Reviews

I'm a huge Ninja Turtle fan. Or at least, I was, when I was 6-10 years old. Somewhere starting around 8 or 9 the Turtles had to fight for attention with X-Men and GIJoe's, but those three franchises were my life when I was a kid. I'm part of the generation that actually played with action figures, and played outside. Not everyone had video game systems at home, and even when we played videogames, it was more a "rainy day" thing.

So, I was there on opening day for the newest Ninja Turtle reinvention, and I have to say it barely disappoints. I have some issues with it, but for the most part, it's not a bad movie.

First, Megan Fox. I wrote a month or so ago defending Fox in the Transformers franchise, because I thought she worked there. She doesn't work here. Her vacant stare, and cutesy approach to everything just doesn't work for April. April is not a damsel in distress, and at times, you feel that Fox is. Even though her character is written with a can-do attitude, Fox is never believable as someone who can hold her own. The rest of the human cast is fine.

Second, and this is a TAD bit spoilery, but the writing got so lazy at one point that when April was tasked with finding "adrenaline", the computer she first ran to had a large button that said "adrenaline" on it. Come on now. Even kids will think that's stupid.

Third, Shredder is silly. They've super-charged and upgraded him so he's almost a Transformer. Now he's a sensai that wears a large metallic costume with blades coming out of his hands that would make Wolverine jealous. Oh, and he can shoot blades, and bring them back, because magnetism. I almost laughed when new Shredder was using a keyboard, because his fingers were obviously too large to do so… of course, so are Donatello's.

And while this doesn't factor into my grading, why is Leonardo the only person who was played by one actor, and voiced by another? What was the point of even casting the first guy? Did Johnny Knoxville refuse to do motion capture? Does the other guy have an annoying voice? Also, same with Danny Woodburn playing Splinter, but Tony Shaloub voicing him. Was that necessary? I think Woodburn would have made a cool Splinter, personally.

The effects are good, but what really makes the story great is that it hasn't lost the heart of the turtles. Michaelangelo, particularly, is perfect. I love new Mikey. Raphael was written well. Donatello is a bit nerdier than usual, but it works. Leonardo is probably the most underdeveloped of the four, but that's pretty typical.

The plot isn't bad, and I'm glad they abandoned the alien backstory for the turtles. The opening segment, which plays out like a comic book, was absolutely stunning. I'd love to see a whole movie done like that. Also, the mountain/snow chase near the end is one of the best action sequences in a film this year. Michael Bay doesn't disappoint when it comes to action, even if you feel like it's a little too much at times.

It's far from being a perfect film, but it's just good enough to get me excited in the possibility of a sequel. Maybe they'll even get rid of April… and bring back Casey Jones? Or they'll go bold and be the first feature to introduce Krang? Either way, if you're an adult who used to love Ninja Turtles, or you're a kid who is a fan of them today, this reboot doesn't entirely disappoint. Just a little bit, but there's still a lot to like here.

Sometimes, attempting to recreate the mystique of a hitchcockian thriller can be hard. That's what Eugenio Mira should take away from this. Also, the MPAA should reevaluate its ratings system, because there is no reason for this movie to be R.

There are only a small handful of deaths. None of them are bloody or gory. No one gets their head blown off. One person gets their neck snapped, another has a bullet wound in the head (no blood), and another falls to his death. There's no nudity. No sex. No drugs are taken. It's Rated R for some language. I suppose there might have been a few extra curse words, but I honestly wouldn't describe it as being "a lot".

The plot of the film is simple. A concert pianist is returning to the stage after a long hiatus, only to be held at gunpoint by a sniper. One wrong note, he and his wife die. Of course, he notoriously suffers from stage fright. And he's choked before.

Elijah Wood does a sufficient job as the pianist, and John Cusack spends most of the film as a voice. The film is quite short, and there never really seems to be a strong sense of danger. You always feel like Elijah Wood is probably going to make it out OK. That's the difference between Grand Piano and Hitchcock's greatest films. You weren't always sure the hero would be OK in the end. Sometimes, the hero wasn't OK in the end. Sometimes, Vertigo happened. Psycho happened.

The stakes are never quite high enough. The plot is always predictable. It's not a bad movie, it's just kind of a pointless movie. For a mystery/thriller like this, stakes are pretty much all you've got. The promise that things won't be alright, are pretty much the best part about watching this type of film. So if those aspects are missing, what's the point? On a side note, it was super cool seeing Alex Winter back in a movie again. He's done some voice work, and some writing, but he hasn't really done anything except Bill and Ted. So it was an inspired casting choice to bring him back to film with this film. He does a good job, and doesn't look like mess like some former child stars do. He looks like he aged well. Good for him.

Some movies are mismarketed, and Admission was definitely a movie mismarketed. You can't market a dramedy as a mass-market comedy simply because it has Rudd and Fey in it… or as a romcom, because it is barely a romantic comedy. Fey and Rudd have zero chemistry in the film, and share only a few "romantic" scenes together.

The film is about regret and self-discovery. I know, mindblown, right? Well, the truth is that the film isn't about Rudd and Fey hooking up, it's about Fey's character coming to terms with a baby she gave up for adoption while in college. Rudd doesn't contact Fey because he wants a booty call… he wants to introduce her to someone (Wolff) he believes is the son she gave up. And there are a lot of similarities, and suddenly someone who doesn't want kids, wonders what her life would like with a kid in it… and if she could possibly make up for lost time.

It's not a bad plot, but Fey and Rudd barely commit to it. I mean, these two have worked together before and they have zero chemistry. Yes, they can both talk sarcastically at each other, but they can't fake sexual chemistry. So the film fails as a romcom. As a dramedy about self-discovery, it almost works. It falls to be taken seriously, because of silly supporting characters. Fey is surrounded by characters written in such a way that you have to hate them, or not take them seriously. Tomlin was clearly a terrible mother. Reuben is a heartless adversary. Shawn is the silly boss. Sheen is a silly "clearly not right for her" boyfriend. Walger is another heartless adversary. Krupa is a horny old man. Even Rudd struggles to be likable. The only characters likable are Fey, and Wolff (who is written so closely to Fey's personality, in an attempt to push the mother/son angle).

It's not a bad film, but it's not a great film. If I was a studio head, I'm not sure what I would have done with this finished product. I probably would have sent it back for reshoots, because it doesn't know what kind of film it wants to be. Taking a second pass at the film would have helped it more than just releasing it and mismarketing the film. I don't know what director Paul Weitz was doing here. He's directed much better films before, notably American Pie and About A Boy. Especially considering how About A Boy is close in tone to what Admission wanted to be, it's even more disappointing that this film just didn't work. As it is, you can totally skip this film. I can't really think of a reason to recommend it, even though I'm not completely tanking the film in grading.

In Ireland, a priest receives an ominous warning giving him a week to live, and spends the week battling the darkness closing in on him. Not to spoil too much, but since this is all in the first scene in the film, I feel like it's OK. The "bad guy" in the film wants to kill Gleeson's Catholic Priest because when he was 7, his priest started raping him, and it went on for five years. He's decided that any priests blood will do, and gives Gleeson a week to get his affairs in order.

Gleeson's character Father Lavelle spends the rest of the movie doing just that. He offers counseling to those who are in need, offers advice to those who will listen, and battles his own personal demons and conflicts with the church and the life he has dedicated.

He is not a bad person. He's clearly a good man, who has been caught up in this tremendous issue of Catholic Priests abusing young boys. As the film comes closer to an end, you wonder if he'll go through with it, and allow himself to be killed. You wonder if running makes him less of a man… or more of a man. The great thing about this movie, is that you can draw your own conclusions from a lot of it. It has different interpretations. You could say that staying makes him stronger, because he's willing to die for what he believes in. Or, you could say he's staying because he's repenting for others sins, much like Jesus died on the cross. You could say he should run, because God doesn't expect him to take a bullet for another Priests sins.

The debate could go on and on, and it's because how well written Father Lavelle is, as well as how extraordinary Gleeson portrays him. It's a shame that he's a little let down by his cast. I didn't feel that the supporting cast really stepped up in their roles. Notably, Aiden Gillen, who's actually cartoonishly awful in this. His accent, his sneering, his facial expressions.. all of it seems like something out of the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons.

I'm not saying Gillen will kill Calvary's Oscar chances. I think Gleeson's performance demands to be seen, and will be one that is buzzed about at the end of the year. The problem is that Brendon Gleeson is an actor that has become more and more accepted as a person that is OK to overlook, as if he can't turn in a buzzworthy performance. That's completely false, and character actors deserve their day too. I hope Calvary at least gets Gleeson some BAFTA coverage.

Calvary is the second film I've seen this year that I feel confident will have legs to reach the Oscar race. It's not an uplifting film, nor is it particularly a downer. It's right in between… walking the safe path, much like Father Lavelle. Only, unlike his character in the film, Gleeson is going to get a lot of due praise.

Lemme tell you the story about the call that changed my destiny. Oh wait, no, those are Backstreet Boy lyrics. This is a completely different film, not based on the story laid out by the BSB in the 90′s. The Call is one of those "hey, that's an idea!" movies that can be made on the cheap, feature a name actor/actress, and be released during a slow time of the year so it can make a little bit of money.

Jordan (Halle Berry) is a 911 operator, who gets a phone call from a girl whose house is being broken into by a strange man. Unfortunately, the cops don't get there in time, and Jordan beats herself up about this loss, even though the 911 operators are supposed to remain detached. Cut to later, and Jordan has stepped off the phone lines and become a trainer, because the grief is just too much for her. You see, Jordan lives in a special world, where all the cops are too inept, and everyone knows this, so everyone just learns to blame themselves, instead of the cops. Anyway, while training some newbies, a colleague of Jordan's gets a phone call from a girl (Abigail Breslin) who has just been abducted, and freaks out, so Jordan takes over.

Jordan leads the girl, Casey, through some pretty awesome tactics of letting people know where you are. Yet the cops seem incapable of finding her, including Jordan's boyfriend Paul (Morris Chestnut), a police officer with the same skill set as Dewey from Scream. The cops are so terrible at their jobs, that Jordan decides to take measures into her own hands, instead of continuing to rely on a police force that can't save a girl in a red car, with a missing tail light, knowing which exit she's near, with paint dripping out of the vehicle.

And this is where I have a problem with the film. The cops are so unbelievably useless that it's almost comedic. It's like the writer of the film hates cops, and wrote a film to highlight his hatred of them. The fact that Jordan decides to go and find this girl on her own, without letting anyone know, or even possessing a weapon is just absurd. She's not Liam Neeson from Taken. Her particular skill set involves being able to pick up a phone, frequently.

That being said, aside from the awful ending, there are several smart elements to the film. Every idea they come up with to try and let people know where she is, is rather clever. And, for what its worth, Halle Berry and Abigail Breslin turn in good performances as well. Still, I can't get past the fact that the film should have been better. Director Brad Anderson has done some really terrific work with The Machinist and Session 9, as well as on episodes of Fringe and The Killing. He's a solid director, and could have made a better movie without needing to dumb it down. I would have appreciated a darker take on the film, one which the 911 operator and the cops were really working together to find this girl, rather than a solo effort showcasing Berry.

Based on the true story of Captain Richard Phillips, who survived a somali pirate attack on his ship, and wrote a book about it. That book was snapped up by Paul Greengrass who made it into a movie. Greengrass who uses a very gritty style of filmmaking, as already seen in films like United 93 and The Bourne Ultimatum, is excellent at directing tense situations and realistic action sequences. He's employed Tom Hanks for this effort, who is probably one of the greatest living actors. His wall of Oscars at home reminds him constantly just how good he is. He is fantastic in this film as well.

There's been a lot of hoopla about the performance of Barkhad Abdi, but he stays pretty level the whole film. I didn't get any fluctuations in character from him. He's a bad guy, just a bad guy with some reasoning to being a bad guy. I wouldn't have nominated him for an Oscar. I don't think it's a dynamic performance, and I think there were better performances this year.

The film itself is perhaps a little long, a complaint I've been having recently with a few Oscar hopefuls. This one maybe only needed 5 minutes trimmed from it, just to fix some pacing issues in the beginning. Once things get going, the film moves at a breakneck pace. But the first 30 minutes or so is a little slow. I would almost say that the second hour and forty minutes more than makes up for it, almost.

This really is a great performance from Hanks, who performs like he is Richard Phillips. He's always been able to fully embody the role, and become the person. You don't see Hanks, you see Captain Phillips. For Hanks, there is no script. There are only conversations and answers. Everything feels natural. He was absolutely robbed of an Oscar nomination this year.

Deserving of the praise it is getting, Captain Phillips is a definite must see movie before Oscar night.

This is one of those tiny films that only really gets made because of certain actors who are passionate about the film. Rashida Jones, specifically, managed to get her friends on board for this film about two people who are supposed to be getting divorced, but still act like a happily married couple. Celeste (Rashida Jones) is a "trend forecaster", meaning that she predicts what the next hot thing is. I don't know how one gets that job, but I would love to just tell everyone what is cool, and what isn't. Jesse (Andy Samberg) is an aspiring artist who loves weed. So, basically, he's the modern American man, or really just Andy Samberg. At the beginning of the film, when you're introduced to these characters, they seem like best friends or a loving couple. It isn't until their best friends (Ari Graynor/Eric Christian Olsen) freak out on them that you realize this is an atypical relationship.

They don't see the problem, neither does the audience. It isn't until later in the film when Jesse and Celeste hook-up after getting drunk, that they realize there might be something wrong. The rest of the film is this give and take between should we be together, should we split up, which gradually is complicated by other characters and situations. It's never really a compelling effort, and keeps you only half interested in the outcome of the film. It's not really clear why they broke up in the first place, as they seem perfect for each other in the beginning. As Jesse begins to evolve as a character, it takes Celeste way too long to realize she might be wrong. By the end of the film, you actually hope Celeste and Jesse are not together forever.

It's a decent script from Rashida Jones and Will McCormack, but it fails to be a truly compelling film. The cast does the best they can with the script they were presented, and most of them were cast into roles that require very little acting for them. I think this concept might have done better in a sitcom format, especially considering where Rashida and Andy come from. Instead, you get a movie that's just OK, and doesn't inspire or move anything. There's one thing that's for sure, Celeste and Jesse may be forever, but this movie won't be remembered that long.

Congratulations to Kyle Patrick Alvarez for writing the least likable protagonist of 2013! Much like the brain dead teenagers in Spring Breakers, David (Jonathan Groff) is painful to watch on screen. Like, banging your head against a wall bad. He's so incredibly pretentious, so incredibly above his experiences, and totally out of touch. He's a preppy rich kid "slumming" it by picking some damn apples. How this movie got made is beyond me. David Sedaris should have said No to this adaptation.

David, as I said earlier, is now picking apples. His friend (Bellisario) was supposed to pick apples with him, but blew him off. He refuses to talk to his mom. And he keeps telling everyone he went to Yale and traveled to Japan, while looking down at them from his throne on Mars. Eventually, he moves from picking in the field to working in a sorting factory. There he meets a crabby woman (Dickey) and what would seem like his only friend in the world (Stoll). That situation goes awry, and he finds himself living with an interesting religious "cult", led by Jon (O'Hare), a man so crazy he might be wise.

If you've made it this far, you should get a cookie. I literally wanted to rip David/Samuel from the screen and throw him into oncoming traffic. I love Jonathan Groff as an actor, but this is like his uppity character from Glee taken into a movie, and amped up a thousand percent. He is actually READING Darwin's ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES. Just in case you didn't think this kid could BE more pretentious. He insults everyone around him, and it is never funny.

What an incredibly talented cast, led completely astray by their director. Groff, O'Hare, Stoll, and Dickey all deserved better than this film. Hell, even Casey Wilson deserved better than this film. Even Troian Bellisario deserved better, and I have no idea who she is. Apparently she's on Pretty Little Liars. Well, even she deserved better. I hated the direction. I felt like we had scene changes just to have scene changes. At one point, David is in town calling someone to pick him up, then he's off at a farm when he's actually being picked up, only to be taken back into town? Stay in town, jerk. Don't make people drive out to get you when you're already almost at your destination.

Awful film. Awful lead character.

I will admit, as of the time I'm writing this review, I haven't quite seen every film of 2013. But as of this moment, I've seen 71 films, and Dallas Buyers Club is the best. Hands down. It's such a beautiful character arc for McConaughey that you can't ignore it, and the film itself is just heart wrenching enough, and inspirational enough, to make you stand up and cheer.

McConaughey is tasked with playing Ron Woodruff, a real-life cowboy, who contracts the HIV virus during the peak of the AIDS crisis, and when men like Ron Woodruff thought only gays could get HIV. Ron turns from being a lowlife uneducated hick, into a self-educated dreamer, who believes he has the key to keeping himself alive. After seeing a doctor who gives him 30 days to live, Ron embarks on a journey of self discovery, and learns more about the drug AZT than the doctors are willing to tell him. Ron finds research on other drugs, and alternative medicines that seem to be working, and he heads to Mexico to check them out. Ultimately, Ron decides to get these drugs back across the border. At first, it's so that he'll have them, and he can make money off of them. Then it becomes about sticking it to the doctors and "big medicine", but by the end of the film, Ron is clearly doing it for a more human reason.

A lot of that has to do with Rayon (Jared Leto), a crossdresser that Ron runs into while being treated for HIV. These two shouldn't get along, and they shouldn't be friends, but they need each other. Ron needs Rayon to help him distribute his drugs, and Rayon needs the drugs. Later, Ron needs Rayon as the only person he really trusts in the world, and Rayon needs Ron to be his ray of hope. Later, Ron realizes that Rayon is also his compass, and grounds him in this awful world where everyone around him is dying. Jennifer Garner rounds out the lead cast as Ron's doctor, a compassionate woman who herself is trying to figure out this epidemic, and whether or not AZT is more harmful than its worth.

Garner is fine in her role, but Leto and McConaughey shine. Both men lost an absolutely staggering amount of weight for their roles. They both embody the "unhealthy dying" look perfectly. Both men are completely transformative in their roles. This film was the opportunity of a lifetime for them, and they each succeed in giving an honest piece of themselves to the story. They are both wasting away on camera right in front of you, getting thinner and thinner as the film shoots. Leto as Rayon has some truly heartbreaking moments, one especially big one where he has to tell his father that he is dying of AIDS. There are Oscar moments riddled throughout. Both men have never been nominated, and I don't want to be in a world where they aren't nominated here for these performances.

I thought Dallas Buyers Club was the perfect amount of "activist" film mixed with "tragedy" mixed with "stunning character piece". It tries to be everything it can be, and actually succeeds, which is a rare feat for a film. This is a must-watch film for anyone who just likes to see a damn good movie.

Family.

This movie is about family. Caesar has a family, in a large sense, because he watches over a colony of apes. He also has a family. A son, a wife, and a newborn. His former foe Rocket also has a family. Jason Clarke has a family too. He has Keri Russell and Kodi Smit-McPhee. He has a slightly larger family, which includes the other men who go out on runs with him. Then he has his human camp family, which consists of a few hundred survivors that have held up in the city.

It's about what you would do to keep your family safe. Not just alive, but safe. Caesar understands that. Clarke understands that. Their families keep them grounded, and keep them thinking about safety first.

Koba does not have a family. Koba is evil.

Gary Oldman does not have a family. Gary Oldman is evil.

I mean, sure, they have the family in the larger sense. They have their community. But neither of them have a wife or children to ground them like the other characters. The film is sending a subtle message that not having a wife and kids will somehow cause you to slowly unravel, and become unstable. Koba moreso than Oldman. You could even call Oldman a situational villain. He's a guy who is a villain by circumstance, and probably a rather nice guy the rest of the time.

It's important to note that the other human identified as a "bad guy", also never mentions a family. Rather, it is suggested that he lost his.

The humans are almost an after thought in this film. They are slightly underdeveloped, but I think it credits the strength of the Apes when you would rather see them on camera than actual actors. The plot of the film revolves around the spread of the Simian Flu (what Tyler Labine's character, Franklin, had in the first film). It has spread worldwide. There were wars. Billions died. Now, a few survivors are held up in San Fransisco, trying to get the lights to come on.

Caesar has built a strong community. They even have a little camp, with huts and structures to keep themselves out of the rain. He's teaching them to write, read, and talk. Caesar is not the only ape who talks in this movie, and he can now speak sentences, albeit sounding a bit like a caveman. I'm excited about the possibilities of the third film, and where they'll take us.

Andy Serkis is brilliant as Caesar. Absolutely brilliant. You need to understand that he is actually standing there, where Caesar is standing, in every frame. He moves like Caesar, like an Ape. He did countless hours of research, watching apes interact with each other, in order to master this performance. Some actors get nominated for Oscars, and their performance was only a few minutes of work. Maybe a few days of shooting. Serkis doesn't just deserve an Oscar, he demands an Oscar.

I understand how difficult it must be for the Academy to recognize this, so I've decided he should just get an honorary Oscar. I know he's not deathly old, but he still deserves recognition for the body of work he has created as a motion-capture actor. And for what it's worth, Toby Kebbel is pretty brilliant as Koba too. Sometimes, it's easier to play crazy, and play the villain, than it is to be quiet, and just command the scene with silence. Often, Serkis has to act by commanding stillness, whereas Koba acts through a gruff growl, or a sneer. Koba is anything but still and quiet, he is treacherous and dangerous in every frame.

My favorite films of 2014 so far have all been summer releases. Dawn Of the Planet Of The Apes joins those ranks, and is quite possibly the best film of 2014 so far (that I've seen). My top 4 are all summer sequels. Dawn took the impossibly strong foundation in Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes, and built on it a more fully realized world, with even greater developed characters. Those characters… are apes. The fact that you can pull that much emotion out of computer generated imagery goes to show how great the motion capture talent is. Maybe one day, they'll have their own Oscar category. For now, I just have to say Bravo, and hope Serkis gets his due.

First off, let me express my disdain for having to type "Lee Daniels' The Butler". As if no two films have ever shared a title before in the history of cinema. Warner Bros actually had the balls to argue that audiences would be confused with a silent film from 90 years ago. Because, apparently, we are all idiots. That being said, Lee Daniels assembled a solid cast here, but we'll get to that later.

This is the story of Cecil Gaines (Forest Whitaker), whose life is based on the true story of a man who served in the White House from Truman through Reagan. In this movie, we start at Eisenhower (Robin Williams, who looks more like Truman). The movie begins with Cecil growing up as a sharecropper, and watching his mother (Mariah Carey) get sexually assaulted by his white boss (Alex Pettyfer), who then kills his father (David Banner). The white boss's grandmother (Vanessa Redgrave) takes pity on the boy, and makes him a 'House N*gger' (yes, I typed it). Cecil learns the importance of being in a room, but the room feeling like he wasn't in it. Cecil makes off for a life of his own, working in the service industry, until the White House notices and takes him on board.

Cecil has a wife (Oprah Winfrey) and two kids. Louis (David Oyelowo) is interested in the civil rights movement, and his younger brother Charlie is initially too young to care (but grows up to be played by Elijah Kelly later). Cecil also has a shady neighbor (Terrence Howard at his slimiest). Cecil has two butler friends in the white house (Cuba Gooding Jr and Lenny Kravitz) also. The movie shows us how Cecil exists over the years, through the civil rights movement, and how his son Louis also reacts to the civil rights movement. Cecil works for Eisenhower, Kennedy (James Marsden), Johnson (Liev Schrieber), Nixon (John Cusack), and Reagan (Alan Rickman). I suppose Lee Daniels is hoping the audience forgets about Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, and doesn't wonder why he didn't offer someone the chance to cameo in those roles.

The movie is only interesting for two reasons. The first being the acting. Oprah Winfrey, in particular, is given a good role, filled with alcoholism and depression. Forest Whitaker does good in a non-showy, very quiet role. His few scenes where he's allowed an outburst, or an emotion, are that much more powerful because he's so quiet throughout most of the movie. David Oyelowo is great as Louis, whose character has the clearest arc. He starts out wanting to do good, gets confused along the way, and turns his life around to do great things again. Also, Cuba Gooding Jr and Lenny Kravitz are solid in supporting roles.

The second would be the storyline of Louis. If Louis didn't exist, I would have fallen asleep. Cecil's life isn't interesting enough without Louis around to mirror his existence. Louis is on the forefront of the civil rights movement, and through his experiences we get to see the worst in people. Through Cecil, we get to see sketchy acting performances from James Marsden and Alan Rickman, neither who are convincing as their historical counterparts, and a horrible miscasting of John Cusack as Richard Nixon. Never has an actor been so miscast in a part. Keanu Reeves might have been a more appropriate casting choice. I didn't realize he was Nixon until the movie told us he was, and even then I was baffled. Liev Schrieber does a good job playing Johnson, and I really believed Williams was Truman, until I found out he was playing Eisenhower.

As far as the other actors? Mariah Carey has no dialogue. She's in maybe 60 seconds of screen time, and doesn't speak. Jane Fonda has one scene. Vanessa Redgrave has three scenes, and then she's gone after the first few minutes of the movie. Minka Kelly has one or two lines. Alex Pettyfer is done as quickly as Vanessa Redgrave. Jesse Williams and Nelsan Ellis are in one scene each. Basically, this film has a ton of cameos. If you think any of these actors contributes to the story, or you were excited at the prospect of seeing them do some fine acting, none of them have anything really to do in the film. You wouldn't know it though, as Fonda and Redgrave are both on the poster. So is Clarence Williams III, who is in the film for also roughly 3 minutes, and never appears again.

As a historical film, it isn't terrible. But it's not a work of art that will be remembered for years. There's a reason this is releasing in August, way ahead of the Oscar season. It isn't Oscar bait. It won't win any awards. At best, a campaign for Oprah might yield the lone nomination for Supporting Actress. I can't see even Whitaker getting a nomination. Not after his much more superior performance in The Last King of Scotland. Lee Daniels made The Butler a good film, just not a great one.

Is it possible for a movie to be "too gay" for mass audiences? Especially for a Michael Douglas/Matt Damon film directed by Steven Soderbergh that seems primed for awards consideration? A movie so good, it premiered at Cannes, despite being a TV movie? Well, the truth is that Steven Soderbergh couldn't get any studios to bite on Behind The Candelabra, so he went to HBO. And HBO is enjoying all the free publicity for what is arguably one of their best originals of all time.

Behind The Candelabra is based on the book written by Scott Thorson, who in the movie is played by Matt Damon. Scott chronicles his great romance with Liberace (Michael Douglas), from the moment his current boyfriend introduces him to the piano great. Scott, only 19 at the time, falls immediately for Liberace's charm, and is seduced into Liberace's flashy lifestyle. Liberace leads Scott into his life, almost like a lion would with a gazelle. Slowly, Scott is picked apart, turning to drugs, and having his face reshaped to look more like Liberace, all with the promise of being Liberace's forever boyfriend (and in one creepy segment, also his son).

But somehow, in some segments, Liberace and Scott manage to seem like a real married couple, despite all the insanity. Liberace really does care for Scott, and Scott adores Liberace. It's a doomed relationship, for sure, but you find yourself oddly pulling for these two, hoping they'll mend their differences. In the end, when Scott is alone and has nothing, Liberace reaches out to him one last time, and that final goodbye is the most powerful moment in the film, because of all the hard work they've put in leading to this point. Sure, Liberace may be a sex crazed maniac, and Scott was a drug addict, but these two complete each other.

None of this would be made possible if it wasn't for the astounding acting by Michael Douglas and Matt Damon. Douglas slips seamlessly into Liberace's soul for this spot on performance. I had to go back and youtube some Liberace to make sure, but Douglas does a fantastic job mirroring the mannerisms, and sounding like Liberace. Balancing the line between being a complete creeper and an endearing, loving partner seems to be easy for Douglas. It must have something to do with Damon's acting as Scott. Tasked with trying to act 19, and going from being a naive teenager, to a naive lover, to a naive drug addict, Damon attacks the role with explosive intensity. Even in the small quiet moments, Damon's stare cuts through your TV with precision. You can always feel Scott's emotions through the entire film. Really, it's Damon at his best too.

Backed by a surprisingly good supporting cast, including Rob Lowe in a role that should win someone a makeup award, as well as Dan Aykroyd, Debbie Reynolds, Cheyenne Jackson, and Scott Bakula, Behind The Candelabra is the kind of quality filmmaking that can really change the game in terms of the projects attracted to the medium. What Steven Soderbergh, in his final directorial effort, understood about Liberace is the ultimate truth in all of us. All Liberace wanted was to love and be loved, he just lived in an entirely different world than the rest of us. And for a brief moment, Scott lived there too.

First off, I really wish they had stuck with the original title "Can A Song Save Your Life?", because that's actually what the film is about. Begin Again makes little to no sense as a title, and seems to be taken from a hat full of torn up pieces of paper with intentionally vague movie titles. This same hat clearly was responsible for super vague thrillers named 'Paranoia', 'Deception', and the trifecta of films coming to theatres with 'If' in the title (What If, If I Stay, and If Only). It makes a movie more bland to have a bland title that has nothing to do with the film.

No one in this film technically "begins" again. In fact, Ruffalo's character goes back to his old life almost immediately, using Knightley's character as a way to weasel himself back into his old label. He doesn't use it as a new start, rather it's more of a do-over. Second Chance would have made more sense.

Most of my problems lie in the fact that I really hate the title. I hate that they lost the particularly original title for an extremely bland title. The film was anything but extremely bland, often choosing to take the harder path in storytelling. This is a romance, but not a straightforward romance. This is two broken people coming together, who just might end up with the people they were with at the beginning of the film. And that's completely OK, because of the way these characters are written. Ruffalo isn't some creepy old dude trying to bang Knightley. He's into her because of her songwriting skills, and not her body. In fact, for the majority of the film, we wonder if Ruffalo has even noticed that Knightley is hot. It's possible that has escaped him.

Knightley is surprisingly good in this. She's struggled getting recognition for her work in the past few years, often being overshadowed by her male co-stars. Her last great role was probably Atonement, but she was also good in Never Let Me Go, The Duchess, and A Dangerous Method, though you probably forgot all of those films. Here, she actually outshines Ruffalo, who is still quite good as a depressed, struggling record exec/divorced father. I have a hard time gushing over Ruffalo here, when I just saw him at his career best in A Normal Heart.

Adam Levine is surprisingly good in his supporting role. He does have some acting chops, and isn't a complete waste on the screen. Keener is always good playing a frumpy wife, divorced or not. Steinfeld is good, but probably wasted as a moody teenager. Corden is slowly breaking through in America, and this role is a nice role to add to his resume, though I doubt he'll be remembered for it.

It's great counterprogramming for the summer. It's not like anything else you'll see this summer, and it is dangerously different from other romantic comedies. I mean, it takes balls to make some of these choices, and I appreciate that John Carney doesn't take the easy road out.

As far as whether or not a song can save your life, I suppose the answer is yes, because as the film shows us, music evokes emotion. It can remind us of a previous event, or a different place and time. The right song at the right time can most certainly save a life. Even if your life isn't in danger, the right song can most certainly cheer up your day. The right movie? Those can stay with you forever.

A surprisingly interesting Netflix documentary about the Portland Mavericks, and their owner Bing Russell. The film starts out chronicling Russell's childhood, where he grew up watching the Yankees in their summer training, and tried to parlay that into his own professional career. After being injured, he tried his hand at acting, and became most well known for his role on Bonanza. He's also Kurt Russell's father.

In the early 70′s, Russell formed a minor league professional baseball team in Portland, called the Mavericks, and they caused quite a ruckus in baseball history. They were the only independently owned minor league team at the time. Todd Field (In The Bedroom) was a batboy for them.

The film chronicles both the rise and fall of the Mavericks, and Bing Russell. Kudos to Netflix for wanting to tell this story. Bing Russell was a good man, and fought a good fight. I was completely unaware of this story before, and I'm glad I know more about it.

I think if nothing else, Bad Words shows us some strong promise for Jason Bateman as a writer and a director. As an actor, he seems to just be playing a variation of a character he's played so well before. Someone who is super snarky, and super sarcastic, yet charming and intelligent. I don't think Bateman plays dumb characters, or quiet characters. His characters work best when given lots of dialogue.

But as a writer, Bateman came up with a script that's funny and heartwarming, and probably owes more than it should to films like Bad Santa, where a crude lead character is made more human by a precocious child. As a director, Bateman had no problem with the pacing of the film. It never drags, and it keeps the laughs intact.

His supporting cast, other than child prodigy Rohan Chand, is all pretty obviously supporting. Kathryn Hahn maybe gets a little to do, but everyone is basically there to support Bateman. They all serve as props to make his Guy Trilby look smarter somehow. Rohan is a different prop, and he's used to make Guy look more human, if only for a brief moment.

Bad Words made me laugh pretty consistently through the whole film. I have a feeling this is an under-the-radar gem that people won't notice until it hits Netflix or Redbox, which is a shame, because it deserves to be recognized NOW.

Family. The core foundation at August Osage County. A very dysfunctional family. A matriarch who is at times a devil, and other times, in fleeting moments, a caring mother. But most of the time, she's a devil. August Osage County is based on the Tony award winning play of the same name, and it recently earned both Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts more Oscar nominations. The good news is that I felt both deserved it.

Meryl Streep plays the head of the family brought back together after a family crisis. Her three daughters come back. Barbara (Roberts) is separated from her husband (McGregor), but brings him along too, as well as their cigarette smoking 14 year old daughter (Breslin). Ivy (Nicholson) is seen as the weakest of the trio, but she's secretly dating her cousin Charles (Cumberbatch). Karen (Lewis) brings her fiancé (Mulroney) back with her. Martindale and Cooper play Streep's sister and brother-in-law, respectively.

Set in the desolate wasteland of Oklahoma, the film unspools much like the sanity in the family. People attack each other, secrets come out, and nobody is safe. Streep's pill-popping matriarch is easy to blame at first, but everyone is really responsible for their own mistakes. The brilliant cast soars above the script, making the most out of long rambling scenes. Specifically, Streep, Roberts, and Cooper stand out from the rest of the cast. Each one of them has their own "big moment" in the script. Martindale is good too.

Some big reveals late in the film keep the film interesting until the end. It drags a big in spots, but it really holds pretty well for a "talker". Definitely not a happy movie. I have no idea why it was nominated for a Golden Globe in the comedy category. I didn't laugh once. This is a pretty clear cut drama. What a bizarre nomination.

As part of my new segment, I'm making a greater effort to review some of the lesser known titles available on Netflix. Today's title is Art Of The Steal, a comedy caper in the vein of Now You See Me and Oceans Eleven. It was released theatrically earlier this year, and made less than 100K. I don't know why the studio was so afraid to release this film with any kind of a real marketing push. It isn't a terrible film, it managed a 47% on Rotten Tomatoes. What went wrong? I think the problem is that Matt Dillon and Kurt Russell are no longer perceived as box office stars. The film is well written, and has a really cool twist at the end. Jay Baruchel is kind of annoying, and the supporting people (Winnick and Diamantopoulos) are a waste of space. Jason Jones is bizarrely interesting as an Interpol agent.

The idea is that Russell's character is a professional driver, and he is part of a crew, which includes his brother (Dillon), until his brother sells them out. Now Russell makes his living as a daredevil. But he finds himself in money trouble, and reunites the gang together… for one last score.

It not a particularly long movie. If you liked the other movies I mentioned, you'll probably enjoy 90 minutes of this.

The first Anchorman is not my favorite Will Ferrell vehicle. I thought it was uneven, and the sequel ends up following in the footsteps. The first act is significantly better than the second act. More of the jokes connect. The second act, which I say starts when Ron (Ferrell) is "blinded", drags on, and gets progressively less funny as it nears the end. There's a bit of a pickup at the battle sequence, but that's only because they got so many cameos, some really interesting ones, that it is impossible to not enjoy it.

Ron Burgundy's career is struck a huge blow when his wife Veronica (Appelgate) gets an anchor spot over him, and he ends up being fired by his idol (Ford). He's not supportive of her, and they split up. Veronica gets primary custody of their child, Walter (Nelson). After trying to do other jobs, Ron is recruited for a spot on the first 24 hour news channel. So, he recruits his old team, Brick (Carell), Champ (Koechner), and Brian (Rudd) for the gig, and they're off to do what they were born to do.

Ron's world is thrown into chaos when he realizes the network is run by a black female producer (Good). He doesn't know what to do with that. Nor does he know how to handle his main competition, Jack Lime (Marsden), the anchor who got the "primetime" slot. He's also baffled by his ex's new boyfriend, a psychologist (Kinnear) that Ron believes can read his mind. Ron finally figures out that people don't want to hear the news, they just want to be told how awesome America is, and Ron becomes a ratings phenomenon. He starts covering news chases and cute puppies and ratings soar. Until… the blindness. Then the movie becomes about self discovery and being a good father. And also about not really being funny.

Kudos to McKay and Ferrell for introducing some new blood into the series. Chani (Wiig) is great, and a perfect fit for Brick. Carell himself, as Brick, gets a ton of laughs. He steals the movie, for the most part. Him and the barrage of cameos. It's hard to pick a favorite cameo. Will Smith was hilarious as a sportscaster, Jim Carrey and Marion Cotillard worked surprisingly well together, and John C. Reilly as the Ghost Of Stonewall Jackson provided Will Ferrell with some much needed material late in the game. It should also be noted that James Marsden can be funny given the right material.

But the movie drags in the second half. It loses focus, and instead of being a parody of what news has become, it shifts into a movie about being a good father. A father to a child actor who is one of the most annoying child actors in years. This kid has no depth, or understanding of comic timing. This was a casting mishap. Every time he's on screen makes you want to bang your head against a wall.

So, an uneven sequel to an uneven film. I suppose that was appropriate. Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the first half. If you could bottle it up, and cut out most of the second act (I'd keep the battle scene… somehow), then the film would be much better. It also goes in the completely wrong direction for the end of the film. It could have been better. McKay and Ferrell were almost onto something, then they backed off.

I actually saw this film a week ago. I've been sitting on this review, trying to figure out what to say. Or how to grade it. I almost feel like I need to see the film again, because I don't quite know how to explain my thoughts on it yet. Basically, I thought it was a good film. I didn't think it was a great film, yet I can't really pinpoint problems with the movie. It's just that feeling that you get when you're separating your "favorite" films from your list of "good" films. There's a piece missing in this puzzle, and it is really just an indescribable piece.

I think part of the problem is that when you assemble such a fantastic team, you automatically raise the bar for yourself. While I appreciate David O. Russell's obvious homage to Martin Scorsese films, it is not my favorite David O. Russell film. He set the bar so high with Silver Linings Playbook (my favorite film of 2012) and The Fighter (one of my favorites from 2011) that American Hustle just didn't get there for me. I can't help but think that Christian Bale has had more career-defining performances, or that Bradley Cooper was better last year in Silver Linings. The comparisons are there, they are immediate, but yet I can't pick a specific problem with the film.

The other problem is that I feel that this has been a really good year for film. Even films produced for a wide audience, including some sequels, have been fantastic. American Hustle gets lost for me a bit when I'm looking at my "top 10″, because I think there are better films that will contribute in the long run to the overall "history" of film. American Hustle, for me, is more like a Seabiscuit. It's a really good film that deserves the praise it gets, but at the end of the day it wasn't the years best, and 10 years from now, people won't really be talking about it. But if it ever gets brought up in conversation, for whatever reason, it will be remembered for being good.

Probably the best work to come out of Hustle are the performances by Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence. For both of them, it's a bit of a departure from the work they are used to giving. Lawrence is much more mature here. She expands upon the maturity that O. Russell gave her in Silver Linings and projects it even more as the housewife to Christan Bale's character. She's the life of the party, she's loud, and she's aware of her own sexual prowess over men. For a girl who is still being cast as a teenager in The Hunger Games (Katniss is 17 in Catching Fire), it's an interesting parallel to see her play an adult role. Also, Amy Adams usually plays wallflower type roles, or girls who are learning to come into themselves. Here, she's sexually aggressive and dominating Bale in their scenes together. If anything, this film should be remembered for casting Adams against type. This is a role typically given to an Angelina Jolie type, but instead was given to Adams. Of all the performances in the film, I thought hers was the most "award" worthy.

And because I haven't talked about him, I will say it was nice to see Jeremy Renner in a more laid back, good guy role. So often Hollywood casts him as a bad guy, or as a tough guy. He's neither here, and his performance is endearing. It's not a particularly showy role, but it's a nice one for the Renner canon. O. Russell's direction also makes smart choices, which is why I called it a nice homage to Scorsese films. It feels like a new take on the Goodfellas tale. A man thinks he can make all the right choices to secure his future, but he ends up in over his head, and he struggles to try and find the exit. Surprisingly, in a non-Scorsese approach, there is very little blood shed in this film. Like, I think there was one person who died on screen the entire film. As a matter of fact, I can think of very little reason this movie should be R, except for some profanity and some sexual content, I suppose. If I had teenagers, I wouldn't have a problem with them watching this film.

I've been dreading this review, because I wish I could describe the "minus". There's something missing here, and even though I can't pinpoint it, I just don't feel like it is on the level with some of the other great films of the year that I've awarded A's to, like Blue Jasmine, Gravity, 12 Years A Slave, Prisoners, or Dallas Buyers Club. I would still definitely recommend this film, even if it isn't in my Top 10 for the year.

The thing I learned today is that there are a lot more Spider-Man comic book fans than I would have thought, and there are still some who are oblivious to comic books. There was an audible gasp when Felicity Jones revealed her character's name was Felicia. As in Felicia Hardy, aka Black Cat. No, they don't go anywhere with that. Nor do they go anywhere with Alistair Smythe. But people definitely appreciated the Black Cat name drop.

An equal amount of people were audibly shocked at the death in the film. You know the death. If you don't know the death, I won't 100% spoil it for you, but it's a big death in the comic book franchise repeated here on the screen. Shot almost exactly how it happened in the comic book, it is a powerful moment. And there were audible gasps, and at least one person crying.

The film spends a ton of time on the mysterious deaths of Ma and Pa Parker, and just why they died, and what they had discovered. The mystery isn't 100% revealed, obviously because they knew they were going to do a third film. Another sign of them doing a third film, is that the film ends with a climatic battle between Rhino and Spidey, suggesting more like Rhino are coming (like Vulture, for instance). And at least one of the two MAIN villains (Electro/Green Goblin) is still alive for a reprise in the third film.

Andrew Garfield is a more appropriate Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire. He really embraces the humor of Spidey. However, I think Tobey was a better Peter Parker (except for Emo Parker in the third film). Emma Stone is a great alpha female, taking ownership of her own need to do the right thing, and perform a great act of heroism. She has a speech at the beginning of the film that basically foreshadows the whole film though. Bad form.

Special effects? Oh yeah. The Electro effects are super cool. He glows the whole film, and the electricity looks great shooting from him. It's really well done, really realistic. He doesn't ever look CGI'd at all. I could have done without the bizarre makeup on Goblin, which seems to be easily curable by the end of the film. Don't transform him into Yoda, and then just create a cure out of thin air.

It's an improvement on the first Amazing Spider-Man, for sure, but it has hits and misses. Rhino is basically a waste of time, and Paul Giamatti. I get that you're setting up a third film, but Dane DeHaan needed more screen time to make Harry not look like a psychotic emo rich kid. Special Effects on Electro= Good. Makeup Effects On Goblin= Bad. The Rhino Suit? Silly. Emma Stone? Fantastic. Overall plot structure? Pretty good.

You've probably heard that Robert Redford gives his career best performance this year in All Is Lost. It's certainly his most daring piece, as any piece would be where you are the only person in the cast. Add on top the fact that he spends the whole movie battling the elements at sea, in a largely dialogue free film, and you've got the makings of a career best performance. But let's not be hasty. This is not Channing Tatum we're talking about, or Chris Evans. This is Robert Freaking Redford. Yes, the Academy hasn't been kind to him (he's only been nominated once for acting, for The Sting), but his body of work is recognized beyond the Academy.

Take for example his role in All The President's Men, a domestic espionage thriller that still holds up today. Or Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Ordinary People. The Candidate. The Great Gatsby. The Natural. Out Of Africa. Indecent Proposal. The Horse Whisperer. The Clearing. Robert Redford has had a career that would be envied by even the most Oscar nominated Actor. So when you throw around terms like "career best", you'd better make damn sure this is his finest work. For me, it's not, but it certainly can join the list of the aforementioned films.

Director JC Chandor, who made a splash with his debut film Margin Call, makes a bold decision to direct Redford as a man lost at sea. He's a character without a name, without a backstory, and almost entirely without dialogue. There's a tad bit of narration at the beginning, a scene where he tries to talk into a radio, and a few attempts at shouting at passing by ships. Oh, and one giant "FUCK!". Otherwise, it's really just Redford staring into the camera, and making difficult life choices.

My problem with Redford is that he's so calm and collected throughout the whole film. Even near the end, panic never truly seems to set in. I felt the desperation once, during one scene, and then he lost it. For all of the things his nameless character faces in this film, he remains oddly stoic, offering the audience a gentle soothing calmness in his performance. Is as if to say that Redford's character choice was "I just want the audience to know everything will be OK." We don't need to know that, Bob. You're being thrashed around at sea, thrown under water, clinging on to a small shred of life, and we're saying it's OK to have a mental breakdown. It's OK to cry. It's OK to let yourself go on camera, but he never really does.

For me, that's why it is just another "good" Redford performance, because he never seemed to really emotionally invest in the character on screen. In a year where Matthew McConaughey went all in for Dallas Buyers Club, Redford put all of his trust in JC Chandor's storytelling, and didn't compliment it with dynamic, game changing acting. His acting is merely sufficient for most of the film. Chandor really rises to the occasion with a beautifully shot film, written by someone who clearly has done their research for this scenario. The details are everything.

The fact that Redford, at his age, was willing to commit to such a physically demanding performance is why he's getting all the awards attention. It's not because Redford truly lost himself in this role, or stretched himself beyond the current comprehension of what it means to see a Robert Redford performance on screen. All Is Lost is a good film, and definitely one worth watching, but I can't help but think it could have been a great one if Redford had just showed us his soul.