Into the Woods - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Into the Woods  

Starring Anna Kendrick, Meryl Streep, Chris Pine, Emily Blunt, James Corden, Lilla Crawford, and Johnny Depp

Directed by Rob Marshall

Rated PG

Run Time: 124 minutes

Genre: Musical/Fantasy

Opens December 25th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Into the Woods throws audiences into its fairy tale musical landscape immediately, starting with multiple numbers introducing characters, backstory, and practically any motivation needed for the story moving forward. Maybe that's why Rob Marshall's latest foray into cinematic adaptations of Broadway musicals left me a little underwhelmed and unsatisfied. Stephen Sondheim's music is undeniably self-aware and well-orchestrated, yet it remains difficult after viewing to distinguish between any of the songs outside of the title tune. Scene stealers arise in Meryl Streep's turn as The Witch and Chris Pine's hilariously turned-on-his-head Prince Charming, but the rest of the cast feels mostly there as a service to the story rather than having their own weight. For every positive thing that seems to emerge from the film, Into the Woods counters itself with an obvious message or unnecessary subplot. That makes for a tonally strange, oddly paced, but serviceable musical for all ages.

The story is a twist on many of the Brothers Grimm's fairy tales, with Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Prince Charming (Chris Pine), Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), Jack (Daniel Huttlestone), The Wolf (Johnny Depp), and The Witch (Meryl Streep) all earning their own screen time. But the story mainly hinges on the tale of the Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt), who have failed to produce a baby that they so badly desire. They find out that the Witch put a curse on their living space long ago when the Baker's father lived there that stops the couple living there from producing a child. So in order to reverse the curse and provide themselves a happy future, they must collect four items: Cinderella's shoe, Rapunzel's hair, Jack's horse, and Red Riding Hood's cape. Along the way, the story meshes together all of these fairy tales by providing them with mostly familiar stories albeit with crossovers abounding.

There are a few great moments within the film: a musical number with Prince Charming and his brother (Billy Magnussen) that plays as a subversive commentary on male identity in princess films; a musical number that comes right before the film's conclusion that packs an emotional wallop on all fronts; and virtually any scene with Meryl Streep. Her role is heaped in humor and tragedy, a perfect mix for the everlastingly talented actress. The rest of the film, however, is interchangeable and feels unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. One of the most painful moments in the film is a false ending that comes with about 45 minutes left; the film feels mostly complete with its stories, but of course there is still plenty of running time. That grinds the narrative to a complete halt and drags out the conclusion far too long. Another thing that felt strange was the use of the Wolf, who essentially becomes a pedophile in this child-heavy landscape; was that message overt in the original story? It feels strange in a Disney world, regardless of its origin.

Yet none of those narrative elements are, for the most part, the main reason people will see Into the Woods. The film delivers satisfying, well-choreographed musical numbers that remain faithful to both the musical and memories of these fairy tales. For adults, there's subversion every step of the way; practically every scene in the first hour takes a riff on previously established notions of masculinity and femininity. That makes much of the musical delightfully refreshing and wholly unique. Yet my problem lies with much of Disney's repertoire lately. There's never a sense of genuine conflict for these characters because there's no sense of what will happen to them if evil wins, or even what that evil is. The conflict for much of the story seems protagonist-created, rather than emerging from an outside force, which makes for a strange dichotomy. Maybe that's intentional. Nonetheless, Rob Marshall has improved over his last few misfires and uses the help of a capable cast to make Into the Woods an inconsistently entertaining musical.

The Gambler - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Gambler  

Starring Mark Wahlberg, Jessica Lange, John Goodman, Brie Larson, Michael Kenneth Williams, and George Kennedy

Directed by Rupert Wyatt

Rated R

Run Time: 111 minutes

Genre: Crime Drama

Opens December 25th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Gambler crafts a largely unsympathetic protagonist that doesn't earn the audience's interest or respect. Rather, he's a self-destructive, compulsive, and staunchly stubborn man that comes off as arrogant and selfish. There's very little humanity within Mark Wahlberg's portrayal of Jim Bennett, a literature professor at a local university who gambles high stakes on the side. The film opens with his father on his death bed, telling Jim that he won't be giving his son any of the inheritance that he would have presumably received, leaving Jim cold and penniless. His gambling debts rise and his mother disapproves, having raised Jim in a wealthy home and wanting the best for her son. But he is never satisfied with teaching and making a sizable income; instead, he wants to gamble away all of his money on games largely based on luck rather than skill. It makes for an oddly bland, lifeless, and shallow film, a departure for director Rupert Wyatt and writer William Monahan.

Jim's in debt with many people, but his primary debt lies with Neville Baraka (Michael Kenneth Williams), a loan shark that revels in Jim's addiction. He lends Jim money one night in order to pay back another man, but Jim's plan backfires when he gambles away the money that he owes both; after winning big, Jim decides to go all in on the money that would pay off his debts. He loses everything. This is one of many moments where Jim's decision to self-destruct overpowers his instinct to survive. The film jumps between that gambling life, the one that runs from late at night until the wee hours of the morning, and his professional life, where he teaches hundreds of English students about classic writings. His best student is Amy Phillips (Brie Larson), a girl that he also sees in his free time. Their relationship is complicated and thinly defined; why, exactly, she continues to admire him after seeing his true self is beyond me.

The film lacks urgency and ultimately purpose with its central character. When a supporting character played by John Goodman becomes, far and away, the best character in the film, something's wrong with the narrative. Particularly as he only occupies about twenty minutes of screen time, William Monahan's script feels thinly conceived and narratively flat. There are monotonous, unexciting gambling scenes that hinge on us caring about his habits and winnings, but when we realize he'll just keep doing it until he dies, it loses meaning. There isn't much consequence when suspense is built around a card being flipped over. Should this character receive redemption? I'm not sure it really matters in the grand scheme of things, but director Rupert Wyatt doesn't lend a helpful hand to making that question worthwhile. As a remake of the film from 1971, there doesn't seem to be a proper updating to make the film feel necessary or relevant. Wyatt's previous effort, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, was more socially conscious and cognizant of its circumstances. The Gambler feels overly clichéd, repetitive, and dull, becoming one of the major disappointments of the holiday season.

Big Eyes - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Big Eyes  

Starring Amy Adams, Christoph Waltz, Krysten Ritter, Jason Schwartzman, and Danny Huston

Directed by Tim Burton

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 105 minutes

Genre: Biographical Drama

Opens December 25th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Big Eyes is such a tonally odd, thematically different film from Tim Burton's filmography that it never meshes into a convincing story. Strangely enough, it's one of Burton's most ambitious and resoundingly human efforts: based on the true story of artist Margaret Keane and the counterfeit nature of her manipulative husband, the narrative is a film of time and place. In the 1950s, the household dichotomy between men and women constituted a particular place for each. A woman could not be creatively successful but rather should stay at home and take care of the family. That makes for a difficult relationship, then, as Margaret (Amy Adams) is infinitely talented in comparison to her counterparts. When she runs away from home with her daughter and heads to San Francisco to stay with her friend, DeeAnn (Krysten Ritter), she feels like a fish out of water who might be able to find herself along the way. Lo and behold, she discovers art galleries around the area and runs into Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz).

Walter is a charming, infectious man that has a strong taste for art and an even better taste for women. He's also the only person that appreciates Margaret's craft, and even works tirelessly to get her stuff in an exhibition. When it finally happens in a grungy-looking jazz bar, it takes a turn for the worst: while Margaret is at home making the paintings, Walter is selling them off as his own, using his charm to convince people that they are his. Whereas his previous art pieces were marked by his trips to France and include populated streets and decorated alleyways, Margaret has a distinct vision. Hers are marked by portraits of faces with huge eyes, since she considers the eyes to be a gateway to the human soul. It's a fascinating way of looking at life, and her portraits are undeniably beautiful. Whether they are each a unique work of art is another debate entirely, but one thing is certain: they are not Walter's to sell. Their relationship turns bitter while they become embroiled in a battle for power.

Gender politics play a vital role in understanding Margaret's susceptibility to such a brutal, indirect crime. It's a way of further degrading females in a harsh, gendered landscape, and there's ambition behind Burton's desire to bring to light a film with such compassion for its central figure. Adams plays her with vivacity and tenderness, bringing forth a strong female oppressed by a twisted society and an even more twisted spouse. Waltz mostly plays his role as a quiet sociopath, allowing the final half hour to bring about every crazy, absurd action possible to underlie his mental instability. That's where the screenplay by Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski goes off the walls; I never believed any of the developments in the film's conclusion for a second. True story narratives really push that boundary when they exaggerate inherent conflict; when a scene crafts Walter to look like Jack Torrance from The Shining, something has gone horribly wrong. Margaret's departure to Hawaii never meshes with the story's thematic force, and it loses power. Big Eyes has strong ideas on its plate, but the execution is uneven and grows tiresome.

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb  

Starring Ben Stiller, Robin Williams, Dan Stevens, Owen Wilson, Ricky Gervais, Rebel Wilson, and Mickey Rooney

Directed by Shawn Levy

Rated PG

Run Time: 97 minutes

Genre: Adventure/Family

Opens December 19th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb adds a third film to an already tired franchise, one started in 2006 with an innovative, playful premise. Now, after a battle at the Smithsonian, the Ben Stiller-starring franchise takes a trip to London to discover a familiar set-up in an unfamiliar landscape. While the film series undeniably appeals to families looking for an escape for children, the film fails to deliver on any promising story fronts, instead allowing monkey pee and YouTube videos of cats obsessed with lights to take the forefront of the comedic punch. You know, those timely, relevant jabs. Tack on an element where, if I can describe him as such, a primitive, moronic version of Ben Stiller is played for laughs because Ben Stiller is acting next to himself in Neanderthal makeup. Oh, and the premise of the film’s conflict relies on going outside. That’s it. Nothing else. The supporting characters have devolved into archetypes, failing to expand upon them as people, and the film feels like an attempt to capitalize on a well-worn franchise in overseas markets rather than appeasing filmgoers looking for an enjoyable romp.

Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) is still the night guard at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Their night walks are immensely popular, and the man in charge, Dr. McPhee (Ricky Gervais), wants to see an expansion to bring even more awareness to the exhibits. In an event for investors and other wealthy types, Larry’s showcase goes wrong when the walking, talking exhibits begin to turn on themselves and act aggressively different. Something’s gone horribly wrong, and Larry must find a way to save the exhibits before everything falls apart. Turns out it’s the golden tablet that belongs to Ahkmenrah (Rami Malek), the son of the Pharaoh Merenkahre (Ben Kingsley). The tablet has begun to rust, and its magical power is falling to the wayside. Larry must take the Egyptian prince and other friends to London to visit the Pharaoh himself and find out what they can do to turn this curse around. Coming along on the journey are mainstays Teddy Roosevelt (the late Robin Williams), Jebediah (Owen Wilson), Octavius (Steve Coogan), and Dexter (Crystal the Monkey).

When every decision within the film feels like a ploy for marketing purposes rather than narrative creativity, a film loses any impact as a work of entertainment. It feels grating, unsatisfying, and like a copout, leaving the film as an open book for future installments without any semblance of closure for a viewer. The introduction of Sir Lancelot (Dan Stevens) as a comedic foil is funny when first introduced but woefully grows tired, much like any of the film’s conflict. There are numerous subplots that have no relevance to the overall story, nor do they have any dramatic heft or purpose outside of a cheap, quick laugh drawn out for too long. Even the introduction of Rebel Wilson’s British security guard at their respective museum is painfully unfunny and never rises above slight amusement. A blatantly homoerotic relationship between Jebediah and Octavius peaks interest if only for its complete absurdity in such a safe, calculated landscape. The Night at the Museumfranchise has never been a particularly ambitious narrative, but even the decision to tack on a happy-go-lucky epilogue after a worthwhile conclusion shows the unsure, conservative nature of the story. Night at the Museum: Secret of the Tomb is an inconsequential adventure. Audiences would be better off watching the first film again.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

Starring Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Ian McKellen, Evangeline Lilly, Orlando Bloom and Luke Evans

Directed by Peter Jackson

From New Line Cinema and MGM Pictures.

Rated PG-13

144 minutes

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

Finally, the conclusion to the Hobbit series, or as I like to call it The $500-Million Object Lesson on How to Overproduce a Simple Children’s Book. I’m retiring if this movie spawns that 12-part Green Eggs and Ham miniseries, or perhaps that Poky Little Puppy quadrilogy.

Listen, there is such a thing as “too much,” and it’s right here in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, the endpoint to Peter Jackson’s Hobbit adaptation, a book that would have been perfectly suitable within one movie or, what the hell, even two. But three? The wheels have finally come off this unnecessarily long franchise that began on an ominous note with the hated high-framerate 3D in An Unexpected Journey, slowly began to course-correct in The Desolation of Smaug, but finally putters into heap here with battle scene after battle scene after battle scene. It’s enough war to give the orcs PTSD.

The problem, in the beginning and still now, is the script, which deviated far and wide from J.R.R. Tolkien’s original Hobbit text just to pluck prequel strings for the Lord of the Rings franchise. New locations were plotted, new characters were written, villains were crafted out of the ether, and trivial episodes were stretched thin, “like butter that has been scraped over too much bread.” Keep in mind, all this in a story that already has too many characters, including 13 dwarves, of which only a fraction are identifiable by name — the leader, the wise white-haired one, the twins and that fat one. The rest are just background filler.

Tasked with going to the Misty Mountains to reclaim their lands and wealth, the dwarves, captained by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) — and joined by wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen ) and Hobbit burglar Bilbo (Martin Freeman) — have fought their way through trolls, orcs, wood elves, Mordor ghosts, man-bears, a mutant orc with a sword for an elbow and, in the previous film, a giant dragon named Smaug, who might be the most sympathetic character in the series.

The Battle of Five Armies opens on Smaug as he begins to torch a human city floating on a lake near his mountain throne. The film does not make any effort to submerge you back into the Hobbit; it simply drops you in headfirst — Gandalf is in a cage somewhere, a noble human is in jail, a ruthless tax collector is swimming away with the town’s loot, and Thorin drools over his mountain’s abandoned wealth. There is also a love-smitten elf, Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly), whose romantic intentions lead to a catastrophic dead end. A refresher course on all this interrupted story would have been nice, but I guess that’s what happens when you break a single story up over multiple movies.

The dragon’s defeat is mostly a foregone conclusion, which leaves lots of time for the dwarves to politically scorch Middle Earth with their greed, much of which is inspired by Thorin, who’s so overwritten he becomes a parody of Tolkien’s character. The dwarves camp out in the gold-laden mountain, and their protest-like stand sends ripples through every race of creature, from bow-wielding tree elves to pig-riding dwarf armies to legions of orcs with armored artillery units mounted on the backs of trolls. They all descend on the mountain to wage war for the treasure, a gold haul that 13 dwarves refuse to give up because of their misplaced sense of entitlement.

Notice that I haven’t really talked about Bilbo much, and that’s intentional. Bilbo is mostly an afterthought. Remember, he was brought on the quest to burglarize the dragon’s den. With that job fulfilled, he’s left twiddling his thumbs as Thorin barricades Middle Earth’s Fort Knox, Gandalf tussles with Sauron’s ghost, and elves Legolas and Tauriel inject themselves into a story in which they don’t belong. Legolas has a line here about some rabid bats: “These bats are bred for one purpose … war.” It echoes a line by Thorin: “We have no choice then … but war.” I think every character has a line that ends with a pause and “war.” And war they are all given.

The centerpiece of the film is essentially an 80-minute battle with all of the characters, and many we didn’t even know about, including Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett and Hugo Weaving all reprising their Rings roles in a non-canon scene meant as lip service to Tolkien fanboys. Peter Jackson, although weighed down by three films of character confusion and watered-down story, still knows how to arrange some impressive battle scenes. His scope for war and carnage seems to have no bounds. And, once again, the Weta Workshop does a stellar job at populating Tolkien’s world with believable props, costumes and digital effects. It’s unfortunate the story couldn’t have been boiled down a little more.

The key word there is “story” and The Battle of Five Armies’ is a wreck. It’s all loose ends and forced drama, and just too many reverse-engineered plot points that honor Jackson’s films but not Tolkien’s book. So why did this work for Lord of the Rings, but not the Hobbit? It’s hard to say, but I think it comes down to the nature of the characters, the points at which they’re introduced in the story and the ultimate goal to which they strive. In Rings, the key figures of the film were introduced within the first hour of the first film, whereas The Hobbit is still introducing heroes (and villains) deep into the third film. How can we identify or appreciate characters that are ninth-inning additions?

Other key components are the character motivations. In Rings, everyone was united in defeating Sauron and destroying the ring. There was never any question about that endgame. Yet here, I’m stumped. I think this is about the reclaiming of a dwarf city that was stolen by a dragon, but Five Armies complicates that with all the politics of the gold, the reluctant gratitude of the dwarves, and the request of payment from everyone else. If only the movie could end with the death of the dragon, which is a conclusion that makes sense, and just feels like a natural stopping point. I know the book examines the post-Smaug landscape, but I don’t remember it feeling this anti-climactic and long-winded.

This franchise has let me down, and spoiled the simplicity of the book. And it’s cast a shadow on the awesomeness of the Lord of the Rings franchise, which was executed with supreme precision. Mostly I’m just sad that Jackson thought he could do it all again. He’s a talented director, and his work is always entertaining, but this film was doomed the moment it was split, and then split again.

That’s not how you build movies, although it is precisely how you break them.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies  

Starring Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Luke Evans, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Ian McKellen, and Orlando Bloom

Directed by Peter Jackson

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 144 minutes

Genre: Fantasy/Action-Adventure

Opens December 17th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the most resonant film in the exasperatingly long series based on the J.R.R. Tolkien novel. As an expansion of the world established in the early 2000s by Peter Jackson's astounding Lord of the Rings trilogy, the latest film encapsulates all of the series' strengths and weaknesses. It's become obvious over the past two years that the decision to make The Hobbit into a trilogy has been creatively ambitious if overly manipulative of the audience's desire to complete the emotional journey. The fact that this entire final film is based around a single set piece and acts as a gigantic, compelling action sequence is remarkably stubborn and simplistic. Yet more so than the previous two entries, the film delivers the best dramatic punch of the bunch, while surprisingly delivering on satisfying character arcs and thrilling action pieces. Jackson has closed out the franchise on a high note, one that compels, moves briskly, and makes the audience forget for a bit that the series doesn't warrant almost 8 hours worth of screen time.

The film picks up with Smaug's escape from his kingdom of treasure and the possibility of him destroying all of Middle-Earth. Fortunately, the people of Laketown have Bard (Luke Evans) as a savior, for he takes down the magnificent beast and prepares the town for the next fight. Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), and company stand their ground in the Lonely Mountain as they observe from the outside; Thorin's obsession with finding the Arkenstone, a legendary Dwarfish relic, has driven him to borderline madness, with the other dwarves attempting to prepare for the ensuing battle. Azog, an Orc leader, leads his army on a march to the Lonely Mountain, and hears of an Elvish army marching toward the city as well. All of them have a claim to the wealth lying in those chambers. Meanwhile, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) is still imprisoned and finds a savior in Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), who also must deal with the emergence of Sauron. And assisting Bard and the dwarves in their fight for their lives is Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly).

While the film remains busy with all of these subplots, they come together in a suitable fashion. The combination of all of these forces, and their titular five armies, amounts to an epic conclusion for the trilogy. There's a human connection within each of the narratives: the plea for survival in the wake of tragedy in Bard's journey; the Elvish divide between Tauriel and her true love, a dwarf; Thorin's descent into madness as his desire for power and title outweigh his need for his race's survival; while Gandalf must face the greater evil force that will overtake the kingdom without any way of stopping him. This is a bleak vision for Middle-Earth, one that we haven't quite seen from Jackson. It's a world overcome with loss and grief; there are some traumatically affecting scenes here that bring together the underlying themes of the new series. Even if the time spent per page in this franchise is extensively bigger than the previous trilogy, that has allowed Jackson and his screenwriters to build these characters to satisfying payoffs. There are deaths here that finally have an impact. We care about these people.

There's also something remarkable about the characterization of Tauriel: she's a badass heroine that holds her own and is a strong presence on screen. She's the best character in the franchise, a woman marked by conflict from her own race that tells her she cannot have an impure love. An outstanding battle between her and an Orc commander leads to some of the most striking conflict in the series: as she seemingly appears to be the "damsel in distress," the scene turns and uses the male as the person in trouble. It makes the film tremendously exciting and unpredictable. The battles that make up the final hour of the film are wholly exciting, too, and shot beautifully. It's unfortunate that there's unnecessary filler, particularly with a comic relief character that never feels properly placed in the narrative. It's off-putting and drags the scenes with actual human conflict. Nonetheless, as a closer to a hit-and-miss trilogy with a painfully long running time, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies ends in a fittingly epic, satisfactory conclusion for fans.

The Captive - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Captive  

Starring Ryan Reynolds, Rosario Dawson, Scott Speedman, Mireille Enos, and Kevin Durand

Directed by Atom Egoyan

Rated R

Run Time: 113 minutes

Genre: Thriller

Opens December 12th (exclusively at FilmBar)

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Captive captures the raw, brutal essence of losing a child to kidnapping in its opening scenes. Director-writer Atom Egoyan's chillingly shot, narratively wonky film tackles an ambitious story navigating the seedy world of child trafficking and sexual abuse. Ryan Reynolds and Rosario Dawson deliver two strong performances in the leads, delving deep into their characters' insecurities and letting a world ravaged by the mistakes of men take hold of their everyday lives. I was admittedly hooked on the film's premise and the potential as the film built toward its climax; it reminded me of great films from the past few years like Trust that tackled sexual predators and the uncompromising nature of technology and its hold on young girls. Yet The Captive falls into a horribly clichéd conclusion that closes out the story unsatisfactorily, leaving the viewer with a typical car chase and unrewarding closer that cleans up the story too neatly to be a successful critique on society.

Matthew (Ryan Reynolds) loves his little girl, Cass (Peyton Kennedy). After her ice skating practices every week, they stop at a local restaurant to pick up a pie to enjoy later that night. He's happily married to Tina (Mireille Enos), a maid at a local hotel who seems content with her life while her husband works as a blue-collar shipper; their life feels complete with a daughter who hopes to have a successful path in her sport. Yet one snowy day (as they all seem to be in their desolate landscape), Matthew returns to his car to find his daughter missing. He was only inside for a few minutes, as he always was, and she never leaves. What happened? It fractures his marriage, with Tina blaming Matthew for not watching their daughter while two detectives are tasked with finding the missing girl. They are Jeffrey (Scott Speedman) and Nicole (Rosario Dawson), who mainly look into child molesters in hopes of catching up and uncovering rings. There's a seedy underworld in this seemingly quaint town, with Mika (Kevin Durand) leading the front as the creepy, altogether horrifying predator.

Atom Egoyan's film has remarkable subtlety and nuance in its set-up. There's a cold, distanced touch to his filmmaking, with the gorgeous cinematography tremendously lending itself to atmosphere. The performances feel restrained and isolated, all confined in their closed indoor spaces as they avoid the blizzard-like conditions ravaging their town. The film intelligently jumps between past and present, having the audience guess where each part is taking place only for them to realize that a seven-year gap exists between key scenes. Yet the film's complete collapse in the second half destroys any sense of momentum or tension that's been built. Durand's Mika falls into a stereotypical psychopath with absurd tendencies that we didn't know existed before, while Enos' Tina devolves into the familiar "crazily emotional wife." The film loses authenticity, particularly in its rapid-fire, rushed conclusion that practically dismisses all previous drama in favor of supposedly exciting shoot-outs and chases. The Captive boasts some strong performances and an ambitious, intelligent premise, but its execution is unfulfilling and leaves the viewer with the same cold, icy touch of the film's landscape.

Exodus: Gods and Kings - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

Exodus: Gods and Kings  

Dir: Ridley Scott

Starring: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Ben Kingsley, Aaron Paul, John Turturro, and Sigourney Weaver

150 Min

PG-13

By Monte Yazzie – TheCodaFilms.com

Two well known biblical stories have been adapted this year, starting with Darren Aronofsky’s “Noah” and ending the year with Ridley Scott’s epic and overlong “Exodus: Gods and Kings”. Ridley Scott, who’s film catalog alone proves more than capable of handling the sizeable task of this subject undertaking, handles the action with measured paces that move effortlessly throughout. Taking point from films like “The Ten Commandments” and “Spartacus”, “Exodus”: Gods and Kings” has all the shine and effect of a summer blockbuster but lacks the historical coherency or emotional depth needed to transcend it above more than simple spectacle.

Moses (Christian Bale) has been raised his entire life in the royal Egyptian court, embraced into the reigning family as brother to Ramses (Joel Edgerton). However, Moses is unlike the others in the kingdom and soon finds out the secret of his Jewish heritage that has been kept from him. Moses and his protecting family have been exiled from the kingdom, a blessing of sorts offered by Ramses who was instructed by his council to kill Moses. Moses, wandering the desert, finds a small tribe and marries a young woman and they have a child. Time passes and during a feat of nature Moses encounters God in the form of young boy who directs Moses to return to Egypt and free his people from slavery.

Ridley Scott offers two stories that are both inherently about relationships. One story is of a group of people standing up to the authority that has enslaved them and finding an identity as a people, the other story is about the relationship with religion and the judgments of God. While the portrayal of the Israelites and Egyptians is mostly rendered to one-sided battles and torturous ultimatums levied at the hands of Ramses, Scott is able to pull some genuine intriguing questions from the relationship the people and Moses have with their God. The bold decision to render the image of God in the persona of a young, petulant boy may be offensive to some; however it serves the purpose of displaying God’s angered finality with the people of Egypt. The deadly judgment coming in the form of plagues is an extravagance to watch, it’s part science fiction part disaster film. In the best scene Moses talks with God, who is only seen to him, before the final plague of the death of the first-born child. Moses is tormented, pleading with God for compassion due to his kinship with Ramses who has a sole child. The ensuing scene is a simplistic slow consuming darkness that is then accompanied by moans and wails. It’s upsetting and affecting, it portrays the complications and doubt when trying to understand the judgment and reasoning of higher powers out of human control.

It’s unfortunate that most of the quality storytelling features are undercut by questionable casting of characters. Christian Bale attempts to hold the film together but is relinquished to shouting matches with the elements and Ramses. Joel Edgerton as Ramses feels the most out of place, aside from John Turturro, as the Egyptian Pharaoh. While this kind of casting was a familiar practice for American epics of the past, it would seem that time would have offered talent from some of the similar regions being depicted in the film. Alas, the actors do their best to keep the film moving from scene to scene.

The film leads to the final effect laden battle within a parted Red Sea, a final sentiment of the relationship between man’s ambitions versus God’s intentions. Unfortunately the film never expels on this theme. Instead “Exodus: Gods and Kings” resembles the final scene, a film that moves through the murky mud of a disjointed narrative trying to make it from one side to the other while trying to avoid the wave of flaws that will inevitably consume it.

Monte’s Rating

2.50 out of 5.00

Exodus: Gods and Kings - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Exodus: Gods and Kings  

Starring Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Aaron Paul, Ben Kingsley, John Turturro, and Sigourney Weaver

Directed by Ridley Scott

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 150 minutes

Genre: Drama

Opens December 12th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Exodus: Gods and Kings is Ridley Scott's bold, altogether strange vision of the story of Moses and Ramses. It's a strikingly personal yet oddly cold film, a fitting classification for many of Scott's epics over the years. In attempting to tell a religious story without necessarily making the story explicitly about Moses and his experiences with God, Scott avoids the ever-familiar narrative in favor of a story about familial division, faith, and the pursuit of a greater understanding of one's purpose. It's a film many have dismissed as too unsure of its own ambition, but it never strays from the heart of its story, always surrounding Christian Bale's Moses with a narrative of compassion and great feeling. Every time he's on screen, he's magnetic. He carries the film through its distanced, rigid approach, and makes it a compellingly inconsistent watch.

The story opens in 1300 B.C.E. Egypt, under the rule of Pharaoh Seti (John Turturro), father of Ramses (Joel Edgerton). The people live in poverty while the city is under wealthy rule, with slaves working on the pyramids and statues with the powerful sitting in their lavish palaces admiring the hard, unrewarded work. Moses (Christian Bale) acts as a warrior and protector of Ramses, particularly in battle as Ramses faces death only for Moses to save him. Seti admits that Moses is the better man, one that he would appreciate more as his son. Sure enough, a sickness strikes and Ramses rises to power, changing the fabric of the country as his iron fist-like regime turns against the people and lets them starve and suffer. Upon finding out Moses' Hebrew heritage, Ramses banishes his spiritual brother from their city and forces him to survive. Nine years pass, Moses marries, and he attempts to return to free the 600,000 slaves under the oppression of Ramses.

Exodus attempts to capture the spirit of many swords-and-sandals epics of cinematic yesteryear, with visual and thematic comparisons to The Ten Commandments, Spartacus, and The Last Temptation of Christ. Here, we are presented with a conflicted protagonist that questions God and appears crazy to be talking with such a figure. Scott and his writers present God as a petulant, whiny 12-year old boy with a British accent, an absurdly effective tactic that makes his scenes compelling and all the more challenging for religious viewers. There's never a sense of simplifying or pandering the story in order to cater to one viewpoint; rather, by stripping the film of much of its religious undertones and instead only hinting at the matter (as far as I can tell, the boy never refers to himself as God, nor do others address Him as a Christian figure), it makes for a unique re-telling of a familiar tale in both culture and cinema.

The film relies on melodrama and extended scenes of discussing slavery and its ramifications on the people. Repetition ensues, and the film bogs itself down with how mechanical and formulaic the plagues feel when they are introduced. They each breeze by without much nuance and hinder the film's capable, assertive first act. The anchor that keeps the film grounded, though, and the element that makes the narrative all the more compelling, is Christian Bale. He delivers a great performance, an anointment that feels increasingly commonplace in a career full of them. Moses, under his guise, becomes a man conflicted with God and His ways and knows that the only way his mission can be accomplished is through his own will, ultimately. Joel Edgerton's Ramses has a few glimpses of humanity, particularly with his son, but his performance never elevates past archetypal villain. I still admire Ridley Scott's vision for such a divisive, and ultimately dismissed, film, since he makes Exodus: Gods and Kings a character-driven spectacle that's a notch above his recent misfires.

Top Five - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Top Five  

Starring Chris Rock, Rosario Dawson, J.B. Smoove, Gabrielle Union, Kevin Hart, and Cedric the Entertainer

Directed by Chris Rock

Rated R

Run Time: 102 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Opens December 12th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Top Five feels like a spiritual sibling of Woody Allen, right down to its opening scene. Andre Allen (Chris Rock) paces the streets of New York City alongside Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson), a writer for the New York Times tasked with interviewing Andre before his new film opens in theaters. Their street-side conversation revolves around having a black president, only for Andre to insist that things have not changed in society; for instance, a black man could never call a taxi in the hustling, bustling New York City! The scene that transpires works entirely against that notion, and acts as an embodiment of the film's strengths. Chris Rock, as writer-director-actor, has captured a film that feels typical of his comedic style, using touchy subjects as a means of self-exploration in the hopes of achieving strong social commentary. While the film captures those moments, and provides continually uproarious laughs, the second half falls underneath flimsy dramatic points and never meshes into a coherent thematic message.

Andre is a comedian turned film star with plenty of successes: he was once named the funniest man in America, had a successful film franchise with Hammy the Bear (where the third film made over $600 million worldwide), and has an upcoming marriage to reality TV star Erica Long (Gabrielle Union). Yet Andre has been sober for a few years and doesn't find himself all that funny, leading to a potentially disastrous decision to change his career. In an attempt to make a serious film, he stars in "Uprize!", a dramatic re-telling of the 1791 Haitian Revolution that gets universally panned by critics and audiences alike. Everyone wants a new Hammy the Bear film, which from our brief glimpse seems like a Lethal Weapon-type with Andre in a large bear costume wielding a machine gun alongside Luis Guzman. Andre doesn't have that desire to get back on the stand-up stage or star in those dumb comedies, as he says. He wants to be serious.

Yet when he meets Chelsea, things change. He begins to question why he would want to marry Erica when she is more concerned with capturing a good television shot rather than actual romance. Andre's talks with Chelsea not only reveal his character and his past struggles, but it shows the two's connection and how they actually counter one another with their beliefs. Their past experiences inform their present and future, and they are drastically different in upbringings and career paths. That makes for some fascinating conversations, ones that carry the brunt of the film's dramatic heft. Rock and Dawson are terrific in their roles, with Rock providing a man struggling with the peak of his fame while trying to find himself in a world that doesn't accept him now that he's finally his normal self. Flashbacks to memorable misfortunes in Andre's past make for some funny, if also off-putting, comedic moments. Chelsea's romantic life creates a hilarious moment that won't easily leave viewers' minds.

So why is it that Top Five never forms a substantive message about fame and the public spotlight? Chris Rock is an immensely talented man and an even better comedian; he produces some outstanding laughs that make for some imminently watchable material. But for every moment that provides a hearty laugh, there's another moment that follows with a sour taste. Misogyny runs rampant in any scene involving women that are not Chelsea; many scenes take place in dance or strip clubs where every woman is seemingly sexualized and treated as a lesser-than because of their femininity. There's even an uncomfortable exchange on the phone between Andre and Erica that feels horribly timed and misguided. The film's third act falls apart in favor of melodrama and often forgettable developments. A friendship between Rock's Andre and J.B. Smoove's childhood friend/bodyguard provide some solid developments, yet the latter catcalls constantly and makes for some uncomfortably unfunny moments. Top Five has some genuinely insightful commentary and intelligent laughs, but its aimlessness hinders the far-reaching ambition of its narrative.

The Imitation Game - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Imitation Game  

Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Mark Strong, Matthew Goode, Charles Dance, and Steven Waddington

Directed by Morten Tyldum

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 113 minutes

Genre: Drama/Thriller

Opens December 12th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

The Imitation Game features the remarkable, breakthrough performance that Benedict Cumberbatch's career has needed, and one that could very well win him an Oscar. The film is a staunchly confident, harrowing look at the real-life story of English mathematician and logician Alan Turing and his team's cracking of the German WWII code Enigma, mirrored alongside the tale of Turing's later persecution for being a homosexual. A man as intelligent as Turing is reduced to a shell of his former self after he puts together what is arguably the single most important development in the war, leading to the Allied victory and the downfall of Hitler's German Reich. The historical background of the film, and the logistics behind such a complicated, intricate code-breaking process, do not fly over the heads of individuals unfamiliar with the story, but rather provide further enlightenment into a world without computers or advanced technology. The codes themselves act as a symbol for the way that everyone hide their true selves, marking a world shrouded in secrecy, mystery, and heartbreak.

Alan Turing's life picks up in the late 1920s as he studies at a private school and faces bullies left and right. He's smarter and stranger than everyone else around him, making him an outcast and an easy target. Brutal looks at the bully's punishment include being trapped underneath floor boards and pouring food on him while he sits alone at lunch. He befriends a young man in school and hopelessly falls in love, hiding his feelings behind a veil of heteronormative fear and potential heartbreak. It's no surprise that his past is marked by such tragic, quiet developments, considering his modern-day self is reserved, cold to the touch, but humorously arrogant and mentally strong. Alan (Benedict Cumberbatch) is recruited to interview for a position at Bletchley Park working for the British government's code and cypher station, and he ultimately receives the job alongside other more conventional, less introverted individuals than himself. It makes for a compelling dichotomy as he demands a huge budget for his work and seemingly ignores what needs to happen each day: that the German's Enigma code is put out every 24 hours and that they only have that much time to crack it before it resets. After each day passes, their work is pointless.

It's a frustrating life for the bunch of men, including suave Hugh (Matthew Goode), conversationalist John (Allen Leech), and concerned young man Peter (Matthew Beard). They all do not get along with Alan in the slightest, even when secretary/genius Joan (Keira Knightley) works with Alan and helps him uncover some of the truths needed to crack such a code. The film utilizes three narratives to interweave its story with ease: Alan's teenage experiences, his work during World War II, and the aftermath of being riddled with breaking codes in the early 1950s as his cases are investigated and examined for possible sexual deviances. It's an uncompromising truth of the times when homosexuality was persecuted in Western culture and treated as something equitable to child molestation and perversions; even if such general disdain has disappeared from British and American cultures, it still lingers in other cultures under extreme punishment. Why must a genius like Alan be treated as a second-class citizen when he hasn't truly committed a crime? That shies the story away from the more revealing truths that are examined during the war, particularly as everyone has an ulterior motive and reveals the truth only when necessary.

Director Morten Tyldum makes his English-language debut after his excellent Danish film from 2011, Headhunters. He crafts a story that navigates its subject matter with ease and nuance. That's arguably as attributable to the script and editing as it is to the restrained, observant cinematography and guidance. The score from Alexandre Desplat (one of the best composers in the business, producing brilliant work in every piece of music he crafts) is poetically resonant and lyrically sound; the repetition of musical themes enhances the effectiveness of each scene as it builds onto the next. Perhaps the most important revelation from the film, though, is Cumberbatch's unwaveringly brilliant lead performance. As Turing, he pushes the tragedy underneath his terse, persistent exterior and allows us to examine a man consumed by pain and longing. He wants to be loved by a man but has never been able to tell one such a thing, nor has he been able to escape the clutch of judgment from his other faults. Keira Knightley's supporting performance, as a seeming love interest and strong female presence in a world that asks for weak female social roles, makes for confident work to add to her impressive filmography. The Imitation Game resonates profoundly, particularly in its heart-wrenching conclusion, and it's some of the most assertive, important work I have seen all year.

The Imitation Game - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The Imitation Game

Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Keira Knightley, Matthew Good, Charles Dance and Mark Strong

Direct by Morten Tyldum

From The Weinstein Company

Rated PG-13

114 minutes

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

In 1952, the man who shaved two years and millions of deaths off of World War II was prosecuted for a crime so frivolous and embarrassing that the Queen would have to pardon him decades later. But by then the damage had been done in this shameful piece of history.

Alan Turing, the subject of The Imitation Game, was instrumental in the events of World War II, he synthesized a number of modern ideas about artificial intelligence, and he pioneered this great big box that would one day become the computer. But Turing was also gay, something he was punished for with reprehensible cruelty after the war. I wanted Imitation Game to be as outraged as I was, but it takes a different approach entirely: it presents Turing not as a victim, but a hero.

Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) was plucked from the ranks of a very talented batch of science geeks at Cambridge during the onset of World War II. He was assigned to Bletchley Park, the secret British codebreaking campus that was just starting to wrap its collective brain around the Nazi’s ellusive Enigma machine.

Morten Tyldum’s careful direction and Graham Moore’s determined script present Enigma as a character in the film. The German code machine looks like a typewriter, but with a lampboard, a set of rotors, and a plugboard behind a wood panel at the base. The permutations of possible codes was almost incalculable — “millions of millions” one codebreaker says. Making matters worse, the Germans changed the machine’s codes daily, which gives the codebreakers roughly 18 hours of tinkering once the coded messages were gathered from the battlefield. While the others workers tried different combinations of plugs and rotors, Turing was looking for a shortcut.

The Imitation Game plays like an espionage thriller, because it is. In fact, historically speaking, it is the ultimate spy thriller. Turing, who was an awkward loner, spends much of the movie hunched over electronic components, dodging double-agent accusations, smuggling documents out of Bletchley Park to study at home, and fighting with his co-workers who didn’t share his ideas about his computing box that he called Christopher. Turing slogged through them, his subordinates (including Charles Dance and Mark Strong) and even Winston Churchill to get Christopher up and working with astounding results.

In one of the film’s strongest segments, Turing needs to hire more codebreakers so he plants a difficult crossword puzzle in the newspaper and watches as bewildered readers show up saying they can solve it. He ends up hiring the only woman, Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), who falls for Turing even amid her suspicions of his orientation. They make a great pair.

I’m skeptical of historical movies like this, because I know they condense facts, eliminate characters, make composites of others and in the end the history is lost. That is certainly true here, especially once you start diving into the details of Turing’s machine and Enigma’s follow-up project, Ultra. But the core here is Turing, and he’s just fascinating. As is Cumberbatch, who is just delightful in everything he’s in.

I left Imitation Game fuming at Turing’s treatment after the war, but also immensely proud of his work during the war. If only he would have been allowed to continue working — the world might look a little different today.

Foxcatcher - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Foxcatcher  

Starring Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Sienna Miller, Vanessa Redgrave, and Anthony Michael Hall

Directed by Bennett Miller

Rated R

Run Time: 134 minutes

Genre: Drama/Biography

Opens December 5th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Foxcatcher opens with the increasingly familiar reminder that its story is based on true events. This time, it carries more heft and provides a sobering reminder of how loneliness and emptiness can push people to rash extremes. As a member of a wealthy empire with aspirations of being a successful wrestling coach, John du Pont comes to terrifying fruition in the form of Steve Carell's transformative, engrossing lead role. He's a man marked by a life laid out for him on a silver platter, with a demanding, hard-to-please mother (Vanessa Redgrave) and an estate far too grandiose and enveloping for him to handle. When he wants to put together a professional wrestling team in the hopes that his home becomes an Olympic training grounds, he contacts the Schultz brothers. Mark (Channing Tatum) is the lesser known of the two, one that has missed out on the high of winning a gold medal in the 1980 games, while his older brother David (Mark Ruffalo) is his trainer and the one that gets all of the attention. Mark lives a miserable, impoverished life, and pounces at the opportunity to be the center of focus in du Pont's batch of champions.

Mark is spoiled with riches and overcome with joy at the idea that he is being appreciated. His father was never around when he was younger, leading to David mostly raising him as they moved from home to home. The two brothers live an intimately personal life, particularly as they are both asked to join John's force. Yet David cannot leave his family behind, with his wife Nancy (Sienna Miller) wanting to keep the kids grounded despite the opportunity to make a lot more money under du Pont. The desire to be more like David, from both Mark and John, leads to an inferiority complex that increases their bond. There's a startling dichotomy between their training regimens and just how little John seems to know about wrestling, yet his desire to please his mother knows no bounds. She has always been disappointed with a son that has only earned participation trophies, never had any true friends, and lived a lonely, isolated life. In that regard, John doesn't ever want to let Mark go, resulting in a battle of three men over power, recognition, and happiness.

Bennett Miller's film is a triumph of subtlety and nuance. The direction is understated and his most calculated to date; after efforts like Capote and Moneyball attempted to show compassion and remorse for their central characters, Miller examines a man that aspires to be great in Mark and one that has relatively no redeemable qualities in John. As both characters occupy leads and overwhelm each other on screen with their opposites, it allows for the film's themes to underlie every scene and go unstated for most of the duration. The script from E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman invites the narrative to mostly focus on Mark's journey from recognition and success in a father figure to a dispassionate, miserable shell of his former self. While Steve Carell's remarkable lead performance has earned all of the recognition, there's something to be said about Channing Tatum's mostly reserved, wholly sympathetic performance in a role that could have fallen into self-parody. Instead, it demonstrates the pursuit of the American Dream and how callously life can act around a person with such aspirations. A scene where Mark speaks at a school in place of David brutally cuts to that core.

Yet the performance that sticks with me the most is Mark Ruffalo's, an actor that has marked many of his roles over the past decade with humanity and a difficult balancing act. He is a man trying to survive and save his brother when he seems to be falling away; the susceptibility of Mark to be brainwashed almost stems from his own upbringing, and the propaganda that surrounds him brings forth a sense of failure on David's front as a makeshift father. The second half of the film provides the meat of the drama and shows the endless restraint that Ruffalo uses to make his character work against the two stronger personalities on display. Carell's du Pont uses his prosthetic nose and grimace to accentuate his underlying malevolence, particularly for those familiar with just how dark the story goes. This is a morbid, relentless film, but not one that sells its premise or purpose all that much. The score only emerges in three or four scenes, being used to further build a Hitchcockian sense of suspense and mistrust. As Foxcatcher builds to its tremendously fulfilling, thematically powerful conclusion and closing shot, the film achieves a level of unnerving, shocking filmmaking that feels necessary and timely. It's a great film.

Wild - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Wild

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern, Gaby Hoffman, Michael Huisman and Thomas Sadoski

Directed by Jean-Marc Vallée

From Fox Searchlight

Rated R

115 minutes

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

When I was about 13 years old I went on a weekend backpacking trip with the Boy Scouts. We were given a checklist of things to pack before we went. The list included a tent, a sleeping bag, what seemed like a Sears rack full of clean socks, and then about 50 other items ranging from canteen and compass to pocket knife and mess kit. Fill your clothes dryer with the contents of your silverware drawer, that’s what we sounded like rambling through the forest.

By the first mile, we learned why it was wise to shift your pack’s weight from the shoulder straps to the hip belt. By the third mile, we learned why we were supposed to bring so many socks. And later, on somewhere between the eighth and 13th mile, we learned that none of us much cared for backpacking. Or Boy Scouts. Or the outdoors.

It is with this vivid memory rocketing out of my past that I watched Wild in painful agony. It begins with a woman pausing during a grueling hike to inspect her feet. As she pulls at bloody blisters and chipping nails on her toes, one of her hiking boots tumbles down the mountain in ballet-like pirouette of horror. My feet screamed at this sight, as will yours.

Wild, directed by Jean-Marc Vallée from a hit nonfiction book by Cheryl Strayed, stars Reese Witherspoon as Strayed, a grieving, depressed daughter who has never quite overcome the death of her beloved mother. After a string of awful episodes, and bouts with heroin, Cheryl puts down all the skin she has on one game — hiking the Pacific Crest Trail, a 2,600-mile beast of a trail that begins in Southern California and extends upward through Oregon and Washington.

The film, which is beautifully and meticulously photographed, plays like a road movie with Strayed — an ominous last name for a hiker — donning her overloaded pack and hitting the trail in California’s dusty deserts. She meets some curious people, steps around a few rattlers, eats her food raw because she packed the wrong cooking fuel, and begins to question her sanity for undertaking a challenge so terrifyingly massive.

But Wild is more than just a road trip as Witherspoon’s haunting whispers and internal monologue slowly unravel who and what Strayed is as she embarks on her existential adventure of self-discovery. Cheryl Strayed is bright, passionate, fiercely honest and also wounded and hurt. She is not the kind of person who should be off by herself for months at a time. Yet the trail calls to her, and begs her to push forward.

Vallée, so instrumental in crafting false hope and unfavorable odds in Dallas Buyer’s Club, follows up that mesmerizing character study with another, this one more personal and reflective. His star, Witherspoon, is electrifying as she bares her soul (and body) to the PCT and its other lost children. Some of the ideas behind Wild are kind of new-agey and self-helpish. In a certain light you might be inclined to cite Eat Pray Love. I never got that vibe from Wild, though. It feels more authentic and pure, mostly because the trail is self-inflicted torture, not some vapid food vacation.

The movie slowly unspools flashbacks of the mother (Laura Dern), an ex-husband, Cheryl’s brother and it handles the issues responsibly, but also with a hefty dose of practicality. It could have beat us over the head about Cheryl’s choices, but Cheryl doesn’t let it become that as she reasons her way through her problems. In one passage she questions her drug use: “If heroin brought me here, and here is so beautiful, then maybe the heroin wasn’t so bad,” she says gazes out over golden fields and towering snow-dusted peaks. If the trail provides anything to her, it’s perspective.

Amid all the reflection and soul searching, Wild is still, at its core, a hiking movie. The locations are gorgeous and varied, from deserts to mountain meadows to snowy valleys. And the details are fascinating, like how hikers mail themselves their own supplies to be picked up at various checkpoints along the way. Or how packs are trimmed of extra weight, even down to the ounce. Or how water from muddy hoofprints is purified. And if you’re wondering how safe a female hiker is alone out in the wild, the movie has an answer for that, too.

If you’re like me, you’ll wish you had the time, motivation, stamina and fortitude to do what Cheryl Strayed does. There’s no doubt it would be a life-changing hike. As for me, I’ll always have the Boy Scouts, and now Wild.

Wild - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Wild   

Starring Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern, Thomas Sadoski, Gaby Hoffmann, and Michiel Huisman

Directed by Jean Marc-Vallée

Rated R

Run Time: 115 minutes

Genre: Drama/Biography

Opens December 5th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Wild could've been a familiar rehash of the ideas from similarly themed survivalist films Into the Wild and 127 Hours, but it becomes a uniquely striking, intimate story of a woman finding solstice in the wild after her city life falls apart. This is Jean-Marc Vallée's second directorial effort in as many years after finding tremendous success in 2013 with Dallas Buyers Club. And while his latest isn't as socially relevant or as emotionally dense with its supporting characters, it does provide a brilliant lead turn from Reese Witherspoon in a role that asks her to work with a character that grows morally divided over the course of the narrative. Based on the true story told in the memoir by Cheryl Strayed, the story follows a woman that fell into a trap of drugs and turmoil as she proved disloyal to her husband and failed in her professional life. There's a travelogue feel to the film as it navigates Cheryl's life, and the story implores us to understand just how complex and difficult life can be when faced with dire, unforeseen circumstances.

Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) has not made her personal life very easy. The title of the film refers to not only her journey into the wild, but also her crazy explorations of self during her marriage to Paul (Thomas Sadoski). He's a kind man, one that cares for her deeply but also senses that she has a desire to pursue other adventurous lifestyles when given the chance. Mostly told through flashbacks, the audience sees just why she desires to move into the vast wilderness of the Pacific Coast, particularly during her drug-addled and sexual escapades outside of her seemingly blissful marriage to Paul. Cheryl explains to her friend, Aimee (Gaby Hoffmann, who delivered a tremendous performance on the criminally underrated show Transparent), that she has always been that girl that will try new things when given the opportunity. Sure enough, that comes back to bite her. Nonetheless, the film uses these flashbacks alongside even farther back flashbacks, examining Cheryl's upbringing in a home with a single mother, Bobbi (Laura Dern). Bobbi raises Cheryl and her brother with a loving hand, attending school along the way and hoping to find a better life.

One element that has marked Vallée's films is compassion. He cares about his characters, using the lens as a means of showcasing their kindness even in their wake of indifference to certain individuals. There's a car scene told through flashback that uses Cheryl's condescension toward her mother as a means not just of developing her as an ambivalent teenager, but more importantly of Bobbi as a compassionate, accepting mother. Laura Dern's performance as Bobbi is one of the year's more understated, quiet roles, mostly allowing Dern to utilize her on-screen optimism to affecting means. She has an eclectic batch of work in the industry over the past two decades, with her most recent endeavor in Enlightened being her finest. Her work there and here feels spiritually connected. It works well alongside the pessimism that spews from Witherspoon's Cheryl, with the characters emotionally battling one another as they attend the same college in hopes of earning their respective degrees. Outside of Bobbi, though, the film falls slightly short on making its supporting characters prominent; Aimee and Paul are given time to counter Cheryl, but they never become their own entities. This is Cheryl's film, and she dominates.

Witherspoon controls her screen time and utilizes the solo work surprisingly well. She's never established herself as an effective lead actress in dramas, with her supporting work in Walk the Line earning her an Oscar while this year's terrific The Good Lie proved her capable of dominating limited screen time. She provides Cheryl with a disconnected yet oddly likable appeal, using her fearfulness of traveling the wild by herself as a means of feminine exploration and empowerment. The threat of men plays an important part in multiple scenes, something that I know concerns many women when traveling by themselves. It doesn't weaken women, but rather shows the way that men can be brutal and cast fear. There's also an important representation of the female body, with nude scenes not sexualizing Cheryl; instead, it allows the scenes to emphasize the damage the wilderness has done to Cheryl's body. The editing, as with Vallée's Dallas Buyers Club, is insightful and wholly inventive, using flashbacks, quick glimpses at future and present events, and exciting new techniques to create a mesmerizing, often dreamlike haze around Cheryl's travels. The film often proves too uplifting and light in its conclusion, but allows for a strong character exploration that finally gives Witherspoon the role her career has needed. She makes Wild an exciting, insightful, yet slightly fluffy adventure.

The Overnighters - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

The Overnighters  

Directed by Jesse Moss

Rated PG-13

Run Time: 102 minutes

Genre: Documentary

Opens November 28th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Documentaries can often act as the most effective form of character study, putting a person's life underneath an actual lens and forcing them to examine their choices and surroundings at the whims of a camera. At the forefront of the immersive, engrossing The Overnighters is Pastor Reinke, a good man that provides hospice for men and women moving to North Dakota in hopes of finding new jobs in trying times. The economic downturn in most areas of the country has caused an influx of citizens into Williston, a small farming/blue collar town that has prospered due to its extensive oil fields. Pastor Reinke heads a church that houses these citizens that end up moving to North Dakota without a home or any source of revenue. They must start their lives again, but have nobody who will support them. The town mostly thinks of them as wandering vagrants without providing them any sense of humanity. Pastor Reinke doesn't see it that way, though; he sees them as people with purpose.

He houses hundreds of these opportunistic men in hopes that they can boost the town's economy and bolster their awareness nationwide. Most of the attention gained from these "overnighters," though, hurts the perception of the church locally while possibly causing an uptick in crime that the media spreads like wildfire. Suffice to say, Pastor Reinke deals with a lot in the public's eye. His personal life suffers from the consequences, with Reinke failing to spend the proper amount of time with his family while he houses potentially suspicious individuals. Many claims surrounding the pastor and his hospitality bring into question the integrity of the men moving into Williston; what exactly have these men done that has brought them down on their luck? Some of them openly admit to committing dishonorable criminal acts in their past, while others seem to avoid the truth. Pastor Reinke is in the dark about these men and who they may actually be. Kindness is never something to be vilified, which is why director Jesse Moss uses the camera to showcase a man guided by compassion and heart.

It's only fitting, then, when the film moves toward tragedy as the truth comes out and a light begins to shine on everyone's realities. I admire the nature of Moss's direction, the way that he openly earns his subjects' trust, who let him see some of the more deeply personal conversations that could be had in such dire circumstances. This is his breakout film. It demonstrates him as a force behind the screen that uses his narrative, however minuscule and seemingly inconsequential it may seem in the grand scope of things, and uses it as a fierce allegory for the pursuit of the American Dream. These men want to better themselves, but can they? The occupation is brutal and demanding (both physically and mentally), with Keegan Edwards being one of the subjects that fights for his family's well-being while still living out of the church. Pastor Reinke comes under attack by his subjects when he is considered to be favoring these homeless subjects over church attendees, and his personal life disintegrates in front of our eyes as we can do nothing but observe. Sadness pervades the final hour, and it makes for an unrelenting, powerful, and mournful film.

Horrible Bosses 2 - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

Horrible Bosses 2  

Starring Charlie Day, Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, Jamie Foxx, Chris Pine, Christoph Waltz and Jennifer Aniston

Directed by Sean Anders

From New Line Cinema

Rated R

108 minutes

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

“More of the same,” would normally count as a critical thing to say about a sequel, but with Horrible Bosses 2 it rings with a certain kind of charm.

I discovered the first one late in its run cycle, but was won over by its unscrupulous brand of irreverent humor, Jennifer Aniston playing a sex addict and the lovable cast of villains who tortured our stars. But mostly it was Charlie Day.

Day, so earnestly fascinating on TV’s It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, returns with co-stars Jason Bateman and Jason Sudeikis as the lovable dweebs who just can’t get away from horrible superiors. In the first one, they were forever under the thumb of others, and here in Horrible Bosses 2 they strike out on their own.

The trio have formed a company — Nick-Kurt-Dale, don’t say it out loud in public — to manufacture and sell a showerhead that has built-in shampoo and conditioner bottles. Because the shampoo bottle is so difficult to figure out apparently, but nevermind. They pitch the idea on a morning news show and get a lead with Bert Hanson (Christoph Waltz) and his arrogant son, Rex (Chris Pine). Rex is a perennial douchebag in the strictest sense of the word. His father is a harmless goof who offers them a deal.

Do I need to tell you the deal goes south, because I know you saw it coming? Nick, Kurt and Dale go meet with MoFo Jones (Jamie Foxx) to get advice and he suggests a criminal endeavor, which they take back to the office to brainstorn. Note to would-be criminals: when diagramming your murder plot on a white board, make sure you have dry erase markers.

As things transpire, the three men find themselves in over their heads as the criminal plan descends into mayhem with Rex at the center. Horrible Bosses 2 makes a point to visit all the old bosses, including Kevin Spacey’s corporate executive, who’s now in prison, and Aniston’s dentist, who’s now in sex addiction therapy. The scene in the sex addict support group could have been funnier, but Aniston’s character just seemed creepy and sad. She does show up later with a one-liner that brings down the house.

The three main actors are the real draw here — their different brands of comedy bounce off each other in zany sequences of absurdity and stupidity. Day, so loveably dopey, is my favorite. When someone suggests he’s getting too close to the hostage, he replies, “Stockholm Syndrome … is that like jet lag?” Bateman is often the voice of reason, which is sharp contrast to his partners’ all-in attitudes. Sudeikis, my least favorite of the three, is the smug jerk … again.

The film’s biggest failure is that it plays everything too safe. The old cast is back, the jokes are the same, the sex dialogue is as graphic as ever, the bosses are lecherous little weasels … not much has really changed. But I imagine that’s going to be just fine for Horrible Bosses fans.

Horrible Bosses 2 - Movie Review by Eric Forthun

Horrible Bosses 2  

Starring Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, Charlie Day, Chris Pine, Christoph Waltz, Jennifer Aniston, and Jamie Foxx

Directed by Sean Anders

Rated R

Run Time: 108 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Opens November 26th

By Eric Forthun of Cinematic Shadows

Warner Bros. attempts to recreate an anomaly once more with Horrible Bosses 2, a generally unpleasant, forgettable, and mostly unfunny adventure focusing on the likably immoral bunch of characters from the first film. After hitting a creative wall with the two sequels to their breakout success The Hangover, the studio tries to use a director from their breakout film in 2013 (Sean Anders from We're the Millers) to bring about an inventive story for a sequel that feels wholly unnecessary. The story picks up with the three returning protagonists attempting to start their own company, allowing for a source of commentary on the American Dream and the pursuit of happiness that pervades many hard workers' lives as they live under the oppression of powerful bosses. But the story eventually falls into a structure all too similar to the first film, built on deceit and stupidity on the behalf of its main characters, and its glorification of moral repugnance and simplification of characters make for a frustrating new vision of a familiar world.

The three maniacal oafs from the first film return: Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudeikis), and Dale (Charlie Day), all of whom have invented a new device called the Shower Buddy that attaches to the shower head and dispenses soap with water in efficient increments. They sell this product on a talk show and get contacted by inventive genius Bert Hanson (Christoph Waltz), who offers them a deal to make 100,000 units and he will distribute the devices to the masses. Basically, he'll make them millionaires. They also run into Rex Hanson (Chris Pine), Bert's arrogant son, who battles with his father for power but buys into Bert's pitch to the boys. Sure enough, Bert cons our heroes by planning to bankrupt their business since they wanted to manufacture everything themselves in the United States, while he preferred China. Now, he'll claim the company when it goes under and our heroes' lives will be destroyed. So they recruit friends of old to help in their revenge, namely imprisoned Dave (Kevin Spacey), ever-promiscuous Julia (Jennifer Aniston), and MF Jones (Jamie Foxx).

The callbacks to its predecessor run rampant this time around, usually a sign that some originality has been lost and replaced with nostalgia. That's not particularly effective when the first film is still fresh in everyone's minds. What grows frustrating for the viewer, particularly one that enjoyed the first film and wants to see these characters expand and reach new heights, is that the story wallows in stagnation and refuses to build upon the solid foundation. Kurt becomes a character that primarily spews sex jokes and acts like the horniest man alive, while providing no relative motivation for being such a man. Nick, meanwhile, only becomes obsessed with Julia and acts as a helpless puppy without using her as motivation. The only shred of a real character is Dale, but even his developments concerning him having a family (without ever showing the audience how much he cares about them, but rather how little he seems to do for them) feel insincere and inopportune. Rex and Burt get glimpses of humanity only for the film's final half hour refusing to make them characters and instead opting for glorified villains from better films.

The actors are game for the roles, particularly Day, who has proven himself one of the strongest comedic actors in Hollywood. His work on It's Always Sunny works tremendously to his skill set, and here he is given the loudest jokes even if the script fills some of his work with poorly timed laughs. Aniston shines with her work, too, if only because she presents such grotesque thoughts in a playful, often repetitive manner. There's never a sense of narrative momentum, particularly as the film lulls in the second half and falls into the trap of not making much sense conceptually and throwing away potential creative paths in exchange for big set pieces. In a year marked by a glut of disappointing and unnecessary sequels (The Expendables 3, Dolphin Tale 2, Transformers: Age of Extinction, The Amazing Spider-Man 2...the list could go on), it's fairly unsurprising that Horrible Bosses 2 has used a campaign that reminds audiences of the first one rather than selling them on the merits of this new feature. The film treads familiar turf and harkens back to other hopeful franchises that just didn't know when to let a good thing be.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 - Movie Review by Michael Clawson

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 1  

Directed by Francis Lawrence

Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Jeffrey Wright, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore

From Lionsgate

Rated PG-13

123 minutes

by Michael Clawson of Terminal Volume

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 1 is a movie-length webisode. An extended scene hidden on a secret DVD menu. A flatlining b-side. It shouldn’t exist unless otherwise attached to the real movie, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 2, which doesn’t come out until this time next year, unless that’s carved up into smaller pieces.

Listen, there are clever ways to slice a pizza, but taking a single piece and cutting it in half does not mean you get two full slices. It means you have two halves, something any pizza-loving 10-year-old could yell at you about until you started to doubt your very existence. Given the chance, Hollywood studios would sell only slivers of movies, as long as fans keep coming back to gobble up each new piece. And with Mockingjay — Part 1, what they’re offering is a morsel of an appetizer, a warm-up to the main event, a pre-game special.

Not that what happens in this latest installment of the Hunger Games isn’t important — it is — it’s just, did we need two hours of it? Certainly 80 minutes of this movie could have been boiled down into a 5-minute music montage. Consider Rocky IV, a bad movie, but never a wasteful movie. It was about a boxer preparing for a fight and then actually in the ring for the fight. The famous musical montage, with Rocky juggling boulders, was not its own separate movie, because that’s preposterous. It was condensed and dovetailed into the middle of Rocky IV. It wasn’t Rocky IV — Part 1, or Rocky IVa or Rocky: Boulder Juggler. So yeah, I have a problem with this film even existing in this format. I enjoyed the first Hunger Games, and its much-improved sequel, and I have no reason to think that a combined third movie would be anything less than wonderful — assuming, of course, the third movie doesn’t follow the atrociousness of Suzanne Collin’s awful third book, a book that didn’t need to be broken up into two movies. Part 1 begins where Catching Fire ended: during a fight to the death in a dystopian terrordome, Katniss Everdeen is rescued by a rebel force bent on bringing down the fascist power that rules the lands. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and several other loyal fighters are whisked away to District 13, a wasteland wiped off the map during a previous rebellion. Absent from the group is her trusty sidekick Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who was captured by the lecherous forces of President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Once safe and sound in 13, Katniss is recruited to be the face of the rebellion as she stars in recruiting and propaganda videos meant to encourage an uprising. You can see what’s coming within the first notes of the film: an all-out rebellion. Spoiler alert, that doesn’t happen here, but stay tuned next year for the exciting conclusion! As momentum builds to that endgame, what transpires in Mockingjay — Part 1 is essentially a marketing and branding seminar. Rebels film Katniss in a studio, but it all looks too fake and rehearsed. “Film her fighting,” poor Philip Seymour Hoffman says as the wise diplomat. They film her at rebel hospital, shooting arrows at strafing gunships, and reacting to piles of charred corpses in her hometown of District 12. Every now and again she’s interrupted by President Snow, who taunts her with his cruelty and interviews with Peeta. We do meet a number of interesting new characters including a rebel leader President Coin (Julianne Moore) and an edgy propaganda director (Natalie Dormer). They all guide Katniss forward as she rallies the troops to their doom as they fight back against Snow’s forces. Say what you will about second and third Matrix movies, or the second and third Pirates of the Caribbean movies, or any of the three Hobbit movies, but those segmented films were never boring. Some of them annoyed me to no end, but they always held my attention, so even if they were blatant cash grabs they at least had things to look at and appreciate. I can’t say the same here as Mockingjay — Part 1 wanders through the wasteland. Here’s a rundown of scenes: Katniss has bad dream, Katniss goes to rebellion meeting, Katniss hunts outdoors, Katniss walks through District 12 (twice), Katniss watches Peeta video (three times) … this goes on and on. Some of these scenes are vital to Katniss’ emotional state — she clearly has PTSD and survivor’s guilt — but they could have easily been placed into the beginning of a three-hour trilogy-capping final movie. How and why the films were separated out will likely remain a mystery, although the poet, philosopher and Asian studies professor Method Man has some wisdom: “Cash rules everything around me.”

I will say this, Lawrence is the core of this series. She’s just so convincing, both as a frail victim of Snow’s malevolence and as the powerful victor of the Games’ violence. Without her the Hunger Games would be “that one young adult book after Twilight and before Maze Runner and Divergent.”

Was I overly harsh on The Hunger Games: Mockingjay — Part 1? Perhaps, but I’ll decide that for sure in November 2015, when the movie that opens this week finally ends.

The Theory of Everything - Movie Review by Monte Yazzie

The Theory of Everything  

Dir: James Marsh

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, David Thewlis, Harry Lloyd, Charlie Cox, and Emily Watson

123 Minutes

Rated PG-13

British theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking is a remarkable man. The notable scientist, whose best selling book “A Brief History of Time”, has been a highly regarded work of complex theories. Director James Marsh examines the man, the husband, and the scientist in “The Theory of Everything”; perhaps more truthfully titled “The Theory of Love” for the films pointed emphasis on the shifting relationship between Hawking and his wife Jane. Marsh directs wonderful performances from the lead cast and navigates the film with zeal; unfortunately the film misses the opportunity to explore other exceptional avenues of the multifaceted genius.

Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) is a brilliant young mind at Cambridge. A little capricious with friends and somewhat bored by his studies, Hawking meets a literature major named Jane (Felicity Jones) and they fall in love. Hawking, after a serious fall, is diagnosed with a motor neuron disease also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. With only an assumed few years to live, Hawking completes his doctorate, gets married, and continues the advancement of his thesis. His disease continues to progress, rendering him to a wheelchair. Jane is patiently supportive; caring for him while his disease gets worse. There relationship begins to suffer as Hawking’s fame continues to grow for his advances in scientific theory.

Marsh tries very hard to elevate the material beyond the sappy melodramatic trappings of a made for television movie and, to a large extent, the film succeeds. However, there are moments where the narrative tumbles into the trappings, mostly within the transitional devices utilized to display the Hawking’s marital strains. The film is based on the memoir “Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen” by Jane Hawking. Her personal account is reflected within the film. While Hawking’s rise to academic renown and theoretical discovery is a focus at the beginning, it is left as a second thought thereafter. Marsh introduces some interesting narrative subjects, like the unexpected pressures of fame, the resilience and patience of love, and the life changes that challenge a relationship. These elements are introduced predictably but also effectively, complimented by some noteworthy performances.

Eddie Redmayne is phenomenal as Hawking. The performance is physical and emotional, one that transitions throughout the entirety of the film and displays Redmayne’s range as an actor. Redmayne, starting with an effected gait, to assistive instruments, and moving into the use of an electric wheelchair, impressively portrays the progression of the disease. It is certainly one of the most notable performances of the year. Not to be outshined, Felicity Jones is tender, confident, and commanding as the devoted though overwhelmed wife. Some of her best scenes have no dialogue at all, simply a glance or gesture that evokes all the emotion her character is feeling in that moment.

Those looking for a more comprehensive film about Stephen Hawking and his scientific ideologies should look at Errol Morris’ 1991 documentary “A Brief History of Time”. “The Theory of Everything” is a straightforward story about a changing relationship, albeit a relationship with one of the greatest minds of our age. Accompanied by wonderful performances and a well-intentioned narrative, this is a film about a family trying to live an ordinary life under the influence of extraordinary circumstances.

Monte’s Rating

3.50 out of 5.00