The Enthusiastic Cinephile

Hello! As you can tell, I'm a huge movie buff and I LOVE reviewing movies. I made this blog in 2011 as a way for me to get my opinions out on all the current movies in theaters in the Philadelphia region. Hope you enjoy it!

[faultinourstarsmovie]

One note = one vote. Like or reblog to vote for your state! Go Pennsylvania! http://thefaultinourstarsmovie.com/demandourstars 

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Thor: The Dark World

1 hour 52 minutes

Rated PG-13 (Sequences of Intense Sci-Fi Action and Violence, and Some Suggestive Content)

Directed by Alan Taylor

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Stellan Skarsgard, Idris Elba, Christopher Eccleston, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Kat Dennings, Ray Stevenson, Zachary Levi, Tadanobu Asano, Jaime Alexander, Rene Russo, and Anthony Hopkins

3 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

These Marvel movies are all the same. I've already said this in every Marvel movie I've reviewed. They're the same they're the same they're the same. I enjoy them, though I don't like reviewing them because literally all I ever say is "It's a fun movie so see it!" Thor: The Dark World is, well, fun. So there! Goodbye! This and every other Marvel movie are prime examples of what a "blockbuster" is supposed to be: thrilling and funny. They have a few dark moments, but overall they're light movies for every action geek on Earth. If they came out when I was a child I would have been front row at every screening and put them on my Christmas list. What's a movie on my list THIS year? Kiss of the Damned, a retro vampire thriller that made less than $18,000 at the box office. As you can tell, my taste in movies has changed! I admit it though: I enjoy these Marvel movies. Do I LOVE them? No, but they do put a smile on my face.

Thor: The Dark World, the sequel to 2011's hit action/adventure about a hammer-wielding god, is certainly the weakest of the Marvel universe. It's a B- movie, a simple flick you should see with friends on a Friday night. The villain is forgettable and the ending is a bit too soon. Yet there's still enough action and humor to make me recommend it, especially if you're already a fan of Marvel. At the end of Thor the son of Odin (Chris Hemsworth) was battling his evil brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), and ended up destroying the Bifrost Bridge, making it impossible for him to portal back to Earth and stay with his love interest, astrophysicist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman). Then in The Avengers Thor managed to get back to Earth and fight his brother some more. One thing he forgot to do was visit Jane. Now, in present day, the scientist is still mad about his avoidance. She, along with her plucky intern Darcy (Kat Dennings), have just discovered a portal in an abandoned factory in London. Their crazy mentor, Erik (Stellan Skarsgard), traumatized after the events in The Avengers, was last seen streaking at Stonehenge on live TV...

Meanwhile, in Asgard, Thor and his warrior friends are at battling enemies in hopes of pacifying the Nine Realms after the destruction of the bridge. He feels bad for not seeing Jane but agrees that he needed to save the world with The Avengers instead. Loki is imprisoned so there's no need for further destruction. WRONG. There's a new villain in town, Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), the ruler of the Dark Elves of one of the realms. Years before, he fought hard with Thor's grandfather over an object to destroy the universe called the Aether. He was defeated and the object was hidden in a stone column. While exploring the portal on Earth Jane is accidentally teleported to the column and infected with the Aether, which is like a weird liquid substance that takes over the inside of her body. Now he's back and out for revenge, of course. Thor yet again needs to save the world but this time he might need the help of his brother.

The real star of the movie is Loki. Hiddleston, a smiley Brit, has deservedly received massive fandom for his performance. This is a villain that you never want to see get defeated because of how funny/sarcastic he acts all the time. Even if he loses a fight, he's still smiling. How can you not like this guy? He's certainly better than Malekith. Eccleston has sinister "evil elf" makeup on but he's not the least bit maniacal. The special effects are still eye-popping in Thor: The Dark World and its genuine energy is a good enough reason to see it. Hemsworth is still badass with his hammer and Portman, Dennings (with a larger role here), and Skarsgard provide plenty of laughs. The problem is the ending. The action finale is long enough but then the movie forcibly ends on a cliffhanger. Of course Thor will be back in the next Avengers movie, but does it really need to end on such a quick note? Can't it just end like it's pretending that Thor won't be back again? Can't we just have a little closure?!

Well, this is a franchise movie, so of course there's always a 90% chance that it's going to end on a cliffhanger. Perhaps I've been explaining more plot than critique in this review. Whatever. I have nothing else to say. Thor: The Dark World, like Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, the Iron Man trilogy, etc. is a harmlessly exciting action movie that requires zero provocation, which means it requires zero critiquing. You want a blockbuster then you have one!

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Ender's Game

1 hour 54 minutes

Rated PG-13 (Some Violence, Sci-Fi Action and Thematic Material)

Directed by Gavin Hood

Starring Asa Butterfield, Hailee Steinfeld, Ben Kingsley, Viola Davis, Abigail Breslin, and Harrison Ford

2.5 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

The new YA norm seems to be putting teens in super dangerous situations, whether it be in The Hunger Games or joining the military force to battle evil aliens that tried to take over the planet. By the end, it feels like nothing even happens in Ender's Game. We're introduced to new characters and watch a bunch of military teens PRACTICE (not actually engage in, just practice) shooting the evil aliens, but that's the thing. They're ONLY practicing. I expected there to be a big showoff between the aliens and the teens but that doesn't exactly happen. The movie, based on the classic YA novel by Orson Scott Card (who is not allowed to promote the movie because of his opposing gay marriage beliefs), features a twist finale that is more questionable than thought-provoking. There's meant to be a philosophy in this story, but I can't detect it. What's equally disappointing is the fact that there's barely any action to keep us entertained.

However, Ender's Game is certainly better made than some of the other newcomer YA adaptations, thanks to its talented cast and spectacular $110 million special effects. It's made some money, but I doubt it will start a franchise. In fact, in its opening weekend the majority of Ender's Game audiences were adults who were fans of the books when they were younger, not teens (probably because there aren't any hot brooding heartthrobs here). The movie takes place in the future (obviously) a few years after an alien race known as Formics invaded Earth and were defeated by the military. Thousands of lives were lost, so to prepare for another possible invasion the government formed the International Fleet. They're in charge of the Battle School, a military academy that floats in space and trains young teens for combat. Unlike The Hunger Games, these teens aren't picked at random. They can join if they want to.

Andrew "Ender" Wiggin (Asa Butterfield) is a young cadet who strongly doesn't believe in hurting people. When he fights back against a school bully he goes home and mopes around like he's the guiltiest person alive. Ender is also a tremendous game player and beats his fellow students at virtual games. Watching him from the International Fleet are Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and Major Gwen Anderson (Viola Davis). They believe he has potential to be a great fighter and ask him to consider Battle School. With the advice of his sister/best friend, Valentine (Abigail Breslin), he hops aboard the ship. The Battle School consists of the Battle Room, a super neat room where cadets float and battle one another using harmless paralyzing guns. Aboard he forms a trust with fellow fighter Petra (Hailee Steinfeld) and is hated by Commander Bonzo Madrid (Moises Arias), the cocky head of one of the ship's armies, called the Salamander Army. Ender ends up being a terrific soldier, but how will his pacifist views allow him to defeat the Formics?

The coolest scenes are the ones set in the Battle Room. It's like laser tag except you get to do it in a bigger room overlooking space (plus you get to float!). There are also some really cool sequences of Ender playing what are called "mind games" which is like a video game except it uses the player's emotional state in making decisions. Ender's form is a mouse who has to accept one of two drinks (one of which is poisonous) from a giant. It's so strange! There's much imagination in Card's world, but I'm not sure I like this story. It's not just because I'm not a huge sci-fi fan. It's that the story doesn't seem to even go anywhere. It's just about a nonviolent kid training at a military academy while all the adults lazily sit around and marvel. I mean, seriously, do any of these adults fight? Why are they leaving the battle to the kids? Why is the movie all practice and no ACTUAL FIGHTING? More importantly, as a character study I still didn't connect with the movie. Ender is constantly saying that he doesn't want to kill the aliens. So then, why is he at the Battle School to begin with?! Also, why does he like these aliens so much? Didn't they invade Earth and kill thousands of people? How could he possibly care for them?

I don't get it because I haven't read the book. I saw this in a theater with grown men who were fans of the book and they LOVED it. I guess this is just a "If you read the book you'll love the movie!" type of film. Butterfield and Steinfeld are likable leads, though I can't help but smirk whenever Ford has to act angry. Also, and no offense, but how am I supposed to believe Arias as a bully? He's so freakin' short! He's shorter than Ender! Ender's Game is not your typical humans vs. aliens movie. I was mostly entertained by the likable characters and STUPENDOUS special effects. The thought-provoking interpretation that's made the book memorable is undetectable here.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Last Vegas

1 hour 45 minutes

Rated PG-13 (Sexual Content and Language)

Directed by Jon Turteltaub

Starring Michael Douglas, Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Kline, and Mary Steenburgen

2 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

If I was 68 years old or older I'd eat up Last Vegas. It's a movie about how it's OK to be old because you can still have a fun time and drink and party and go to Las Vegas and buy strippers and get laid. I'm only 22. I still have plenty of time to do those things. When I'm old and depressed I'll put on Last Vegas. For now, I think I'll watch The Hunger Games instead. This is a harmless but contrived buddy comedy in the vein of The Hangover but a million times less raunchy and funny. It stars five legendary Oscar winners who look like they had a blast filming the movie. It features the glorious Las Vegas setting we all love and the partying atmosphere it provides. As much as I'd love to party in Vegas, this movie isn't not me. If it was less predictable, funnier, and didn't make dozens of bikini-clad women look like mindless buffoons then I'd recommend it. This "The Hangover For The Elderly" spin-off lacks the outrageousness its formula is meant to supply.

This formula I'm talking about is 4 Old Men + Las Vegas=Mayhem. I don't want these guys to drink too much and then the next morning they have to remember what they did the night before. But seriously, this is set in Las Vegas! Despite its PG-13 rating, shouldn't it be a little wilder? Michael Douglas, Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Kline (who looks a lot older than he should here. Makeup, perhaps?) play lifelong childhood friends, Billy, Paddy, Archie, and Sam. They're in their late 60s and still keep in touch except for Billy. He's a millionaire bachelor who's just gotten engaged to a ditzy 30 year old. Paddy is a lonely widower who's stopped talking to Billy because he didn't show up to his wife's funeral. Archie recently suffered a stroke and is now being cared for by his son. Sam is happily married but fed up with the dullness of his life.

The four are reunited when Billy persuades them to have a bachelor party in Sin City for his marriage. Archie and Sam, hungry for fun, hop the bandwagon while Paddy, after much reluctance, agrees to show up. Archie wants to dance and Sam wants to have sex with strangers after his wife gives him a hall pass (as well as a condom and viagra for the trip). Paddy bickers with Billy some more about his absence at the funeral and the fact that he's about to marry a woman half his age (whom he clearly doesn't love). Las Vegas is presented the way it always is: paradise for gamblers, strippers, partygoers, etc. The friends get a magnificent room at the Aria and soon meet a pretty cocktail lounge singer their age named Diana (Mary Steenburgen). At 60, Steenburgen is beyond perfectly cast as the perfect "girl-next-door" crush. Billy begins to fall for her, which he shouldn't because, um, he's getting married. The other problem is that Paddy likes her too, and it's implied that he and Billy also have a history of problems with Paddy's former wife. Uh oh.

Well, Last Vegas is predictable predictable predictable. Of course Billy and Paddy are going to bury the hatchet. Of course Billy is going to realize that he's meant to be with Diana. Of course Sam is going to realize that he can't cheat on his wife even though she said he was allowed to. I'd let it go if the movie was a little funnier (and like I said, WILDER). From a feminist standpoint, Diana is the only independent female. Unfortunately, she's only ever in it for the romance. The rest of the women are treated like young drunken clowns who just want to hook up with any guy they see. Not all women act like this, let alone in Vegas! This can be noted in a tediously pointless scene where the four friends inadvertently become judges in a bikini contest. It's sexy bikini woman after sexy bikini woman until UH OH: an old woman in a bikini steps out so she's "ugly" of course.

Look, I'm not calling director Jon Turteltaub (While You Were Sleeping, National Treasure) a misogynist. Of course he's not. Nobody involved in this movie is! I just wish these Vegas movies portrayed women in a better way. I mean, it even comes down to Sam's wife, a woman who mindlessly tells her husband "It's OK. Sleep with whoever you want in the city. I don't mind." Really? Douglas, De Niro, Freeman, and Kline are likable, of course, while Kline gets the most laughs as the sexually frustrated friend of the group. This is a nice movie with nice actors and a nice setting. I just wish it was crazier. You can make up so many funny scenarios when you set a group of old guys in Las Vegas. Why does nothing remotely "screwballish" ever happen?!

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Blue Is the Warmest Color

2 hours 59 minutes

Rated NC-17 (Explicit Sexual Content)

Directed by Abdellatif Kechiche

Starring Lea Seydoux, Adele Exarchopoulos, Salim Kechiouche, Aurelien Recoing, Catherine Salee, Benjamin Siksou, Mona Walravens, Jeremie Laheurte, Alma Jodorowsky, and Sandor Funtek

4 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

Blue Is the Warmest Color (or, La Vie d'Adele: Chapitres 1 et 2, as it is known in France) is one of the most beautiful, realistic love stories I've seen in ages. I loved it to death. The movie, which won the Palme d'Or at Cannes and is loosely based on a graphic novel by Julie Maroh, has become known as the "3 hour long NC-17 rated French lesbian romance." The fact that the lovers are lesbians has nothing to do with it. It's not trying to make a statement on gay rights/marriage. This is just a movie about love, and it gorgeously shows how the love between gay people is just as real as the love between a man and a woman. Usually action/adventure epics are 3 hours long, but Blue Is the Warmest Color is simply a detailed examination of a fictitious woman's life. We never see movies like these, ones that spend so much time observing every waking minute of an anonymous person's life. Abdellatif Kechiche's experiment works, thanks to its outstanding performances and and its truthful outlooks on love, passion, lust, and heartbreak. Get ready for one hell of a romantic epic.

Newcomer Adele Exarchopoulos is PHENOMENAL in the leading role. She plays her own name, Adele, a beautiful but pouty-looking high school student living in France. She has a group of friends but doesn't seem to have any fun with them. She even feels distant from her parents, shown in a scene where they silently eat dinner and watch TV. One day a cute classmate, Thomas (Jeremie Laheurte, real-life boyfriend of Exarchopoulos), flirts with Adele on the bus home. He's a nice guy, but Adele isn't quite satisfied with him. She's distant when they make love for the first time, fully aware that she's not enjoying the moment. While her friends pressure her to stay with him Adele confides in her gay buddy, Valentin (Sandor Funtek), that there's something missing in her life. The days pass until one day where she crosses the street and makes eye contact with a blue-haired girl walking past. She's instantly drawn to her. Out of all the people on the road, these two souls are making a connection.

You might be thinking this is a schmaltzy "love at first sight" moment where romantic music plays and the two walk past each other in slow motion. It isn't. AT ALL. Everything is natural. Kechiche only relies on the actors' expressions and it works. It shows how every one of us has those rare experiences where we stare at a stranger without knowing why. One night Valentin takes Adele to a gay bar in town where (what do you know?!) the blue-haired woman is there! She introduces herself as Emma, a fourth year college student studying Fine Arts and an out and proud lesbian. Adele can't hide her desire for Emma, which (in a powerful scene) angers her friends who hear rumors she went to a gay bar. Adele and Emma meet up some more, and after the first kiss they fall madly in love with each other. The rest of the movie follows their relationship up till their adulthood, where Adele becomes a teacher and Emma an artist. The 3 hours consist of long but absorbing conversations Adele has with the people in her life, from Thomas to Emma's caring parents (Anne Loiret and Benoit Pilot) to Samir (Salim Kechiouche), a chatty friend she meets at a house party. Exarchopoulos, a woman we can't ever take our eyes off, is in EVERY frame.

So yes, there are a lot of LONG "graphic" sex scenes in Blue Is the Warmest Color. So, of course, the MPAA has given it an NC-17 because they have a thing against realistically simulated sex (especially if it's between gay people) and never have a problem with onscreen violence. Weird, huh? These scenes are long, and Adele and Emma get in every position lesbians can get into while having sex, but I don't think they're dirty. They're soft and beautiful, a truthful depiction of how two people who are in love feel when they're pleasuring one another. America just isn't used to seeing passion as real as this. Seydoux and Exarchopoulos are completely fearless in these scenes and even in interviews they've stated numerous times that they didn't have a problem shooting them. They understand that these scenes are meant to be about love and Adele's awakening sexuality. The harder scene for them, believe it or not, was when Seydoux had to slap her costar across the face.

Some people are mad that a man directed a female coming-of-age story (also because Kechiche was supposedly a nightmare to work with, making his cast work long hours and refusing to increase his crew's salaries). However he may be as a person, he's made an unforgettable epic. The fact that he's a man has nothing to do with it. If I was a girl I might feel differently, but as a man he's examined Adele's life with a magnifying glass. We see her world as if the movie's a documentary. When Adele and Thomas eat gyros, we see the food sliding out of their mouths. When Adele kisses Emma, we see the lust in her eyes. The dozens and dozens of close-up shots are a way for us to feel the naturalness of the story. Reading French dialogue for 3 hours may be too tiresome for people, and I'll admit that after 2 hours my eyes became a little sleepy. Yet hours after Blue Is the Warmest Color ended I still couldn't shake it off me. It's an extraordinary experiment in filmmaking, an audacious way to absorb us into a fictitious character that we may have never even cared for to begin with.

There's no action here. We only see the steps it takes to falling in love, what it means to feel real pleasure, and the downside a relationship can take. Exarchopoulos and Seydoux's exuberant passion and Kechiche's truthful way of visualizing what it feels like to be in love make Blue Is the Warmest Color not just one of my favorite movies of the year but one of my favorite romances of all time.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

About Time

2 hours 3 minutes

Rated R (Language and Some Sexual Content)

Directed by Richard Curtis

Starring Domhnall Gleeson, Rachel McAdams, Bill Nighy, Tom Hollander, and Margot Robbie

2 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

I'm a little creeped out by this story. About Time is a British romance about an sweet young man who discovers he can time-travel. So what does he do? He manipulates a woman into falling in love with him. He's horrible at talking to women, so he keeps going back in time to get it right so she can like him more. I may say a spoiler in this review so unless you don't intend to see About Time then SPOILER ALERT! DON'T READ ANY MORE! What creeped me out is that this woman never finds out about her man's ability. She just continues her life with him without knowing that he manipulated her to begin with. This is weird, right? Or is it just me? Perhaps I'm over-thinking it. Perhaps I'm just supposed to sit back and smile smile smile for About Time's 123 minutes. I don't know. This is a movie that doesn't seem to have a climax. Richard Curtis, who directed Love Actually and wrote many other British "charmers" (as I call them) like Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill, is like the master of the ultimate "date movie" genre. I smiled a little bit, but grew tired of the way About Time doesn't seem to really go anywhere.

Domhnall Gleeson is the "sweet young man" I mentioned before. He plays Tim, a redheaded Brit who has trouble talking to women without acting like a complete fool. He visits his parents' house one week where his father (Bill Nighy) tells him that the men in the family have the ability to time-travel. All Tim has to do now is go to a quiet place, concentrate on the past event he wants to go back to, and WHOOSH. He's back in time. It's that simple. He doesn't believe his father until it works. He goes back in time to a New Year's Eve party that he foolishly forgot to kiss a girl at. When the clock strikes midnight he makes up for his mistake. Wow. I sure wish I could time-travel. The problem, though, is that Tim can't find love. His wacky sister, Kit Kat (Lydia Wilson), brings her hot friend (Margot Robbie) to the house. Tim makes a fool of himself around her so he keeps going back in time to fix it to make her like him. It doesn't work. She's no good for him.

Heartbroken, Tim moves to London to become a lawyer. One night his friend and him go to a Dans le Noir restaurant where customers are served in total darkness. He strikes up a conversation with an American named Mary (Rachel McAdams) and even in darkness the sparks fly. She has the sweetest voice imaginable. They finally meet, and Mary is even more beautiful in light. Things become complicated when Tim travels back in time to fix a different event but ends up eradicating his encounter with Mary. Uh oh. He then meets her in different circumstances but has to keep reliving it because something goes wrong. In one scenario, Mary already has a boyfriend. In another, Tim accidentally tells her that she reminds him of his mother. They eventually become a couple, so does he really need to keep time-traveling now?  

McAdams sure is good in romances. Since her breakthrough turn in The Notebook she's continued to star in other movies of the genre like The Vow and The Time Traveler's Wife. We all love her, and she's got one of the greatest smiles in the world, but frankly I'm tired of seeing her in these roles. She can do better. She's terrific at playing bitchy women like in Midnight in Paris and The Family Stone. She can do any genre, and though she seems to enjoy doing these types of movies I prefer her in other roles. Overall, About Time is a harmless little movie to take your boyfriend or girlfriend to before the holidays. Gleeson is well-cast as the nice guy we all care for, while Nighy is warm and cheerful as the loving father. There are laughs, of course, and the leads work well together.

The problem with About Time occurs once Tim and Mary are together. The plot then drifts off for two hours. Curtis is aiming to say that we don't need to travel back in time to change things. We only have the now, and we should cherish every moment of it because there's "just so much love" in it. Ok, so that's a nice message, but I was very unsatisfied by the end of the movie, mainly because Mary never finds out about her boyfriend's powers. It just felt weird to me. We watch a happy couple smile and fool around, but I didn't even feel like they were right because Tim MADE THEM be right.

Also, their relationship gets boring pretty fast because the movie doesn't go anywhere interesting once they're together. Tim just goes back in time again and again and again while Mary smiles and doesn't notice a thing. About Time will make you smile, but it's an exercise in trying to "overcharm" the audience.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

12 Years a Slave

2 hours 14 minutes

Rated R (Violence/Cruelty, Some Nudity and Brief Sexuality)

Directed by Steve McQueen

Starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Dano, Paul Giamatti, Lupita Nyong’o, Sarah Paulson, Brad Pitt, and Alfre Woodard

4 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

12 Years a Slave is like the Schindler's List of slavery movies. When I saw Spielberg's epic my jaw was dropped for its entire three hours. It remains the most brutally honest Holocaust movie of all time. Well, my jaw has dropped again with 12 Years a Slave. We've seen dozens of movies that depict slavery/racism/cruelty against blacks, but 90% of the time they've always felt too fabricated. Dramas like 42 and Lee Daniels' The Butler try to "ruthlessly" represent racism in America, but they never go far enough. 12 Years a Slave does so, and it eradicates any minimal feeling of fabrication. It's all as real as it can possibly get, the cruelty and injustice whites enacted against blacks on a daily basis. I never for a second believed I was watching a movie. It's an audacious work of cinema and without a doubt the most realistic depiction of slavery every put onscreen. I was shocked, and I was meant to be. Slavery is a topic we forget about because it happened so long ago. We finally have a movie that shows its atrocities. We've read about it enough. Now we get to see it as real and painful as possible.

This is the best movie of the year, though many people won't like it because of how frightening it is. People left the theater and told me they can't ever watch it again. It's just too much. It's no surprise that Steve McQueen tackled this project. The British director is renowned for making super uncomfortable, cringeworthy dramas like Shame and Hunger. For most of this movie the audience was gasping. Just be forewarned: IT IS HARD TO WATCH. It's extraordinary, but MY GOD IT'S INTENSE. Based on the life of Solomon Northup, 12 Years a Slave is a tragic story about a freed black man who was kidnapped and sold to the South, separated from his family for twelve years. WOW. British actor Chiwetel Ejiofor (and to say his name you literally just have to pronounce it word for word. It's simple!), a man with a recognizable face, is flawless in the lead role. The movie starts off in 1841. Solomon lives with his wife and two children in Saratoga Springs, New York (one of his daughters is actually Quvenzhane Wallis) and works as a skilled carpenter and violinist. It's the North, so there aren't cruel racist WASP people hanging around.

One day he is approached by two men (Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam) who offer him a touring gig. They go to D.C. and end up drugging him at dinner. When Solomon wakes up he finds himself chained up in a room. He tries explaining that he's a free man from New York but the white men resort to beating the crap out of him with a paddle. He's then sent to New Orleans and auctioned off at a slave trade. In the South, of course, racism is socially accepted. You're "normal" if you see blacks as nothing but inhuman property. The real evil of the period sets in right away. Solomon and other slaves are forced to line up in a room (most of them naked) while white supremacists walk around and pick which one they'd like to purchase. It's sickening. So unbelievably sickening.

Solomon is bought by plantation owner William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch). He's friendlier than most slave owners and doesn't ever hurt his "property", but he ignores Solomon's plea to let his family know that he's been illegally captured into slavery. Deep down he seems to know it's wrong yet he accepts slavery because it's the social norm. Solomon's rivalry begins with the cruel, snobby overseer of the plantation, John Tibeats (Paul Dano). After being severely punished by him Ford transfers his slave to another cotton plantation, that of Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender). The nightmare is about to begin. Epps is the meanest, cruelest, most vile, disgusting, revolting, racist, evil man imaginable. He's a drunk who's highly religious and thinks he's serving God by torturing slaves. He also has an obsession with one of his slaves, Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o), a helpless victim who endures rape, whippings, and every other kind of punishment from her master and his jealous wife, Mary (Sarah Paulson).

As a viewer, we see everything from Solomon's eyes. Like the slaves, we're forced to endure the evils of racist white supremacists. Slavery was just as much an extermination as the Holocaust (and worse, it lasted centuries). McQueen is absolutely dauntless in visualizing human cruelty. When Solomon or Patsey gets whipped (for ridiculous punishments like not picking enough cotton or fetching soap to wash off) the camera doesn't move which all but makes the violence seem more endless. What works as well is McQueen's impressive visual eye. There's a frightening moment where Solomon is forced to hang from a tree on Ford's plantation while standing on his toes. As he gasps for air the camera closes up on his face as nearby slaves gracefully walk by as if nothing is happening. We see a different angle, this time towards the house. Ford's wife walks on the deck and notices Solomon. She simply stands there and watches. The cinematography shows how this was normal Southern life. Blacks were tortured and no one intervened.

I can't stress enough the power 12 Years a Slave holds on you. Ejiofor is outstanding while Fassbender is mesmerizing as the personification of evil. Paulson is equally bone-chilling as a woman who punishes a slave simply because her husband likes her (because, of course, speaking against the man of the house is NOT a social norm at the time). The real surprise is Kenyan actress Nyong'o. This is her first performance and it's beyond heartbreaking. As a woman with no reason to live, we have an undying affection for Patsey. There's a scene where she gleefully asks Solomon to kill her in her sleep because there is no other salvation for her but death. For slaves, life really was a living hell.

McQueen takes a period in history and maximizes its authenticity. You'll never see a more upsetting, completely speechless work of art than 12 Years a Slave. See it (and bring tissues with you).

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

The Counselor

1 hour 57 minutes

Rated R (Graphic Violence, Some Grisly Images, Strong Sexual Content and Language)

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring Michael Fassbender, Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Javier Bardem, and Brad Pitt

1 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

The Counselor is a colossal mishap; one of the most embarrassing failures of 2013. How can you not have high hopes for this movie? A) It's directed by Ridley Scott. B) It's written by legendary author Cormac McCarthy. And C) It stars five extraordinary actors. How did this happen?! HOW?! The pace is slow. The dialogue is pretentious. There is ZERO suspense. The actors are forced to look like idiots. It's a story about a guy who gets involved in drug trafficking except, um, he doesn't get involved in drug trafficking. He doesn't do anything. All he does is talk dirty with his girlfriend and mope around because he's afraid he's gonna get killed by men with guns. The movie could not be any duller. I had off on Halloween so I thought I'd check out The Counselor. I knew it was getting bad reviews, but considering the amount of talent involved I thought I'd give it a chance. Now I desperately want my nine bucks back. DESPERATELY.

Basically the movie is trying to say "if you get involved in the drug trade then you're making a BAD decision because there are a lot of bad people and the people you love are going to be put in danger and then you're going to feel guilty." What's bad is its self-absorbing quality, the way it acts like it's the coolest, slyest thriller in the world. It's the first original screenplay by McCarthy, best known for No Country for Old Men and The Road. Problem # 1: Scott is the wrong director to adapt a story from the author. The Coen Brothers did a PERFECT job of capturing the sinister, dangerous mood of McCarthy's story world in No Country for Old Men. When you watch that movie (and even The Road) you feel afraid to look around the corner. The McCarthy world is meant to be scary, and though Scott is great at making thrillers he can only make them his own thing. He's just not right for McCarthy.

Michael Fassbender gets suited up as the nameless Counselor. He's a lawyer with a sexy girlfriend named Laura (Penelope Cruz). The two claim to love each other but all they really do is have sex and talk dirty, and later on they have sex and talk dirty again. The pointless first scene of the movie shows the two lying in bed discussing how the Counselor would like to go down on her... This is just one example of the psycho-sexual attitude the movie tries to obtain. The Counselor buys a ring and proposes to Laura. She accepts, but the Counselor seems to feel insecure about their future (money-wise, that is). He visits an old friend, Reiner (Javier Bardem), a man trying to look like Johnny Depp in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, who also happens to be a drug kingpin. He lives in a sprawling mansion with his pet cheetahs and greedy girlfriend, Malkina (Cameron Diaz). Reiner suggests that the Counselor participates in the drug trade as a way to become more powerful for him and Laura.

The Counselor agrees and meets up with Westray (Brad Pitt), a business associate who works with Reiner. Westray, in a lengthy speech trying to come off as thought-provoking, warns him of the risks he'll be getting himself into if he partakes in drug trafficking. One person he shouldn't exactly trust, for example, is Malkina. Behind her boyfriend's back this feral woman is out for as much money as she can get. Getting people killed is tolerable. Her actions end up turning the Counselor into a target for the cartel. Now he's screwed! It's funny, however, because the guy doesn't do anything in the drug trade the whole movie. Fassbender is a fabulous actor who has to embarrassingly cry and look nervous for much of the movie.

Every scene in The Counselor feels pointless, the biggest one being where Malkina takes her panties off, climbs on top of a Ferrari windshield, and masturbates against it while Reiner watches from inside. Like, WHAT?! Why?! This isn't sexy. It's a car windshield! In fact, I think it's pretty misogynistic. So, basically if you want to have a female villain then you have to portray them as unstable sex maniacs? This is what The Counselor appears to do. Cruz, as well, is marginalized. Her character has no voice and is simply written as the damsel in distress with zero strengths. How dare they underwrite a role for Cruz!

Most of the dialogue consists of lengthy, "philosophical" speeches characters give that are unclear and smug. It's like dialogue the cocky grade A screenwriting major would write in college. I grew tired of it after the first twenty minutes. Of course, I'm not calling McCarthy a cocky guy. He's a terrific writer. It's just that his screenwriting debut was a disaster, added by Scott's misdirection and the complete lack of suspense. How could a Ridley Scott movie be so boring?!

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

All Is Lost

1 hour 46 minutes

Rated PG-13 (Brief Strong Language)

Directed by J.C. Chandor

Starring Robert Redford

3.5 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

One movie. One actor. One sea. Barely any dialogue. This is All Is Lost, J.C. Chandor's newest work of art that's already getting Oscar buzz for its leading man, Robert Redford. Throughout the years the 77 year old iconic actor has taken to directing more, taking on only a few mediocre performances like in this year's The Company You Keep (which he also directed). He's magnificent here, and he barely talks! Ever! How is this possible? Well, it happens every once in a while, a quiet performance that's somehow unforgettable (remember Holly Hunter in The Piano?). Redford plays an anonymous man. We don't know his name, his past life, his story, etc. He's just lost at sea, and the more we watch him try to survive the more we care for him. All Is Lost is yet another lost at sea drama and it lacks the vibrant colors of last year's Life of Pi. We've seen this setup before, but it feels so much more real here.

Chandor literally takes us out of the theater into the heart of the Indian Ocean. We feel the waves brush up against us. We feel the wind and falling rain from the sun. A beautifully shot survival tale, All Is Lost also works like a visual poem. One man. One endless sea of nothingness. This Man (whom IMDB refers to as "Our Man") wakes up one morning to the sound of a crash. His boat has just collided with a large cargo carrying shoes. As water slowly but endlessly enters the hull of the boat the Man calmly thinks of ways to push the cargo away and seal up the hole. The problem is that the collision has destroyed the boat's radio. The Man knows that panicking will just make the situation worse. He's wise with his actions. While trying to fix the radio a voice from the other end comes on for just a few seconds before the radio officially dies. Redford's reaction is extraordinary. He doesn't yell profanity like someone would do in an overacted "stranded at sea" movie. There's only a subtle disappointment that takes over his face. It's a haunting, almost poetic expression that makes us care for the guy. We know nothing about the Man yet we already know that he doesn't deserve this.

Without the radio, "all is lost". There are no ships passing by, and it doesn't even look like there are fish in the water. There's just the Man, his boat, and Mother Nature. With limited food and approaching storms, the Man is left with the remaining supplies to fend for himself. All I can say is that if I was this guy I'd be dead in the first ten minutes. Chandor makes the Man an intelligent fighter. Rather than waste the flare guns the day after his boat flips in a storm he reads a book about navigation so he can figure out what he's close to. Rather than drink the salt water and go crazy he figures out a way to desalinize it. Seriously, how can someone do this on a tiny boat?

I'm trying to stretch out that paragraph because, as you can tell, the story in All Is Lost is simplistic. We've seen this premise before, and I don't think this movie entirely sets itself apart from other "stranded-person-at-sea-or-on-an-island" films, except for its one-man-role/barely-any-dialogue aspects. People may leave the theater asking themselves "Well, what was the point of that?" The fact that a one-person movie set at sea is as riveting and exquisitely shot as All Is Lost is reason enough to see it. Alex Ebert's score is beautiful and the images of the Man climbing the mast with the approaching storm in the background could sell as a painting (I know I'd buy it). The movie was supposedly shot in a water tank. I don't believe it! Seriously, I don't. The setting is so truthful you forget you're watching a movie. The best thing, of course, is Redford. This guy is 77 years old and doesn't mind being thrown off a boat by a wave a few times (and, according to the internet, it's not a stuntman!). He may not talk, but his genuine innocence makes us root for his survival.

Chandor has done the unimaginable: he's made a movie that sounds boring on page but is equally thrilling and moving onscreen. I thought I'd get bored, but I NEVER was. Even if the Man is just fixing a hole in his boat, we can't look away.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa

1 hour 32 minutes

Rated R (Strong Crude and Sexual Content Throughout, Language, Some Graphic Nudity and Brief Drug Use)

Directed by Jeff Tremaine

Starring Johnny Knoxville and Jackson Nicoll

3 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

Is it morally wrong to watch movies where actors trick innocent people and make them look like clueless idiots? It might be, but my god it's entertaining! The real person to thank is Sacha Baron Cohen whose Borat (or Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan) had us laughing on the theater ground seven years ago. Three years later he came out with Bruno, which was funny but nowhere near as gag-inducing as Borat. Now we have Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa which has nothing to do with Cohen but is the same type of movie where actors walk around towns and act like morons while hidden cameras film everything. The movie is like Bruno. It's funny if you enter the theater knowing what you're getting yourself into. As a Jackass-produced movie, I expected it to go even farther than it does with its raunchiness, poop humor, reckless stunts, etc. Most of the laughs are from the trailer, so for that I was slightly disappointed.

Nevertheless, I still enjoyed Bad Grandpa and I think every Jackass or Sacha Baron Cohen fan on the planet will laugh a lot. It's not TOTALLY WILD. It's just fun. Johnny Knoxville is in full makeup as 86 year old Irving Zisman, a previous character from the Jackass series. He's a grumpy, horny, vulgar guy whose wife has just passed away. His daughter, Kimmie (Georgina Cates), is about to be sent to jail for drugs. At the open casket funeral she shows up with her cute chubby boy, Billy (Jackson Nicoll), and demands he send him to his father. She gets aggressive and pushes Irving into the wake which causes it to fall over. I have no idea if his dead wife is a real person or not, but I'm praying to God it's a dummy (her falling out of a wake isn't the worst thing that happens to her in the movie...). Left with his grandson, whom he's barely talked to, Irving sets out across the country to drop him off at his drug-addicted father, Chuck (Greg Harris).

Their adventure is a crazy one. Irving is a troublemaker who does things like get his penis stuck in a soda machine, drink tequila at a bingo game, and have explosive diarrhea in a public restaurant. Some of the people laugh at his antics, while others find him revolting. The angry people unaware that they're being filmed are always the funniest ones to watch. There's one woman who literally chases Irving and Billy out of a supermarket because she saw him shoplifting. The more fun the grandfather and grandson have the more they start to like each other. And, well, that's pretty much the story. Don't expect a political undertone about U.S. tension towards certain races/sexualities like in Cohen's movies. Jeff Tremaine's movie, like any Jackass film, is just having fun with itself. There's no way students should be able to write an analysis of Bad Grandpa.

Believe it or not, the movie has a sweet side to it. The three Jackass movies are all stunts so, well, there's not a way for it to feel sweet. The story here is fake, but I cared for Irving and Billy. The fact that I had to keep telling myself that none of this was real shows that the movie has a heart. Knoxville and Nicoll (whom I actually recognized from his tiny role as Christian Bale's son in The Fighter) are an admirable pair, and the gags are pretty outrageous though they could be a thousand times more disgusting. I literally felt nauseous watching Jackass 3D. Bad Grandpa won't do that to you, but it'll make you smile. By the time the credits roll at the end of a Jackass movie you feel like these guys, as moronic as they are, are truly good-hearted people.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Carrie

1 hour 40 minutes

Rated R (Bloody Violence, Disturbing Images, Language and Some Sexual Content)

Directed by Kimberly Peirce

Starring Chloe Grace Moretz, Julianne Moore, Judy Greer, Portia Doubleday, Gabriella Wilde, Ansel Elgort, and Alex Russell

3 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

Carrie isn't as good as the original. I knew this the moment the theatrical trailer debuted. Nothing beats the original and the iconic image of the wide-eyed Sissy Spacek covered in blood getting revenge at the prom. This remake, helmed by Boys Don't Cry director Kimberly Peirce, lacks the power of the original, but it's still a ton of fun. Stephen King's magnificent story is one of my favorites and I will NEVER get tired of it. Film historians call Carrie a "horror" movie but I never believe that. It's a thriller, yes, but overall it's a heartbreaking drama. A bullied girl thinks she's accepted for once in her life and it turns out to be a lie. Every time I watch the original I'm riveted but also heartbroken. We just want this girl to smile for once and when she finally does everything goes VERY wrong. This version lacks drama, but it certainly doesn't lack thrills.

Peirce's remake keeps a lot of the dialogue/moments from the first movie but adds some stuff from the book. The biggest change of all is its modern day setting. Gone are the cheesy 70s hairdos and clothing from Brian De Palma's version. People tend to laugh at the original for its outdatedness so I doubt they'll be laughing at this. Carrie White (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a shy, socially awkward teen with a super twisted, religious fanatic mother, Margaret (Julianne Moore). One day at school Carrie gets her first period in the locker room and freaks out because she doesn't know what's going on (which is a little odd because don't you think she would have learned this in health class?). She runs to her classmates for help and the head bully of the group, a snobby rich girl named Chris (Portia Doubleday), gets everyone to throw tampons at her as a joke. Carrie is sent home where her mother, who has no idea what a period is and thinks the period was a "sin", punishes her by sending her to a tiny closet to "pray for forgiveness."

Carrie soon discovers that she's telekinetic. Margaret thought her daughter was a cancer when she gave birth so she takes her for a witch when she finds out about the powers. Meanwhile at school, the sweet gym teacher Miss Desjardin (Judy Greer) punishes her class for the joke they pulled. She then suspends Chris for her mean behavior which makes her unable to attend prom with her older bad boy boyfriend, Billy (Alex Russell). One of the students, Sue (Gabriella Wilde), is a good-hearted girl who feels guilty for the tampon prank. To make up for it she asks her cute jock boyfriend, Tommy (Ansel Elgort), to take Carrie to the prom. At first Carrie thinks he's just tricking her, but she comes to see that he's a nice guy. Chris, however, angry that Carrie's period got her suspended, wants revenge on the girl. She and Billy make up a plan to humiliate the innocent girl at the prom...

Well, the entire world knows what this prank is so I don't need to explain it. It's what makes Carrie such a classic. The real enjoyment of this remake comes from Peirce's faithfulness to the story along with her amplification of Carrie's powers. In the original Carrie's powers were strong. Here they're a hundred times more powerful! This makes the revenge at prom sequence as entertaining as ever. Peirce also pays tribute to the ingenuity of De Palma's cinematography and incorporates many impressive shots. The characters are nicely developed and the acting is very strong from everyone. Though as much as I love Moretz, she's slightly miscast here. Her acting is great, but she's slightly miscast. She's just too cute and pretty to play the sad titular character. In the original, Spacek made Carrie believable as a bullied student because of her awkward appearance. With Moretz, I had trouble believing why the students would bully her. Making the actress's hair frizzy doesn't make Moretz any less pretty! She's great at acting shy and introverted, but socially awkward? Not so much.

Besides the miscast, every other actor is well-cast. Moore, who can do any genre, is genuinely effective as the crazy mother. The underrated Greer is likable as one of the few people who cares for Carrie. Doubleday and Russell pull off acting like an annoying couple, while Wilde and Elgort au contraire pull off acting like a nice and friendly couple. This Carrie lacks the tragic element of the original, yet I can't say I didn't enjoy it. I think many people will. They might not like Moretz, but they'll be thrilled by her powers.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

The Fifth Estate

2 hours 8 minutes

Rated R (Language and Some Violence)

Directed by Bill Condon

Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, Daniel Bruhl, Anthony Mackie, David Thewlis, Alicia Vikander, Stanley Tucci, and Laura Linney

2 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

I had never even heard of Julian Assange, or WikiLeaks for that matter. In fact, I thought WikiLeaks had something to do with Wikipedia. This explains how unconnected I am with politics. It's bad, I know, but I tend to steer away from what's happening in the political world. I've said this a TRILLION times already whenever I review a political movie. I think I don't like politics because the rich always win (like with the government shutdown and how literally all it did was pay Congress more and not increase employment AT ALL). The Fifth Estate interested me a bit because it's a movie about a real-life guy who got revenge on the government by exposing its secrets. Assange, a dyed white Australian, founded WikiLeaks, a news-leaking website where anonymous news sources and whistleblowers send classified information about the government. The movie's already garnered controversy because Assange is very unhappy with its "antagonistic" portrayal of him. In fact, he even wrote a long letter to the actor playing him, Benedict Cumberbatch, explaining how upset he was with the movie (and Cumberbatch wrote him back!).

To be honest, I don't think the movie portrays an "antagonistic" version of Assange. It tries to make him an enigma and questions whether he's a hero or enemy for America but fails in making the character compelling enough. Despite Cumberbatch's genuine charisma, The Fifth Estate isn't as thought-provoking as it aims to be. Rising actor Daniel Bruhl plays Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a German journalist with an interest in online activism. Through an email he meets Assange, a conspicuous presence (thanks to the hair) with a troubled past. He was raised in a cult in Africa as a child and says that his hair naturally turns white (from fear, perhaps?). He informs Daniel of WikiLeaks and the power it could have in exposing political corruptions of the world. Assange claims he has hundreds of employees working for the site and that he receives secret government information from hackers and anonymous people. Daniel helps out with WikiLeaks and with Assange takes down Julius Baer, a corrupt Swiss bank.

Baer takes WikiLeaks to court but the judge allows for the site to continue. It's a success, but Daniel is surprised when he finds out there are actually zero employees working for Assange. It's only him who receives all the secret documents. Assange informs his colleague that it's not a big deal and hires a few people to continue with the site. For the next few years WikiLeaks successfully leaks all kinds of secret info like Scientology and Sarah Palin's Yahoo account (which is pretty random). Daniel, along with his reasonable girlfriend (Alicia Vikander), soon senses that Assange may be getting too overwhelmed with himself. Leaking info about corrupt governmental activity can punish bad people, but it can also hurt just as many innocents. Assange always explains his philosophy that the government must be punished and more lives will be saved with the site than hurt. It's when a thousand documents are sent in from an anonymous U.S. soldier that the true side of Assange really comes out. Or does it? Not exactly, I think.

The Fifth Estate is supposed to end with the viewer thinking "Hmm. So is Assange a good or bad guy?" This wasn't the case with me. I left the theater feeling empty and lost. As a character study the movie is a disappointment because it doesn't make Assange intimidating enough. Obviously his troubled childhood must be a factor in his obsessive needs to expose the world's secrets. Director Bill Condon doesn't present enough compelling moments, flashbacks or present day sequences, to indicate the man is messed up. He's a genius, yes, but is he so ruthless he's "possibly" a villain? I don't really know. The movie's strengths come from its wild examination of the hacking world. So many characters talk at once at their computers while new secrets come in. I never understood what they were talking about, but the way the movie simply observes everything is absorbing to watch. These scenes, however, are cut short and shifted to a boring subplot involving a government official (Laura Linney) trying to protect one of her Libyan assets (Alexander Siddig) from being exposed.

All this subplot does is shift us further away from exploring the psyche of Assange. Bruhl is likable, but I wanted the movie to focus on Cumberbatch more and the reasons behind his actions. I grew tired of the hacking moments and wanted to see more personal scenes involving Assange and his demons. Overall, The Fifth Estate is a VERY mediocre character study.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Captain Phillips

2 hours 14 minutes

Rated PG-13 (Sustained Intense Sequences of Menace, Some Violence with Bloody Images, and for Substance Use)

Directed by Paul Greengrass

Starring Tom Hanks and Barkhad Abdi

3 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

I'll never forget the Somali pirates of 2009. I would always hear about it on the news but never believed it. It was like out of a movie: a sea captain taken hostage by pirates! What?! Of course, these weren't cheesy-looking eye patch pirates with hooks for hands. You didn't want to mess with these gun-carrying predators. I remember I was acting in Treasure Island in high school at the time and there was even talk that the show would be cancelled because of the controversy. It wasn't (and sadly, the play was a flop). Captain Phillips, Paul Greengrass's thrilling new movie, is about Richard Phillips, the sea captain who managed to coerce the pirates off the ship only to be taken hostage on a lifeboat. In any Greengrass movie, everything feels as real as possible. We all know Tom Hanks, but here he acts like such a real person I forgot who I was looking at. Like he did in United 93 (one of my favorite movies), Greengrass has assembled actors and filmed them in a way that makes them look like ordinary individuals saying dialogue from their heart instead of a script.

I don't know how he does it, but it works tremendously. It's the one gift that makes him stand out as such an accomplished director. When Captain Phillips starts off the titular character (Hanks) is being driven to the airport by his wife (a cameo by Catherine Keener). The documentary-esque cinematography is simple. There's no music to accompany the dialogue, and Phillips seems like a completely ordinary father. He's the captain of the Maersk Alabama, a cargo ship which is bound for Kenya. The trip is smooth until Phillips receives an email that there have been reports of pirate activity in the area. He warns the crew to keep an eye out. Meanwhile, in nearby Somalia, a group of poor locals armed with machine guns and living in huts on the ocean plan their next mission: robbing ships! A group of four is assembled, led by Muse (Barkhad Abdi), a skeletal villain who wants one thing and one thing only: MONEY. They hop on a speedboat and make their way towards the Maersk Alabama.

The next day the pirates come across the ship and start shooting. Phillips keeps calm and orders everyone to hide in the engine room. The ship tries to ward off the boat but are no match for Muse and his guns. The leader throws a ladder onto the ship and ascends. The pirates enter the cockpit where Phillips a few others have remained. There are a lot of threats and gun-pointing, so as a viewer we're constantly squinting our eyes going "Ah! Don't shoot! Ah! Just stay calm, captain!" All the pirates want is the money the ship is storing. Phillips (and this is where Hanks' acting chops really kick in) is in complete control. He doesn't have gun protection, but his choice of words and steady voice give the pirates a reason not to shoot him. His words are what help keep the rest of the crew safe. Through circumstances the crew manages to get a hold of Muse's gun and Phillips makes a deal with the pirates: they leave without the money and no one gets hurt. Muse, consumed by his mission, pushes Phillips in the ship's lifeboat and descends into the water with the rest of the pirates. Soon the Navy SEALs come about and try to negotiate a way to get Phillips back unharmed. The pirates know they're screwed, but they won't give up. Can Phillips survive the ordeal?

Well, of course he can, because this is a true story and we all know Phillips is alive. A recent report came out that the movie paints an inaccurate portrait of the captain and that in reality he wasn't a hero but an arrogant ass. He supposedly ignored the warnings that pirates were nearby and continued sailing in their direction. Some of the real crew members are even trying to sue him for putting them in such a dangerous situation. Greengrass, of course, has responded that none of that is true and what the movie shows is "100% accurate." Well, whatever the case (I'm not taking sides because I don't know this story too well and I hardly ever watch the news!), Captain Phillips is a riveting thriller. We all know how it will end, but the director's shaky camerawork, grainy cinematography, and gripping moments of suspense avoid turning the movie into that genuinely loud action thriller we see so often. I was literally squeezing my chair during the sequence where Muse and a fellow pirate try to look for the crew in the dark engine room. It's so intense!

Hanks is brilliant as a hero trying to talk sense into the pirates. The Somalis, played by a group of unknowns, are also fantastic. I've never met Somali pirates (and I hope it stays that way) but I'm sure every remark and mannerism they make is the same as these actors. Like in United 93 (a similar movie with a gigantic cast of unknowns) the pirates feel like real villains who are forced to act this way because of the poor conditions they live in. A flaw of Billy Ray's script is that we never entirely dive into the psychology of the pirates. We assume they're like this because they're poor, but what are the other reasons? When the SEALs show up Phillips continually tells them that they need to abort their mission because they won't win against a giant ship of armed Americans. They know this, yet they won't comply. Why is this? What is the history of their lifestyle? Why do they do all of this to begin with? Captain Phillips never gives us answers.

What also irked me about Captain Phillips was the finale sequence. I may be giving the ending away so SPOILER ALERT! though I must talk about it. The score that is played is the EXACT SAME as the one at the end finale sequence of United 93. Why did Greengrass do this? Why would he use the exact score again? I'm not so sure, but I really don't like it. It worked powerfully in United 93. I don't see why he could have gotten a new score to use for the ending. Then again, whenever I've told people about this every one has replied "Oh, really? It's the same score in United 93? I didn't notice." Perhaps it's just me being a crazy cinephile who notices every little detail of a movie.

I'll let it go and compliment Captain Phillips as an engrossing, excellently-acted, deeply authentic ocean thriller. Greengrass is the guy to turn to if you want to turn a thriller on page into a work of realism onscreen.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Machete Kills

1 hour 47 minutes

Rated R (Strong Bloody Violence Throughout, Language and Some Sexual Content)

Directed by Robert Rodriguez

Starring Danny Trejo, Michelle Rodriguez, Sofia Vergara, Amber Heard, Carlos Estevez, Lady Gaga, Antonio Banderas, Cuba Gooding, Jr., Walt Goggins, William Sadler, Jessica Alba, Demian Bichir, and Mel Gibson

2 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

A character enters a setting. He chats with somebody, and then the character pulls out a gun and shoots the other person. A character enters a setting. He chats with somebody, and then the character pulls out a gun and shoots the other person. A character enters a setting. He chats with somebody, and then the character pulls out a gun and shoots the other person. This is a scene from Machete Kills, Robert Rodriguez's sequel to his 2010's neo-exploitation action flick. Wait, let me correct myself. This is EVERY SCENE from Machete Kills. The first movie was harmless gory fun. We didn't need a sequel. When the end of the movie said that Machete (pronounced ma-che-tay) would return in two more movies I assumed it was a joke, mainly because the movie only made $40 million on a $10 million budget. Some of this sequel is fun, but it grows tiresome after the 37,000th person is shot/dismembered/decapitated.

I expected this to be a little funny. You have a HUGE cast with Lady Gaga, Mel Gibson, Sofia Vergara shooting at Machete with double Ds, and Charlie Sheen who's being listed as "Carlos Estevez" (his birth name). Sadly, the movie gets too carried away with the scene I described at the top. IT SERIOUSLY HAPPENS IN EVERY MOMENT OF THE FILM. I know I'm not enjoying a movie when I see it on a rainy day and continually check the time on my phone. The always angry, always serious-looking Danny Trejo returns as the machete-carrying ex-federale (the character actually debuted in Rodriguez's kids movie Spy Kids, and was then spoofed in a fake trailer for Grindhouse). President Rathcock (Estevez/Sheen) has asked Machete to take down a madman, Mendez (Demian Bichir), from launching a missile aimed at the U.S. capital. Machete, who doesn't seem to have any friends or family left, agrees to the mission and pairs up with the sexy secret agent Miss San Antonio (Amber Heard).

Mendez has split personality and has surgically implanted the detonator in his chest. Therefore, if Machete kills him, the missile is launched. It turns out Mendez is actually working for a bigger villain, a arms dealing terrorist tycoon named Luther Voz (Gibson) who's obsessed with Star Wars. On Machete's adventure he runs into a whole bunch of other characters. One of them is Madame Desdemona (Vergara), the head of a whorehouse with a bra that shoots bullets. For some reason when she first meets Machete she just starts yelling and shooting at him. Why? I don't know. Perhaps it's just because Vergara is so good at yelling. Lady Gaga, Walton Goggins, Cuba Gooding, Jr., and Antonio Banderas all play an assassin called La Chameleon (How? You'll find out). He (or she, or they) just comes out of nowhere and tries to kill Machete for some unknown reason. The one-eyed She (Michelle Rodriguez) also returns as the revolutionary taco-truck lady/Machete's part-time lover.

Let me start by saying that Machete's a pretty boring character. I mean Trejo the best because in interviews he seems like such a nice guy. He looks cool slicing and dicing baddies, but he's not at all interesting. He simply stares all angrily at people and says "funny" lines like "Machete don't tweet...". I honestly (and this was the case in the first movie too) never care about the character's safety. Rodriguez's script overloads on unconnected characters and overly over-excessive violence. Yes, I get it. It's an homage to the exploitation genre so it's aware of how wild, violent, and over the top it's supposed to be. Yet Rodriguez mocks it so much it becomes overly stupid. There's a fake trailer at the beginning of Machete Kills, for example, that stars Justin Bieber as a robot and Leonardo DiCaprio. Hardy har har... The director's aim is too obvious here which makes it more dumb than funny.

The weak writing is to blame here, along with the utterly boring hero. If I have to watch one more person enter a setting, chat with someone, and then get out a gun and shoot that person I swear to God!

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Romeo and Juliet

1 hour 58 minutes

Rated R (Some Violence and Thematic Elements)

Directed by Carlo Carlei

Starring Hailee Steinfeld, Douglas Booth, Tomas Arana, Christian Cooke, Damian Lewis, Natascha McElhone, Lesley Manville, Laura Morante, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Leon Vitali, Ed Westwick, Tom Wisdom, Stellan Skarsgard, and Paul Giamatti

2.5 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

I think we've had enough of Romeo and Juliet. It's a classic, yes, and it always will be, but enough is enough. What about the other tremendous plays from the greatest playwright in the world? As You Like It? Othello? Twelfth Night? The Comedy of Errors? A Midsummer Night's Dream? How come we barely (if ever) see movies about them? I enjoyed this summer's Much Ado About Nothing and last year's Coriolanus because they're fabulous Shakespeare plays that barely get adapted onscreen. Now we have Romeo and Juliet, and as harmless and dedicated it may be it's still not necessary. The cast and crew keep mentioning that we need a movie about the play for this generation. I guess they have a point, and every English teacher imaginable will no doubt show this movie because of how faithful it is to the play. Yet despite its faithfulness and pretty costumes and locations, this adaptation is pretty forgettable.

The best Romeo and Juliet will always be Baz Luhrmann's with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, which is commonly known as Romeo + Juliet. It's one of my all-time favorite movies. Shakespeare might have disliked it because many bits of it are different from his story, but there's passion and power in every scene. The moment where the lovers first see each other through the exotic fish tank is one of the most beautiful cinematic moments. Likewise, the scene at the end where Juliet discovers her dead lover and shoots herself to be with him is one of the most heartbreaking moments in all the movies I've ever seen (the way the camera gently drifts upward and gazes at the dead lovers gives me the chills every time. Hell, just writing about it gives me the chills. Now I want to watch it!). Carlo Carlei's version, which was adapted by Downtown Abbey creator Julian Fellowes, avoids the modern setting and takes the story back to its traditional time in Verona, Italy (the movie was shot in the country as well).

Hailee Steinfeld (in her first appearance since her Oscar-nominated role in True Grit three years ago) and Douglas Booth are the star cross'd lovers. She's a Capulet and he's a Montague, and both families are mortal enemies (I think we all know this story already, but I'll explain it anyway if by chance someone who's never read Romeo and Juliet reads this review). Juliet's closest friend is Nurse (Lesley Manville), and her parents (Damian Lewis and Natascha McElhone) are urging her to marry a hideous bore named Paris (Tom Wisdom) who has the worst haircut in the world. Romeo is a romantic who's mad because the girl he loves doesn't love him back. One night him, his cousin Benvolio (Kodi Smit-McPhee), and their pal Mercutio (Christian Cooke) sneak into a Capulet party. It's there that Romeo and Juliet see each, instantly fall head over heels in love, and get married by Friar Lawrence (Paul Giamatti). Juliet's spiteful cousin, Tybalt (Ed Westwick), LOATHES the Montagues and through a violent event Romeo and Juliet's forbidden love is tested. Then there's the movie's ending, which I think even non-Romeo and Juliet readers know about.

The dialogue is mostly the same in this version, though Fellowes tweaks some of it to make it sound more modern. For example, instead of Juliet saying "Thy lips are warm" she says "Your mouth is warm". Why does he do this? No idea. Does he really think "Your mouth is warm" is better sounding/more beautiful than "THY LIPS are warm"? Perhaps he does so for young readers of the world so they can better understand it, like a cheat-sheet (though I think they'd already understand the meaning of "Thy lips are warm"). Mostly everybody is well-cast here, and I LOVE that the lovers look and feel like real teenagers the way they're supposed to in the play. A few people laughed at Giamatti's performance, but I think the actor can do anything. Steinfeld is smiley and beautiful as the long-haired Juliet while Manville is PERFECTLY CAST as Nurse, the comic relief of the story. Booth, a handsome 21 year old, is certainly dashing enough to play Romeo (the first time we see him he's sculpting a statue with his whole shirt open), but he's slightly miscast. At times his appearance is wooden, and worst of all, he lacks the vivaciousness of the character. DiCaprio and Leonard Whiting (from Franco Zeffirelli's 1968 version) showed the excitement of falling in love for the first time. They jump and run around like they're unable to hold their excitement. Yet Booth just stands there...

The tone of this version feels out of place as well. In Luhrmann's version, the movie starts off as a happy love story and ends with an utterly depressing vibe. It should be like this, of course, because Romeo and Juliet is a comedy AND a tragedy! Carlei's version doesn't seem to get happy or sad. The score of the movie is the same throughout which makes the experience of the play less powerful. Despite its flaws I still enjoyed this movie, and if you're one of the millions who love Romeo and Juliet I'm certain you'll enjoy this too. It's completely harmless and respectful to Shakespeare's masterpiece, but it lacks the power of the 1996 version. Do yourself a favor and watch that instead. It's VERY different, but manages to capture the passion and heartbreak of the play.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Gravity

1 hour 31 minutes

Rated PG-13 (Intense Perilous Sequences, Some Disturbing Images and Brief Strong Language)

Directed by Alfonso Cuaron

Starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney

4 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

Gravity is a spiritual, out-of-body, otherworldly experience. I've never seen a more realistic, hauntingly shot space movie in all my years on Earth. Sometimes I'll say in a review "Oh the movie was so beautiful I felt like I wasn't sitting in a theater anymore." Mostly that's true, yet I mostly say that because I've run out of ways to compliment the movie. With Gravity, I mean it when I say that while watching it I COMPLETELY felt like I wasn't in a theater. The movie literally takes you into space. Like its character astronauts, you too feel like you're losing gravity, floating everlastingly into the unknown. I forgot it was a movie. I forgot these were just actors in front of a green screen being filmed with cameras. Director Alfonso Cuaron, who made the masterful sci-fi drama Children of Men (one of my favorite movies of all time), has done the impossible: he's effortlessly transported us into the cinematic realm. Not since 2001: A Space Odyssey has a filmmaker been able to do this.

You don't have to attend a 3D/4D space show at the Franklin Institute to experience space. For an hour and a half, Gravity does it for you. You won't feel the need to get out your cell and check the time or get up to go to the bathroom. The movie PINS YOU to your seat. Beyond that, Gravity is also a powerful tale of survival and a woman's quest to stay alive. Sandra Bullock is excellent as Dr. Ryan Stone, a medical engineer/Mission Specialist on her first mission in space aboard Explorer. A somber woman intent on completing the mission, Stone is also mourning the loss of her child. She and the crew are repairing the Hubble telescope alongside the commander of the ship, Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), a gregarious, cowboy-like joker who spends his time flying around on a thruster pack. All is peaceful until Mission Control in Houston contacts the crew and warns them that debris from a Russian missile strike on a satellite is heading their way.

Before they can abort the mission the debris crashes into the ship. The best thing about this sequence is that there's no sound because there are no airwaves in space to carry it. We see the collisions but only hear distant booms. Finally, a space movie (unlike Star Wars or Star Trek) that tries to take the physics of space seriously! All of the crew is killed except for Stone and Kowalski, who miraculously get away but are left floating into space. They've lost contact with Mission Control. They have no ship left to fly back home. It's just them and the endlessness of space. Will they get back home or drift until they die? I won't explain much more of the plot because NONE of the trailers are giving anything away. They're mostly just showing the debris hitting Explorer sequence.

The special effects are unlike any space movie imaginable. There's detail in every part of the frame, from the background of Earth to the stars, the debris, and the floating objects from inside the spaceship. I was reminded of Finding Nemo and how that too created so much detail from under the sea. Gravity was also converted to 3D in postproduction, and as much as I hate 3D conversion this one's an exception. The third dimension makes the space experience so much more real than it already is. Objects float past our eyes as if we’re floating right next to Stone. Kowalski floats by us in front of Earth like we’re on a thruster pack too. The action is equally phenomenal. When Stone floats near a ship and tries to grab hold of it we’re literally squeezing our fists going “ERGHGHGH! JUST GRAB IT! DO IT!” I couldn’t even recognize Cuaron’s cinematography until the very end of the movie because I got too lost in the experience. So many of the scenes are filmed in one continuous shot, which is astounding because I can’t even imagine doing this in front of a green screen. Like the 3D and the special effects, the continuous shots only strengthen our belief that we’re right there in space with Stone and Kowalski.

Gravity is an action movie, but a simplistic drama as well. It’s about survival and the refusal to give up. Bullock, an actress who’s equally compatible with comedies and dramas, gives a bravo performance as a loner who questions whether she should just forget the mission to get home and simply die in space. After all, she has no one left on Earth. Clooney is equally well-cast as the comic relief. He’s likable in his efforts to cheer Stone up and stay positive under the circumstances. By the end of Gravity, I could finally breathe. See this movie before you die. You’ll be thrilled. You’ll be moved. You’ll be AMAZED.

[theenthusiasticcinephile]

Rush

2 hours 3 minutes

Rated R (Sexual Content, Nudity, Language, Some Disturbing Images and Brief Drug Use)

Directed by Ron Howard

Starring Chris Hemsworth, Daniel Bruhl, Olivia Wilde, Alexandra Maria Lara, and Pierfrancesco Favino

3.5 out of 4 stars

IN THEATERS NOW.

The whole "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer" philosophy couldn't be more true. It sucks having to deal with jerks in life, but there is a benefit: they make you stronger. The rage you feel gives you the courage to worker harder and defend yourself. Rush, Ron Howard's thrilling race car action drama, is a familiarly-plotted but enthralling tale about the real life rivalry between Formula 1 racers James Hunt and Niki Lauda. I'm not into race car driving because it looks so ridiculously reckless (and also because I don't enjoy sports). Yet Rush is a movie that made me feel for these drivers. They put their lives at risk for a stupid trophy, yes, but the power they feel when speeding must really feel amazing. Like so many athletes, Hunt and Lauda were merely enemies because they were so competitive. Screenwriter Peter Morgan (The Queen, Frost/Nixon, The Damned United) is a master of taking real-life events and transforming them into riveting cinematic stories.

Rush is superb at representing the lengths athletes go to win. I never enjoyed sports as a kid because I'd always think "Well wait. What's the point? This is just a game. So if we win we're just gonna get trophies? Yay..." Well, in professional sports, much more comes with winning besides trophies. James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) knows this. A handsome, cocky Brit who gets laid and parties all the time, he's one of the top drivers in the races. In the first scene, he simply turns nurses' heads by entering a hospital building. It's 1970 and his team, Hesketh Racing, has just entered Formula 1. He thinks nobody will get in the way until Austrian Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl) comes along. He's a technical genius, noticing a malfunction in his future wife Marlene (Alexandra Maria Lara)'s car by simply sitting in the front seat. Hunt leaves the technicalities for his team and only focuses on crossing the finish line.

Lauda enters Formula 1 with Scuderia Ferrari and is just as fast as Hunt. A strong rivalry forms as the two drivers begin winning championships after one another. Howard and Morgan avoid a mawkish visualization of their dislike for one another. They fight in a professional way, using sly comments while networks film them on the track. There's never even a moment where they bust out the guns and take a swing at each other. The moment that amplifies their rivalry is when Lauda is seriously hurt in an accident during a race. When this happened (and this is all true and on tape) Hunt simply soared past Lauda and his burning car, not even bothering to help his competition. Lauda suffers serious burns but doesn't give up. To let Hunt win the rest of the races is unacceptable. Deep down Hunt does feel remorse. He's not a mean-spirited person. He's just let his ego get in the way of things. Lauda comes back to the track and tells his rival that though he was partly responsible for putting him in the hospital he was "equally responsible for putting him back in the car."

The racing scenes, along with Anthony Dod Mantle's stylish cinematography, are absolutely enthralling. Howard doesn't let the camera shake too much. With all the different angles of the race we can still tell who's in the lead and who's not. Overall, Rush is just a great story to put onscreen. The whole "competition/your enemies make you stronger" concept has been done before, but there's no harm in doing it again because of how truthful a saying it is. The movie works simultaneously as an entertaining race car action ride and a philosophical outlook on the lengths we go to achieve fame and power. Hemsworth leaves his mighty hammer and is convincing as the dashingly stuck-up driver, but it's Bruhl who steals the show. You may remember him as Fredrick Zoller in Inglourious Basterds. He's mostly done foreign movies, but I pray to God he acts in bigger Hollywood films. He makes Lauda charming yet somewhat distasteful in his unwilling attempts to take no for an answer. Before he gets married he basically tells his woman "If I'm gonna get married it might as well be with you..." The hospital scenes with him are also bone-chilling to watch.

Howard and Morgan had previously collaborated on Frost/Nixon, a political drama that was also based off an event that historians rarely talk about. Their brilliance comes from adapting real-life stories that serve a purpose. Rush is prime entertainment for any sports lover looking to watch two rivals race to the top.