then it is refined throughout the film. Her agony is at first widespread, covering a multitude of issues - the struggle of being the reluctant leader, the losses she experiences both at home and abroad, and the brutal pain of love, unrequited and reciprocated alike. But it eventually narrows, targeting Katniss’ deepest cuts (see: Peeta). The director utilizes his Oscar-winning actress to illustrate the raw emotion and J-Law yet again delivers as this tumultuous but driven version of Katniss Everdeen. Jennifer Lawrence embraces the shift and embodies a woman of conviction. It is terrific acting and there are even a few nods to her off-screen personality that make the performance feel truly authentic. The viewer knows J-Law and it serves to make Katniss even more accessible. We can empathize with her stress, anxiety, and passion because it feels like the real emotion we’ve seen from her before.

Despite all of these components that come together in Mockingjay Part 1 it is still a stepping stone for another (hopefully more complete) film come next Thanksgiving.  But don’t let any critic tell you it’s not worth the viewing. The characters alone will take you where you’re looking to go in Panem. 

Fury

Down and Dirty: Gruesome, honest depiction of the mantra – ‘War Is Hell’

Director: David Ayer

Big Names: Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman

Fury, David Ayer's latest directorial effort, is a film about a fictional American tank squadron in the latter stages of World War II. The group, led by seasoned killer Sergeant Don Collier (Brad Pitt), begins the advance into Germany whilst inheriting a new machine gunner (Logan Lerman). Unfortunately for the squad, he is as green as it gets. Inexperienced, unconfident, and scared, his struggles to find an identity within the Sherman tank are equal parts heartbreaking and invigorating. The film itself is a stark depiction of what war can do to men – and in that it stands in good company.

The HBO miniseries 'Band of Brothers' captured the following ideas about war with emotional tact.

1) War will always create absolute agony.

2) There is no greater bond than that of men in battle together.

Fury captures these same notions in a similar fashion. And while I thought Band of Brothers had a monopoly on compelling World War II imagery, Ayer proves otherwise here.

The violence in this movie is overwhelmingly graphic. Cringe-worthy even, though it doesn’t quite reach Tarantino levels of gore. You won’t see it and think ‘Those are some really good special effects!’ No, you will think ‘That man’s head just got blown off.’ This makes Ayer’s purpose of showing that war is indeed hell much more accessible. The film is filling your mind with realistic depictions of violence and death at every turn of the tank. But the violence also starts to leave you anesthetized. It is almost too prevalent to have the impact the director desires. The audience grows numb to the kill shots by the end of the narrative. Although it’s never comfortable, it doesn’t shock you like it did initially. Hell starts to feel like purgatory. Perhaps Ayer is a genius though. Maybe this is a nuanced denunciation of the trend society exhibits on the whole in regards to violence. Up the pain threshold until censorship has dissipated altogether – keep watching the evil that unfolds before you and then ask yourself the question of why you’re immune to it.  

There is a more blatant purpose for the violence. When you step back and consider that this is legitimately how men died 70 years ago, the queasiness starts to set in. This is not Call of Duty. There’s no ‘+100’ bonus for a headshot. Instead there’s just the headless body of a man lying in the dirt: a man who had brothers in arms within his unit.

Brothers in arms. Ayer uses the violence to bring these men together – to bond them in a way that no other human being can possibly understand or empathize with. These unique and deadly experiences serve to forge a connection that can only be shared by those in the trenches. Those who know what it means to sacrifice your life and put it in another man’s hands. On that front, Fury is impeccable. Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Jon Bernthal, and Micheal Pena all put in top dollar performances as the veteran tank squad and Logan Lerman may have landed his breakout role. He plays the innocent and inexperienced typist turned soldier perfectly, bringing the full emotional range he displayed in ‘The Perks of Being a Wallflower.’ He is shaped and molded by the men of his unit, especially Sergeant Don Collier. Pitt’s Sgt. Collier is ruthless, efficient, and loyal to the death. It is inspiring to watch him lead a group of men into battle - even if it’s a fictional one on a giant screen. He harvests components of his Inglorious Basterds character, but only the best shades of Lt. Aldo Raine seep through.  Jon Bernthal and Michael Pena also put in solid performances as the glue guys who keep everyone together. But it is Shia LaBeouf’s character that I found most intriguing.

Boyd ‘Bible’ Swan is a devout believer of the Christian faith. Within the unit, he fields the typical harassing questions like whether Jesus loves Hitler, but he also provides the compass in a moral wasteland. His faith and reliance on scripture prove to be representative of the goodness man can find in God while traversing the valley of sin and death. When scripture like Isaiah 6 and 1 John 2 affect the hearts of the men in times of trial it is truly moving. It is exciting to see Shia LaBeouf so adamantly and respectfully take on the identity of a man of God in the medium of Hollywood film. Ayer is a Christian himself and I believe that he does the film a service by including his faith in a tasteful manner.

The characters are layered, the brotherhood is unbreakable, and the violence is prevalent. Fury is a war movie through and through. If graphic content is palatable to you, it’s worth a watch. Just keep in mind the message behind it.

A Most Wanted Man

Down and Dirty: A real character study, super slow, good but definitely not for everyone. (thumbs up)

Director: Anton Corbijn (The American)

Big Names: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Rachel McAdams, Willem Defoe, Robin Wright

A Most Wanted Man is the film adaptation of a spy novel. It could most aptly be described as a fascinating thriller about terrorism, though that is still a bit of mistaken identity in my opinion. Anton Corbijn, a Dutch man known for his music videos, directs the movie with fervor. But let me be clear, it is not James Bond. The pacing is extraordinarily slow, however, it is deliberate and makes the experience worthwhile. You are drawn into the world of terrorism in Europe where each player has a different role, a different bureaucratic authority, and a different demon to face.

It is, at its core, a slow-burning thriller – though not by Hollywood’s standards. There are no exceptionally choreographed action sequences that get you pumped. Graphic content is at a minimum (which I must say is refreshing). No, this is not a Bond film. This is a character study. The film focuses on an anti-terror unit in Germany, but if you look past the skin you’ll find a human portrayal of what drives us to work so hard. When did this vocation switch from their job to their identity? These characters are working desperately to accomplish something in the name of peace. These characters are methodically destroying people’s lives in the name of peace. It is a thankless, tortured, morally ambiguous profession.

Nowhere is that better seen than in Philip Seymour Hoffman’s face. This is his first film released posthumously and you can see the effect that his drug habit had taken on him. His tired eyes and the sharp creases in his face reveal everything about where he was personally. But they also complete his character, Gunter Bachmann, in a way no one else could have hoped to capture. That tragic look of despair and resignation mixed with an unbridled work ethic – it is eerie to see him portray something that was such a direct reflection of himself. Hoffman truly was a master craftsman.

There are many fine performances in this film including those of Willem Defoe, Rachel McAdams, and Robin Wright (shouts out to House of Cards). But Hoffman is the star that they revolve around and they complement him brilliantly in the bureaucratic solar system of government agency. Aside from the acting, the dark cinematography captures Hamburg in a beautiful way. The characterization of the city does not distract the viewer, but its heavy presence is always apparent.

For all the things it does well (the ending is especially good), the movie does struggle with pacing here and there. Sometimes the slow lurch is building to something and other times you feel as though everything is moving in slow motion. Again, this isn’t James Bond. Don’t see this if you cannot handle theatre because that’s what this is closest to – a really good play that they happened to film. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who loves film as art or just a good character study. The many layers of complexity will keep you engaged throughout; and if they don’t, just observe the magnificently heartbreaking descent into despair by Philip Seymour Hoffman.  

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Down and Dirty: Thrilling action movie that asks the right questions. A worthy sequel.

Director: Matt Reeves  (Cloverfield)

Big Names: Gary Oldman, Jason Clarke, Keri Russell, Andy Serkis

Imagine this film: A prisoner of war has been released upon the dissipation of conflict. His anger and resentment towards his captors remains. He allows it to infect his thoughts and fuel his actions. His extremist views put him at odds with his fellow nationalists. How far is he willing to go to exact revenge on his nemesis?

An interesting plotline. Now imagine that this is just one of several sinuous, intriguing stories happening in the film. All of them relate to the main course of what nationalism looks like for individuals on opposing sides of a conflict, or even the same side. Pepper in some leadership models, emotional connections, and violent conflict for taste. Bake at four hundred degrees for two hours. You should see the story rise and expand through the screen over the course of the movie. Once it’s golden brown, remove from the oven and frost with beautiful cinematography.

Wait I’m forgetting something.

Ah, that’s right.

Don’t overlook the talking monkeys. That’s the most critical ingredient here…or is it?

In my opinion, the film could be just as entertaining with an entire cast of human characters (perhaps even more character depth?). But the primates’ inhuman identity brings subtlety to the question of where the viewer’s sympathies are drawn. Now that’s an effective use of an unrealistic plot device.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is the sequel to last year’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes. It is undeniably superior to that James Franco infused treat. Rise was entertaining and it hinted at the important question of the morality of genetic testing on animals; but Dawn actually has some kick to it. Unlike the huge scope of the issue of genetic testing, here Director Matt Reeves opts to pose several smaller questions surrounding leadership, loyalty, and nationalism all of which feel relevant and palatable in the two hour run time. The best part though? The talking monkeys are a bonus, the cherry on top of the sundae. The entire plot of this film would still be interesting and viable if it were tweaked to be solely about humans from different countries. That means you can enjoy the science fiction without being caught up in the world of science fiction. Movies like Looper drag you into the weirdness of the alternate reality because of the glaring difference between their world and ours (in Looper’s case, time travel). Here, the idea of genetically enhanced hyper-intelligent primates becomes a subtle acceptable truth because they are analogous to humans in ways that make them very relatable. The story is good enough that you are along for the ride without feeling lost in the whacky environment bombarding your senses.

Everything feels familiar about this post-apocalyptic San Francisco. You’ve seen this before. The human race battling for survival against a futuristic foreign power isn’t a new concept. That’s not what makes this original. The originality stems from Reeves and how he manages to weave several characters’ stories together with simple common factors in a thrilling way with the ultimate common factor being peace. He demonstrates how each character views and searches for the common good. What might be mundane in other films feels critical here – meaning that other films skimp on the dialogue and skip straight to the conflict; this one takes you through how the characters strive for peace. You’re invested in how the diplomacy plays out. These issues feel relatable to our political atmosphere. When the tension builds to battle, you’re heart rate builds with it. Reeves creates this atmosphere with extraordinarily smooth cinematography, a truly tense score, and solid acting from Gary Oldman, Jason Clarke, and Keri Russell. Andy Serkis’ (Smeagol aka Gollum from LOTR) motion capture acting as the leader of the primates, Caesar, is something to behold. You might think it easy to emulate the movements of a monkey, try doing it on horseback with an M-16 rifle. Which brings us to the CGI animation. The movie has its very own look and feel: overgrown, dark, and intense. It’s impossible to tell what is a Hollywood set and what is animated, which monkeys are real and which aren’t. Just kidding, but seriously the movie looks really good. I commend the filmmakers for keeping the action sequences enticing without being ridiculous. You will surely enjoy the action scenes of this film while you ponder the many moral questions thrown at you. What does it take to be a leader? Was Machiavelli right? What should we fight for? And just how much is peace worth?

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a fun ride with some unexpected depth. If nothing else, go see it for the talking monkeys.

Noah

Down and Dirty: An outsider’s intriguing retelling of the biblical epic of Noah

Director: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan, The Wrestler, Requiem for a Dream)

Big Names: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson

Different people have different problems with the film Noah, but everybody finds something they don’t agree with. It was designed that way. Director Darren Aronofsky knew it was going to be controversial when he decided to adapt a biblical story as a Non-Christian in a predominantly Christian nation - understand that before you go see this, or at the very least try to appreciate his perspective. I understand why Christians might be offended. This is one of the cornerstones of biblical faith being re-imagined by a man who does not understand the nature of a personal relationship with God. But I truly believe that Aronofsky’s take holds true to the thematic elements within the biblical version of the story. Does he take artistic liberties? Absolutely. Does he deviate from the timeline and details as presented in the Bible? No doubt. But does he show that mankind is broken, worthy of death, and redeemed only through God’s mercy? I think he does.

Aronofsky weaves a gripping account of the Ark, the flood, and God’s will through beautiful CGI and cinematography coupled with a dramatic human interpretation of the events in the book of Genesis. That’s what he does best here; he connects the human element to the spiritual story. In Christian culture, the story of Noah often becomes a mythical children’s tale with a hero who saves humanity by the grace of God; and I think that’s truly Aronofsky’s understanding of it as well. But he takes that premise and shows how the trials associated with understanding God’s will can result in tangible arguments and struggles between human beings. Does he over do the subtlety of God’s presence? It depends on whom you ask. It certainly can feel like it is Noah making all the tough calls instead of God, who feels absent and aloof through most of the film. But that’s an outsider’s take on the relationship that God has with man.

As a Christian, it’s hard to watch the relationship between Noah (a devout believer) and God trimmed down to apocalyptic visions and unanswered cries to heaven. Were those aspects of communicating with God? For sure, but it’s clear that based on a Christian understanding of faith Noah definitely had a reciprocal relationship with the Lord. That is the essence of prayer, which is largely absent in this film but also not exactly spoken to in the biblical account. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, the Bible shows conversations with the Lord taking place during a time of prayer, so it can possibly be inferred that is how Noah communicated when it says the Lord spoke to him. All of this is to say that Christians cannot expect Aronofsky to understand the delicate nature of issues like this when he has no skin in the game. I don’t take offense to it; but instead I’m working to explain where my differences lie in a considerate manner. Lambasting the ‘Hollywood scene’ and its ‘secular ways’ will further remove me from the conversation about the nature of the Bible and God’s character. Quite frankly, that is the last thing I want to do – this film has already served to start great conversations in my life. I realize this review is more of an opinion piece, but I think it’s important to talk about. I would encourage you to read the book of Genesis and see the film. Form your own thoughts that allow you to discuss these issues in a diplomatic way. Movies are a human medium for telling stories. Each story means something different to everyone. Take the time to learn about what it means to both yourself and the people around you.