Back Rowe Reviews
Real Time Movie Reviews from the Back Row of a Theater

2014

Mr. Turner (R)

tt2473794
Directed by: Mike Leigh
Starring: Timothy Spall
December 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Mr. Turner
Whenever I think of Spall, I’m reminded of that creepy rodent-man he played in Enchanted (2007). Another decidedly eccentric role.

Opening scene with sunset behind the windmill has a painterly quality.
Something that isn’t lost upon Turner, who sketches the scene as reference for a future painting.

“Do you need anything else?” Dangerous question.
Turner cops a feel. Every man has his needs, I suppose.

Don’t know that I could keep my food down with that hog’s head staring up at me.
Or at the very least I would push it down to the other end of the table and make someone else look at it.

“Remember me” is forgettable the way Mr. Turner sings it. He should stick to painting.
His voice is so awful; it could make a dog go hoarse from howling.

I was expecting a bigger ah-ha from the prism experiment.
An intriguing setup that ends up being a Huh? moment.

Is that crying or travailing?
Turner cries like he’s in labor. It’s a nerve-grating braying.

Turner ruins his masterpiece with a blot of red.
Just to make a mockery out of a fellow painter. Cruel, but not without an element of humor.

The discussion of gooseberries is zzzzzzz...
Whenever I hear the word gooseberries I think of Ergo “the Magnificent” from Krull (1983), a goofy, would-be magician who was fixated on pies filled with the berries.

“A dirty yellow mess.” Turner overhears this rather unflattering critique of his painting.
I just think he ran out of other colors.

Turner is resolved to bequeath his collection...turns down a fortune.
What unassailable integrity. Turner desired his paintings to be enjoyed by the masses not just one rich person. His focus was on posterity, not fiscal security.

“So I am to become a non-entity.” It is appointed to each of us.

Final analysis: a deliberately paced biopic that paints a vivid portrait of the eponymous artist.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. Surely not everyone’s cup of tea, but a gorgeous film by director Mike Leigh.

As a film featuring and focused on fine art, it’s fitting that director Mike Leigh should so deftly capture with a camera the same sumptuous vistas that the titular artist, J.M.W. Turner (Timothy Spall), created with his paintbrush back in the early to mid 1800s. Indeed, Leigh’s landscape shots are framed as photo real representations of the various paintings featured throughout the movie. Many of these tableaus are, in a word, painterly, and serve as the perfect compliment to Turner’s impressionistic, maritime paintings. Visual elements aside, the film is a fascinating character study of its central figure, a man who, as a former member of the Royal Academy of Arts, is regarded as one of Britain’s finest painters from his or any other era. As depicted in the movie, Turner is an eccentric individual whose gruff exterior is tempered only by his heart of gold. Spall’s portrayal is exceptionally nuanced, capturing Turner’s quirks and questionable behaviors in a manner that’s intriguing rather than revolting. As the lead performer in a two and a half hour movie, Spall has a surprising dearth of dialog, and many of his lines are little more than grunts…incomprehensible mumblings that lose in clarity what they gain in personality. Perhaps the highest praise for Spall’s performance is that he makes such an oddball character so sympathetic and, to a greater or lesser extent, relatable. History buffs, art critics and cinephiles will surely fall in love with this movie for its artful depiction of…art. But aside from those special interest groups, a broad swath of this movie’s audience will probably find the film: pretentious, dull, tedious, interminable or all of the above. Indeed, for many those viewers, this movie will be about as exciting as watching paint dry.

Wild (R)

tt2305051
Directed by: Jean-Marc Vallee
Starring: Reese Witherspoon
December 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Wild
Or sandals with duct tape. Hiker’s choice.

Loosing a toenail is painful. Loosing a shoe is devastating. Not a promising beginning.
The film does a great job of beginning right in the middle of the action…a tried-and-true guideline for good writing.

Walk a thousand miles? Piece of cake.
I mean, Forrest Gump ran from one coast to the other.

Reese wrestles with her mondo backpack. It has her pinned for a moment, but she prevails in the end. #CloseCall
There comes a point when too much planning is counterproductive.

No wonder Reese’s backpack is as big as she is, she’s lugging around journals and poetry books. #TravelLight
What she really needed was a book on how to pack light. Oops…more space.

Always bring the right fuel.

Divorce tattoos. Hmm. I thought the idea was to move on from the other person not to be constantly reminded of them.
I’ve never heard of this before and it seems a bit ridiculous. But to each his/her own.

Don’t get stuck in a rock crevasse, Reese. Learn from James Franco’s mistake.
She had me worried for a moment. Getting wedged in a rock outcropping would’ve changed the whole tone/theme of the film though. And not for the better.

“Seriously, you have no Snapple in that pack?” Nope, just the kitchen sink.
Actually, her backpack is about the size of a sink.

Pruning time. Lose the library and the...prophylactics? 12 of them? How much action was she expecting on the trail?
I understand that women have expanded awareness (thank you, John Gray) and that they always like to be prepared (like any good Boy Scout), but the inclusion of this item baffles me. Was she planning on humping a cactus? Or worse still…a coyote?

Find your best self.
A tad Hallmark-ish, but a nice reminder/sentiment just the same.

“Here’s to a young girl all alone in the woods.” Reese encounters the most dangerous predator...a horny redneck.
The rattlesnake doesn’t even come close to rivaling this threat.

Queen of the PCT. It’s better than Jane.
PCT = Pacific Crest Trail, locus for the majority of the film’s action. Jane = Tarzan’s mate, referenced earlier in the movie.

The polite boy is adorable.
And has a nice singing voice to boot.

Reese finds forgiveness at the Bridge of the Gods.
Self-forgiveness. The hardest kind to accept.

Final analysis: a well told journey of self-discovery and redemption, with some gorgeous scenery.

Rating:
3 out of 4. This emotionally, physically demanding role brought out the best in Witherspoon. Wild about it!

The premise here is pretty straightforward: a survival plot with a spiritual journey subplot. Though the progression of incidents makes the story fairly predictable, a few minor twists along the way add variety and intensity to the laser like through line. What breaks up the formulaic narrative is a series of flashbacks which fill in the gaps of Cheryl Strayed’s (Reese Witherspoon) tumultuous life leading up to her fateful decision to set out on a thousand mile schlep across the California desert. If the film has any art, it’s achieved during these dreamlike reflections that pop into Reese’s mind at random intervals during her trek. Wild is based on the book of the same name, which is based on the actual events of the brazen journey Strayed embarked upon in 1995. It’s hard to know if any other actor could’ve portrayed Strayed as effectively, but there can be no doubt that Reese pulls off the part…which is somewhat surprising since, thematically speaking, it’s a million miles away from Legally Blonde (2001). This role is quite a departure from the typical dolled up, good girl part Reese has played in many of her previous movies, so kudos to her for getting in touch with her inner Annie Oakley. Although much of the movie centers on Strayed’s often arduous attempts at negotiating her way through physical and emotional wastelands, she does encounter several people along the way (played by Thomas Sadoski, Gaby Hoffmann, Kevin Rankin and Cliff De Young) who provide her with valuable wisdom and resources. The standout supporting performance comes from Laura Dern, who plays Strayed’s mother, Bobbi. Bobbi’s bright, beaming face belies the inner pain she experiences from her bought with a terminal illness. Though her screen time is limited here, Dern, whose heartfelt portrayal is humbling and inspiring, has garnered an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Perhaps it’s the fish-out-of-water, against type casting, but Reese has also received a nod in the leading female category. All things considered, this film isn’t earth-shattering, but it is gritty, flawed and genuine, much like its central character. Though many of us will never attempt such a challenging journey, we can live vicariously through Strayed’s incredible accomplishment by watching this movie from the comfort of a theater or our own living room. Unless someday we get a wild hair to have a wilderness excursion of our own.

The Theory of Everything (PG-13)

tt2980516
Directed by: James Marsh
Starring: Eddie Redmayne
November 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Theory of Everything

Science meets Arts at a party.
They say opposites attract. Here it’s not only a contrast in field of study but also in political/religious views.

A test to separate the quarks from the quacks. Amusing.
David Thewlis, best know for his portrayal of Remus Lupin in the Harry Potter movies, is a really good journeyman actor and is perfect in the role of Hawking’s professor.

“Celestial dictator.” Hawking’s rather unflattering moniker for the Almighty.
He finds “your lack of faith disturbing.”

“A false conclusion.” True love, however, can never be false.
Proof positive that love isn’t logical or quantifiable. It’s the only thing in the universe that an equation can’t solve. In short, love is the theory of everything. A curious aside: in John Nash’s (Russell Crowe) final speech in A Beautiful Mind (2002), he refers to “the equations of the mind” and credits love as the answer and solution to life’s mysteries. Two brilliant contemporaries arriving at the same conclusion. Fascinating!

Chapter four is “brilliant.” Secures Hawking’s professorship.
Chapters 1-3? Eh.

Need stress relief? Join the church choir.
Hawking’s wife eventually does find relief from her stress…in the arms of the choir director. Scandalous? Look two tweets ahead.

A lesson in pees and potatoes.
Some of the science goes right over my head, but the vacillation of theories regarding divinity is amusing. First Hawking proves the existence of God and then the scientist kills the Almighty. Don’t worry, Stephen, He believes in you even if you don’t believe in Him.

Hawking gives his wife a hall pass.
That was really big of him. Sheesh, I didn’t mean it like that.

A spelling board...how quaint. And crude. What a torturous way to communicate.
Seems like an alphabet chart with a pointer or even a Ouija board would be more efficient.

Hawking slips into a coma...his own personal black hole.

“That is for a friend.” Nice cover.
Oops, I guess that’s a double entendre.

A dot matrix printer. What a blast to the past.
Slow, loud printing. Hard to read. Perforated edges that you had to tear. Don’t miss it at all.

“Look what we made.” Touching.

Final analysis: a bittersweet biopic that deals with personal tragedy and life’s big questions.

Rating:
3 out of 4. An inspirational tale and an astounding, body-wracking performance by Redmayne.

As a film that focuses on the extraordinary life and career of renowned theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking, the story is exactly what you’d expect it to be: a chronological, cause and effect period piece with fine performances and a plot that’s diligently moored to the actual account. Some will consider this middle-of-the-plate approach to be acceptable while others will regard it as inexcusably uncomplicated and lacking in imagination. In either case, the plot is a linear progression of significant moments in the mathematician’s life and, as would be expected, the narrative proceeds in a very logical and methodical manner. Save for Hawking’s occasional mental flash of celestial lucidity, there’s very little style here. Since much of the story focuses on Hawking’s preoccupation with time, it would’ve been effective, even fitting, if the story had employed flashbacks, flash-forward’s, disjointed continuity or other causal devices in reflecting the fluid nature of the movie’s temporal plot. Mind you, I’m not advocating a reverse polarity plot like in Christopher Nolan’s Memento (2001), but maybe something with leaps forward or backward in time like TVs Lost would’ve served the movie in good stead. Standard storytelling choices aside, any serious discussion of the film begins and ends with Eddie Redmayne’s mesmerizing, transcendent portrayal of the ALS afflicted central character...due to the inherent physical demands of the part, Redmayne justly deserves the Oscar nod he’s received for this role. Redmayne’s nuanced, effortless depiction of Hawking’s gradual physical deterioration is a study in brilliance. It’s a performance that exacted a considerable toll from the actor—the contortions required to mimic Hawking’s degenerative condition must’ve been agonizing to model and maintain. Somatic challenges aside, Redmayne’s facials reveal a man who appears to be virtually unaffected by his malady. If this portrayal is accurate, Hawking is far more jovial and enthusiastic about life than most of us would be in his position. The fact that Hawking can still smile at all is truly inspirational. All in all, this is a decent film that’s a fitting tribute to one of the brightest minds of our generation. However, the movie lacks the narrative savvy required to effectively convey its chrono-centric theme. The logic over emotion methodology has resulted in a film that fails to make any deep, lasting connection with its audience. So, will this film go down as one of cinema’s finest biopics? Time will tell.

Birdman (R)

tt2562232
Directed by: Alejandro G Inarritu
Starring: Michael Keaton
November 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Birdman

Subtitle: The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance.
Little did I know when I tweeted this phrase that it would appear as a headline later in the movie.

@MichaelKeaton levitating in his underwear is an unexpected first scene. Really sets the tone.
Don’t worry this isn’t the last time you’ll see Keaton in his underwear in the movie.

@ProstateWhispers. Hilarious!
Funny thing is, when I typed it in, some guy had already created that Twitter account. Life imitating art?

“I didn’t even know the man” scene is amusing and beautifully acted.
This is like an entire acting workshop in a five minute exchange. Superb choices by two exceptional actors.

@EdwardNorton brings the cupboard down, but not the house.
Not in the truest sense of the phrase, anyway. His actions do produce hysteria in the audience, but not for being genuinely funny.

“You’re not important. Get used to it.” #EmmaStone delivers one powerhouse monologue.
Stone’s monologue ends up being a direct address to the camera and the intensity in her gaze threatens to burn holes in the screen…and the audience by extension. One thing’s for sure, I’d never want to make her angry.

Truth or dare scene is fun...and revealing.

“I can pretend too.” Ha!
Another phenomenal exchange between Keaton and Norton.

The toilet paper philosophy scene is profound in an offbeat way.
And humorous when Keaton wipes out humanity by absentminded dabbing his face with the double ply square.

Sometimes you have to stop and smell the lilacs.
Or non-smell them in this case. But they still look nice, and it’s the thought that counts.

All that gauze and tape around his nose makes him look like his alter ego.
You can bet this visual symbolism wasn’t just a happy accident.

Final analysis: a meaningful, yet bizarre effort with a behind the scenes,
A Prairie Home Companion vibe.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. An ambitious project with top tier performances and a one-of-a-kind story.

I doubt anyone who’s seen this film would disagree that it’s a true original. Whether or not it’s enjoyable is a matter of opinion. The story itself, which centers on middle-aged Riggan’s (Michael Keaton) attempt at recapturing some of the glories of his early acting career, should be universally understood and appreciated by most folks in the audience. However, the film runs the risk of loosing its audience over whimsical visual elements, i.e., Riggan levitating in his underwear or soaring above the NYC skyline as if he possesses the abilities of the fictitious, titular superhero. The blurred edges of fantasy and reality are painted with fine brushwork by director Alejandro G. Inarritu (Biutiful), but such intermittent departures from reality will undoubtedly prove inspiring for some spectators and irritating for others. There’s an enormous amount of art in the film, which should keep the die-hard cinephiles drooling: there’s also a very Broadway-centric narrative here, which should fill the theater set with elation. To whit, the majority of the movie is filmed inside the expansive area behind the stage, where labyrinthine hallways lend access to the prop, dressing and dining rooms where most of the drama takes place. The action randomly meanders between the various rooms, setting up juicy character vignettes in a similar manner to what Robert Altman achieved in A Prairie Home Companion (2006). Some of the film’s most meaningful moments include: Keaton’s heated exchanges with Emma Stone, his screen daughter; Stone and Edward Norton’s witty banter on the patio; Keaton and Norton as they vie for star status on the show and Keaton’s acerbic conversation with a jaded theater critic (Lindsay Duncan) in a bar. This last scene underscores the antagonistic relationship that often exists between actors and critics—it’s a clash of ideologies with vitriol to spare. Also worth mentioning is the film’s thinly veiled thesis on theater’s ostensible artistic preeminence over commercial films (and TV, etc). The inference here, and it’s been borne out many times by typecast actors, is that an actor who achieves commercial (cinematic) success early in his career might find it difficult to secure serious work in later years. There have been notable exceptions to this notion, like Robert Downey, Jr., who was an established thespian long before he was tapped to play Iron Man (at age 43). A fading public image has vexed many an actor over the decades, and Inarritu takes that mental angst to a fantastical extreme by showing us several glimpses of Riggan’s alter ego—the actual Birdman—who haunts and taunts the aging star’s private musings. Indeed, the often antagonistic or nihilistic voiceover thoughts, which struggle for supremacy over Riggan’s conscious cogitations, are an extremely effective take on the Jekyll/Hyde story device. These dark imaginings pose an intriguing question: Is this whole movie transpiring inside Riggan’s head? If so, is he actually an asylum inmate (as is supposed of Leonardo DiCaprio’s character at the end of Shutter Island) with the movie’s many flights of fancy simply representing the mental mechanizations of a certifiably insane individual? Besides the finely honed characterizations and stylish production, it’s really the multivalent nature of the psychologically complex plot that has ensconced this film in its own creative universe. The story is definitely open to interpretation, as is its appeal.

American Sniper (R)

tt2179136
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Bradley Cooper
January 2015

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

AmericanSniper

The opening scene is the trailer. Right into the action.

Three types of people. A stern lesson.
Chris Kyle’s dad dispenses this harsh wisdom in order to toughen up his sons. Interestingly, in the early goings of Eastwood’s Jersey Boys (2014), a mentor tells Frankie Valli and his cronies that there’s only three ways out of the neighborhood. Maybe it’s just unfounded numerology, but the similarities between these scenes seemed worthy of highlighting.

She did it to get attention. Any excuse will do, I suppose.
If you’re caught red-handed, just confess. The “you weren’t supposed to be back until tomorrow” excuse is lame to the degree that it’s almost worse than the act of indiscretion.

Playing darts on a guy’s back. These SEALs are tough!
Lots of machismo in this scene. And a fateful night for Kyle, who meets his future wife at the bar.

“The space between heartbeats.” Who knew target practice could be so poetic?

He can’t hit a target, but he can tag a snake.
Reminds me of Paul Hogan’s Lightning Jack (1994), a self-styled Old West outlaw from Down Under who needed glasses to read but could hollow out a coin with a bullet from fifty feet away.

New Olympic sport...sniping.
The addition of the Syrian sniper is one of the film’s main criticisms. Apparently this nemesis is largely fictional, finding inspiration from a solitary chapter in Kyle’s book. However, the addition of a competent counterpart to Kyle ratchets up the tension and provides a de facto villain to the proceedings. The cat and mouse contest between the two top snipers reminds me of the taut action sequences between expert marksmen Jude Law and Ed Harris in Enemy at the Gates (2001).

Nitpick: Despite what the smart Alec says, it is a comic book. Graphic novels are much thicker.
A graphic novel is an expanded story or a collection of loosely related, non-continuous stories. It should be obvious, to anyone who’s ever picked up a comic book, that what the cocky character is holding in his hands is a single issue of a serialized comic book series, not a graphic novel.

“Horny preggers.” Ha!

Clear houses with the marines...takin’ it to the street.
I applaud Kyle’s assertiveness. Instead of just following orders and sitting around, Kyle was instrumental in saving the lives of many Marines while also extracting vital intel with his advanced negotiation/coercion skills.

Neighbor’s lawnmower turns on...the first signs of PTSD.
And speaking of PTSD…

The shell shocked brother scene is sad.

A direct action squad...bold new plan.

Squeaky floor, hidden cache.
So much for the hospitality. Hope the meal was good.

“You saved my life.” Goosebumps.
Cooper’s performance, as a man uncomfortable with accepting praise from others, is thoroughly convincing here.

“You can only circle the flame so long.” Sobering. And prescient?
It looks like that statement was prescient after all, although what ultimately does Kyle in completely took me by surprise.

Zales bites the bullet.
A tragic story line since it looked like he would pull through.

Tour Four: is this a vocation or addiction?
A condition we also saw in The Hurt Locker (2008) when soldiers were shown playing FPS video games on their downtime. Here, Kyle watches video recordings of some of the military operations he was a part of and, even more frighteningly, relives battles in his mind while starring at the black screen of a turned off TV.

“Don’t pick it up” scene is heart-stopping.
This is the ultimate crisis moment in the film. What an awful decision to be faced with. No wonder he had PTSD. Who wouldn’t?

Sandstorm. Visibility nil. How the heck do they know who they’re shooting at?
Talk about the fog of war! These are prime conditions for friendly fire.

“Who’s the legend now?” Ha!
Eastwood lays the “legend” status on pretty thick, especially since I’d never heard of Kyle before watching this film.

Final analysis: a haunting look at conflict in the Middle East and the toll it takes on our soldiers.
And at how little we invest in their lives after they return home.

Rating:
3 1/2 out of 4 stars. A career turn by Cooper and Eastwood’s finest film in years.
What was Eastwood’s last great movie: Invictus (2009)? Gran Torino (2008)?

For all of the active/retired members of the military reading this, thank you for your service.

How fitting that an actor/director whose name has become synonymous with bullet-riddled actioners over the last half century should helm a movie based on the incredible true story of Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle. There can be no doubt that this is Clint Eastwood’s finest directorial effort in years and that, when his illustrious career finally comes to an end, this film may very well go down as his behind-the-camera magnum opus. Based on the book of the same name by Jason Hall and Kyle himself, American Sniper follows the exploits of this decorated soldier and his plights on the battlefield and on the home front. Bradley Cooper, in an unequivocally brilliant performance, fully inhabits the title role and imbues Kyle with genuine emotions and reactions to the most stressful, unenviable circumstances imaginable (reference the “Don’t pick it up” scene). Regardless of the location or situation, Cooper eases himself into scenes that require: decisiveness on the front lines, tenderness at home with his family, awkwardness when praised for his heroic accomplishments and startling deftness at picking off enemy combatants in the heat of battle. With appropriate kudos going to the two men who made this film an indelible, inescapable biopic, it’s time to shift focus to the elephant in the room—as you’re probably aware of by now, thanks to media saturation, this film has generated a generous amount of controversy. Other than the fact that there are just as many F bombs dropped as bullets fired in the film, it’s hard to see how anything in this movie can be construed as controversial. Some will argue that the movie glamorizes violence, but in reality it does the exact opposite by depicting the horrors of war and the devastating effects it has on our troops. With all due respect to those who maintain a dissenting viewpoint, and at the sake of fanning the flame of an already incendiary topic, those who assess this film as a pro-war endorsement are completely missing the point. War is hell and its effects on soldiers are often mentally debilitating, as evidenced by Kyle’s severe PTSD in the movie. Despite several protracted battle sequences, which detail some of the major skirmishes Kyle participated in, the film in no way glorifies war. By contrast, the film shows good people getting their faces blown off or innocents being tortured by a drill, examples that underscore the need for our continued participation in ending the reign of terror in the Middle East. Again, I vehemently oppose the notion that this is a pro-war propaganda piece…it’s a brutally honest portrait of one man’s combat experiences and the traumatic effects those four tours of duty had on his psyche and his entire family; as the movie subtly reveals, everyone suffers when the soldier returns home from active duty. It’s a shame that the well advertised controversy, which hangs over the film like an oppressive layer of cloud, has cast an unflattering light upon this superlative film. However, judging from the way this movie has engendered long lines and packed theaters (I was shut out on its opening weekend), the controversy surrounding the film has generated a buzz that’s done wonders for its bottom line. Bottom line, Eastwood and Cooper are worthy of Oscar attention and the story is a potent reminder that freedom is never free. This film will stand the test of time, and with good reason. Parting shot: the extended “moment of silence” during the end credits is sobering and haunting.

The Imitation Game (PG-13)

tt2084970
Directed by: Morten Tyldum
Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch
December 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Imitation Game

The opening narration admonishes us to “pay attention.”
Thanks to Sherlock, I’ve been conditioned to automatically pay attention whenever Cumberbatch is onscreen.

Cumberbatch is recruited to study the “crooked hand of death.”
Otherwise known as Enigma. If you remember the movie U-571 (2000), their mission was to board a German sub and steal an Enigma device. Hey, maybe the encryption machine Cumberbatch’s team is trying to decipher is the same one from U-571?

“Should we leave the children alone with their new toy?” Ha!

Mission: check twenty million settings in twenty minutes. No problem.
If you’re Data (ST:TNG).

A machine to defeat a machine.
Sounds like a Terminator movie. This concept doesn’t sound like rocket science, but, inexplicably, it was back during WWII. The fact that Turing’s insistence on building/funding a machine was resisted by the military is simply incredible. How shortsighted and…illogical.

Crossword audition is clever.
But the chauvinistic tryout is disappointing. Apparently only men were good at crosswords back then.

Christopher is turned on for the first time.
This was the only child Alan Turing ever had, but what a brainchild. His creation (a rudimentary computer) not only single-handedly shortened the war; it’s changed the course of human evolution.

A rudimentary key word search is devised. Bloody brilliant!

“Turns out that’s the only German you need to know to break Enigma.”
The movie avers that love ended the war, but it was really Germany’s undying allegiance to Hitler that did them in—in more ways than one.

“We’ll have each other’s minds.” Uncommon bravery.
This is an astounding scene. Clarke’s (Knightley) willingness to marry Turing even after he reveals that he’s gay is mind-boggling. Turing knows that a life with him would be unfulfilling and rife with hardship so he pushes Clarke away with a vicious lie. In reality, he loves her too much to consign her to a life of unhappiness with him. It’s a bitter exchange with incisive dialog and superlative acting.

Final analysis: a staggering true story with a tremendous lead performance by Cumberbatch.
Cumberbatch continues to astound with each new part he plays…be it human or dragon.

Rating:
3 1/2 out of 4 stars. A superb period piece that should garner a great deal of Oscar attention.

As Turing’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) voiceover narration attests, intelligence wins wars…not planes, ships or boots on the ground. Though Imitation resembles neither a traditional, action-packed war film, nor a spy thriller, it’s much more than just a true story about how the Brits subverted the German intelligence apparatus: it’s a bracing character study, a tragic tale of unrequited love, a psychological war film (with only brief glimpses of actual combat) and a true account of how Turing’s machine helped to end the war while ushering in the computer age. A non-action war movie might not sound all that exciting, but thanks to its engaging story and fascinating character interplay, interest never wanes during the two hour drama…a tribute to Graham Moore’s screenplay (based on Andrew Hodges’ book) and Morten Tyldum’s taut direction. Of course, the name and face on the poster is what will attract viewers to this low-key, slow-boil period piece. Due in large part to his work on TVs Sherlock and big screen blockbusters like Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), Cumberbatch has become a household name and is fast becoming one of the finest actors of his generation. If Cumberbatch’s portrayal of Sherlock is noticeably ADHD, his turn as Turing more closely resembles someone on the spectrum. The lunch invite scene is uproariously funny and features a spot-on Asperger-ish delivery by Cumberbatch. As for the movie’s romance, Cumberbatch and Keira Knightley are brilliant as mismatched lovers. It’s profoundly sad that the mental compatibility these characters possess doesn’t translate into physical compatibility. This failed romance begs an interesting relational question: is the meeting of minds more important than physical infatuation? Many would respond in the affirmative, and if true, Turing and Clarke had a deep, meaningful love affair in spite of its platonic status. The procedural component of the film drags at times but contains enough unexpected turns to keep the audience engaged. The team of code breakers includes some interesting characters, one of whom has extracurricular allegiances, a subplot that provides the movie with a spot of intrigue. The size, composition and specialties of the group are strikingly similar to the members of the implosion team on WGN America’s Manhattan, a WWII set TV series that chronicles the mad scramble by American scientists to discover a way to split the atom. Though on opposite sides of the pond, Manhattan and Imitation both center on groups of scientists and mathematicians working on top-secret projects to defeat the Nazis amid an oppressive military presence; and both objectives are challenged by unforeseen consequences. The burden of knowledge has rarely been as devastatingly depicted as in this film. Indeed, Enigma becomes a Pandora’s Box of sorts when the code is finally cracked but restraint must be exercised so as to not tip off the Germans that their complex cipher has been decoded. The implications of this ethical dilemma erupt in a scene where one of the young men on Turing’s team, Peter Hilton (Matthew Beard), realizes that warning his brother’s ship of an impending German attack would expose their discovery and effectively nullify the years of work that went into breaking the German code. It’s a bitter twist on Star Trek’s “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…or the one” maxim that Peter’s brother must die in order to preserve the secret that can win the war. How ironic that the team was so preoccupied with cracking the code that they failed to consider the implications and ramifications of what that knowledge would bring. Armed with substantial narrative and emotional complexity, this highly intelligent intelligence movie will go down as one of the finest non-war War movies in cinema history. There’s nothing Imitation about the film…it’s one of a kind.

Unbroken (PG-13)

tt1809398
Directed by: Angelina Jolie
Starring: Jack O’Connell
December 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Unbroken
And co-written by the Coen brothers, based on Laura Hillenbrand’s bestselling biography. You’d be hard pressed to find a stranger amalgamation of creative talent on any movie project, much less a historical biopic.

Heavy flack...so much for the sneak attack.
Correction: flak. Flack is what I’ll get for misspelling the word.

“Love thine enemy.” An apropos homily for what’s to come.

Run, Louie, run!
With apologies to Forrest. But seriously, this scene reminded me a lot of the early running scenes in Forrest Gump (1994).

Brother’s parting words are profound.
In fact, Louie’s brother has some of the most inspirational lines in the film and is, arguably, the reason why Louie has the mental tenacity to survive his many ordeals.

Certified by Helen Keller. Ha!
Helen Keller jokes are usually made in poor taste, but I couldn’t keep from laughing at this one given the context.

A bump on the raft in the middle of the night. Doesn’t get much more terrifying than that.
I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t get a wink of sleep…in fact, I’m positive.

The barf scene is disgusting. Glad I didn’t see this in 3D.
Lest you grow frustrated searching Fandango for a 3D version of the film, know that I was using hyperbole here. My comment was solely intended as a jest. Still, Jolie didn’t have to film the puke coming straight at the camera…and audience by extension.

Take your pick: a strafing plane or man eating sharks.

Would you rather die on the open seas or be taken to a Japanese internment camp?
There’s a card game with similar hypothetical quandaries, but I’d be willing to bet that this scenario isn’t one of them.

Louis refuses to read a false statement...becomes a human punching bag.
The price of allegiance…and integrity.

The Tokyo Ritz turns out to be a coal barge.
Instead of a chocolate on their pillow they get a lump of coal as their pillow.

Louis lifts a heavy beam over his head...his own personal cross.
In addition to being beaten with a bamboo stick and repeatedly punched in the face, this is yet another parallel between Louis’ sufferings and Christ’s.

Final analysis: a heavy true story that captures the triumph of the human spirit amid tragedy and suffering.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. Not an enjoyable film but an important and inspiring one.

I must admit, when I first learned that this film was directed by Angelina Jolie and co-written by the Coen brothers, I had serious doubts that it would adhere to Laura Hillenbrand’s bestselling book or, more importantly, honor the extraordinary life of its central personage, Louis Zamperini. I’ve never been happier to have been proven wrong. Jolie’s direction isn’t masterful but it’s very good…perhaps even surprisingly good. Of course, Jolie was supported by some exceptional talent behind the camera, beautiful location work and finely crafted, period appropriate props, sets, costumes and other production elements. The story hews fairly close to Hillenbrand’s novelized biography with a few notable embellishments and exclusions. While the book mentions the survivors catching birds and fish for food, grabbing a shark right out of the water by its tail seems a bit Hollywoodized. One significant omission from the film is that during the Summer Olympic Games in Berlin (1936), Zamperini actually met Hitler, who complimented the runner on his record-shattering final lap of the 5000-meter race. While on the subject of the Olympics, I wish Jolie would’ve spent more time on this aspect of Zamperini’s amazing life journey…it would’ve served as a lighter, happier counterbalance to the bleak and tragic events that dominate the back half of the film. To whit, for those who are disturbed by images of violence, the movie’s torture scenes may be difficult to endure. Though a far cry from torture porn, squeamish spectators are advised to avert their eyes or make a run to the concession counter during the beating scenes. All things considered, Jolie acquitted herself well in her second directorial effort and the story itself, though difficult to watch at times, is undeniably inspirational. It fills me with profound sadness that Zamperini never got to see his life story on the big screen—he passed away on July 2, 2014. This was a true account that deserved to be experienced by a mass audience, so I’m thrilled that it’ll now be immortalized on the big screen for future generations to experience. Your life and legacy are an inspiration to us all, Louie. RIP.

Big Eyes (PG-13)

tt1126590
Directed by: Tim Burton
Starring: Amy Adams
December 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Big Eyes
No Johnny Depp? No Helena Bonham Carter? Boy, Burton really is turning over a new leaf.

“You’re better than spare change.” Quite a pick up line.
It’s on the opposite end of the spectrum from “You look like a million bucks!”

“You are on the threshold of untold success.” Something tells me Adams’ fortune is about to come true.
Of course, I’ve seen the trailer, so I cheated.

The “Hobo Kids” paintings are all the rage thanks to the altercation reported on the front page.
A surefire way to create a sensation is to couch it in controversy.

Charging for posters of paintings...what a concept.
It was revolutionary for its time, but would be an obvious move by modern marketing (which, of course, would utilize the internet to drive sales).

The grocery store scene is the first traditional Burton flourish in the film.
This scene might weird some people out, but it’s really telling of Adams’ character’s psyche. On the other hand, maybe she’s completely sane and that particular store just happened to be invaded by aliens hailing from the same world as that big eyed nurse seen at the beginning of Star Trek (2009).

S. Cenic. The cat’s out of the bag.
“Scenic” is such an obvious tipoff that I’m surprised nobody in the art world caught it and ousted Walter Keane on the spot…unless this was artistic license taken by Burton in order to preserve the anonymity of the not-so-innocent artist/huckster until late in the film.

Adams works on a “defining statement” for the World’s Fair.
One set of big eyes per painting is manageable, but a throng of such bulging ocular orbs painted on a mural is overkill, right? And a bit creepy?

The “infinity of kitsch” is lambasted in the Times.
Terence Stamp is superb here and really gets in touch with his inner Anton Ego (Ratatouille).

“Eye did it!” The truth comes out.
A clever headline. Puns were more en vogue in the 60s, so it probably got better comedic mileage back then.

The courtroom “choreography” scene is humorous.
It’s the type of buffoonery you’d expect to see in a Looney Tunes short.

The verdict will be based on a paint off. Saw that coming.
The audience can predict the necessity of this scene twenty minutes earlier in the film, but the payoff is still extremely satisfying. The sequence has a very classical Hollywood feel to it.

Final analysis: a superbly crafted true account with tremendous performances and brilliant direction by Burton.

Rating:
3 1/2 out of 4 stars. Burton has redefined himself as a “serious” director. Who knew?

This is Tim Burton’s most enjoyable film in ages. Perhaps not incidentally, it’s also the least fanciful film he’s helmed in the same span of time. Have Burton’s recent box office bombs forced him into becoming an honest filmmaker? If the quality work he’s turned in here is any indication of his potential to become a dramatic director, one can certainly hope. Without the assistance of his usual thespian crutches—Depp and Bonham Carter—Burton has tapped Christoph Waltz and Amy Adams as his leads and not only was the casting pitch perfect, so are the performances themselves. Adams is extremely adept at generating pathos for her struggling artist single mom and Waltz is masterful at imbuing his deceptive opportunist with enough rakish charm to prevent his character from degenerating into a caricatural villain. Taking nothing away from the superb directing and writing, it’s really the acting that elevates this film above the scores of well crafted biopics. In fact, the performances are so mesmerizing that much of the time we’re completely oblivious to the finely appointed, period appropriate sets, props, costumes and other production elements that effectively transport the viewer back to the 50s and 60s. The attention to detail here is staggering and furnishes the film with a level of authenticity that’s absent from less meticulous, less immersive period pieces. And let’s not forget the film’s most valuable and vital props—the paintings. Some will find them appealing while others will find them creepy, but however you view them, the “big eye” paintings are the film’s focal point and silent co-star…and basis for the title. Burton has always had a yen for bizarre, disproportionate and askew characters, so doing a film about big eyes seems like a natural fit for the director, especially when recalling his walleyed Mad Hatter in Alice in Wonderland (2010), who could easily be a grownup version of one of the dejected waifs in Margaret Keane’s (Adams) paintings. Not only does Burton like big eyes, it would appear that he also likes the word big itself—this is the third movie he’s directed with that word in its title (1985’s Pee-wee’s Big Adventure and 2003’s Big Fish—to cover all the bases Burton should call his next movie Pee-Wee’s Big Eyed Fish). This film is a watershed event in Burton’s career; against all probability, he’s reinvented himself as a director of independent dramas. Burton can always return to his fanciful fantasy film roots if he so desires, but at least he has something to fall back on now if those projects should flounder. That might not mean anything to you, but to the baron of the bizarre, I’m sure it’s a pretty big deal.

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies (PG-13)

tt2310332
Directed by: Peter Jackson
Starring: Ian McKellen
December 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Hobbit 3

One last arrow. Make it count.
Both Bard and Legolas run out of arrows in the film. Perhaps this is in response to the negative criticism that characters with longbow skills always seem to have an endless supply of arrows in Jackson’s Middle-earth movies…just like action stars always seem to have an unlimited number of bullets when taking out the bad guys.

A promise stone for the Elven princess.
I guess it’s a Middle-earth version of a promise ring.

The showdown at Dol Guldur is spectacular.
In truth, this is the only action scene in the movie that had any degree of heft or emotional resonance for me. This sequence features a clash of titans…all of the heavy hitters from LOTR are here and the melee, though brief, is a frenetic and catastrophic power struggle that effectively sets the events of LOTR into motion. This confrontation is like a chess match between grand masters, while the rest of the battles in the film resemble that electronic football game where players mindlessly collide with each other or aimlessly meander around the board in fractal patterns. And you’re sure to be shocked at who sends Sauron packing.

Ah, Mithril mail. I’m surprised Thorin was willing to part with it.
After all, Gimli avers that a Mithril shirt is a priceless treasure in LOTR. And, bestowing gifts doesn’t seem to be Thorin’s strong suit, especially when afflicted by the dragon’s madness.

Bilbo absconds with the Arkenstone, but is it in time to avert a war?
You can probably tell from the title that the answer to the question is…negatory.

Were-worms. Wait, don’t these things live on Arrakis not Middle Earth?
The inclusion of these gigantic worms, for the one minute that they’re actually onscreen, is highly gimmicky and utterly superfluous. Isn’t the movie already long enough? This scene should’ve been left on the cutting room floor…with the other, much smaller, worms. Corrections: Middle-earth and wereworms, according to David Day’s bestiary Characters from Tolkien.

Way to use your head, giant troll.
There’s little else going on inside its thick cranium, so might as well use it as a battering ram. Who needs Grond?

Alfred is worthless in a battle. Something tells me he’s going to die horribly.
This guy reminds me of that weasel Beni in The Mummy (1999). Correction: Alfrid.

Thorin sees himself drowning in a whirlpool of liquid gold.
Yes, this is a sign that he’s officially lost it.

Thorin asks his fellow dwarves if they will follow him #OneLastTime.
Props go to the film’s marketing team for establishing this line as a hashtag well in advance of the film’s release.

Legolas finally runs out of arrows. Uh-oh!
Not much of an anxious moment, though, since we know he’s a central character in the future trilogy.

Beautiful landscapes on the “back again” journey.
Although, the trek back is far too short for my liking, and Gandalf’s farewell is a tad reserved when considering all that Bilbo’s done to aid his quest. Thanks for nothing, pointy hat!

Final analysis: a rousing finale to the trilogy and an effective bridge to
LOTR.
Thanks to Jackson and his team of writers, watching all six movies, marathon style, will now be a seamless, albeit bleary-eyed, experience.

Rating:
3 out of 4. Sub-LOTR but still a journey worth taking, if only to see how it ends.

Pre-release reviews have criticized this third Hobbit installment as one prolonged battle with a nearly wholesale absence of character moments. It’s hard to argue with that argument. As a trilogy capper, Five Armies doesn’t even come close to approaching the epic grandeur that Best Picture winner The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) so beautifully achieved by diligently excavating its rich source material. Still, to judge Five Armies against ROTK is pretty unfair. This is The Hobbit, after all; the more remedial epoch of the Middle-earth saga. Of course, that qualification just ends up sounding like a colossal capitulation and a pathetic excuse for this uninspired and heartless affair. One of the main contributors to the film’s mediocrity is that it’s the third movie based on one book, unlike LOTR’s 1:1 book-to-movie ratio. It’s evident after viewing this film (which also includes tidbits from Tolkien’s other works as well as Jackson’s own, original story embellishments) that the director stretched the events from the novel as far as he could…many maintain that he shouldn’t have stretched it quite so far. Again, it’s hard to argue with that notion. The preponderance of highly styled, frenetically paced action sequences coupled with an utter dearth of character moments has forged an extremely lopsided experience. By way of defending the film, some would attest that since extensive character development has been established in the first two films, only minor character work was needed here. On this point I strongly disagree since the movie’s action-palooza plot has created a tone deaf entertainment. The only scenes in the film that engaged my emotions were at the very end when Bilbo returns to the Shire. It’s like I’d been watching over two hours of a FPS video game up to that point and only got about ten minutes of actual movie…empty mental calories with only a morsel of actual story. Some will cite Thorin’s treasure trance as a strong plot point, but I contend that it was handled very unskillfully (Bilbo “tells” us, via his conversation with the dwarves, that Thorin is ill instead of “showing” us) and that this whole subplot is far too similar to Smeagol’s descent into corruption and madness—which is far more compelling than Thorin’s. While Tauriel and Legolas’ through lines finally pay off, their sidebar adventures frequently upstage those of the dwarves—the supposed main characters in the story. As far as the fracas with the firedrake is concerned, Smaug’s presence in the film is far too fleeting and feels like an afterthought. Disappointing! There can be no doubt that Five Armies is a first-rate spectacle, but it seems perfunctory at every turn, just filling in the last details from the book while connecting the dots between The Hobbit and LOTR trilogies. I had far higher hopes (somewhere up in the sky with the eagles, which have become the go-to, deus ex machina saviors of our heroes and have been employed far too often in these Middle-earth tales) for this film and especially for the titular battle, which doesn’t hold a candle to Helm’s Deep and isn’t even worth mentioning in the same sentence as the cataclysmic conflagration at Pelennor Field. Bottom line: Five Armies succeeds at passing the baton off to LOTR. Other than that utilitarian role, there’s little else to recommend the film, unless your threshold for enduring protracted action sequences is somewhere up in the stratosphere...which is, incidentally, where you should also suspend your disbelief while watching the film. Some could grouse, justifiably, that the final farewell to this fantasy franchise is less a tribute to the author than it is a Tolkien gesture. Though getting there wasn’t all that I’d hoped it would be, in the end, I’m just glad to be back again.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (PG-13)

tt1528100
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring: Christian Bale
December 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Exodus-Gods and Kings

Reading entrails. Eww. How barbaric.
Kind of a gross scene to start a Biblical epic with, yes? But at least an alien didn’t burst out of the dead bird’s chest!

A clash of swords...a sign of things to come.
The next time their swords clash, Moses will be banished from the kingdom.

The rain of arrows is spectacular. The rest of the battle isn’t bad either.
The confrontation definitely has a LOTR aesthetic and pace to it, but it isn’t nearly as protracted or flashy as the melees in Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth films.

Moses visits the viceroy...insists on looking the slaves in the eye.

Moses spares
Breaking Bad’s #AaronPaul from the whip.
Turns out that Paul’s character is named Joshua, the man who eventually succeeds Moses.

Moses learns about his true identity from #SirBenKingsley.
If Kingsley told me my dad was a hippo and my mother was a rhino I’d probably believe him. The man has gravitas.

Moses looses one horse but gets two more.
It’s almost as if someone up there is looking out for him. Of course, Moses had to slay two assassins in order to acquire the steeds. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, I suppose.

Moses answers the three questions correctly and gets to “proceed.”
Most men would die to have such an easy path to pleasure. Just my luck, but whenever I try playing that game it always ends up being twenty questions.

The burning bush sequence is very different, but very effective.
If there’s any scene in the movie that will spark controversy, this is it. Moses’ mud bath and chat with a young boy is way out in left field compared to a traditional interpretation of the burning bush event in the Bible.

Moses returns to Memphis...not the one in Tennessee.
The locals say it’s nice this time of year, but maybe they’re just in d’Nile. Yuk, yuk.

Ramesses watches his boats set ablaze by flaming arrows. A brilliant visual.
These minor acts of rebellion are but pinpricks to the mighty Pharaoh. However, where human agency ends, God’s might begins. Prepare for the twelve plagues.

Hmm...I never knew that crocodiles initiated the plagues.
However, this feeding frenzy is a spectacular feat of CG wizardry…and is also pretty gruesome.

Darkness falls over the city like an ashen shroud. Then the cries of terror ascend. Spine-tingling!
Ironically, this “angel of death” visual is far less elaborate, from an FX standpoint, than the ones in many of the earlier Moses films. Though low-tech and fairly simple to achieve, this sequence is highly effective.

The chariot pileup is awesome.
You just knew Ramesses’ hubris would lead to this end. But it’s still a spectacular cataclysm.

Tornadoes and tsunamis...oh my!
I couldn’t think of a third “T” word, but you get the point.

“They’re my people.” Goosebumps.
Actually, they’re God’s people but since it’s such a great line, and because the actor moonlights as Batman, we’ll let it slide.

Final analysis: a reverent treatment of the Biblical account with minor deviations from the text.

3 out of 4. Though more epic in scale, it still lacks the heart, and faith, of DeMille’s version.

Though not as blatantly sacrilegious as Darren Aronofsky’s Noah (2014), Ridley Scott’s rendition of the exodus saga takes occasional liberties with the sacred text which will, undoubtedly, create a great deal of controversy among theological fundamentalists. There doesn’t seem to be a happy medium with these big screen Bible features—they’re either poorly produced but theologically accurate or lavishly produced but brimming with questionable creative departures or outright heretical story elements. In Exodus, you can tell that Scott’s intentions were to evince the appropriate degree of reverence toward the source material while making art with some selected story elements. Unfortunately, the results are a mixed bag. The major action sequences look like they were storyboarded by Peter Jackson or Steven Spielberg, which is to say they look amazing but are better suited to a blockbuster adventure film than a historical epic. Some of the movie’s major narrative turning points are radically different from what appears in the Bible; chief among them is the head-scratching burning bush episode. Still, the plagues play out pretty much as you’d expect them to (except for the croc crock) and the “death angel” scene stands out as a prime example of how, when it comes to FX, sometimes less is more. Just like in Noah (see my review) however, the divine is often explained away by human reasoning here: the “scientific” explanation of the plagues, the receding of the sea (with the addition of tornadoes just because they look really cool), etc. The characterization of Moses has also been altered for wider appeal since listening to Bale stutter his way through two and a half hours of dialog would’ve been a major detractor to the story’s enjoyment. Bale’s Moses is decisive, confident and heroic: the real Moses struggled to exhibit any of the above attributes and, as a result, had to rely upon God for his strength…which is a major point of emphasis throughout his character arc. As flawed as the patriarch’s portrayal is, Scott’s depiction of the Almighty is downright disturbing. Scott consistently paints God as an angry tyrant. Worse still, this God is revealed as a warmonger when He expresses how pathetically ineffective Moses’ acts of sedition have been and how more aggressive, i.e., supernatural, measures are required in order to bring the evil Pharaoh to his knees. Is this really Scott’s perception of God? If so, it certainly explains the movie’s authoritarian portrait of the Big Guy (Boy?) Upstairs. The forging of the Ten Commandments was a visual extravaganza in Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 masterpiece, but, for whatever reason, Scott chose to eschew FX during this dramatic passage—the low key scene sees Moses chiseling the tablets himself while the mental apparition of God stands around and bickers with him. Judging by this scene, it would appear that Scott’s God is also a micromanaging taskmaster (or is just plain lazy). In the end, this film will go down as an entertaining examination of this exilic event, but it certainly won’t be esteemed as a faithful adaptation of the Biblical account. However, Exodus is an updated cinematic spectacle with modern visual effects and big name stars, so it serves its purpose as a sensational, yet superficial, survey of this standout Sunday school story.

Nightcrawler (R)

tt2872718
Directed by: Dan Gilroy
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal
October 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Nightcrawler

Gyllenhaal creates his own job as a freelancer.
After striking out with two potential employers, Gyllenhaal decides to take matters into his own hands and forge his own job description.

Gyllenhaal sees his “graphic” shooting clip on the news.
A monster is created. The chance to become famous for filming gruesome images at accident sites is like crack cocaine to Gyllenhaal’s narcissistic opportunist.

Gyllenhaal arrives late to a structure fire thanks to the ineptitude of his new intern.
Don’t worry, Gyllenhaal will get him back later in the film. And how!

Now that’s a significant upgrade in vehicles.
Though, it’s not very inconspicuous is it? In the scene where Gyllenhaal flees the scene of the shooting, wouldn’t his flashy sports car draw the attention of cops responding to the emergency? As a getaway car, his original beater would’ve been better suited for flying under the radar…plus, with the way Gyllenhaal drives, why would you risk crashing that beautiful new vehicle?

Gyllenhaal “sets the scene” at a car accident.
Clearly he never took a first aid course, because you never move an injured individual at an accident site for fear of creating or exacerbating a neck injury.

“A friend is a gift you give yourself.” Creepy!

Gyllenhaal films the accident he created. Now that’s cold.
Poor Bill Paxton didn’t know he was dealing with a nut job when he offered to partner with Gyllenhaal. Side note: Paxton played another adrenalin junkie in Twister (1996). However, the risk here is probably a little less and the pay is probably far better. It would be funny if this was an older version of the same character, who decided to settle down and get a respectable job after having his fill of chasing tornadoes.

Capturing a shooting in progress. Now that’s an exclusive.
This is a very grizzly sequence, especially in its original, non-blurred format. This sequence puts Gyllenhaal’s character on the map and also explodes the movie’s theme of ethics in media.

Gyllenhaal sets up his own exclusive. A dangerous game.
He uses cops as pawns in a scene that he’s created for his own amusement and professional advancement. Frightening!

Filming a high speed chase from right behind the pursuing cop car. Crazy!
You know this will be the next kick for those who like to live their life on the edge. Chasing tornadoes was so 90s.

Withholding information…minor detail.

Final analysis: a telling, salient story of media sensationalism gone awry.

Rating:
3 out of 4. A disturbing portrait of a troubled soul who finds his niche by capturing the shocking.

“If it bleeds, it leads,” Bill Paxton’s character says as he walks, no…swaggers, away from the scene of an accident with video camera in tow, brushing right past Jake Gyllenhaal, who’s late to the scene. Too late, it turns out, to sell his footage to a news station, because when it comes to independent footage, as with life itself, the early bird gets the worm. Conversely, I suppose the late bird gets the night crawler. Appropriately, that’s the name (nightcrawler) for these thrill-seeking freelancers who listen to police scanners and try to beat emergency vehicles to the scene of an accident in order to provide (for a price) local news affiliates with exclusive footage of the catastrophe. As if that premise wasn’t intriguing enough, the movie boasts a compelling character study and some searing commentary on the condition of our society. Gyllenhaal’s portrayal of a nightcrawler named Lou Bloom is undeniably brilliant—Bloom is a bundle of quirks and neuroses rather than just one idiosyncratic behavior, which seems to be all the rage in entertainment these days…especially on TV. To whit: Tony Shalhoub made the titular obsessive-compulsive detective famous on Monk, Claire Danes continues to astound as a bipolar CIA agent on Homeland and young Max Burkholder is masterful in his depiction of a preteen with Aspergers on Parenthood. The list goes on and on, but these clear-cut characters with easily diagnosable psychiatric conditions (even for a layman) often lead to predictable or caricatural enactments since the personality traits exhibited by such people are so distinctive and well-defined. Again, Gyllenhaal’s nuanced performance is utterly captivating because it adroitly avoids the obvious “Hey, guys, I’m playing an egomaniacal sociopath” telegraphing that frequently accompanies roles where attention is drawn to a character’s mental challenge or affliction. Acting aside, writer/director Dan Gilroy and cinematographer Robert Elswit do a superb job of capturing the distinctive look and mood of L.A., particularly during the night scenes. In many ways, Gilroy’s framing choices remind me of those in Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive (2011), another nocturnal neo-noir that featured a generous portion of pulse-pounding racing through the city’s main arteries and side streets. As in Drive, the City of Angels serves as an additional, non-corporeal character in this film. I won’t belabor the movie’s not-so-subtle treatise on the current state of the news, but its message of morality (or lack thereof) in media is poignant, especially in light of the fact that many traditional news outlets have resorted to sensationalizing stories in order to compete with social media and online news sources. Sad to say, but traditional news just can’t satiate the appetite of a society that’s incessantly and exponentially drawn to the extreme, graphic and profane (all of which are shamelessly showcased and promulgated by YouTube videos, reality/late night/political commentary TV shows, etc) more than actual vetted and sourced journalism. At the time of this writing, HBO’s superb drama, The Newsroom, will air its final episode this weekend after three abbreviated seasons. As a show about a fictitious news network, The Newsroom never found a large enough audience to sustain a lengthy run, which is a profound disappointment since Aaron Sorkin’s topical, whip-smart drama is top shelf TV and deserved a better reception and fate than what it received. The characters on the show often express frustration over the fact that true journalism is being rapidly replaced by hack-on-a-corner reporting...after all, any idiot with a cell phone can capture or create the news these days. The grim reality we now face is that experienced and informed news anchors like The Newsroom’s Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) are becoming an endangered species, thanks to the Lou Bloom’s of the world. In a very real sense, these Joe Camcorders and late night creepers are holding the medium hostage. It’s enough to make your skin crawl.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 (PG-13)

tt1951265
Directed by: Francis Lawrence
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence
November 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Hunger Games-Mockingjay, Part I
And Josh Hutcherson. And Liam Hemsworth. And Woody Harrelson. And, posthumously, Philip Seymour Hoffman…the two Mockingjay films will be the last entries in his filmography.

The face of the revolution is an angry one.
And with all that’s happened to her in the first two films, why wouldn’t she be mad?

Katniss visits 12. The ashes of her action.
Yeah, stepping on skulls…not so pleasant. Unless you’re a Terminator.

“Never let them see you bleed.” Snow’s video address promises death for the disorderly.
A spin on the phrase, “Never let them see you sweat.” Snow’s homespun phrase better suits his martial worldview. Blood, after all, is something he’s reminded of every time he swallows.

“What costs more than your life?”
A good question…any answer seems somewhat philosophical, though.

Peeta calls for a cease fire. 13 erupts.
The somber mess hall quickly transforms into something akin to Hogwarts at meal time.

Coin capitulates to Katniss’ conditions.
Coin is played by Julianne Moore, who brings a great deal of nuance to the role. She’s definitely not a villain, but she’s isn’t altogether good either. Her ending speech is so convincing that we can’t help but cheer on a worldview not all that dissimilar from Snow’s. If the story has any meat, this is it.

“The best dressed rebel in history.” Not even close. Leah in Jabba’s Palace.

“Let’s not fire the red ones in here.” Ha!
C’mon, Beetee! You’re no fun.

Katniss visits the wounded in 8. They salute her.
This is a moving scene and is the heart of the film, literally and figuratively.

Snow proves himself a terrorist by bombing a hospital.
Joker did the same thing in The Dark Knight (2008). Also, this is a war crime tactic frequently committed by Hamas…in the real world.

“If we burn, you burn with us!” A great scene that makes an effective propaganda video.
However, by engaging in a political media blitz of their own, aren’t the rebels just as bad as the Capitol? And, by threatening to fight fire with fire, aren’t their tactics similar to Snow’s? It might not be much more than what you’d get on a hot wing, but like I said before, there is some meat on the bone here.

Gale regales the story of 12s demise. Sobering.
However, the account looses a little punch since we’ve already seen the devastation that’s been done to the decimated district.

“Dead by morning.” Code red time.
A threat and a warning all wrapped up into one startling statement.

Prim goes back for the cat. So did Ripley in
Alien and that almost got her killed.
This scene in Alien (1979) always rankled me since it’s just a contrivance for extending the movie an extra fifteen minutes. In this movie it’s just a young girl rescuing her cat, so her actions are more understandable and forgivable…especially since there isn’t a pernicious alien on the loose.

Snow leaves his calling card after the bombing. The message is loud and clear.

Final analysis: a somber opening to the final chapter of this dystopian saga.

A mild disappointment, although the source material itself was weaker than its predecessors.
Without a Games, the structure is looser and the objectives aren’t nearly as well defined as in the first two books/movies.

Rating: 2 1/2 out of 4. A dark, bleak chapter. Will it be redeemed by a satisfying ending?

I suppose we have the Harry Potter film series to blame for this mediocre movie. In a shamelessly lucrative move, Warner Bros. decided to make two movies out of J.K. Rowling’s final Potter novel, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The Twilight movies soon followed suit by bifurcating Breaking Dawn, the last book of Stephenie Meyer’s blockbuster fantasy trilogy. Now, The Hunger Games series has officially established this pattern as a trend by bisecting Suzanne Collins’ final novel, Mockingjay, into two films. The end result for each franchise has been an unsatisfactory setup film followed by a triumphant end to the saga. Mockingjay - Part 1 is a dark, drab affair with too many talking scenes and not nearly enough action. That’s my nutshell evaluation of the film. I temper that rather harsh assessment with the admission that the film does get a few things right. Kudos must be given to director Francis Lawrence for embellishing on the source material and actually detailing the rescue sequence, which the book merely mentions and then forces the characters back in 13 to sit on their hands until the team returns. However, even though the extraction sequence adds some much needed action to the back quarter of the film, the methodical manner in which the scenes are shot isn’t any more cinematic than what you’d find on a well produced spy/political thriller on TV. Though the performances are strong across the board, the characters, save for Katniss, really aren’t given much to do, except for stand around and talk…or posture…or fret…or tell Katniss to say her lines once more with feeling. Case in point: Jeffrey Wright is a fine actor, but he’s relegated to spitting out an incessant string of technobabble in the movie. Beetee is very similar to the eccentric, tech savvy character Wright played in Source Code (2011) with a dash of Q from the Bond films. If there’s one saving grace here it’s the movie’s unflinching insistence on making subtle political commentary, particularly regarding the nature of terrorism, which seems to be prescient since the books were written between 2008 and 2010—several years before the recent escalation of violence in the Middle East perpetrated by Hamas and the Islamic State. Besides incidental topicality and typical teen angst, there really isn’t much more to comment on here. Even though the purpose of this film was simply to set the table for the grand finale, it would’ve been nice if the movie had employed a more engaging script; this uninspired and perfunctory effort is like excess filler used to stretch out a story until the really important events transpire. The movie contains none of the pulse-pounding excitement of its predecessors, which is a profound disappointment. I wish I could say that this sequel left me—as the earlier movies did—hungry for more, but I just can’t. In the final analysis, The Hunger Games without the actual Games is like a hamburger without the meat. Sure, you can eat the bun all by itself, but it won’t be all that appetizing and won’t sustain you for very long. Where’s the beef?

Big Hero 6 (PG)

tt2245084
Directed by: Don Hall, Chris Williams
Starring: Ryan Potter
November 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Big Hero 6

#Feast is a truly moving animated short.
Just the latest evidence that Disney is rapidly approaching Pixar’s level of quality. Of course, executive producer John Lasseter, who oversees projects for both animation houses, has much to do with this parity.

David vs. Goliath style RC bot battle. Don’t judge a bot by its appearance, though.
Yeah, I wouldn’t dare pick a fight with R2.

“Welcome to the Nerd Lab.”
One suspects that this vibe is similar to the one you’d get in an animation studio, so these scenes are a bit self-reflexive.

Micro-bot exhibition is quite impressive. So long Lego bricks.
It’s amazing how innocent a new technology starts out…and just how quickly its altruistic vision can be perverted.

“Diagnosis: puberty.” Someone should pitch that to #abcfamily.

Fist bump scene is humorous.
This gag pays off dividends throughout the movie.

“There are no red lights in a car chase.” Ha!
This is a thinly veiled reference to Tom Hanks’ oft-quoted remark (“There’s no crying in baseball!”) in A League of Their Own (1992).

The inclusion of #StanLee in the family portrait is clever.
The first successful Marvel integration into a Disney movie. This Easter egg isn’t here by accident…but you’ll have to stick around through the end credits to learn its significance.

The flight scene is exhilarating but recalls similar ones in the #HowToTrainYourDragon movies.

Project Silent Sparrow looks an awful lot like #StargateSG1.
Besides the extra gate, the master shot looks like it was lifted right out of an episode of this long running sci-fi series.

Cool watercolor universe.
Or is it tie-dye? Or is it lava lamp? No I’m not tripping, but the animators sure were.

Nice title reveal in the last scene of the movie.

Final analysis: a high spirited, heartwarming tale of a cuddly robot, a young inventor and a group of nerds.
These nerds fulfill a vital role in the film as comic relief, especially Fred (T.J. Miller), and solid support for the hero.

Rating: 3 out of 4 stars. A sequel seems all but assured. Be sure to stay through the end credits.

Based on the comic book series (from Marvel, of course) of the same name created by Steven T. Seagle and Duncan Rouleau, BH6 tells a very human tale in the midst of a protracted struggle to control a powerful new technology. The movie sets up in a similar manner to Meet the Robinsons (2007), also a Disney animated effort, in the way a science fair/expo experiment is stolen and used to devastating effect by a misguided villain. The exploited technology in this case is millions of tiny microbots, which, when controlled by a person’s thoughts via a headband (similar to the Bowler Hat Guy’s high-tech headgear in Robinsons), can construct a myriad objects, shapes, weapons, etc. Though quite a bit larger, these microbots remind me of the insidiously relentless nanites in Star Trek: The Next Generation. The way the villain uses the microbots as a mobile dais is the kind of spine-tingling image you’d expect to see in a live action superhero film intended for a much older audience. Even though the movie’s main character is young tech geek Hiro (Ryan Potter), the focal point of the film is undeniably the rotund robot, Baymax (voiced with absolutely perfect inflections by 30 Rock’s Scott Adsit). The love child of the Michelin Man and EVE from WALL-E (2008), Baymax (this is one silly name…it sounds like Betamax, a technology that didn’t fare too well) is a lovable sidekick with a central processor of gold and a unique skill set…he provides portable medical services. Upon hearing that universal sound of distress, “Ouch!,” Baymax inflates, initiates its programming and launches into triage mode (this brand of activation reminds me of the way the holographic doctor appeared when summoned in Star Trek: Voyager, “Please state the nature of the medical emergency.”). Though Baymax’ skills and enhancements are impressive, as well as a whole lot of fun to watch in action, it’s his compassion and empathy that make his character so appealing. Hiro’s journey is an emotional one and Baymax’ ministrations (mostly psychological) are a salve for the young boy’s tragic loss early in the film. The loss of loved ones lies at the heart of the film and, ironically, provides motivation for the protagonist and antagonist. Even though the film deals with some fairly heavy issues, it is, after all, a Disney movie, and that means the story must have a happy ending. To whit, the hero comes to terms with his loss and the villain is redeemed, to an extent, and they all live... In the end, the story is moving and exhilarating, and you can bet that a sequel will soon be in the works. This is definitely a movie where you feel better walking out than when you walked into the theater. So now the only question that remains is, “Are you satisfied with your care?”

Interstellar (PG-13)

tt0816692
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Starring: Matthew McConaughey
November 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Interstellar

Interesting documentary style opening.
The series of retrospective interviews in these opening scenes play out like the real ones frequently seen on the History Channel.

Last okra crop...ever. No big loss for me.
I know I’m probably causing a Southern uprising (doesn’t take much) by making such a statement, but I never developed a taste for this slimy veggie…pod…thing.

Chasing a drone through a cornfield.
More precise verbiage is needed here. The drone is in the air. McConaughey takes his truck trough a cornfield, Twister-style, on a reckless pursuit of the drone.

Updated textbooks...a frightening possibility and one that could be right around the corner.
Book burning was so last century. Now it’s all about revisionist history; the political party that’s in charge gets to determine the proper recitation and redaction of history. Remember, history is written by the winners…and the egomaniacal socialists who ascend to power by deceiving the masses. A tad too on the nose?

The bookcase is trying to communicate with them.
Co-writer, Jonathan Nolan, also uses the Dewey Decimal System on book spines as a means of dispensing the “number” to Jim Caviezel and Michael Emerson on Person of Interest, a TV series he created. Clearly he has a yen for dispatching clues to his characters through books…a decidedly low-tech method of conveyance.

Ballgame is postponed by a doozy of a dust storm.

The crew prepares for their “long nap.”
I can use one of those every so often. Like right nowwwwww…….

I learned that paper trick in science class in high school. Also a useful way of explaining warp speed.

Seven years per hour. Not my kind of planet. Although, it does have the best surfing in the universe.
However, if you don’t make it through the barrel, you’re dead.

Letters from home are tearjerkers.
Make sure you have a tissue handy. On second thought, make it a whole box.

Frozen cloud...trippy.
This is the kind of scientifically plausible, world-building detail that really fires my imagination. Even though I wish there would’ve been more of them in the movie, I thoroughly enjoyed the unique and unusual planet concepts featured here.

A race to the ship. I stopped breathing about ten minutes ago.
This entire sequence is one of the finest ever filmed. That’s quite a boast, but this taut series of events is as genuinely nail-biting as they come.

Newton’s third law. Hilarious!
So much for “No one left behind.”

A 3D construct within a 5D reality. My mind has been sufficiently blown.
Leave it to the Nolan brothers to come up with something this mind-bending. The interspatial architecture takes its cues from Inception (2010) and is somewhat Escher-esque in the way it depicts multiple impossible angles/vantages.

Final analysis: a deeply moving story centered on the survival of the human race.
Which just happens to be a sci-fi film.

Rating:
4 out of 4 stars. A modern 2001 that just might be the first legitimate sci-fi Best Picture hopeful.

Okay, so before anyone points out the fact that space-tacular Gravity was up for Best Picture last year, two things: 1. Was it a “legitimate” contender for Oscar’s top prize (I argue no)?, and 2. Can the film even be classified as science fiction since its technology is comparable to contemporary standards and because the story never leaves the solar system, much less the space surrounding the Earth? That said, Christopher Nolan’s sci-fi opus, Interstellar, takes us far afield to worlds of wonder; one of which, hopefully, will harbor the holdouts of humanity since we’ve pretty much destroyed our home world by the time the movie takes place (which doesn’t appear to be all that far into the future…frightening!). There are plenty of things to nitpick here—like the fact that Michael Caine’s character ages little over a twenty-three year time span (guess that proves just how timeless he is), that people don’t seem all that distraught over the prospect of eating nothing but corn for the rest of their lives, that a dying planet’s economy could even fund deep space exploration on this scale and that Hathaway, a scientist, is tasked with landing the ship that houses the future of our race—a repository of embryos. Granted, the plot isn’t as airtight as any of the spaceships seen in the film, but it coheres to the extent that it needs to in order to convey its artfully told cautionary tale: consider the movie the unlikely marriage of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and An Inconvenient Truth (2006). The filmic mash-up doesn’t end there: There’s a heavy quotation of Apollo 13 (1995) during the suspenseful scenes in space, especially when the ship is violently jostled about and when presumably unnecessary parts are seen falling away from the ship. Nolan also upholds one of Star Trek’s finest traditions in the way his characters systematically explore “strange new worlds.” Although the action frequently crosscuts between characters in different places/times, the film can be subdivided (roughly) into thirds. The first third focuses on the plight of the characters on a desiccated Earth, the second section deals with space travel and planetary surveys and the third segment features the story’s ethereal, unconventional climax. While on the tack of appraising the film, we can cut it right down the middle and call one half character/story driven and the other half action/adventure driven…in short; this is a very well-balanced film and a rarity for the sci-fi genre, which typically places emphasis on the latter over the former. The movie’s themes are legion and invite various readings, which should keep both water cooler enthusiasts and film school students chewing on this cosmic cud for years to come. There are plenty of story elements to evaluate here, such as: science vs. faith, ecosystem entropy, rogue drones, book censorship, time-challenged family dynamics, the finest/worst aspects of humanity in survival situations and the idealistic notion that love conquers all. An analysis of the “they” can also make for a bracing discussion, especially when time is thrown into the equation. For instance, do the Plan B colonists become the 5th dimensional saviors of Earth’s Plan A remnant? Be sure to pace yourself, though; if you’re not careful, such cogitations can cook your noodle. Another plus here is that the movie is fairly feasible and factual where its science is concerned, which should delight lovers of hard science sci-fi (as opposed to soft science sci-fi, a la Guardians of the Galaxy) to no end. And let’s not forget the stellar FX and cinematography that creates the film’s unique look and feel. To whit, Nolan uses absolute silence during the exterior space shots to great effect: remember, in space no one can hear you scream. Hans Zimmer’s atmospheric, organ saturated score produces a distinctly unsettling accompaniment that recalls the otherworldly “classical” soundtrack for 2001. I’ve yammered on for so long now that the blight just spread to the planet’s last ear of corn. Sorry about that. Ironically, I’ve only scratched the surface of the myriad meanings contained within this multivalent yarn. Those who are successful at suspending their disbelief—by buying into the notion that humans have the wherewithal to actually venture out into the distant reaches of space—will affirm the movie as a journey well worth taking. Bottom line: Interstellar is a visual marvel and a masterwork of science fiction that will, if you’ll forgive the temporal pun, stand the test of time. Getting lost in space has never been more thrilling or terrifying.

Fury (R)

tt2713180
Directed by: David Ayer
Starring: Brad Pitt
October 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Fury

Pitt rides into tank hell.
This opening sequence reminds me of Sybok cantering through the desert straight toward the camera at the outset of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier (1989). Obviously the setting (and planet) is completely different here, but the shots themselves are close cousins.

Fury rolls into camp.
They’re greeted with vacant stares. Not much of a hero’s welcome.

A trope of war movies is the new guy...here his name in Norman.
The presence of Michael Pena is another war movie convention; the inclusion of at least one minority on the team.

Don’t touch Shia’s ‘stache.
I don’t begrudge him his defensiveness. After all, it probably took him a year to grow.

Why do fired bullets look like laser beams here?
Not much to add to this, but at times I thought I was watching a Star Wars movie.

Norman is faced with a “simple math” equation. Not so easy to carry out.

Norman is multi-talented: he plays piano, reads palms and is quite the ladies man.
That last one is a bit of a euphemism.

How to ruin a perfectly good egg breakfast.
Yeah, unless I was starving, I wouldn’t eat licked eggs.

Tank dogfight is intense.
Dogfight is typically used for one-on-one plane battles, though. Guess the word I should’ve used is…bullfight?

Pitt’s dogged directive: “Hold this crossroads!”
Two tweets in a row with the word “dog” in them. Woof!

Shia quotes scripture: “Here am I, send me.”
However, he also takes the Lord’s name in vain. Wonder if he knows the one about the impossibility of fresh and salt water flowing from the same fountain (James 3:11)? (Not to mention the third commandment as set forth in Exodus 20:7).

One tank versus an army. Never tell me the odds.
This battle certainly illustrates how a tank can function as a mini-fortress.

The final, high angle shot of the corpse riddled crossroads is horrific.
Although, I actually would’ve expanded the shot out even further, but the point was made, I suppose.

Final analysis: a standard issue war story that evokes a strong sense of time and place.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. A decent war tale, but even Pitt can’t lift the standard story out of the mud.

This certainly isn’t the first tank-centric WWII movie ever made—Sahara (1943), The Desert Fox (1951) and Lebanon (2009) to name three right off the top of my head), nor is it the most original. What is new here are the modern battle sequences which feature rockets and bullets whizzing by like laser beams in a sci-fi shootout. I have no way of knowing if these seemingly anachronistic visuals are accurate or not (I wasn’t there), but I’ve never seen this kind of special effect in any other war movie. As incredulous as it sounds, tanks firing laser beams is the least of this movie’s problems. Relying heavily upon war movie conventions and offering little that hasn’t been seen and done a hundred times before in WWII bloodbaths severely hobbles this film…like a tank that’s thrown a tread. Aside from a few reasonably suspenseful battle scenes and the climactic standoff, there’s really little to recommend the movie, other than the notable cast and high end production values. There’s a standout scene right in the middle of the movie when the tank officers invade the home of two German women. The reprehensible behaviors exhibited by the soldiers (Shia LaBeouf, The Walking Dead’s Jon Bernthal and Gracepoint’s Michael Pena) during this scene makes us loose all respect for them; so much so that when the final conflict arrives, we really don’t care if they live or die…it’s extremely difficult to emotionally invest in unsympathetic characters. In the end, Pitt, the new guy (Logan Lerman) and the tank itself are about the only things we have any kind of affinity for in the movie, and that really isn’t enough to justify shelling over a ten spot, two singles and a pair of quarters for (current ticket price in the OC). Is Fury a decent WWII flick? Sure. Is it worthy of inclusion into the War Movie Hall of Fame? Not even remotely. Let’s face it, without Pitt’s presence this movie would’ve tanked.

The Skeleton Twins (R)

tt1571249
Directed by: Craig Johnson
Starring: Kristen Wiig
September 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Skeleton Twins

One suicide attempt averts another.
This is a fascinating sibling (psychic?) connection…that they would be suicidal at the same exact moment.

The #MarleyAndMe scene is humorous.

Wilson’s commentary on “land mines” is graphic but apropos.
I’m sure every married man can identify with Luke Wilson’s comment. If you can’t admit it, you’re even more emasculated than you realize.

The siblings share secrets...a revealing scene.

Superb acting on the lip sync scene. A lot of fun.
It’s actually a bit frightening how well Wiig and Hader mouth the words to Starship’s “Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now.” Lots of rehearsal time or are they just freaks of nature at lip syncing?

“It turns out that I’m the one who peaked in high school.” Moving scene.
This is a really poignant moment of self-reflection, and one that’s sure to resonate with anyone facing middle age with nothing to show for their life but wishful thinking and waylaid dreams.

Final analysis: some amusing moments, but a far heavier story than the trailer intimated.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4. One of the finest brother/sister movies that’s come along in quite some time.

It really grieves me that I can’t give this movie a higher rating, particularly because of its exceptionally fine portrayals—Kristen Wiig, Bill Hader and Luke Wilson are all terrific in the movie. However, due to its unremarkable script, I just can’t justify a bump in my rating for this film. It’s not that the screenplay is awful, because that certainly isn’t the case. The story contains some decent dialog and several really good character moments, including the hilarious lip sync sequence and the humorous scenes in the dentist office. However, as a whole, the script, written by Mark Heyman and director Craig Johnson, is conventional and predictable…and only occasionally comical. An aggregate of well written and acted vignettes, the story never looses its entertainment value, and yet, as a whole, it fails to live up to the quirky, cutting-edge dramedy promised in the trailer. That unfulfilled promise to the audience could be a major impediment to the film’s success, especially since many viewers will expect to see similar antics to the ones Wiig and Hader regularly perpetrated on Saturday Night Live—although their chemistry from working with each other over the years is glaringly evident here. Another reason the movie might have a hard time winning over audiences is its identity crisis. The term dramedy was coined to define movies that contain a good mixture of dramatic and comedic elements. Although this film has several amusing scenes, the dramatic beats (consisting of suicide attempts, marital infidelity and a sex with minors back story) frequently overshadow the sporadic moments of levity, effectively throwing a pall over what otherwise could’ve been a feel-good flick. In fact, an honest appraisal of the film reveals an approximate ratio of 70% drama to 30% comedy, which is a radical reversal from the lighthearted romp depicted in the disingenuous trailer. Ultimately, the movie’s Achilles heel is its unsympathetic characters. We really want to root for these people, because they’re genuinely likable, but the story works overtime to make us loose our affinity and respect for them due to their irksome insistence on making poor choices. In the end, it’s just a shame that the cast didn’t get a more solid assist from the screenplay because the performances are truly remarkable, especially the ones turned in by screen siblings Wiig and Hader. Even though observing the interactions between these two stars is a treat all by itself, the movie would’ve been a veritable feast had it employed a story with more meat on the bone.

A Walk Among the Tombstones (R)

tt0365907
Directed by: Scott Frank
Starring: Liam Neeson
September 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

A Walk Among the Tombstones
Not quite, since this movie is significantly darker than the Taken films and since it involves absolutely no abductions.

Two shots before a shootout.
Drinking and driving is bad enough, but shooting while sauced seldom ends well.

Neeson turns down a job and gets his eight year chip.
A win/win. However, if things ended right here, we’d have a pretty short movie.

An elaborate back story for Neeson’s new case. I smell a setup.
The man who hires Neeson is played by Dan Stevens from Downton Abbey. Another DA star, Michelle Dockery, appeared with Neeson earlier this year in Non-Stop.

Neeson takes the titular walk. Meets the creepy groundskeeper.
Played by Olafur Darri Olafsson (of course it wasn’t fun to type). He looks like the destitute, mentally challenged child of Kevin Page, Bum from Dallas (2012).

Neeson tails a POI and is tailed.

No East Village Plumbing. No surprise.

The punch through the glass is awesome.
One of the coolest scenes in the movie.

The 12 steps narrated over the firefight makes for a unique sequence.
There’s definitely some art here, especially the sobering voice over and freeze frame techniques.

Final analysis: a deliberately paced thriller with an understated but effective turn by Neeson.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4. A tale of redemption that’s worthwhile if only for Neeson’s performance.

The most compelling screen heroes have always been the ones beset by some kind of mental or physical flaw…the more severe or debilitating the flaw is, the greater the exultation is at the end of the movie when the protagonist overcomes his limitations, defeats the villain and saves the day. Here, Liam Neeson’s former cop/present private detective is a recovering alcoholic—his problem affected his on-the-job performance which led to his swift departure from the force. The pivotal incident in Neeson’s past serves as opening prologue and intermittent back story, delivered in a series of stylized flashbacks, and is the movie’s spine, or, more appropriately, its heart. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is standard B-grade thriller fare. The case Neeson accepts is similar (though, admittedly, more graphic) to the plethora of conventional crime plots featured on the ubiquitous network TV procedurals. Other than the movie’s star, the rest of the performers, though well-suited to their roles in most cases, fail to exhibit big screen chops. This should come as no surprise since many of the supporting players here have spent a significant portion of their careers making a name for themselves on the small screen: Dan Stevens (Downton Abbey) and David Harbour (Manhattan) to name just a couple. One aspect of the film that works particularly well is the soiled and seedy NYC locations that serve as immersive backdrop and locus of action throughout the film…the foreboding cemetery, panoramic rooftop, well-appointed or ramshackle residences and even the sparsely populated municipal library are all used to great effect in making this modestly budgeted film seem a bit more prestigious. Credit director Scott Frank with adding visual variety and visceral verve to the handful of action sequences, particularly the poetic, climactic shootout (see above). All things considered, Tombstones isn’t a stellar thriller, but it’s unique in its own right and has much to recommend it. At the very least, this film should tide us over until Tak3n.

The Judge (R)

tt1872194
Directed by: David Dobkin
Starring: Robert Downey Jr.
October 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Judge

“Nothing changes.” Welcome to Small Town, USA.
I’ve lived in plenty small towns growing up and can attest to the above statement.

“Yeah” is not an appropriate affirmation for the court.
Nor anywhere else for that matter. It’s the lazy man’s yes.

Firefly bar non-fight. “Get counseling.”
However, even with the law on my side, I still don’t know that I’d tempt, by incessant browbeating, such lowlifes into throwing a punch at me. I guess such natural, rational, fears fail to register if you’re Iron Man.

“Narrate this!” Ha!

Billy Bob Thornton is the prosecutor. Uh-oh!
After watching his cold, calculating portrayal of a hit man in Fargo, I just don’t think I’d want to take him on, even though his character here is on the right side of the law.

Jury selection is humorous.

Fixing the sink. Nice cover.
Just think how awkward and uncomfortable this scene must have been to film for both men; hours of standing in a tub, au naturel in Duvall’s case. With this particular scene in mind, among many others to validate consideration, Oscar nominations for both actors seem all but assured. To withhold such recognition would be utterly absurd.

First driving lesson...a special scene.

Double hurl. Nasty!
Just another reason why you should never walk on the grass.

“I choose you.” Touching moment.
The best father/son reconciliation scene I’ve seen since Chris Cooper shows up at Jake Gyllenhaal’s rocket launch at the end of October Sky (1999).

Final analysis: a slowly-paced but meaningful father/son drama with powerhouse performances.

Rating:
3 out of 4. This movie represents a new career watermark for Downey Jr and Duvall. That’s my verdict.

As a patchwork of conventional narrative elements—estranged father and son (Ordinary People, Parenthood), Big City success story returning to country roots (Sweet Home Alabama, The Fighting Temptations) and the stress and strife surrounding a funeral (Elizabethtown, Death at a Funeral)—there’s nothing earth-shattering about this story. However, the run-of-the-mill material is elevated by the superlative lead performances by Downey Jr. and Duvall; in fact, the air in the theater is filled with static electricity every time they have a scene together. Their onscreen chemistry is undeniable, and you can just tell that working together brought out the finest efforts from both stars. Also buttressing the movie’s standard screenplay is a raft of fine supporting players, including: Vera Farmiga, Billy Bob Thornton, Vincent D’Onofrio, Jeremy Strong, Dax Shepard and Leighton Meester. The location work for Carlinville, Indiana (extensively shot in Massachusetts) is also exceptional and serves as an appropriate, all-American backdrop for the movie’s rather unusual court case. As for the courtroom scenes, they’re judiciously shot and, fortunately, never completely upstage the film’s familial frictions or relational revelations that surface at the most unexpected and least opportune moments. There are plenty of solid scenes in the movie, like: Strong’s home movies, Downey’s late night break-in to Farmiga’s bar and the heart melting scene when Duvall meets his granddaughter (Emma Tremblay) for the first time. Ultimately, though, the movie is held together by Downey and Duvall’s shared scenes, especially the ones where they just go at it like two bare fisted brawlers in a grudge match. The movie would’ve been just another middling family drama, like the ones frequently featured on Lifetime, were it not for the powerful presence of these megastars in career defining turns. Although the film’s length and pacing may be a deterrent for some audience members, this movie will probably satisfy those who enjoy well-acted dramas. You be the judge.

Hector and the Search for Happiness (R)

tt1626146
Directed by: Peter Chelsom
Starring: Simon Pegg
September 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Hector and the Search for Happiness

Dogs don’t fly, Simon.
Don’t worry...the dog wasn’t hurt in the process of filming.

Two movies with Rosamund Pike in as many days.
As you can tell from my previous blog entry, I had just seen Gone Girl the night before watching this film.

“Cut the rope, Tintin.” Pegg goes off on a patient.
The Tintin reference reveals Hector’s status as a grown-up boy (a psychic patient of Hector’s actually sees him as a boy), but also prefigures his globetrotting adventures later in the movie.

Bumped up to business class. Down or memory foam?
I was bumped up to first class once on a very long flight overseas. There’s really nothing like it.

The mirror image inkblot for #4 is humorous.
This definitely reveals the id of the male gender. It’s the classic “Why have one when you can have two?” mentality.

Hector looses the scent of happiness atop a serene mountain.
Other than the arctic air, I definitely think I could be happy there for a while…jaw-dropping vistas.

#8 is vital...answer your calling.
Fulfillment is all about finding purpose in life. Actually, the quote at the top of The Equalizer (see my review) ties in rather nicely with this sentiment.

Must admit, I’ve never been successful at implementing #13.
I derive fun from watching movies and very short list of other activities. I know…I need to make an appointment to see Hector stat.

“Listening is loving.” A powerful principle and an emotionally impactful scene.
The sequence on the plane is the heart of the film, and is also the answer to the perplexing question Hector has pursued throughout the movie.

“Mothering with an S.” Ha!

“Emotionally squeamish.” Ouch!
Those who know us best can hurt us the most.

Final analysis: a journey of personal discovery marked by humorous and meaningful moments.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4. Not the comedy portrayed in the trailer but a feel-good flick.

Bored with the sameness of life, Hector (Pegg) embarks on a globetrotting journey to find that most elusive of emotions…Ah-penis (easily the funniest scene in the movie). As a respected psychiatrist dating a fetching woman (Rosamund Pike), Hector really has it all…and yet, his life is devoid of the titular element. Those who don’t have an attractive partner or a high paying job may find it hard to sympathize with Hector’s ennui, while others in a similar stage/station of life will readily identify with his plight. In many respects, Hector follows the same general trajectory and itinerary that Julia Roberts’ character did in Eat Pray Love (2010). This movie also mirrors last year’s The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, which starred Ben Stiller. Mitty and Hector both feature characters mired in the doldrums of existence and in desperate need of relief from the daily routine. Both men are entering middle age, both keep fairly rigid schedules and both find fulfillment and inspiration only after leaving their familiar surroundings and embarking on a transcontinental adventure. In Mitty, the goal is to find a missing photograph, while this movie’s objective is the apprehension of happiness. The end result of both movies is that the central male characters discover who they really are by escaping from their lives for a short season. If that premise sounds somewhat familiar, and formulaic, it is. Unfortunately, this film adds insult to injury with its predictable plot (the narrative has little character complexity and is told in a straightforward manner) and contrived subplots (Hector does a favor for a tyrant, played by Jean Reno, which pays off dividends later in the film, and the utterly inane brain mapping storyline that even Christopher Plummer’s fine cameo can’t salvage). The biggest drawback here is that the movie was billed as a comedy and is sure to disappoint those jonesing for a light-hearted romp with resident funny-man Pegg. That’s not to say the film doesn’t try its hand at levity; the above double entendre stands out as a chief example. However, Hector, who we’re supposed to take seriously, is portrayed as a klutz, bumping into and breaking everything that isn’t nailed down in feats of physical comedy that would make The Three Stooges envious. After the third or fourth occurrence, however, these pratfalls just aren’t funny anymore. This film is amusing and heartwarming, but not necessarily exciting. In the end, Hector finds happiness in the film, but will the audience?

Gone Girl (R)

tt2267998
Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Ben Affleck
October 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Gone Girl

Primal questions. Yikes!
If this is really the description of a quotidian relationship, is there any wonder why 50% of all marriages end in divorce?

Villainous chin. First warning sign?
But what exactly constitutes a villainous chin? Long and pointed like Vincent Price’s? Rugged and rounded like Ray Liotta’s? Not sure Affleck’s chin qualifies as villainous by any standard.

A sugar storm and the first kiss.
This is a nice moment, but it’s robbed of any joy or elation since we’re already aware of the relationship’s trajectory.

Who let the cat out?
Ooo…ooo, ooo, ooo!

“We have our first clue.” Ha!
This is a much needed bit of levity to break up the tension. Also, the envelope clues us into the antagonist’s superior confidence in self and utter lack of respect for the abilities and intelligence of the detectives investigating the missing person’s case.

Www.findamazingamy.com. Is this a press conference or marketing blitz?
When you really stop to think about it, the true villains in the movie are Amy’s parents since they’ve gotten rich off of turning their daughter’s image and identity into a brand.

“Everything else is just background noise” works for a season...a short one.
You can only ride the waves of good intentions for so long in a relationship before the swelling emotional tsunami comes crashing down and takes you under.

Ambush at the vigil.

“Does Missouri have the death penalty?” Chilling.
Affleck’s character is a really poor chess player in the movie…he’s consistently two moves behind the person who’s framing him.

Gummy bear toss. Creating a sympathetic public image.
Make it gummy worms and I’ll commit all kinds of mistakes on purpose.

A convenient end note, but enough evidence to convict?

Miracle on the Mississippi...nice spin.
As the legal gun-for-hire, who’s amused rather than distressed by the case’s unexpected turns, Tyler Perry is exceptional in his supporting role.

Final analysis: an incisively smart & subversive missing person mystery with more twists than a roller coaster.

Affleck is convincing, but Pike is creepy good in a role that will have people talking for quite some time.
A lot of hubbub has been made about Affleck’s acting here, and while his performance is solid, it pales in comparison to Pike’s mesmerizing turn as a cold, calculating wife armed with a master plan for how to destroy her husband.

Rating:
3 1/2 out of 4 stars. Fincher’s direction is superb and the screenplay was written by Flynn herself.

There was never any doubt that the writing for Gone Girl would be top notch since the source material was adapted by its author, Gillian Flynn. Enlisting David Fincher (The Social Network) to direct was a canny choice as was tapping top talent in Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike for the movie’s two central roles. Having all of the right ingredients doesn’t always translate into a successful movie (Waterworld) but, fortunately, the law of averages worked out in this film’s favor. The story of a philandering husband being accused of killing his wife has been done countless times throughout the history of cinema, but this movie’s unique set of circumstances and frequent red herrings, left turns or U-turns keeps the audience engaged right up until the bitter end; a resolution that’s created a great deal of controversy, especially for the scores of people who’ve read the book (I, unfortunately, cannot be counted among their ranks since I chose to read The Maze Runner instead—a grievous choice). Even though the story is methodical and procedural, we never lose interest thanks to Flynn’s diligently measured dialog and finely chiseled characters; all of which are well-rounded and many of which possess modulating or murky or motivations. As a deconstruction of the modern marriage, the film has plenty to say about the problems and pressures contemporary couples face. The scheming, controlling woman paired with a weak willed, low ambition, highly emasculated man is certainly telling of a societal trend that’s been steadily, if not exponentially, escalating since the Mr. Mom 80s. As such, is the movie making commentary on how traditional relational roles have shifted, or reversed, or is it merely spotlighting an isolated—though extreme—incidence of marital dissolution? There’s plenty to process here, which is to be expected since the movie’s superlative script comes from a truly fine novel writer. So, is this film the Fatal Attraction (1987) of our generation, or just a really well told mystery/thriller centered on a troubled marriage? Let the debate begin. But if things start getting heated I’ll be going, going…

The Equalizer (R)

tt0455944
Directed by: Antoine Fuqua
Starring: Denzel Washington
September 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Equalizer
The TV show starred Edward Woodward as a 60 something British chap embroiled in Cold War intrigue. The show featured mostly average stories with standout performances by Woodward and Robert Lansing.

Profound quote by Twain opens the film.

Denzel tells Moretz the story of
The Old Man and the Sea. Then she climbs into the back seat with a whale.
A visual connection was made and I just couldn’t help myself.

Moretz beaten and in the hospital. Something tells me Denzel will soon be trading his book for a gun.
Of course, who needs a gun when you can use a book the way Denzel does?

Denzel gives thug a corkscrew tongue ring.
A gruesome visual, but this scene, along with the climactic showdown, are the finest action sequences in the movie.

“Hit it on something stupid.” Ha!

Denzel exposes two dirty cops. Introduces them to his own brand of justice.
Denzel hides out in a dark alley and quickly routs the pair of corrupt detectives. Now all he needs is a raspy, whispery Christian Bale voice and a super suit and his journey toward becoming a full-fledged vigilante will be complete.

Hooded robber holds up a register at Denzel’s store. Hammer time!
Just think, whoever purchases that hammer will inadvertently own a weapon that was used in an assault.

“We who?” Got him.
An intense stare down between protagonist and antagonist. Award the round to Denzel for doggedly persisting in asking the above question.

Parting gifts scene is hilarious.
Now that’s a severance package I can get on board with.

Great Eastern goes up in flames. Amazing pyrotechnics.

Must admit, the home and garden section offers a variety of unique weapons.
What seems like an unspectacular locus for a final showdown actually works quite well, thanks to Denzel’s clever use of the implements at hand.

You might say that Denzel nails the bad guy.

Final analysis: a decent revenge story with some incendiary action sequences.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4. Too slow at times, but has some clever fight scenes with unconventional weapons.

Let’s face it; this is a pretty unremarkable film. Despite bringing his Best Actor chops to the part of Robert McCall, a retired secret agent forced back into action under predictable, usual circumstances, Denzel can’t quite elevate the evanescent effort that is The Equalizer. Of course, it wouldn’t be fair to blame Denzel for this lackluster affair since he isn’t given much to work with—McCall’s characterization is paper thin and has none of the complexity or believability that Denzel’s characters possessed in Training Day (2001) and Man on Fire (2004). Although Denzel anchors the film, solid support comes from Chloe Grace Moretz, who makes the most of a limited role as an ingénue trapped in a life of prostitution, and Marton Csokas, who is serviceable as the standard issue Russian baddie. The performances aren’t stellar, but let’s leave the acting alone since it’s the one bright spot in the film. Director Antoine Fuqua (Olympus Has Fallen), like his star, makes the most of what he has to work with, but does little to spruce up the film’s bland visuals, with the one exception being McCall’s self-timed killing spree. Fuqua’s workmanlike direction certainly isn’t spectacular, but it also can’t be blamed for the movie’s middle-budget look and stuck-in-neutral narrative. The true culprit for the movie’s mediocrity is its flaccid screenplay, turned in by Richard Wenk (The Expendables 2). Apart from the early scenes between Denzel and Moretz—the subtext during The Old Man and the Sea conversation is quite good—the dialog is stiff, the pacing is slow and the locations ordinary beyond belief. In fact, you could argue that stripped-down locations (diner, home improvement store, baseball field, etc), the straightforward story and Denzel’s spare portrayal all contribute to the unified feel for the film…a gritty, no-frills crime flick. The fact that the homogenized appearance and theme isn’t very cinematic is a major drawback aesthetically, and the movie’s dark tone and subject matter makes it hard to enjoy at times. While it’s always nice to see Denzel, he’s severely underserved here: this outing will go down as a lesser entry in his filmography. It’s a shame that the script squanders his solid lead performance with standard locations and situations. In the end, the writing just wasn’t equal to the task.

The Maze Runner (PG-13)

tt1790864
Directed by: Wes Ball
Starring: Dylan O’Brien
September 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Maze Runner

Not sure I’d want to be part of a world where amnesia is normal.
Although, selective amnesia would be useful for forgetting the less desirable parts of the past.

The box, the tour and three rules.
And a creeper that lurks in the forest.

Ben is banished for breaking the second rule.
Beware the Second Rule! And shouldn’t Thomas start to turn once he’s been bitten by Ben? Oh wait, this isn’t The Walking Dead.

Thomas remembers his name and carves it into the wall.
Seeing all of the scratched out names is a bit unsettling.

Griever descends on Thomas like Shelob.
However, the scene where the giant spider hovers above Frodo in The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King is far superior to this perspective shot.

A new Greenie arrives with an ominous note.

Markings on supplies: W.C.K.D. Wicked?
Can they make it any more obvious? And what a dumb acronym.

Monolithic walls are quite imposing.
One of the lines from the book perfectly captures the ominous dimensionality of the walls: “Twilight had fallen, and the mammoth walls looked like enormous tombstones in a weed-infested cemetery for giants.” (Chapter 17, third sentence).

Sprinting through the blades...a pulse-pounding sequence.
This is the latest in a long line of genre films where an action sequence was storyboarded as if it were a video game (perhaps with an eye toward being released as a video game). Additionally, the various sections of the maze are like the different levels of a video game.

This just became a horror movie: Night of the Grievers.
And why leave the doors open since the Grievers can climb over the walls and sneak in surreptitiously? I suppose things have to be spelled out for the audience, but wouldn’t it have been even more terrifying if the Grievers had attacked with the doors closed? Oh my God…Grievers! How did they get in?

Griever heads look like cave trolls.
Another LOTR rip-off.

Exit sign. If it looks too good to be true...

Final analysis: a suspenseful mystery that’s fairly faithful to the book with some effective alterations.

Rating:
2 1/2 out 4 stars. Let’s see what this Phase 2 is all about in the sequel.

It’s been brewing for some time now, what with the myriad similarly themed stories that have over-saturated the market in recent years, but it looks as if this movie has finally ushered in a period of dystopian teen novel fatigue...one can only hope. Coming hot on the heels of The Hunger Games and Divergent, this movie is yet another near-future survival tale that focuses on teenagers in perpetual peril. Unfortunately, the source material here doesn’t have anywhere near the socio-political relevance boasted by those other two, far superior book-to-movie franchises. The story begins with a young man named Thomas arriving at a walled in glade via a metal cargo box. Thomas is immediately greeted by a group of boys his own age and soon enough we’re launched into a Lord of the Flies meets Lost meets Labyrinth adventure yarn with heavy quotations of The Lord of the Rings and Jurassic Park. What works here is the initial mystery which places Thomas in this strange environment with no memory of what his life was like before his arrival. The strange speech, customs and rules of the realm also intrigue in the early stages of the story, but made-up words like shank and klunk soon grow tired. Likewise, constantly being reminded of the rules becomes tedious and annoying. The middle of the movie maintains interest with several frenetic chase scenes and major plot revelations. If there’s one area of the movie that grossly underperforms, it’s the standard, unimaginative, and highly improbable ending. SPOILER ALERT: So the whole plot boils down to the fact that the earth has been ravaged by solar flares and the remnant of humanity lives in a gigantic circular city with the maze inhabiting its center. So then, with limited resources, man power, etc, the maze was erected for the sole purpose of providing a training ground for these kids to run around in? This stretch of credulity reminds me of the original Star Trek episode “The Mark of Gideon,” where the Enterprise visits a planet with overpopulation problems. The inhabitants of the world build an exact duplicate of the Enterprise to lure Capt. Kirk down to the surface. Since the populace is shown living in shoulder to shoulder confinement, isn’t the presence of a 289 meter long starship an illogical misappropriation of space on their overcrowded planet? Though not quite as ridiculous, isn’t building massive, movable walls for an extensive series of mazes an egregious waste of time and money for a species on the brink of extinction (and does humanity really have three years to waste on this pubescent experiment)? And why don’t the Gladers know where the edge of the maze is if they’ve constructed a completed, circular mini-maze in the map room (and how can the model be accurate if the walls change every night)? And why is it that on his first foray into the maze, Thomas discovers a section of the maze that the lead runner has never seen on his daily ventures into the labyrinth? When you actually stop to think about it, the movie’s overarching premise is absolutely ludicrous and many of the crucial plot points are utterly laughable…just like the ones in that bottom barrel Trek episode. The intriguing setup desiccates to dust once the teens reach the control center and the less-than-original, far-from-inspired explanation for the whole mystery is revealed. Also, the project leader’s (Patricia Clarkson) staged death is unnecessary and contrived beyond belief. The teenage boys have a graduation of sorts when they find their way out of the maze, which they quickly leave behind when journeying toward their next challenge—an abandoned city where they’ll doubtlessly run into a division of Dauntless operatives itching for a fight in the sequel. So what’s the movie’s takeaway? Some mysteries are better left unsolved. Or, everything was going just fine before that shuck-face Thomas showed up.

Boyhood (R)

tt1065073
Directed by: Richard Linklater
Starring: Ellar Coltrane
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Boyhood

Painting over height benchmarks...erasing history.
This clever chronological conceit serves as a microcosm for the movie as a whole: there’s a subtle symbolic link between the height measurements on the door jamb and the progressive growth of the children over the course of the film. In a sense, these markings are a type of baton handoff, since the tick marks on the door signify events that have transpired before the story begins. This brief visual device gives us a sense of history and is a springboard for the movie’s action. On another tack, I’m normally not given to bouts of emotion in movies, especially for characters I’ve just been introduced to, but this scene made me profoundly sad. I wanted to yell at the characters to take a picture before painting over the ruler markings. Lost milestones can never be recaptured.

Object lesson about no bumpers in real life.
A good point that’s made on the wrong occasion.

50 cents for the F word.
C’mon, charge him $10. The only way he’ll stop saying it is if it hurts a little.

“Everything’s a line.” Trouble on the home front.

Astros game. Clemens striking out batters half his age. Wonder how he was able to do that.
I apologize for my insensitivity, but this was way too easy.

Hawke has “the talk” with his kids.
Always an awkward topic…especially when broached at a bowling alley. Classy!

Nice long take of Hawke and his son hiking in the forest.
And some great dialog about how perplexing females can be to teenage boys…as well as grown men.

Mason gets a red letter edition and a rifle for his 15th birthday. A mixed message?
I suppose the commonality is that both are types of weapons: a sword and a shotgun.

Darkroom chat...totally demotivating.
How do idiots like this obtain jobs teachers? I’d really like to shove this guy’s face into the stop bath.

Commentary on humans becoming robots is profound.
I’ve used the same argument for why we’ve become so captivated by zombies.

Feeling the weight of the “empty nest” is a touching moment.
However, due to her poor choices in husbands, Mason’s mom brings middle-aged loneliness on herself.

“The moment seizes us.” Interesting life philosophy.
A beautiful location, profound dialog and pitch-perfect acting make this scene a poignant punctuation mark at the end of an elegant, thought-provoking film.

Final analysis: not an earth-shattering story, but a staggering achievement in film.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. An insightful, meaningful survey of modern boyhood, brilliantly acted and directed.

We’ve all seen dozens of movies where different actors were used to portray a character at different stages of his life. Many times, the child or teen looks nothing like the adult version of the same character. Director Richard Linklater has devised a unique solution to this casting conundrum by filming the same actors over a twelve year period. The end result of the director’s audacious and ambitious filmic gambit is nothing short of astounding. By following the same family over an extended period of their lives, the viewer can more readily identify with the characters while also feeling emotionally connected to them. This kind of familial familiarity only comes from well constructed and conveyed character histories. While the adult actors sustain noticeable, yet minor, physical changes over the years, the kids, who were filmed at different checkpoints between the ages of six and eighteen, undergo the more drastic transformations. A perfect compliment to the film’s naturalistic aesthetic, watching the kids’ incremental growth is like experiencing a time condensed overview of the struggles, successes and significant events during their turbulent childhood. Whereas the adult story lines frequently focus on less compelling, soap opera style subplots, the through line involving the children’s journey from K-12 and beyond is thoroughly mesmerizing. In the same regard, even though Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette turn in fine performances, it’s Ellar Coltrane and Lorelei Linklater (the director’s daughter) who captivate us throughout the nearly three hour decade-spanning drama with their realistic portraits of modern young people. When all is said and done, it’s the maturation of these two burgeoning actors that furnishes the movie with its groundbreaking novelty. Without their perpetual presence and precocious performances the movie would be just another well acted, well directed drama. So now the question is, does Linklater have another dozen years in him to make the sequel, Girlhood?

When the Game Stands Tall (PG)

tt2247476
Directed by: Thomas Carter
Starring: Jim Caviezel
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

When the Game Stands Tall

Nice archival footage of the real team.
Always a plus in these true story sports films.

“A perfect effort from snap to whistle.” I’m inspired.
However, Caviezel’s non-modulating droning isn’t a good match for an inspiring high school coach. Perhaps he’s been playing the soft-spoken John Reese on Person of Interest for too long, but he needed to get more fired up for this role.

Coach throws an opportunity in the trash.
Most people in his position would die for such an opportunity.

Coach survives the widow-maker.
And we’re not talking about a sandwich or burger with that moniker. Nor a movie with Harrison Ford as a submarine commander.

“Lame dad.” Ouch!

He was only trying to help his friend. What a senseless tragedy.

“They’re playing just like us.” Uh-oh!
Whenever you come to such a realization, it’s already too late.

Field trip. Some much needed perspective.
Coach Boone (Denzel Washington) took his team on a field trip to Gettysburg in Remember the Titans (2000). The location here is quite a bit different, but the result is similar in that players are forced to look beyond their own struggles and, in this case, see the problems and needs of others.

“Well it sure aint Gatorade.” Ha!
Correction: ain’t has an apostrophe. However, since ain’t ain’t a word and because ain’t ain’t in the dictionary, does misspelling it really matter?

Team sharing session...a nice moment. See, guys can emote.
I’m just glad they didn’t have a group hug.

The first nationally broadcasted high school game on TV is a special one.
An epic confrontation and just what the team needed to get back on track.

Take a knee and raise your hat for a heartwarming finale.
However, part of me sympathizes with the over-competitive dad (Clancy Brown), who wants his son to break the record. You only get one chance in life to achieve something like that. You can always raise a hat after the record’s been secured, right? I know, I know, we wouldn’t have the mushy ending that way.

Final analysis: an inspiring true story about overcoming adversity with courage and integrity.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. A meaningful story with solid performances. A lot of bang for the budget.

Or is it “boom,” as #JohnMadden, who appears in the closing credits, would say?

Based on the incredible real life story of one high school football team’s (the De La Salle Spartans) legendary run of 151 consecutive victories (the longest winning streak of any team in sports history), this film follows in the footsteps of the great gridiron tales of yesteryear. By now, these factual football movies have developed a well-established (well-worn?) formula: archival footage of the original team, reenactments of key games, tragedy befalling one or more of the characters, a caring/inspiring coach, a noteworthy achievement garnering national headlines, etc. Although this film doesn’t have the same financing, production values or cinematic polish as major studio releases like Remember the Titans (2000), Friday Night Lights (2004) or We Are Marshall (2006), the story is worthy of its big screen showcase and the talent on tap (Caviezel, Michael Chiklis and Laura Dern) helps to elevate the material while shrewdly disguising its budgetary limitations. Caviezel is serviceable as Coach Ladouceur, but his monotone delivery belies the passion he seeks to instill in his players…Caviezel only raises his voice during one locker room speech. I have no way of knowing if the actor’s quiet intensity mimics the real coach’s vocal inflections or not (I’ve never met the man), but on the face of it Caviezel doesn’t seem like a natural fit for the part of a spirited football coach. Chiklis provides some comic relief and sage advice as Ladouceur’s assistant coach and, in light of Caviezel’s understated, emotionally vacant performance, is the heart of the film. Dern, as Ladouceur’s supportive wife, makes the most of a limited role, but her talents are wasted on a part that’s completely servile to the exigencies of her husband’s career. The one story line possessing the potential for character complexity is the father-living-through-his-son scenes between uber-controling dad (Clancy Brown) and his star running back son (Alexander Ludwig). Unfortunately, due to standard dialog and minimal screen time, this subplot ends up being the narrative equivalent of an incomplete pass. There are certainly finer examples of its kind in the annals of true story football accounts, but this movie has found its own niche and the fact that it’s also inspirational and family friendly is so much the better.

Calvary (R)

tt2234003
Directed by: John Michael McDonagh
Starring: Brendan Gleeson
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Calvary
But after the gun smoke dissipates, who will he confess to…another priest?

A startling opening line.
This is actually the second line spoken in the movie, the first by Gleeson. The opening line is definitely startling though, especially when considering the location and function of the discussion.

Redhead commits the “classical error.”
The redhead in question is Gleeson’s screen daughter in the film, played to perfection by Kelly Reilly. In case you’re wondering, Gleeson’s character sired her before he became a priest.

“Bi-polar or lactose intolerant. One of the two.” Ha!
Is this line overdetermined or are people really this dumb?

No asterisk after “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” Good conversation.
This scene contains some of the finest, most meaningful, dialog in the movie. Funny how it’s in our DNA to always look for loopholes.

The colossus pees on a painting. Strange!
Strange hardly covers it. This whole scene is extremely disturbing. Irish funnyman Dylan Moran (Shaun of the Dead) turns in a truly offbeat, creepy performance as the emotionally anesthetized rich man who’s relegated himself to a life of isolation and boredom…and truly bizarre behaviors.

The lectern held up well. Can’t say the same for the rest of the church.

The “third act revelation” is a touching scene.
This is the final and finest father/daughter chat in the film.

Sunday. Time to face the music.
Notice that the location of the climactic showdown is similar to where the earlier “third act” interchange took place. Symbolism?

Too much talk about sins and not enough talk about virtues. Good point.
Maybe people would sin less if their virtues were extolled more often.

Final analysis: a heavy film that asks big questions about the injustices of life.

Rating:
3 out of 4. A tremendous performance by Gleeson and gorgeous Irish vistas are pluses to the glum story.

Other than its trappings, performances and shockingly raw subject matter, what really sets this film apart is its unique twist on the murder mystery formula. To whit, Gleeson knows who the murderer is early on in the story, but the audience is left in the dark as to the identity of the killer—and there are plenty of possible suspects among the Irish village’s salty citizenry. The kicker is that the homicide hasn’t yet occurred and that the targeted victim is Gleeson. As a “good” priest, Gleeson will become the sacrificial lamb for the heinous transgressions (the kind you’ve heard about in the news) of unethical priests. Gleeson overcomes the urge to skip town and finds the resolve to face his accuser, a la Christ before Caiaphas, the high priest. As Gleeson approaches his would-be assassin and his own personal Calvary, the mystery transforms into a thriller that will leave the audience gasping for air. Cannily penned and helmed by John Michael McDonagh, Calvary is a multifaceted gem with much to say about the human condition. As Gleeson conducts his priestly duties, such as confession, communion, visitation, etc, the audience picks up clues along the way. This procedural element is a clever device for drawing us into Gleeson’s world while also introducing us to his parishioners, one of whom has murderous intentions toward him. The movie features numerous one-on-one conversations between Gleeson and one of the various supporting characters, and all of these exchanges are rich with meaning and laced with subtext. There’s a good deal of character complexity here and many questions are left unanswered, like: does Gleeson, who struggles with the bottle and shoots up a pub, even qualify as a “good” priest? Also, the startling final scene opens up mind-blowing implications and invites multiple readings. Any way you look at it; this is a smart, sullen and sordid story. However, if you disagree with my assessment, I’ll happily acquiesce. I’m not going to make this a hill to die on.

The November Man (R)

tt2402157
Directed by: Roger Donaldson
Starring: Pierce Brosnan
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The November Man

Taking pictures of pictures in Moscow.
Sounds easy enough, but it’s a dangerous occupation. Especially if you forget to return the key.

“42 is complete.” Now you’ve gone and made Brosnan mad.
Brosnan’s Bond always had to work really hard to dispatch bad guys, but his character here is more like 24’s Jack Bauer…casually strolling along and downing assailants as if he’d memorized enemy emplacement patterns in a FPS video game.

“Atrocities are like reality TV.” Hmm...
The film is pretty soft on social commentary, but this is one instance where ethical criticism is dispensed. And it’s a point well made.

Brosnan finishes his pupil’s training. An incisive scene.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this scene has a surprisingly sharp edge.

Brosnan extracts information by playing an old Russian game.
I don’t think I’d wait until after the second click to divulge the intel though. Either squeal from the start or hold out to the bitter end…that’s the way I see it.

Corrupt agent discovers Brosnan’s “soft underbelly” and exploits it.
This plot point is poetic injustice since having a relational liability is precisely what Brosnan warned his protégé about from the very beginning. Do as I say not as I do, apparently.

Final analysis: a decent yarn with foreign flair and some pulse pounding action scenes.
But don’t expect Bond or Bourne levels of high-octane chase/fight scenes.

Rating:
2 1/2 out 4 stars. Brosnan isn’t Bond anymore, but he’s still respectable in action roles.

Kudos to the movie’s casting department because this project was a perfect selection for the gracefully aging action star. Brosnan is in remarkably good shape, so espionage yarns with moderate action work are still on the table for the spy genre stalwart. Let’s cut right to the chase, this is a well acted/directed/written political thriller with beautiful European locations and a clutch of adroitly choreographed action sequences. If there’s a drawback to the film, it’s the story’s first twenty minutes, which play an elaborate game of hopscotch all over Europe while setting up the plot and key players in this international intrigue. The rapid globetrotting is exhausting, not to mention confusing, and needlessly muddies the premise to the point where we don’t know what the movie’s goal is or even where in the world the bulk of the action is going to take place. Or even if we’ll care once we figure these things out. Once the story finally settles in, which is right around the time Operation 42 is executed, the enjoyment factor begins to gradually increase since at least we know which direction the plot is headed in at that point. The reemergence of Brosnan’s former pupil is an engaging subplot, but one gets the sense that far more dramatic intensity could’ve been extracted from this teacher/student dynamic. The “enemy holds the hero’s loved one for ransom” followed by “hero exacts revenge on enemy and rescues his captive family member” is a standard ending for this genre…it would’ve been nice to see something a little less conventional here. My only other criticism of the story is the head-scratching explanation for why Brosnan’s nickname is the movie’s title. Even after its meaning is interpreted, the appellative doesn’t seem to have much relevance to the story, relegating this intriguing title to the expansive ranks of dumb movie names. And why release a movie with November in the title in the month of August? Since it isn’t a blockbuster action picture anyway, this film should’ve been released in the fall. Bottom line: Brosnan is no longer Bond, nor does he need to be. Brosnan can churn out movies just like this one for many years to come until he decides to hang it up in the December of his career. Now that metaphor actually makes sense!

Magic in the Moonlight (PG-13)

tt2870756
Directed by: Woody Allen
Starring: Colin Firth
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Magic in the Moonlight
Watch very closely.

Asian Firth makes an elephant disappear. It’s all part of the show.
Big deal, I once saw David Copperfield vanish a car right in front of me in Vegas.

The great debunker accepts the challenge of exposing a spiritist as a fraud.

Firth meets “a visionary and a vision.”
Hamish Linklater’s (The Crazy Ones) character, who is under the profoundly misguided delusion that he’s actually won Stone’s heart, is so corny you just have to pity him.

Firth’s description of ectoplasm is hilarious.
And completely inaccurate if we’re to believe the science in Ghostbusters. Which, of course, is the authority on the supernatural substance in question, right?

A séance followed by some “hot music.” An average evening.
If you’re the Addams family.

The “agreeable features” exchange is hilarious.
Firth channels Mr. Darcy’s smugness in this scene. With all due respect to Sir Laurence Olivier, nobody played Darcy better than Firth.

Press conference...Firth puts his reputation on the line.
You can guess what happens next.

We’re all part of a greater design. Firth’s prayer is heartfelt...for a moment.

The long take conversation between Firth and his aunt over Firth’s prospects is absolutely brilliant.
This scene is 101 for how to beat around the bush and avoid true feelings. It’s also 101 for great acting and directing.

“Sophie, will you marry me?” One tap for yes.
The first time I saw this “One tap yes, two taps no” system was in the original Star Trek two-parter “The Menagerie,” when crippled Captain Pike used a similar system of flashing lights to communicate to Mr. Spock and company. Obviously this movie is a world away from the final frontier, but this brand of non-verbal communication jogged a memory. No extra charge.

Final analysis: a beautifully filmed period piece with superb performances and a witty script.
The gorgeous location work in France is a tremendous boon to the film…along with period appropriate clothing, cars, observatories, etc.

A clever take on the age-old debate over science versus faith.
And if you know anything about Allen’s beliefs, you’ll know exactly which side of the argument he lands on in the end.

Rating:
3 out of 4. Though predictable and uncomplicated, there’s definitely some movie magic here.

This is the 50th film (according to IMDB and including TV films) directed by Woody Allen. Although he doesn’t appear in this movie, Allen wrote the screenplay (of course) and his signature witty, snappy dialog reigns supreme throughout this tale of unconventional romance, devious motives, shifting convictions, misdirecting mysticism and preternatural prestidigitation. Other than some new stars, Colin Firth and Emma Stone, and the 1920s milieu, the movie is business as usual for Allen. That assertion certainly isn’t a disparagement of the film; if anything, it’s a testament to the consistent quality of Allen’s projects over the years. Other than the production aspects I praised above, my only observation of the movie is how its love story parallels the one in My Fair Lady (1964). Consider: older, refined man paired up with an uneducated ingénue. The man constantly belittles the woman, but is secretly in love with her. The man learns what he’s been missing in life while being drawn deeper into the wonderful mysteries of the woman’s world. The final scenes in both movies are staged exactly the same, and although the reaction of the two men is quite a bit different, the end result is favorable in both cases. This contrivance, along with the criticisms listed after my rating, are the only real drawbacks here. In the end, this is another superlative work by one of the finest auteurs of our time. This film lives up to the charm and enchantment evoked by its title. Although its characters may engage in acts of legerdemain, the story itself has nothing up its sleeve.

If I Stay (PG-13)

tt1355630
Directed by: R.J. Cutler
Starring: Chloe Grace Moretz
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

If I Stay

The rock star catches Mia “blissing out.”
Though it’s a completely different style of music from what he plays, Adam (Jamie Blackley) recognizes passion in Mia’s playing…and is inexorably drawn to it and her.

The “guilt and bribery” comment is humorous...and true.

A “wild” date at the symphony.
Don’t worry; very little screen time focuses on the performance. Instead, the audience’s attention is drawn to Adam’s hand, which keeps inching its way toward Mia. Under the circumstances, I suppose that seemed more appropriate than the “mock stretch and place arm over the shoulder” maneuver.

Nurse’s advice to “take control” is a moving moment.
This actress, Aisha Hinds, also plays a caregiver in TVs Under the Dome.

I don’t recall the “How to extract a bee stinger with teeth” procedure in the Boy Scout manual.
Actually, he sucks it out with his mouth, but I worried about how that might translate in a tweet.

The tape job on the chapel ceiling is awful.
But it’s the thought that counts, right? And it’s a very nice thought that pays dividends later in the movie.

Mia creates magic at her audition.
Grandpa, Stacy Keach, watches from the wing. This scene gave me a fit of anxiety because I thought for sure Mia would see her grandfather and allow the distraction to ruin her audition.

Mom’s pep talk is bittersweet.
Some really good dialog regarding the complexity of relationships and some fine acting from Mireille Enos, star of AMC/Netflix’ The Killing.

Grandpa’s conversation with the two Mia’s in the hospital is astounding.
There are many great scenes in the movie, but for my money, this is the finest. Keach turns in a career performance not only in his heartfelt delivery of some very emotional lines but also in how he makes us believe that he’s in tune with Mia’s living spirit. It’s a staggering turn by a skilled artisan. Piggybacking off of his solid supporting role in last year’s Nebraska, I don’t know how the Academy can overlook him for a Supporting Actor nod this year.

I’ve seldom head that kind of reaction to the final scene of a movie.
The movie does end quite suddenly, but I actually liked its resolution. Granted, the theater I was in was composed of about 80% pre-teen/teen girls, so an emotional outburst was to be expected, I suppose. Correction: Heard, not head.

Final analysis: an emotional roller coaster ride filled with teen angst, young love, tragedy and hope.
And a lot of music, ranging from classical to rock…something for everyone.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. Sentimental at times, but a potent reminder of the importance of relationships.

In combination with the similarly themed recent release, The Fault in Our Stars, this movie serves as an effective one-two emotional sucker punch that will see nary a dry eye in the theater. Based on the novel of the same name by Gayle Forman, this twist-of-fate, teen angst tale hits as many emotional notes as Mia (Moretz) does musical ones during her cello performances. Strangely, a recent episode (“Prodigy”) of J.J. Abrams’ cancelled TV series, Believe, featured a remarkably similar premise to the one in this film—a young violin player is traveling with her family to performance when a vehicle in the opposing lane skids out of control, hits her car and claims the lives of her family. This plot is either in the ether or there’s some major artistic appropriation going on. In any event, the scenes at Mia’s house stand out as the movie’s highlight, with the romance, music and accident aftermath elements coming in as a distant second. Though admittedly on the permissive side, Mia’s parents are the kind of non-judgmental, nurturing, encouraging role models that typically raise well-adjusted, highly creative children by being their kids’ biggest cheerleaders. The home scenes radiate incredible warmth and serve as an effective counterbalance to the dire present that awaits Mia at the conclusion of each crosscut flashback. Moretz wholly embodies Mia...she’s really grown as an actress since her Kick Ass days. The film could’ve unraveled into a tangled mass of sentimental schmaltz if not for Moretz’ diligent work at grounding her character in the reality of tragedy…it’s an emotionally complex role and she plays it to perfection. Although it can’t quite be called a teen romance, a melodrama or a weepie, the film flirts with all of the above. While squarely aimed at the teenybopper set, the movie may appeal to some men, if only because of its musical elements. Still, a large percentage of the male audience may find the film’s excessive emotion to be utterly repellant to the degree that they may find themselves being involuntarily drawn to the back door of the theater. Walk toward the light, brothers!

The Giver (PG-13)

tt0435651
Directed by: Phillip Noyce
Starring: Brenton Thwaites
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Giver
The Newbery, along with the Caldecott, are the two highest honors in children’s literature.

Don’t be thrown by the B&W, folks. You’ll soon learn why.
The B&W cinematography works on two levels: 1. It effectively depicts the “Sameness” of this ultra-compliant society, and 2. It lends the film a Classical Hollywood look and feel that further reinforces the community’s idealistic, “Leave it to Beaver” veneer.

Streep tells a knee-slapper...literally.

Asher’s assignment in the movie is quite different than in the novel.
It was obvious that effecting such a change would have implications for the movie’s climax…and it does.

Jonas experiences his first blast to the past. Chilling and warm all at the same time.
The visual motif of Jonas looking up into the sky while in motion, employed several times in the film, is indicative of his adventurous and inquisitive nature…something that comes in handy for his job assignment.

Sailing into a sunset. The vibrant colors are a stark contrast to the B&W filming.

Boundary of Memory map.
This is an interesting alteration from the book. Having an actual, physical edge overrides the book’s rather ethereal non-explanation for how the memories would depart the Giver and invade the community’s collective consciousness, but is it scientifically feasible for memories to be constrained to a radius of a few miles? It definitely strains credulity, although, one person serving as the repository for an entire culture’s memories is outlandish from the start.

The Giver gives Jonas a lesson on music and emotion.

Jonas uses an antiquated word.
I have some “precise language” for Jonas’ mom (Katie Holmes), but this is a family friendly blog, so I’ll refrain.

The Release scene is even rougher in the movie than in the book.
It’s one thing to read about an infant being euthanized, it’s quite another to actually see it on the big screen. You can just feel the controversy brewing over this scene.

The Giver gives Jonas strength.

Jonas is lost to the edge.

Bridges and Streep argue over the freedom to choose. Great dialog and acting.
This exchange doesn’t appear in the book; however, it’s a brilliant addition that really secured the rating in my mind. Here are two great actors just going at it, and the collision of communist/socialist vs. capitalist ideologies is the movie’s most salient and pivotal scene.

Jonas crosses the boundary...everything goes technicolor.
A logical visual device to aid the story, but also a knowing nod to Pleasantville (1998)?

Final analysis: a deceptively straightforward story that has much to say about our modern society.
For a teen movie, The Giver has far more biting political subtext than most adult movies…including ones centered on politics.

Rating:
3 out of 4. A cautionary tale that makes commentary on the human condition and the importance of apples.

Now before you go off on a tirade about how the community in this movie is just like the Abnegation faction in Veronica Roth’s Divergent, there’s one thing you need to know…The Giver was written in 1994, seventeen years before Divergent was published. So, if anything, Roth borrowed from Lowry, not the other way around. Even though there are many similarities between both fictional worlds (a focus on teens, a rule dominated society, rite of passage ceremonies, etc), one major difference is that while Divergent is dystopian, The Giver is utopian. Also, Divergent’s Brave New World style segregated society is intended as a cautionary tale (much like the disparate districts in The Hunger Games), whereas The Giver is a political barometer—ranging from communal regulation to individual determination—that reveals the tensions created when the ends tug against the middle. Although both books/movies broach important social messages, it could be argued that The Giver’s metaphysical mystery makes it more compelling than Divergent’s clear-cut clash of castes. Comparisons aside, The Giver stands on its own thanks to director Phillip Noyce’s (Patriot Games) brilliant use of color, or the lack thereof, cinematography in the film and the superb performances turned in by Jeff Bridges, Meryl Streep, Alexander Skarsgard, Katie Holmes and, I kid you not, Taylor Swift. The audience, much like the book’s readership, will be composed mostly of teens and pre-teens, but I sincerely hope that adults show up to see it as well since there’s plenty of meat on the bone for spectators of any age. There are four books in the series, so it’s conceivable that, as with Divergent and The Hunger Games, Lowry’s books will spawn a franchise of its own. If so, her books will prove to be a gift that keeps on giving.

A Most Wanted Man (R)

tt1972571
Directed by: Anton Corbijn
Starring: Grigoriy Dobrygin
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

A Most Wanted Man
The book was written by John le Carre, who also penned Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which became the basis for the 2011 film of the same name.

Hoffman is being watched by the Americans. Ooo.
The news that he’s being scrutinized by the Yanks inspires such mock fear.

Evidence of torture. A horrific tableau.
I bet McAdams’ character is sorry she asked…I know I am.

The instrument is produced in order to secure a fortune.
One might say it’s the key to the whole plot.

Hoffman looses a foot race. Surprised?
Correction: loses. This one always gets me. If “lose” rhymes with “choose,” why doesn’t it have two “o”s? Darn English language.

The flat is infested with bugs.
The kind that spies use. I don’t think I’m really giving anything away since by now you realize this is a spy movie.

“Unclean money” is given to charity. Guess that redeems it.
When people talk about laundered money that means it’s clean too, right?

An audible is called...Seven Friends Shipping. Gotcha!
From this scene to the end we have ourselves a movie. Too bad the rest of the film is such a snorer.

Final analysis: a slow-boil international espionage yarn with a subtle, powerful performance by Hoffman.
In fact, I’m not even sure the movie would be worth watching without Hoffman in it; with apologies to Rachel McAdams, Willem Dafoe and Robin Wright, who all turn in fine performances in limited roles.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. The German location work is stunning, but the pacing is somnambulating.

As with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, this le Carre adaptation is a taut tale with fine acting and directing (The American’s Anton Corbijn) that resembles a chess match more than a Bourne style high-octane actioner. What we have here, then, is a cerebral procedural with little action and even less emotion, save for Hoffman’s f-bomb blitzkrieg during the climax (and really, could anyone employ this particular expletive with as much visceral vitriol as Hoffman?). The climactic action scene is gratifying after waiting so long for something to actually happen in the movie, but it’s too little too late to assist such a stolid story. The European locations are a boon here but can only do so much to spruce up this drab drama, which sees the majority of its scenes told in dimly lit offices that could’ve been filmed anywhere…and probably were. Many will classify this film as a thriller, but that would be a misnomer since there’s absolutely nothing at all thrilling about the methodical, mechanical narrative…however realistic it might be. In the end, this isn’t a terrible film, but it certainly isn’t an exciting one either. It’s just sad that this is one of the final films (only the last two The Hunger Games movies remain on his posthumous filmography) in Hoffman’s tragically abbreviated career. Although his performance is memorable, the film is not.

The Hundred-Foot Journey (PG)

tt2980648
Directed by: Lasse Hallstrom
Starring: Helen Mirren
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Hundred-Foot Journey
Correction: “Hundred Foot” needs to be hyphenated. Relax, it’s not like I messed up the title or anything.

Cooking makes ghosts. An interesting perspective.
One creature must die so that another can live. The circle of life and all that stuff.

The establishing shots of the French village are gorgeous.
The B unit captured some really nice vistas of the village and surrounding countryside.

Mirren visits the enemy’s camp.

Opening night. Establishing a clientele the hard way.
The dog gambit is particularly ingenious…and humorous.

The five French sauces pass the taste test.

The early bird gets the pigeons.
You know what they say about paybacks.

Mirren rejects the peace offering. The war heats up.
Throwing that fine meal in the trash should be a crime.

Mirren makes an omelette...a sumptuous scene.

Hassan makes the titular journey. Learns how to cook classic French cuisine.

Pop the cork...two stars.
Three is the apex; two is superb for a restaurant in a small village.

“Maybe brakes break for a reason.”
In other words, the hand of fate can conspire to bring people together. Then again, maybe they were just old brakes in dire need of repair.

Innovation requires inspiration. Hassan takes a train home.

Final analysis: a delectable clash of cultures film with mouthwatering dishes & a dash of romance.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. How could I give it anything else?

Produced by Steven Spielberg and Oprah Winfrey and based on the novel of the same name by Richard C. Morais, this film is a tasty treat for those in the mood for European trappings, fine dining, unassuming romance or all of the above. The film has many quality ingredients, including solid direction by Lasse Hallstrom (Salmon Fishing in the Yemen) and yet another virtuoso performance by Helen Mirren, but what prevents it from getting top marks is the last quarter of the movie. Despite a solid setup, the film settles for a standard resolution, which comes complete with an extra helping of schmaltz. The rags-to-riches story device is undeniably inspirational, but it’s also egregiously sentimental, especially when screenwriter Steven Knight employs various media (magazine covers, news reports, etc) in narrating Hassan’s meteoric rise to the upper echelons of elite chefs in Paris…shameless. Still, some people get off on this brand of emotional catharsis and will surely feel serviced by the story’s feel-good elements. However you slice it though, this kind of movie does a disservice by trading on such populist wish fulfillment. In my estimation, this is three-fourths of a good movie, hence the rating. And yet, even with the overwrought resolution, this film is still a journey worth taking, if only for the exquisite entrees and lush landscapes.

Guardians of the Galaxy (PG-13)

tt2015381
Directed by: James Gunn
Starring: Chris Pratt
August 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Guardians of the Galaxy
It’s called sarcasm, people.

Star Lord uses a rat microphone while jamming to his “Awesome Mix” on muddy Morag.
Maybe it’s just me, but even if I were a Star Lord, I still wouldn’t be handling a rat.

The group hug weapon is highly effective.
A different kind of group hug was used with great success by another band of misfit heroes in Mystery Men (1999).

Groot drinks his fill of fountain water.
Probably a lot cleaner than what he absorbs through his roots.

“Exclusively in that order.” Ha!

Boy, Groot really knows how to pick a nose.

“Asleep for the danger, awake for the money as usual.” Hilarious!
This statement is akin to Han’s deadpan criticism in Return of the Jedi, “Great, Chewie! Great! Always thinking with your stomach.” Correction: “Asleep for the action and awake for the money, as usual.”

Rocket was kidding about the mechanical leg. I haven’t laughed this hard in a movie in a long time.
This gag is the equivalent to the long con in a heist movie. The joke is set up well in advance of the punch line, which lands when least expected. What a payoff!

From warrior to imbecile in less than fifteen seconds.

The Ranger Rick reference is priceless.
I wonder what percentage of the audience even got this gag? Google it!

“Pelvic sorcery.” The jokes just keep coming.

Quill’s “losers” speech is moving if not necessarily motivational.
A nice spin on the word in question that trades on commonality to build solidarity among the group.

The ship net is a cool concept.
Until one part of the net is breached. That’s why Rom’s idea for self-replicating mines in DS9 was so ingenious.

Groot takes out an entire platoon of enemy soldiers with one branch and then grins. Classic!
This scene is similar to Kit Fisto’s smile directly at the camera in Star Wars: Episode II.

Quill gets a second chance to take his mom’s hand.
A touching scene that resolves the nagging guilt Quill’s experienced ever since he was a boy.

Final analysis: unquestionably the funniest superhero movie ever, and also one of the most original.
After watching the trailer, I knew this was going to be a humorous movie, but it’s far, far funnier than I originally anticipated. There were moments when I was literally bellowing and paid no mind to how such loud laughter would affect those around me. Of course, they were laughing just as loud, so no harm no foul.

A little overstuffed, but an effective blend of humor and action.
By overstuffed I mean the Dune-esque epic nature of the story that sees the characters hopping from one planet to the next and encountering myriad alien species along the way, all of them bent on obtaining the movie’s mysterious artifact. As someone who’s never read the comic book, it was a bit of a challenge keeping up with the who’s who element of the story.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. Let’s see what becomes of Groot’s root in the sequel.

While many sci-fi movies contain comedic elements, the genre label “sci-fi/comedy” can be attributed to very few films. Woody Allen’s Sleeper (1973) certainly qualifies, as does Mel Brooks’ Spaceballs (1987) along with the book-to-big screen The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (2005). Often, movies that try too hard to meld comedy into a sci-fi universe end up resulting in a goof-fest like The Ice Pirates (1984). So then, Guardians negotiates some difficult terrain as a sci-fi, superhero, action/adventure and comedy hybrid. Somehow, like a skilled juggler, the film manages to keep all of these balls in the air at the same time, which is fitting since the movie’s MacGuffin, a high-tech orb, is also up in the air (and up for grabs) for much of the movie. Whereas humor and action effectively hold the audience’s attention throughout, the relationships between the motley characters is the glue that holds the whole proceedings together. Chris Pratt imbues Peter Quill/Star Lord with irresistible charm and Zoe Saldana brings a disarming vulnerability to the chip-on-the-shoulder assassin Gamora. Dave Bautista is Drax, the laconic beefcake, Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) is the good-natured tree creature and Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) is the wisecracking raccoon. Each member of the team receives ample onscreen time, but character development is pretty thin except for Star Lord’s opening back story. The sacrifices made by Star Lord and Groot are genuinely touching—these character moments help to ground the more farcical and whimsical elements of the story. The formula here (distilled from many genre sources ranging from Star Wars to X-Men) seems to be a winning one, so a sequel seems all but assured at this point. Let’s just hope that future films in the franchise retain this movie’s lighter tone. So, until the sequel arrives, grab your walkman and jam out to your own awesome mix (punting rats is optional).

Lucy (R)

tt2872732
Directed by: Luc Besson
Starring: Scarlett Johansson
July 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Lucy
“Open your mind…open your mind!”

Wait, I thought this was
Lucy, not Planet of the Apes.
Or 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968).

The crosscutting between humans and the animal kingdom is a clever conceit.
The National Geographic style nature scenes are a bit jarring at first, but they’re a unique way of depicting the primal side of humanity.

Immortality or reproduction. Why is it too much to ask for both?

Lucy dances on the ceiling.
Oh what a feeling.

Lucy mind-melds with her captor.
Why doesn’t she dispatch with him here and now? Ah, yes, because the villain needs to factor into the climactic showdown. Contrived!

The FX in the airplane bathroom are mind-blowing.

60%. The goons don’t stand a chance.
Maybe at 30% they’d stand a chance, but not at 60%.

A new generation of computer.
This one comes standard with tentacles.

Awesome retro time lapse effects...like watching “The Time Machine” in reverse.
The whole T-Rex thing was a bit staged, yes? I felt like I was in the 3D King Kong attraction at Universal Studios Hollywood.

Lucy meets Lucy.
Shouldn’t the universe implode at this point? Let’s ask Dr. Brown. He’ll know.

Final analysis: an intriguing premise that fails to live up to its groundbreaking promise.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. A thought-provoking sci-fi yarn with some amazing visual effects.

If the average human only uses roughly 10% of her brain, what capabilities would she possess if she could access 100% of her brain? An intriguing question…and a promising premise for this near future sci-fi actioner, which comes complete with all of the highly styled action sequences and pulse pounding chases we’ve come to expect from a movie directed by Luc Besson (The Fifth Element). Unfortunately, this high-concept story takes a radical left turn during the second half of the movie when a Limitless (2011) style cautionary tale morphs into a Transcendence-esque emergence event (the movie also has a heavy quotation of the 1960 version of The Time Machine). Using the above films as the ends of a spectrum, Lucy falls somewhere between Limitless, which is considerably better, and Transcendence, which is an awful mess that makes this film look like Inception (2010) by comparison (coincidentally, Lucy is the second so-so sci-fi yarn Freeman’s done this year…he also appeared in Transcendence). Ironically, just about the time Lucy starts to evolve the story begins to devolve…by the end, we’re left with a plot that’s been reduced to the consistency of a primordial soup, an image not lost on the movie. Aside from a head-scratching denouement (is that a 1 trillion GB flash drive?), the story line involving the Asian drug lord and his minions is extremely banal. Despite the enjoyment derived from watching Lucy surgically annihilating hoards of thugs, none of the fight scenes have any dramatic tension since the end result is a foregone conclusion—the multiple melees are tantamount to a group of Secret Service agents taking on a Jedi. However, if frenetic action scenes are the main motivation behind attending this movie, Lucy will serve its purpose…I suppose. In the end, the movie is a missed opportunity since its central conceit is so easily apprehended and universally applicable and a profound disappointment since its story is so formulaic and predictable. It really chafes that this could’ve been a great movie. Instead, Lucy is just a mildly intriguing action picture with A-list actors and a B grade story that required far less brain power to watch than it did to read this pedantic review.

Begin Again (R)

tt1980929
Directed by: John Carney
Starring: Keira Knightley
July 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Begin Again

Vision, not gimmicks. The opposite of most entertainment these days.
Especially big budget blockbusters.

The imaginary arrangement that’s constructed around Knightley’s acoustic song is brilliant.
I envy people with such musical mutant powers.

The new song garners a slap from the mind reader.
Never underestimate the power of women’s intuition.

Record every song at a different location. A unique concept.
And a logistical nightmare. Probably the reason why no one’s ever done it before.

“Hold on” section with the kids is a nice moment.
Well worth the $5 per kid for their services.

Listening to Knightley’s playlist via a special splitter. Recreating a magical moment.
This musical montage is the highlight of the film. The sequence is the audio/visual equivalent of a warm embrace.

The kazoo solo is hilarious.
I used to play one as a kid, but I’m out of practice. I need to get my chops up.

A buck for a book is a risky proposition. An amusing coda.
I love it when we get additional story during the end credits and not just silly outtakes.

Final analysis: like
Once, this is a song-centric film with strong character beats and fine performances.
The songs Knightley’s character sings have a Norah Jones or Colbie Caillat quality to them and should prove listenable, and perhaps even enjoyable, for most viewers.

Like the music it features, the film is a stripped-down drama that reminds us of what pure artistry really is.

Rating:
3 out of 4. A charming turn by Knightley & a new career watermark for Ruffalo. Plus some catchy tunes.

From director John Carney, who brought us the similarly themed and structured Once (2007), comes Begin Again, a dramatic and romantic movie that can’t really be classified as either. Nor can it be called a musical, despite the fact that it has just as many full songs as most musicals. Genre quandaries aside, what’s readily apparent is the movie’s easy manner and affable characters (and the picturesque location footage shot in NYC doesn’t hurt either). Besides its toe-tapping melodies, the film’s greatest asset is its deftness at avoiding standard rom-com clichés. For starters, there really isn’t a romance in the film since Knightley breaks up with her singer boyfriend, Dave (Adam Levine) and, thankfully, never hooks up with Ruffalo (eww!). The movie also does a good job of avoiding mawkish episodes: a scene near the end sets up the opportunity for an emotionally gratifying (and gratuitous) moment when Dave invites Knightley to the stage during a concert (the same exact scenario occurs when Hugh Grant coaxes Drew Barrymore to the stage in the 2007 film Music and Lyrics). Against our expectations, Knightley listens in the wing for a few minutes and then leaves. That’s just one example of how Carney (who serves as sole writer) diligently worked to keep his story free of contrivance. So then, no matter which genre Begin belongs to, file it in the feel-good music movie section, and those who stumble upon this indie winner will be completely satisfied.

Ida (PG-13)

tt2718492
Directed by: Pawel Pawlikowski
Starring: Agata Kulesza
May 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Ida

How many nuns does it take to place a statue of Christ?
Asking this was probably in poor taste, but the scene just begged for such a jocular question to be posed. The answer is four.

A Jewish nun?
A religious oxymoron?

Ida is drawn to the Coltrane tune and the man playing the saxophone.
Transgressive on both counts.

Ida lets her hair down. A significant scene.
A hint of what’s to come.

Saving the bones is a bit macabre, yes?

A snicker at supper. A sign that Ida isn’t ready for the “forever” nature of her impending decision?
Not a Snickers for supper. Although, a candy bar would probably be more appetizing than what’s in that soup.

Ida’s transformation is startling in its suddenness.
It’s frightening at how rapidly and radically humans can change.

Final analysis: a somber film about an orphan’s journey to discover the fate of her parents.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. A moody period piece that greatly benefits from its beautiful B&W cinematography.

This film is a quiet, unassuming character study centered on a young nun’s search for answers to her parents’ fate. More importantly, the movie is a quest of self-discovery as the woman searches for clues to her identity. Who is she and who does she want to be? These questions lie at the heart of a film where mood rules the moment and many of the film’s greatest revelations are subtly communicated through impressionist directing and minimalist acting. The actress who portrays Anna, Agata Trzebuchowska, delivers an understated performance that powerfully conveys a wide range of emotions with very little facial variance. It’s an extremely nuanced portrayal that’s made even more impressive by the fact that this is Trzebuchowska’s film debut. While the acting and writing are solid throughout, it’s Pawel Pawlikowski’s direction that elevates Ida to the upper ranks of the many fine films being produced by the European national cinemas these days. While the picturesque cinematography of the brooding, overcast Polish countryside and villages is stunning in its own right, Pawlikowski’s framing of his performers is simply sumptuous. In addition to employing radical angles in a handful of shots, Pawlikowski frequently pushes his characters to the extreme edges of the screen to produce tension and discomfort in the viewer and to reveal the inner turmoil of these marginalized and forgotten characters. In several of these shots, the director frames Anna’s disembodied head in the corner of the screen to signify the chastity inherent in her status as nun in training. Such thoughtful framing is subtly woven into the tapestry of the film and serves as a guide for interpreting the movie’s style, substance and subtext. Ida isn’t a phenomenal movie by any measure, but it’s well told and beautifully shot. If you can get past the subtitles and black and white filming, this movie is definitely worth watching.

Godzilla (PG-13)

tt0831387
Directed by: Gareth Edwards
Starring: Aaron Taylor-Johnson
May 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Godzilla

The redacted opening credits is a nice touch.
Should be “are” instead of “is.” Eh.

Not an earthquake...a pattern.
That last part is right up John Nash’s alley (reference A Beautiful Mind).

One last longing look through the circular window.

“My wife died here!” Superb acting from the man who brought Walter White to memorable life.
Unfortunately, and uncannily, the very instant Cranston exits stage right the film gets flushed down the crapper.

The old Godzilla mutated from radiation. This creature eats radiation. Consumes nuclear bombs whole.
Wouldn’t chewing on a bomb cause it to explode in the creature’s face though? Destroying it and everything else around it in an expansive circumference?

Terror in Vegas. The city will never be the same...the wages of sin.
Boy, I hope Wayne Newton got out okay.

Shine your flashlight right at the creature. Great idea.
These trained soldiers are no smarter than the kids in Jurassic Park when they shine their flashlight right into the T-Rex’ eyeball. Actually, the kids are smarter…at least Tim tries getting panicked Lex to turn off the flashlight. Trained soldiers should know better. Nitpick #1034 for this movie.

Why do action movies always pick on the Golden Gate Bridge?
X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) to name just two examples.

It’s raining fighter jets.
Multimillion dollar raindrops.

“If you don’t walk out, you don’t come back at all.” Sounds like dialog I would write...in the eighth grade.

The battle of the leviathans. Why do they always have to fight in a city?
This is an elemental contrivance in this brand of disaster picture. These gargantuan beasts would probably, instinctively, battle out in some vast open space rather than mix it up in close quarters with buildings constantly toppling down on them. Of course, such a battle wouldn’t contain any visceral thrills since no humans would be imperiled by such a colossal confrontation.

Why did Godzilla wait until after it got beaten into submission to use its laser breath?
The easy answer is that the writers needed to build some tension into the scene, and the only way to do that is to make it appear as if Godzilla might be defeated. Either that, or Godzilla is just toying around with his assailants.

Final analysis: maximum destruction with minimum plot. Serves its purpose if a disaster film is on the menu.
Although, there are far, far better films in this Thriller subgenre (disaster movie) to watch than this.

Rating:
2 out of 4 stars. Edges out Pacific Rim by that much. Needed some humor. Broderick could’ve helped.

It’s been sixteen years since the last American Godzilla (1998) premiered; the Japanese produced Godzilla 2000 was released, ironically, in 1999…and was awful. Many people, myself included, felt that the Matthew Broderick version, which featured baby Godzillas thrashing about like raptors from Jurassic Park (1993), had efficiently and effectively killed off the franchise…at least in the West. Although this film is a gigantic lizard leap ahead of the last Godzilla, it’s still riddled with outlandish monsters, dunderheaded strategies for stopping the creatures and a plot that’s consistently servile to the unrelenting barrage of action sequences. There are tons of things to find fault with and poke fun at in the movie, but ultimately, this movie is a squandered opportunity to tell a topical, salient story of how climate change can bring about our doom. The movie also had the chance to deal with the loss of a loved one and the restoration of a strained relationship between a father and son. All of these attempts at foregrounding genuine human emotion are abandoned after the first twenty minutes and then it’s back to business as usual with lumbering behemoths rampaging through our major cities just for the fun of it (and because it’ll serve as fodder for a top selling video game). In place of anything substantive, the movie resorts to the silly brand of monster melee that’s become the hallmark of every Godzilla movie to date. In truth, the only thing I like about this movie, other than Cranston’s presence…however brief, was the “against type” role the titular creature serves in the movie. I only spent $2 on the movie and still feel shortchanged. Watch at your own peril.

Rio 2 (G)

tt2357291
Directed by: Carlos Saldanha
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg
April 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Rio 2

Nice tropical sounds added to the 20th Century Fox fanfare.
The percussive rhythms of Carnival.

A blue feather is found in the Amazon.
Right next to the nest of raptor eggs.

Nice tour of Brazil in a storybook montage.
The bird’s-eye vantages of the major cities really help to capture the flavor of this diverse country.

Kristin Chenoweth voices the poisonous frog. Call it a significant career change.
Just further proof that there isn’t anything she can’t do in the biz.

The blue community’s celebration song is brilliantly animated and choreographed.
A visual treat that recalls other such elaborately produced numbers in the first film.

The jungle talent auditions are hilarious.
The male black panther singing high soprano is particularly humorous.

Blue insults the Red leader. This means war.
Insulted Red Leader? Who does he think he is, Luke Skywalker? Correction: Blu.

Fanny Pack single-wingdedly looses the war.

Final analysis: a respectable sequel with some new characters and challenges thrown into the mix.
While some original characters, like George Lopez’ Rafael, are sidelined for much of the movie.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. So will the sequel be called Rio 3 or Amazon 2? I’m so confused.

Such confusion stems from the fact that the majority of the film takes place in the Amazon—only about the first fifteen minutes of the story transpires in the birds’ native haunts in Rio. Whereas it was the right decision to move some of the action away from the familiar settings established in the first film, the sequel spends too much time away from the titular city and should’ve returned there if only for a closing number to provide an adequate bookend for the film. Indeed, one of the subplots (the proposed talent show) would’ve been a natural, logical way to close out the film…but that plot thread is left dangling in the tropical breeze. The familial aspects work really well here, but the writers work overtime at turning Blu into an avian version of Ben Stiller’s character in the Meet the Parents movies. Seeing the blue bird bumble and stumble through every situation grows tedious after a while and the way his one heroic act at the end rectifies all the damage he’s done all movie long is extremely contrived. And speaking of Blu’s defining moment of valor, does anyone else see the connective tissue between clumsy Jar-Jar leading the Gungan attack against the Battle Droid army in Star Wars-Episode I: The Phantom Menace and Blu leading the charge against the humans and their bulldozers here? This heavy-handed means of vilifying humans is old hat. Though conducted on a much smaller scale, this nature-revolts-against-humans finale is virtually identical to the one in FernGully…The Last Rainforest (1992). Whereas I’m certainly not a supporter of deforestation or any other means by which humanity destroys nature, I’m even less sanguine when Hollywood indoctrinates impressionable minds with its diatribes of evil humans and their careless stewardship over the planet (see my review of “Happy Feet” for a rant on the subject). This “humans bad, nature good” final conflict was the only sour note in an otherwise mellifluous animated romp in the jungle. So the question remains: how much of Rio will we get to see in Rio 3?

Snowpiercer (R)

tt1706620
Directed by: Joon-ho Bong
Starring: Chris Evans
June 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Snowpiercer

Those protein blocks don’t look very appetizing...or edible.
Imagine having nothing but Jell-O to eat for the rest of your life.

Take the engine, take the world.
The precise quote is: “We control the engine, we control the world.” The first thing that popped into my mind when I heard this trite line was the slogan in TVs Heroes, “Save the cheerleader, save the world.”

Beware the woman with the yellow jacket and tape measure.

Now that’s one brutal form of torture.
And the most unique one I’ve seen in quite some time. A poet might term the sequence alarming and disarming. I’ll stick with brutal.

“Bullets are extinct.” A risky theory.
Evans puts his theory to the test in a startling display of machismo/foolhardiness. The film’s ultimate inciting incident.

The protein in the protein bars is disgusting.
Revolting, in fact. Just a heads-up in case you have a weak stomach.

Night vision melee is nail-bitingly intense.
The protracted battle brilliantly morphs in response to changing circumstances.

The club car gives a whole new meaning to soul train.

A startling confession while smoking the world’s last cigarette.
I pray that things never get so bad in our country that such an option becomes a viable one.

Wow, that was the mother of all derailments.

Final analysis: a bleak, claustrophobic dystopian yarn with much to say about the human condition.
On both ends of the spectrum: the honorable and the despicable.

Chris Evans has never been better and the supporting cast is stellar.
Evans’ physicality was a natural fit for the part, but he developed some dramatic chops here, far beyond what we saw in the Captain America movies.

The world inside the train is staggeringly immersive and the production design is nothing short of brilliant.
For your consideration: Art direction, cinematography, editing, sound editing/mixing, visual effects, etc.

Rating:
3 1/2 out of 4. Amid the myriad remakes & sequels, it’s refreshing to see an original work of sci-fi.

This film is based on the French graphic novel series Le Transperceneige and is directed by South Korean filmmaker Joon-ho Bong (Mother) in his English-language film debut. Bong also directed The Host (2006), which was a Godzilla-style action movie starring Song Kang-ho. With that antecedent in mind, it should come as no surprise that this film boasts highly stylized camera work along with intricately choreographed, furiously filmed and splatter-tastic action sequences. What really sets this film apart, however, is the story’s keen, yet understated, observations on the human condition…especially amid extreme or desperate circumstances. So what we have here is a movie that possesses what every blockbuster/sequel/remake aspires to have but can never obtain…poignant political/social commentary, moral ambiguity, character complexity and, above all, paradigm-shattering originality. The way the characters behave in relation to their status, station or surroundings, the narrative strictures imposed by the habitat’s physical, structural confinement and the furious pacing and trajectory of the story (both train and characters are always recklessly pushing forward) all commingle to forge an unforgettable cinematic experience. We can forgive the numerous gaps in logic (where does the inexhaustible supply of “protein” come from, why do the security guards operate with obstructed vision, why hasn’t the train ever crashed before and how will the human race continue with such a tiny remnant?) for the sake of the highly evocative, innovative and controversial (don’t recall seeing any cows on the train) story. Beyond the thought-provoking story and gratuitous yet gratifying action sequences, what makes this film so mesmerizing is its mélange of visual and narrative elements. This is the epitome of a transnational film: the story originated in France, the director is from South Korea and the movie was shot in the Czech Republic. Add to that diverse foundation actors from South Korea (Kang-ho), Britain (Jamie Bell, Tilda Swinton and John Hurt) and America (Chris Evans, Octavia Spencer and Ed Harris), and you truly have a melting pot of cultures, languages, styles and creative energies. You can call the film’s mood dark, dire and despondent; you can call its world bleak, bizarre and brutal; you can call the story a disturbing, cautionary, post-apocalyptic dystopia on wheels; you can even call it unsettling or confusing, but one thing you can’t call it is boring. How fitting that one of the most original movie titles that’s rolled along in quite some time is also one of the rarest cinematic visual feasts in recent memory.

The Fault in Our Stars (PG-13)

tt2582846
Directed by: Josh Boone
Starring: Shailene Woodley
June 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Fault in Our Stars

“A roller coaster that only goes up.” Where’s the fun in that?
And, technically, is that even a real roller coaster? I mean, most of the enjoyment comes from the drops, twists and turns, right?

Gus introduces his parents to “Just Hazel.”
Actually, Gus introduces her as “Hazel Grace.” Gus’ dad calls her “Just Hazel.” Apologies for the inaccuracy and confusion.

Okay is the new always.

Gus takes Hazel to a skeleton playground for a picnic.
Skeletons signify death…overdetermined imagery considering the movie’s subject matter? The bit about Hazel wasting her wish is very amusing, though.

The conversation on the “sad swing set” contains some killer dialog...and some incredibly raw emotion.
The grenade metaphor is particularly powerful. And speaking of metaphors…

Gus is told to put out his metaphor on the plane.
A non-metaphor flight? Airlines are getting so picky these days. Next thing you know, they’ll have non-humor flights. Oh wait, I’ve been on a few of those.

Answer day in Amsterdam.

A very unromantic location for the first kiss.
Which is the irony of the scene. If Hazel wasn’t breathless after her long ascent up several flights of stairs, I’m sure she was after that kiss.

The pre-funeral scene is deeply moving. The line about a “limited infinity” is staggering visceral.
Any criticism of the movie’s bent toward sentimentality will have this scene in its crosshairs. The sole purpose of this melodramatic sequence is to tug on the heartstrings...and it works like a charm. Correction: “little infinity.”

Hazel experiences her great and terrible 10.

Wow, that last “okay” went through me like an electric shock.
As a key ingredient in the title, director Josh Boone cleverly uses stars as a recurring theme/symbol throughout the movie. How fitting that the movie should conclude with Hazel looking up at the starry host with its scintillating beauty reflecting in her eyes.

Final analysis: a film preoccupied with death that somehow ends up being life-affirming.

A sobering reminder of the brevity of life and the things that matter most in it.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. Could’ve been melodramatic, but strikes all of the right chords emotionally.

Based on the wildly popular book of the same name by John Green, Fault follows a courageous young woman on her mission to discover why she is made to suffer from a terminal condition. Although emotions here are real, and occasionally raw, some will undoubtedly find the more melodramatic aspects of the plot to be unbearably schmaltzy. To those hardened critics I say, “Get a heart!” In my estimation there’s only one scene (mentioned above) that even comes close to being maudlin, and the overall story seems far less interested in trumpeting the injustices of individuals living in the throes of cancer and fully invested in telling an intimate story of one person’s plight and how others in her orbit are affected by her infirmity. The story, adapted by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, is never contrived or stilted and adroitly avoids the mawkish pitfalls that so many other films of this kind unwittingly stumble into. Besides the exceptional performances of the star-crossed lovers, Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort, the film’s greatest asset is its dialog, presumably lifted wholesale from the book. I remember hearing one such line in the trailer, “You trying to keep your distance from me in no way lessens my affection for you.” I thought, Wow this is going to make a great movie. Fortunately, my initial assessment of the film holds up thanks to a movie brimming with such great lines and accompanied by genuine performances and a truly touching story. This certainly isn’t an easy film to watch at times, but its veracity reveals the bitter reality that fate can’t be cajoled or controlled. Barring a few sentimental moments, this movie presents an inspiring and heartwarming story that’s really hard to find fault with.

Jersey Boys (R)

tt1742044
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: John Lloyd Young
June 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Jersey Boys

A nick at the barber shop. “What’s a little blood between friends?”
Tapping Christopher Walken for this film was a casting coup. He was born to play this part…an absolutely pitch-perfect performance.

Three ways out of the neighborhood, two types of women. A severe world.
My parents were born and raised in that world. I’ve spent my entire adult life trying to divest myself from such a rigid worldview.

Jam session on the organ is a cool scene.
But comes with a price.

Manually loading bowling pins...what a job.
And the identity of the young teenage boy loading the pins is sure to take you by surprise.

A gift for the newest member of the group...a left shoe.
If you sense a sleight, you sense correctly.

“The musical equivalent of room service.” Always read the fine print.

The Four Felons get tossed out of the bowling alley, but a “sign” changes their fortunes.
Actually, The Four Felons, cast as an aspersion, is far better than the group’s original name…The Four Lovers. As a male quartet, did they not consider how such a name could be misconstrued? Ah, the innocent 50s.

A “Jersey contract” threatens to tear the group apart.

Valli’s pep talk to his daughter hits the right emotional chord.
And is really the only scene in the movie that contains any emotional resonance.

Final analysis: a well crafted spotlight on Valli and his group.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. An immersive film that captures the sound and mood of the period in focus.

I must admit, I’ve never been much of a Frankie Valli fan. His high falsetto work, especially on songs like “Walk Like a Man,” is like fingernails on a chalkboard to my ears. Musical preferences aside, I’m now a fan of the singer, thanks to the insightful portrait of Valli’s life and career, brought to us by the man who once tried his hand at singing in “Paint Your Wagon” (1969) and then wisely stuck with his day job. It’s evident that Eastwood has a profound affection for the subject matter and his attention to historical detail is peerless. The film is saturated with nostalgia for the music and mores of the 50s and 60s and the sets, costumes, cars, etc, are all period appropriate to a superlative degree. Those familiar with Valli’s greatest hits will find it nearly impossible to refrain from singing or humming along when snippets of those songs, played in chronological progression of course, blast from the theater speakers. Despite the many qualities that recommend the movie, however, it remains strangely unmoving. The same can be said of Eastwood’s previous directorial effort, J. Edgar (2011)…a finely mounted and acted period piece that provides a vivid history lesson without really engaging the heart in any meaningful way. Eastwood needs to reevaluate Changeling (2008) to see what’s been missing in his recent films. The story here is remarkably similar to that of a concurrent group, The Temptations (as chronicled in the 1998 self titled TV miniseries). It seems that many popular acts from this era had a meteoric rise to fame followed by a catastrophic meltdown, instigated by the group’s requisite prima donna: David Ruffin for The Temptations and Tommy DeVito for the Four Seasons. But besides the group’s internal drama and Valli’s relational challenges on the home front, this movie resides on the outskirts of substantive emotion. Indeed, despite the film’s ability to engage the ear (music) and mind (human interest story of a group of guys trying to parlay their talent into fame), the movie plays like a Lifetime movie (with a ton of expletives added) punctuated by dramatized Time Life archival music video clips. As things stand, the movie is a finely produced “true story” that’s memorable more for its music than its standard story or static direction. If you’re in the mood for this type of movie, Jersey might satiate your hankering; otherwise you’re sure to be disappointed by its predictable plot and surficial story. In other words, you might want to save your money and make this one a rental. Capiche?

Personal note: My uncle was lead trumpet for Valli’s touring group for a couple years in the mid-sixties, so it was fun for me to get a glimpse of what his life might have been like during that stretch of time.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 (PG)

tt1646971
Directed by: Dean DeBlois
Starring: Jay Baruchel
June 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

How to Train Your Dragon 2

Dragon race has a literal black sheep.
Doesn’t this competition remind you of a Quidditch match, only with dragons subbing in for brooms?

Free falling sequence is breathtaking.

A new page for the map, an encounter with some unsavory trappers and rumors of war.
Oh my!

“Men who kill without reason cannot be reasoned with.”
A tad platitudinous, but essentially true.

Dragon aviary is a spectacular visual.
The swarm of dragons, comprised of a myriad shapes, sizes and colors, is easily the visual highlight of the film.

Dragon traps...clever.

The alphas lock tusks...the battle of the leviathans.
Doesn’t this scene look like it belongs in Pacific Rim or a Godzilla movie, though?

Toothless flies blind. A matter of trust.
This sequence presents a nitpick, however. Is the Alpha’s mind control only effective when visual contact is established? The eye gate should be irrelevant if the Alpha is engaging in true mind control and not just some hypnotic suggestion. Too technical for a kids movie? Probably.

A new alpha and a new chief. And they all lived...

Final analysis: a logical extension of the first film with many new dragons and a new villain.
And some truly dynamic family moments that serve as the heart of the film. However, the sudden entrance of one family member and the rapid departure of another are extremely contrived narrative choices.

However, the premise takes too long to materialize and the story lacks the magic of the original.
The teen angst angle worked like a charm in the first film, but Hiccup has finally come into his own here, making him a far less compelling character in this movie.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4. Don’t be surprised if Toothless finds a mate in the sequel. Too obvious.

As sequels go this certainly isn’t a jeer-worthy entertainment, and yet it fails to measure up to the first film in several key areas. First of all, the writers expect us to remember all of the characters despite that fact that the original film was released four years ago. Except for the kids in the audience, who’ve seen the first film dozens of times on Blu-ray at home, a refresher as to who’s who would’ve been nice for the rest of us one-timers. The main thing I missed in the sequel is the lore and mythology that enriched the first film. The writers, mistakenly, assume that we’re all experts on Viking customs and have the dragon bestiary memorized by now, but some new cultural tidbits to draw us into the milieu would’ve further enhanced this film. Also, a large part of the fun in the first film involved the training sessions for how to fight and ride various types of dragons. Everyone’s a proficient “pilot” in this movie, and only the bumpy flight on the dragon babies adds any kind of drama to the lives of these experienced dragon riders. Lest we forget, the word “train” appears in the title, so the movie missed the mark by failing to tap into what worked in the first film. Though the CG animation is top shelf, some of the melees are staged and choreographed just like a LOTR film—the epic battle formula is getting old by now. All in all, this is a spirited animated adventure that’s sure to thrill its target audience…if only the adults were equally serviced by this sophomore, and sometimes sophomoric, effort. Final thought: now that the main character has become a man and taken his father’s mantle, can we get a name change already? One thing that should never be uttered in the next movie is Chief Hiccup.

Edge of Tomorrow (PG-13)

tt1631867
Directed by: Doug Liman
Starring: Tom Cruise
June 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Edge of Tomorrow
Sorry, couldn’t help myself.

A broad scale alien invasion. Didn’t we already see this in
War of the Worlds...also starring Cruise?

Gleason orders Cruise to the beach...a second D-Day in France.
The motivation here seems a bit fuzzy. There must’ve been a more inventive way of forcing Cruise into the battle than this.

Paxton is from the foreign country Kentucky. Never heard of it.
Bill Paxton turns in a swaggering, southern fried role that’s truly unforgettable. His character has some of the best lines in the movie, although they do get tired after the second or third repetition.

Bowlegged troops invade the beach. You’d think they would’ve designed the suit with better ease of use.
Especially when considering how agile their enemy is.

Several
Groundhog Day time loops and then Cruise is shown a “terrific presentation.”

Cruise wants to know if Blunt has “tried all options.” Humorous.
Actually, that would be the first option explored by any red-blooded male. Hey, the fate of the world is at stake, right?

Cruise on a motorcycle...the movie wouldn’t be complete without it.
Save for touching on the well-established Cruise trope, this scene was wholly unnecessary…and contrived.

The safety net is gone...now things are getting interesting.
In order for the story to kick into high gear this absolutely had to happen…and not a moment too soon since I was getting whiplash from repeatedly being yanked back to the beginning.

Must...swim...faster.

Final analysis: an original actioner that’s engaging despite its repetitious plot.
But hats off to the editing team. Piecing this film together must’ve required an entire pallet of Excedrin.

Not as entertaining as
Oblivion, but still a decent yarn with some jaw-dropping action scenes.

Rating:
3 out of 4. If you disagree with my rating, don’t shoot me. Unlike Cruise, I can’t come back.

On the surface, the new Tom Cruise vehicle, Edge of Tomorrow, is a sci-fi/action riff on Groundhog Day (1993), the movie where Bill Murray wakes up every morning to the same song and the same day. This film is also reminiscent of ST:TNGs “Cause and Effect” which ended each act, save for the final one…of course, with the Enterprise exploding into scientifically impossible fiery bits in space. The crew discovers that they’re trapped inside a causality loop and that they’re doomed to keep repeating the same mistakes, which they do until the albino android figures out how to spring the ship from the temporal trap. In Edge, Cruise lives the same day over and over again and, like Murray’s character in Groundhog, finds that he can adapt, learn new skills and eventually figure a way out of the redundant riddle. It’s a deceptively simple premise, but beyond the trippy plot and mind-blowing FX, there’s a narrative depth here that one can sense more than readily identify. Clearly the film is engaging in a discourse on the nature of war, and the film’s release on the 70th anniversary of D-Day is far from coincidental. However, other social commentary is subtly broached here in a manner that’s nearly undetectable until it surfaces in the most startling fashion imaginable, much like the emergence of the movie’s maniacal Mimics. The obvious interpretation of the movie is that, like Inception (2010), the film is an attempt at creating a video game experience on the big screen (with gratitude to Henry Jenkins’ brilliant article on the subject entitled “No, You Do Not Have to Be a Gamer to Like Inception!”). Inception had multiple characters and levels, but Edge has one level with multiple lives that act as a reset button each time Cruise meets with an untimely demise. Although this is certainly a valid view of the movie, and don’t be surprised if you see blogs and articles written on the topic ad nauseam, I’d like to delve deeper into the movie’s multilayered mantle of meaning. Could it be that the movie holds up a mirror to our postmodern, post-911, post-economic meltdown society and projects back the anxieties and desperate exigencies of our lives? Cruise is a major in the army, but one day he wakes up to find that he’s a lowly private. In a similar reversal of fortunes, many in our country who once had white-collar jobs now have blue-collar jobs and have had to learn an entire new skill set in order to survive. We can sympathize with Cruise’s plight because we’ve all been affected, in one way or another, by the global economic recession. Many, like Cruise’s character, have fallen pretty far down the ladder from the once-powerful positions they enjoyed during the pre-recession period. In the same way that Cruise is trapped inside his repetitious nightmare, many people today are shackled by circumstances beyond their control and are prisoners inside their own lives. The drudgery of going to work, buying groceries and gas, paying bills and taxes, etc can feel like an unending cycle of sameness; a rote reality that’s really just an undiagnosed form of insanity. The movie’s poster is emblazoned with the slogan, “Live. Die. Repeat.” For many of our nation’s citizens, their life can be summed up as, “Wake up, go to work, come home, make supper, clean up, go to sleep, repeat.” So then, Cruise’s dogged insistence on reclaiming his autonomy and identity by breaking free from the seemingly preordained pattern of our existence should serve as a cathartic release for us…a powerful reminder that it’s possible to learn from our mistakes in the attempt at forging a better future. Director Doug Liman and his writers seem to be telling us that it’s tenable, with a good deal of ingenuity, dedication and sacrifice, to navigate through the treacherous terrain of our times and that the American Dream is still out there for those willing to fight like mad to attain it. In order to succeed, however, the assistance of others is required; even Cruise’s lone wolf character enlists the help of Rita (Emily Blunt) and Bill Paxton’s squad of elite soldiers during the movie’s climactic events. Cruise’s self-determination in spite of the impossibly rigid strictures of temporal mechanics also has much to say regarding rugged individualism versus the totalitarian state. This point could open up a whole discourse on the film’s politics, which I have neither the space nor inclination to address. Suffice it to say, the film invites multiple readings of its narrative, which makes it more complex and, therefore, more mentally stimulating than the standard action picture. In fact, the story is so involved that successive screenings are advised in order to fully appreciate the multifaceted plot and furiously filmed action sequences. How ironic, or insidious, that a film about a man stuck inside a time loop should invite repeat viewings. It’s almost as if Warner Bros. planned it that way.

Belle (PG)

tt2404181
Directed by: Amma Asante
Starring: Gugu Mbatha-Raw
May 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Belle

The premise is immediately established.
Most of what was shown in the trailer transpires in the first five minutes of the movie, which is a welcome change from the usual preview that ruins every key moment, line or action scene in a film. There’s something refreshing about being “cinematically blind,” not knowing what’s coming around the next bend story wise. It’s one of the many reasons why movies were so thrilling during the golden age of cinema.

Wilkinson and Watson puzzle over Belle’s future.
Belle’s real name is Dido, but I didn’t want to Tweet that name for fear of misspelling it to my own eternal shame and ridicule.

Whispering in French raises auntie’s ire.

Good moral debate over human cargo.
It’s unbelievable to think that we once had arguments over such an issue…that there actually could be two legitimate sides on such a topic.

“Coming out” meant something completely different in those days.

“Wait for no man, dear.” Ha!
The seeds of women’s lib?

“Just as in life, we’re no better in paintings.” Poignant.
I must say that I don’t recall ever having seen a painting from this era with a person of African descent featured in it before seeing the many such paintings displayed in this film. But I’m certainly not an art connoisseur from the period in question…or any other for that fact.

James is a creep...the “manhandled” scene is repulsive.

Argument in carriage is intense.
I don’t think I’d ever lock horns with Wilkinson. Remember when he went off on George Clooney in Michael Clayton (2007)? “I am Shiva, the god of death.” Now that’s gravitas.

Wilkinson sees himself in a fiery young politician. A superb scene.

“Let justice be done though the heavens may fall.” Wilkinson’s ruling is an amazing moment.
A great quote, but an even better scene. The verdict isn’t nearly as epic as the one in To Kill a Mockingbird (1962), but it’s still provides a rousing resolution.

Final analysis: a deeply-affecting true story that tackles such heavy issues as racism & slavery in the late 1700s.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. Splits its time between familial and political intrigue. A moving, inspiring tale.

This isn’t the first “true story” film to highlight events during the pre-Victorian period. This certainly isn’t the first movie to feature matchmaking mothers intent on marrying off their daughters to this rich relative or that powerful duke…look no further than Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice (1940) for a master class on the subject. This also isn’t the first film to spotlight the social blight of slavery during this time period; one really good story on the subject is that of humanitarian William Wilberforce in Amazing Grace (2006). What is new here is the story of a young black woman who grows up on an estate with a staid, white, aristocratic family. Imagine dropping a black girl into Downton Abbey and the effect would be about the same. Dido’s (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) plight, which immediately creates identification and pathos in the audience, is the one plot point that keeps the movie from being just another finely mounted, well acted costume drama. Her struggle for acceptance and equality is inspiring and captivating: we can only imagine what Dido endured as someone too good to eat with the servants but not good enough to eat with her “family.” The social commentary, which is chiefly preoccupied with human rights, is subtle throughout and we can thank Misan Sagay that the writing never gets heavy-handed. It goes without saying that the acting is amazing, but it’s worth mentioning just the same. Wilkinson and Watson are well suited as Dido’s adoptive parents and Mbatha-Raw is a revelation as the delightful yet redoubtable title character, a brave woman who fights for self-respect while fighting for the fate of her race. In the end, the movie succeeds because there are many familiar features from other such period pieces to make the story accessible along with enough new elements to keep us engaged and entertained from the outset. Add this to the pantheon of well acted, well produced and well written historical dramas.

The Lego Movie (PG)

tt1490017
Directed by: Phil Lord, Christopher Miller
Starring: Will Arnett
February 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Lego Movie
Everything is already done for you…which some would say is the downfall of movies.

LOTR style opening. A wizard recounts a prophecy...in rhyme.

Everything is awesome...until Emmett tries following a woman into a construction site.
Many men have rushed headlong into destruction while pursuing a woman, so it’s not just a Lego thing. Correction: Emmet.

Wild Style and The Special land in the Old West.
Nope, there’s no time for them to say howdy to Rango. Correction: Wyldstyle.

The meeting of master builders is attended by many familiar figures, including the wizard Double Door.
A really funny play on words. The assembly is chockfull of familiar faces from many different franchises.

The double-decker couch actually serves a purpose.

Batman hitches a ride on the Millennium Falcon. Funny scene.
In what other movie can you find such a scene? The “They’re all guys” bit is a hoot.

The Bat pun is humorous.
The deadpan delivery by Will Arnett, who actually does a respectable job of voicing the Caped Crusader, is absolutely perfect.

Will Farrell meets his alter ego. Results in a touching scene.

Final analysis: some funny moments along with the pedestrian ones. A nice emotional payoff at the end.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. Not hard to see this becoming a franchise with the myriad sets to choose from.

The animated films that tend to endure are those that work on two levels: cute and funny for the kids, witty and emotionally complex for adults. Pixar has long been the exemplar for how to simultaneously cater to kids and adults in the same movie, but other animation studios have gradually found their own way in achieving this multidimensional storytelling method. The Lego Movie does an excellent job of servicing the different generations in the audience with whip smart humor and pulse-pounding action sequences. Many of the “adult” jokes, some of which contain biting political commentary, will fly right over the heads of younger viewers. That’s okay, because there’s plenty for the youngsters to enjoy here, not the least of which is seeing many of their favorite heroes hanging out together on the big screen. Characters from the Batman, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter franchises all peacefully coexist in this mash-up mayhem, but a pair of original characters, Emmet (Chris Pratt) and Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), drive the story’s action. And then there’s schizoid Good Cop/Bad Cop (Liam Neeson), who steals the show with his mercurial moods and vacillating voices. The voice cast is beyond stellar, including Morgan Freeman, Will Ferrell, Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum and Cobie Smulders, to name just a few. It’s an added treat to hear actors voicing their original characters like Billy Dee Williams as Lando and Anthony Daniels as C-3PO. The final ten minutes close out the movie with a heartwarming resolution, which, for this adult, tied things up with satisfactory emotional closure. There are myriad creative avenues for the writers to explore in the inevitable sequel. We’ll just have to wait and see what new adventure they come up with…or, if we don’t want to wait that long, we can create our own sequel with the Legos we have hidden in the shoebox in the corner of the closet. I won’t tell if you won’t.

Transcendence (PG-13)

tt2209764
Directed by: Wally Pfister
Starring: Johnny Depp
April 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Transcendence
It sounded good at the time.

Bettany in a bleak Berkley. Narration decries the downside of technology.
Meaning its ability to take control of our society. Have we learned nothing from Skynet?

Castor wants to create his own god. Hmm... Something tells me that won’t end well.
His comment that all of science is the attempt at becoming God is revealing and somewhat ironic when considering what’s to come for his character in the movie. With statements like that is there any wonder why there’s such a huge rift between religion and science? Correction: Caster.

PINN is the new KIT, but with a lot more computational power.
And not housed inside a car. Minor detail. Correction: KITT.

Now those closest of Castor play God by trying to save his life.
And nobody, not even his wife, thinks this is a bad idea? This is what happens when people stop reading science fiction. Or reading period.

Depp looks creepy in electrode curlers.
But still not as creepy as his chalk complexioned character in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005).

Why does Kate Mara always play a nut job?
Remember her turn as a psycho B on 24?

Castor tells his wife they need to get off the grid. Uh...he is the grid.

Ominous note: Run from this place.
Evelyn still doesn’t take Tagger’s hint. Maybe if he’d written, “Run for you life,” his message would’ve gotten across more clearly.

These guys heal quicker than Wolverine.

Nano rain. Now we’re drifting too close to #Revolution.
This sequence boasts some of the best FX in the movie.

Creepy townsfolk reminds me of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.
They’re really just zombies that look like normal people, which is exactly how zombies looked in 50s movies like the one listed above.

Final analysis: a standard cautionary tale of technology running amok.

Offers some food for thought, but it’s more like a light snack.

Rating:
2 out of 4 stars. Squanders its fine cast with farcical fare. Can you prove you’re self aware?

This movie is a profound disappointment. Longtime cinematographer for Christopher Nolan and first time director, Wally Pfister, drew the short straw on this project. Pfister frames a few nice shots in the movie (especially the rows of solar panels), but the movie’s ordinary, rundown and non-cinematic locales lend the whole proceedings a low budget look. The leaden script from Jack Paglen had no chance of becoming the edgy, poignant, mind trip the movie aspires to be…Inception it’s not. Besides being derivative of many other sci-fi works, The Terminator and ST:TNG’s “The Schizoid Man” among many possible choices, the story is so outlandish that suspending one’s disbelief still doesn’t help relegate it to the realm of reason…or reality. Depp’s performance is muted and uninspired: his slump continues and this just might prove to be his least successful movie ever. Morgan Freeman does the most he can with a cardboard character and Paul Bettany plays a scientist whose shifting motivations are contrived and disingenuous. Rebecca Hall, who turns in the movie’s most sincere and convincing performance, can’t quite sell us on her motivation behind preserving the essence of her husband. This story embodies the age-old axiom of absolute power corrupting absolutely but adds nothing new to the hackneyed formula. The movie flirts with having a message, but the execution of the anemic story line prevents any such notions from gaining traction. What’s unfortunate is that the story actually had the kernel of a compelling idea. Unfortunately, that kernel never turned into something white, fluffy and delicious. Instead, it resides at the bottom of your popcorn bucket with all the other old maids.

Chef (R)

tt2883512
Directed by: Jon Favreau
Starring: Jon Favreau
May 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Chef

The whole hog for review day.

A piece of fruit versus kettle corn. Guess which one wins.
One look at Favreau should answer that question. He almost had me sold on the fruit, though.

Favreau tells Hoffman his restaurant is in a “creative rut.”
Hoffman tells Favreau to cook his favorite hits. Favreau tells Hoffman to take his job and shove it…which
was a hit in 1977 by Johnny Paycheck.

Favreau’s son helps him create a #Twitter account. Welcome to social media.

Favreau sends his first tweet. Love the bird animation and tweet sound effect.

Favreau gets a crash course on the public nature of #Twitter.
It’s not like texting, folks. I’m always happy when Twitter gains exposure in movies since I use it in conveying my reviews, but are people really this ignorant over the medium in question? Sometimes I think it’s a little overdetermined like in Draft Day when Costner’s mom (Ellen Burstyn) uses Twitter and he doesn’t. And “dummys” on the subject always call it “twittering.”

Review redux. Showdown creates a media firestorm.
TMZ would have a field day over such a demonstrative meltdown.

New job: be a nanny in Miami.
Wish I can take credit for the rhyme, but it’s in the dialog.

Iron Man gives Favreau a taco truck.

How to make a Cubano sandwich. A delectable scene.

Lady and the Tramp photo op with cop is hilarious.

Cornstarch on ware wolves. Sidesplittingly funny.
Correction: werewolves. This scene is a bit crass but it’s extremely hilarious, especially if you’re a fan of random gags.

Austin Midnight sandwich for $7. Looks delicious.
Actually, as tasty as that sandwich appears, I’d gladly pay $20 for one.

One second video is a special moment.
It’s amazing what kids can do with technology these days. Oops, just dated myself.

Final analysis: a delicious repast of father/son, road trip and follow your dreams tropes served with flair.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. A feel good film with plenty of laughs and heartwarming moments. Worth a watch.

Favreau has spent the better part of the last decade behind the camera, so it’s nice to see him acting again, and what’s more, in a leading role that he can really sink his teeth into. As the title would suggest, this movie is all about food, so viewers are strongly cautioned not to enter the theater on an empty stomach…otherwise you might find that you’re one limb short when you leave. As for me, I was stuffed to the gills when I saw the film and I was still salivating throughout the movie. There’s not much more I can add to my above analysis, and I don’t want to ruin any of the movie’s many memorable moments. This is a highly pleasurable film where the plot has just as much meat as the dishes it serves. Chef is a rare treat that’s not to be missed. Order up!

X-Men: Days of Future Past (PG-13)

tt1877832
Directed by: Bryan Singer
Starring: Patrick Stewart
May 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

X-Men-Days of Future Past

Bleak dystopian intro presents a desolate landscape akin to the one in the #Terminator films.
The only thing missing is the metallic men with laser weapons.

Intense opening battle. Wouldn’t want to run into one of the Sentinels in a dark alley.
Speaking of metallic assailants, the Sentinels are truly fear-inspiring, not only in how they appear and move, but in their ability to assimilate mutant abilities. Are we witnessing the birth of the Borg?

Wolvie is transported back to 1973. Is transported through a lava lamp and wakes up on a waterbed.
Groovy!

School’s out, the professor’s sauced and a big, bad, blue wolf is on the loose.

That’s the mother of all JFK conspiracy theories.

“It’s cool, but it’s disgusting.” True, bone claws aren’t nearly as sleek as metal ones.

Whip...lash! Cool visual.

Quicksilver’s run around the room is reminiscent of the Hammy’s sprint in #OverTheHedge.
Although this sort of thing has been done before, especially with the alacritous red clad lad from the DC stable of heroes, this is the most creative and exciting sequence in the entire movie. However, I can see why director Bryan Singer chose to sit this mutant on a couch during the final climactic sequence: Quicksilver’s special ability would’ve swiftly undone every villainous act committed by Magneto and would’ve robbed Mystique’s fateful decision of any urgency and dramatic value.

“Looks can be deceiving.” Truer words have never been spoken...by Mystique.

Beast Hulks out and Logan is stricken by amnesia.

Trask wants Mystique for “research purposes.” Sure!

Charles mindmelds with Logan. The finger placement is a little off.
Correction: mind-meld. I should know better. Speaking of…

Nice ST:TOS episode clip from “Tomorrow is Yesterday.” Another time travel story.
It always pains me to admit when I’m incorrect on this particular subject, but the episode in question is “The Naked Time,” which I originally surmised and then second-guessed myself on. Both episodes use the shipboard chronometer located to the right of Sulu’s station, and I selected “Yesterday” because the Enterprise returns to Earth circa 1969, in a similar manner to Wolverine returning to 1973 in this movie. Based on that plot similarity, “Yesterday” actually would’ve made a stronger allusion since the ship merely skips back in time three days (seventy-one hours to be precise) in “Naked.” In my defense, there’s very little to go off of in these clips (a planet would’ve given it away in two seconds flat) and some segments seem to have been repeated. Apology and apologetics aside, it’s quite ingenious how Singer wove this ancillary, yet pertinent, tidbit into the tapestry of the film. Mise-en-scene at its finest.

Charles uses a Jedi mind trick to get through security.
Just figured I’d provide equal opportunity to the other major sci-fi universe.

Magneto turns a stadium into a mother ship.
This is the only story element in the movie that seems contrived to me. Since Magneto can pull metal from anywhere to create a barricade, absconding with an entire stadium seems a bit excessive. It’s a giant set piece that seems more appropriate for an old style Batman movie, and just seems unnecessary for the story at hand.

Wolvie attacked by rebar snakes.
A very visceral visual.

Logan wakes up to the Golden Oldies. There and back again.

Even Cyclops wears #Oakley shades.
Other than the gray in Halle Berry’s hair, it’s remarkable how little this cast has aged since their first film together back in 2000.

Final analysis: a decent time travel yarn without too many cheesy comic book clichés.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. Next up in the Marvel-verse: #GuardiansOfTheGalaxy.

Mixing older and younger versions of the same characters in one movie is an exciting premise, but also a risky one. Part of the movie’s appeal is seeing older and younger selves interact with each other, as in the case of Charles Xavier (Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy). The constant threat of the Sentinels, the bracing time travel story line and the novelty of the 70s trappings all make for a unique comic-to-cinema tale. Featuring fan favorite Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) as the focal point and linchpin of the plot was a wise choice—this is Jackman’s seventh appearance as Wolvie. Perhaps it has something to do with her Oscar, but Jennifer Lawrence, aka Raven/Mystique, has been given more to do in this movie than in the previous one…I don’t know many teenage boys who are disappointed by that fact. Peter Dinklage is terrific as Trask, an opportunist who misguidedly thinks he’s furnishing the world with the security it desperately needs. If the movie has a weak link, it’s a story that’s so preoccupied with the impending extinction of mutantkind that it’s really a rather joyless affair. Quicksilver (Evan Peters) adds some levity during his five minutes of screen time, but the balance of the movie is an earnest, glum exercise in entropy. The movie is thought provoking at times, pulse pounding at others, but is it truly enjoyable? In the end, it’s just nice seeing all of our old and new friends together in one film, although some are little more than set dressing. So how does this latest film measure up to earlier efforts? It’s the best X-Men film since X2 (2003). However, for the next sequel I recommend lightening it up a bit. Since Jackman and Marsden can sing, how about a few musical numbers? X-Men: The Musical. Stick a pin in it.

Million Dollar Arm (PG)

tt1647668
Directed by: Craig Gillespie
Starring: Jon Hamm
May 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Million Dollar Arm
Million Dollar Baby was already taken, so Disney settled on Arm. Don’t believe a word I say.

“A highly improbable challenge” to turn a cricket bowler into a baseball pitcher.
With unlimited time and money, this feat might be attainable. But training two Indian teens (who have never even touched a baseball before) to become pitchers on a professional baseball team within one year would be a ludicrous proposition, right? Keep watching.

“Indians love honking and bypassing the system.”
This makes for a funny scene, but I wonder how many Indians would feel mischaracterized by this statement. The two Indian lads (neither of whom like cricket, which exposes another stereotype imposed upon Indians…that they all love cricket) observe that Hamm’s character is always hustling. By extension, making the comment that all Americans maintain a fast pace of life would be an equally prejudicial remark to the one quoted above.

Tryout day. Long lines of low velocity throwers. Arkin gets plenty of shut eye.
As always, Arkin is a hoot in this movie. He seems to be Hollywood’s go-to actor for playing a curmudgeon with a heart. As a side note, I was in the audience when Arkin introduced a movie he starred in at this year’s TCM Film Fest. The “real” Arkin seems far less irascible than his frequent onscreen personas, but every once in a while I detected a hint of that patented back east brusqueness.

The last contestant is called “The Flamingo.” Aptly named.

The double hurl scene is disgusting.
I’d trade my sports car in for a minivan after that too. Can you really ever get the smell out?

Finger cut shouldn’t effect the cutter.
Correction: affect, not effect. Didn’t have time to reason it out.

All of India will be watching. No pressure.

Tough sledding in Tempe.
Arkin’s ploy with the Pirates’ scout not only keeps the Indian boys’ dreams alive, it also saves Hamm’s bacon. Er…

“Thank you” meal is a sweet scene.

Final analysis: a predictable, yet heartwarming true sports story.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. The footage of the actual players during the end credits is a nice touch.

Though there isn’t anything earth-shattering in the movie, it tells a mildly intriguing tale of courage in the face of impossible odds. There’s virtually no narrative complexity here and the characterizations are fairly cardboard, except for Lake Bell’s next door nurse, whose compassion and honesty lend the film the smallest modicum of genuine human emotion. The uncomplicated plot and a cause and effect, some might even call it paint-by-numbers, story line render the movie predictable at every turn. Those who prefer straightforward stories with lollipops and roses endings will be pleased to no end with this movie. Those who prefer more complexity and artistry in their entertainment will find this film borderline insufferable. There’s no doubt that the follow-your-dreams elements are a tremendous asset to the movie, as is the location footage shot in India, but the sum total here is far less than it could’ve been…and one could justifiably blame Disney’s family friendly formula for that. Is the film inspirational? Undeniably. Is it as inspirational as other Disney sports films such as The Rookie (2002) and Miracle (2004)? Not even close. Like the early efforts of the Indian pitchers, this movie is slow and out of the strike zone.

3 Days to Kill (PG-13)

tt2172934
Directed by: McG
Starring: Kevin Costner
February 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

3 Days to Kill
The dollar sign is on the wrong side of the numeral…long day at the movies.

Why are albinos always bad guys,
a la #ThePretender?
The opening attack is pretty standard action movie fare…would’ve been nice to see a more elaborate scenario with edgier filming. And since Luc Besson is the co-writer, you’d almost expect that degree of punch and panache from the movie’s action sequences.

Costner is admonished to put his affairs in order.
A phrase no one ever wants to hear.

“Yellow is not a man’s color.”
Neither is purple, as he’s soon to find out.

Costner rides a purple bike through Paris.

“Kill or die,” says the comely woman in the hot sports car.
Well, when she puts it like that…

Costner ties up a bad guy with the handy man’s secret weapon. Reference #TheRedGreenShow.
You’ll be amazed at the myriad things you can create with the stuff.

“The spare’s loose in the trunk.” Funny scene.
Funny, but farcical. A spare tire can’t move on its own inside a parked car…unless we’ve unknowingly drifted into a horror movie.

Bike riding lessons...a sweet scene.
With a gorgeous vantage of the city in the background.

“Real football.” I love it.

Guido’s secret sauce...hilarious scene.
The funniest scene in the movie, but the trailer absolutely ruined it.

More lessons...dancing this time.
But the mom’s (Connie Nielsen) entrance at that particular moment, arranged for maximum emotional effect, is more than a little contrived.

Costner really knows how to crash a party.
Fitting, I suppose, since he was a bodyguard in a former (acting) life.

Final analysis: a unique blend of action and humor in this job vs. family themed film.

Some beautiful European locales along with a few Bourne-esque action sequences are a boon to the film.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. Another solid turn by Costner and McG’s finest directorial effort to date.

Despite its thematic tensions, something about this movie just works. It’s a serious movie about serious matters that doesn’t take itself too seriously. Thank goodness for small miracles. If played straight, the movie would’ve imploded since it falls far short of the quality seen in a Bourne or Bond Euro flavored action thriller. The film explores the lighter side of a genre where life and death stakes normally belie any modicum of levity. Tonally, the movie falls somewhere between Bourne and Red—a sizable dramatic chasm, to be sure. Some will, wrongly, view the film as a spoof, while others will be thrown by how it tries to wear two hats (or masks)—the light and the dark (reference the movie poster), the comedic and the dramatic. Such tonal shifts didn’t bother me because Costner is utterly convincing as a man with literally nothing to lose (except for the respect and admiration of his family) and because he navigates back and forth between the narrative poles with masterful ease. I can see where viewers expecting an all-out action film will be disappointed by the movie’s comedic bits and schmaltzy daddy/daughter scenes; the atypical blend of story elements will surely attract some viewers while repelling others, as any work of art will do when pushing the envelope. To me, the movie’s uniqueness is what sets it apart from a standard action picture and makes it an enjoyable entertainment. But if you disagree with my assessment, please don’t kill the messenger.

Muppets Most Wanted (PG)

tt2281587
Directed by: James Bobin
Starring: Ricky Gervais
March 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Muppets Most Wanted
Guess I should show more respect for the little green guy. After all, he has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. I know ‘cause I’ve seen it.

Really amusing
Monsters University short.

Clever opening number about sequels. Did anyone catch
The Seventh Seal reference?
One of the lines suggests that this is the seventh film since the original movie. My higher math tells me that there are now eight films in the Muppets series. Certainly a respectable franchise, although it has a long way to go to catch up to James Bond.

Badguy proposes a world tour. What could possibly go wrong?

“Drum solo!” Animal is a crackup.
Don’t worry; he eventually gets his solo…which lasts two hours. Thank God for editing.

Christophe Waltz dances the waltz. Doesn’t get any more tongue-in-cheek than that.
Correction: No “e” in Christoph.

Kermit receives a spork crown at the gulag.
Some people wait their whole lives for such an honor.

Liotta and Trejo doing dance moves is a bigger gas than Chris Cooper doing rap in the last film.

Kermit must direct a prison review or be stuck to “the wall.”

The prison ballet scene is just plain wrong.

These Cabbage Patch Muppets are creepy looking.
They look like Chucky’s illegitimate children.

Piggy sees double at her wedding.
The doppelgänger subplot is older than dirt, but keeps finding its way into movies.

Final analysis: just what you’d expect from a
Muppets movie...lots of gags, pratfalls and inside jokes.
With puns and one-liners to spare.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. Not as heartfelt as the previous film, but just as entertaining.

The previous film in the series, The Muppets (2011), was a valentine to the fans and franchise. The movie was delivered with undeniable reverence and passion by co-star/co-writer Jason Segel (TVs How I Met Your Mother), who is a lifelong Muppet lover. The new Muppet introduced in that movie, Walter, was clearly envisioned as a Muppet version of Segel’s younger fan boy self. Though Walter also appears in this film, his involvement is in more of an ancillary capacity. Even though it’s just as amusing, this movie isn’t as from-the-heart as its predecessor. But that isn’t to say it’s without entertainment value. Fey, Gervais, Ty Burrell and a slew of high caliber performers in cameos infuse the movie with sufficient star power and the laughs keep coming at a steady clip throughout the movie. The Spartacus inspired scene near the end of the movie, where all of the Muppets offer themselves up for imprisonment so that they won’t be separated from Kermit, is definitely an emotional high point. All in all, this movie is diverting, family friendly fare that should fill the bill if this is the kind of entertainment you’re in the mood for. In the end, Muppets Most Wanted is exactly what you’d expect it to be. And in this instance, that’s not such a bad thing.

Walking with the Enemy (PG-13)

tt1515208
Directed by: Mark Schmidt
Starring: Jonas Armstrong
April 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Walking With the Enemy
Mr. Kingsley, as you’ll recall, also played a protagonist opposed to the Nazis in Schindler’s List (1993).

1944. Hungary. Nazi invasion. Restrictions. Curfews. And so it begins.
“I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”

Not so warm welcome at the work camp.
As would be expected…this isn’t the Ritz after all.

Kingsley, the Hungarian leader, must choose the lesser of two evils.
Some good acting here, but nothing that really makes Kingsley flex his acting muscles. Also, too many of the shots in this scene were done from one camera setup, which makes the sequence feel static and unimaginative. A prime indicator of just how time and budget constrained this film is.

American planes arrive. An exciting but short-lived action scene.
Just a guess, but this sequence probably consumed about half of the movie’s budget.

German officers take what they want. Rough scene.

You definitely don’t want to get caught with a radio.

“This piece of paper is someone’s life.” A chilling statement.
This scene has considerable dramatic heft; ironic considering how lightweight the object in question is. Items purchasing freedom for the oppressed echoes the scene at the end of Schindler’s List where Schindler is willing to offer his watch and car to save more lives; a bargain, he bitterly realizes, he’s too late to make.

The greater of two evils stages a coup.
A. Germany. B. Russia. Unless you’re a student of history you have a 50/50 chance of guessing correct.

German officers joke about their “resorts.” Detestable.

Final analysis: an OK WWII tale that’s notable more for its historical importance than its filmmaking.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. Kingsley’s involvement is negligible in a film desperate for his talent.

Despite its obvious dearth of talent, time and money, the movie makes the most of what it has by featuring some impressive on location work. Also, the film’s sets, props and outfits (uniforms play a major role in the film) are all well designed and period appropriate. What holds the movie back is middling performances by a largely no-name cast, a sputtering screenplay by Kenny Golde (the first half of the film really drags and some of it could’ve been condensed or trimmed since the film runs fifteen minutes too long anyway) and standard, largely uninspired direction by Mark Schmidt. What’s sad about the end result here is that this true account is actually an inspiring tale of courage and cleverness in the face of unspeakable evil. One wonders how significant the improvement in overall quality would’ve been if the movie had had a bigger budget, a top shelf director (a la Spielberg, who tends to do well with this period of history) and some real star power. As for Kingsley, he does what he can with what little screen time he’s given, but his presence is more like a cameo than a star turn. On this count, the movie poster, which prominently features Kingsley’s visage, is more than a little disingenuous. Fans of the performer will feel shortchanged by his blink-and-you’ll-miss-it part, while those who know Kingsley only by sight will wonder why this accomplished actor isn’t featured more prominently in the story. Either way, the movie needed more of Kingsley. And more money wouldn’t have hurt either.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (PG-13)

tt1872181
Directed by: Marc Webb
Starring: Andrew Garfield
May 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Spider-Man 2

The struggle to upload Roosevelt is quite intense and features a new slice of back story.
However, this opening feels like a teaser on a TV show like The Blacklist rather than an introductory sequence for a blockbuster.

Spidey carries a cellphone? Don’t recall seeing a pocket anywhere on his suit.
Correction: Cell phone. Strangely, Twitter didn’t underline it in red so I went with it. Guess I should’ve trusted that tingling feeling on the back of my neck instead.

Spidey’s dialog here is campy like in the comics...not sure it translates as well to the big screen.
The first fifteen minutes, in particular, are brimming with cheesy one-liners which engender more eye rolls than chuckles. Sure, Tobey Maguire’s Spidey got off his fair share of witty remarks and puns, but there was something charming about his delivery that’s absent from Garfield’s daffy deluge of doltish comments. Enough blathering on the subject, though, lest I become guilty of delivering the same kind of remedial retorts I accuse the wall-crawler of employing here.

Foxx has a Spidey psychosis.
I’m speaking of Foxx’ character, of course, Max…also known as the villain Eelman.

“Change isn’t a slogan.” Hmm. Must exclude campaigns.
I so want to get up on a soap box here, but I shall refrain.

Sparkles is this movie’s version of Syndrome.

Foxx zaps people with force lightning. He does kinda’ look like the Emperor.

How to distract four thugs with a coffee mug.
Pouring coffee on one of them is always a good start, but how clichéd is this?

Aunt Mae discovers Peter’s web of photos.
Correction: Aunt May. Guess you can tell that I don’t read the comics.

In the Special Projects lab. Did anyone else see the mechanical appendages? Sequel teaser?

Gorgeous scene atop the bridge.
Actually, this is the only scene in the entire movie where I felt Webb took a moment to create some art. Everything else is just crashing, smashing and teen angst.

Peter is a science geek. Why wouldn’t he think of the magnetism solution?

Cop car license plate is 1701.
Star Trek fans will understand the inside gag.

Gwen literally sees time pass her by.

A fist bump for tiny Spidey. Cool scene.
Though the David and Goliath scenario added to the scene’s intensity, the Rhino would have to be a real sicko to take out a little kid, so the tension doesn’t reach the apex it was intended to.

Final analysis: the story, which is a loose association of subplots, takes forever to coalesce.
In fact, I’m not sure there really is a through line here except, perhaps, for Peter’s promise to Gwen’s departed dad, and even that story thread is so intermittent it’s more of a subplot.

Everything seems off here: strange performances, insipid dialog & a weak plot are major debits here.
I’d have to go back and watch the movie again to pinpoint such occurrences, but some of the acting choices and facial expressions in the film really left me scratching my head.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. A downturn from the first film. Pining for Maguire’s Parker about now.

I would say I’m disappointed by this second Webb Spidey movie, but my expectations were so low after watching the first film that I gave this sequel wider latitude to fail…and it did. Miserably. Granted, the sequel makes a genuine attempt at providing some back story for Peter and Harry Osborn’s (Dane DeHaan) fathers, the fate of Peter’s parents and some additional insights into the life of departed Uncle Ben, but these scenes are just flour and water paste designed to hold the series of action sequences together, which, of course, is asking far too much of dramatic filler. While failing to connect emotionally, these back story elements also contain flaws in logic like that fact that only the Parker bloodline can successfully assimilate the mutant spider venom…one family among the seven billion people inhabiting our world? I’ve heard of designer viruses, but sheesh. This contrivance to produce friction between Peter and Harry, who wants a dose of Spider-Man’s blood to smooth out the blemishes on his neck (can’t Harry afford some plastic surgery?) is utterly daft, and indeed, the Goblin’s presence in the movie is completely superfluous and should’ve been saved for the sequel. Despite repeated attempts at keeping Gwen out of harm’s way, our hero, ultimately, isn’t equal to the task of protecting her. Is that his fault though? In my book Gwen asked for it by failing to heed Spidey’s many warnings and by foolishly circumventing the extreme measures taken to ensure her safety (which include webbing her hand to a car). Maybe it’s just me, but if Spider-Man told me to stay away from a particular building, I’d be three states away. So then, is Gwen’s insistence on remaining in the line of fire a death wish or just plain ignorance? Then, near the end of the film, the wall-crawler tasks Gwen with pushing a button once he gives her the signal (a virtually identical scenario to the one played out by Tony and Pepper at the end of the first Iron Man film). There’s one small problem, however; Spidey and the villain are engaged in a berserker style battle that’s destroying a good portion of the power plant. So the question is, how can Gwen re-start the power grid if the apparatus supporting it has been blasted to smithereens? I could go on nitpicking this film until the next, inevitable, sequel premiers, but I think the point has been made by now. Webb’s Spider-Man films are shaping up to be a drab, joyless, reheated version of Sam Raimi’s trilogy. Will they have any staying power or, like Lucas’ prequel trilogy, will Webb’s films simply fail to stick?

The Railway Man (R)

tt2058107
Directed by: Jonathan Teplitzky
Starring: Colin Firth
April 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Railway Man

A meet-cute on a train...one of Hollywood’s oldest romance movie tropes.

I would get rid of my mustache in three seconds flat with that kind of offer.

Kidman challenges the “code of silence.”
Amazing how men can get together and talk about anything under the sun except for what’s troubling them.

Clever makeshift radio.
MacGyver would be proud.

Kidman’s “interference” has dire consequences.
But Firth’s callous remark is far more shocking than the preceding incident.

“You will be killed shortly.” Blood doesn’t flow any colder than that.
That line actually seems like it belongs in an action movie, not a historical drama.

“No one would believe what you did to us.”
The atrocities of war are unfathomable to all but those who willfully choose to perpetrate its evil acts.

I’ve never seen a more meaningful bow. Tearing up.

Final analysis: a deeply moving tale of the devastating effects of war...

...and the miracle of racial reconciliation.

Firth and Kidman are simply masterful in their roles.
As would be expected. Let’s see if Oscar nods in their direction.

Rating:
3 1/2 out of 4 stars. Not an easy movie to negotiate emotionally, but well worth watching.

As is indicated by the title, railways and trains play a pivotal role in the movie’s plot. It’s fitting, then, that director Jonathan Teplitzky and his film crew should so elegantly isolate images of trains, tracks and bridges from different countries (England and Japan) and different time periods (the WWII 1940s and the film’s 1980 milieu). The train track motif works on an aesthetic level as well as a symbolic one. Ironically, other than the opening meet-cute and closing restorative encounter, every other instance involving a train or its tracks in the film results in the occurrence of something unpleasant, sometimes even tragic. The overcast sky and seething ocean are also an effective metaphor for the inner turmoil Firth’s character is made to endure. These artistic and canny directorial choices populate a movie rich in visual splendor and narrative complexity. With the exception of the protracted torture scenes (you’ve seen worse on 24), there isn’t anything objectionable in the movie, making the R rating a bit curious…other than the fact that the majority of Best Picture winners share that rating. Though it’s far too early to predict with any accuracy, the film seems well positioned to make a run at Oscar’s top prize. Firth and Kidman also seem poised to garner nominations for their roles here which have, yet again, redefined the measure of a tour de force performance. Some might find the movie a bit ponderous in the plot department, which is a shame. However, if you can hang in there to the end, you’ll experience one of the finest emotional payoffs to have graced the cinema in recent years. Pacing issues notwithstanding, this is a nearly flawless film with powerhouse performances and a harrowing historical account that won’t soon be forgotten.

The Lunch Box (PG)

tt2350496
Directed by: Ritesh Batra
Starring: Irrfan Khan
February 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

The Lunchbox

More like rich and spicy, I suppose.

Quite a production for delivering lunch boxes.
Though it isn’t nearly as intricate as their computer and phone wiring system.

Never tell a woman her food is “just good.”
A surefire way to insure an uncomfortable night’s sleep on the couch.

The first note is discovered. The premise and story structure is established.

We forget things when we have no one to tell them to. A poignant truth.
Is this why old people always insist on regaling the glories of yesteryear?

Empty lunchbox prompts a heartfelt note. Touching scene.

Final analysis: a touching tale of unrequited love brilliantly portrayed by Khan and Kaur.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. Moral: Sometimes the wrong train leads to the right station. All aboard!

Though the premise is simple and the story is straightforward, there’s an emotional depth to this movie that far transcends its status as a drama/romance hybrid. The film features real people in real situations and their actions and reactions are wholly believable all the way through to the existential ending. The movie is preoccupied with two of life’s greatest necessities and pleasures…love and food (and how the two often intersect). The visuals of food preparation and consumption, aided in no small part by mouthwatering descriptions of aromas and flavors, produce an almost Pavlovian reaction in the viewer. It’s recommended that you watch the movie on a full stomach—otherwise you might leave the theater with nubs where your fingers used to be. The location work is wholly immersive and makes you feel like you’ve taken a two hour vacation to Mumbai. And, all things considered, this isn’t a bad way to spend two hours. Just don’t be surprised if you’re craving Indian cuisine for the next week.

Draft Day (PG-13)

tt2223990
Directed by: Ivan Reitman
Starring: Kevin Costner
April 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 95

32 teams, 7 rounds. “The clock is always ticking.”
Chris Berman’s opening narration certainly generates excitement over what’s to come later in the film. His presence also legitimizes the movie and lends the fictional story some semblance of a “real” NFL draft.

The Browns are a desperate team? Not exactly a news flash.
However, I do applaud writers Rothman and Joseph for their decision to cast the spotlight on one of the most downtrodden franchises in professional sports (and for making the Seahawks organization look like a bunch of money-grubbing schmucks…no love lost here). Somewhere in the movie, someone mentions changing the look of the Browns’ helmets. I hope I wasn’t the only one who agreed with such a sentiment. Is there a plainer, uglier helmet in the NFL?

A deal over pancakes. Costner isn’t hungry.

“People pay to get splashed.” A powerful commentary on the state of the game.
Frank Langella is such a great actor who brings gravitas to every role he plays. He makes Costner seem like a whimpering child in this scene.

Lots of split screens. A bit much?
The film employs more split screen scenes than an episode of 24. It’s a useful device for showing two sides of a phone conversation—and there are a lot of them in the film—but by the middle of the movie this stylistic choice reaches overkill status. I will say that Reitman cleverly shows one person’s shoulder jutting into the image of the other person’s image panel, etc, and the scene where an individual travels from one edge of the screen to the other, passing right over the other person talking on the phone, was absolutely brilliant.

Costner trades the future of the franchise for some “magic beans.”
This critique comes from his screen mom, Ellen Burstyn.

Montana spots John Candy in the stands at the 1989 Super Bowl. Wonderful anecdote and scene.
I’d never heard this story before and it really enriches the text and subtext of this scene.

Is that your final answer, Callahan?

Sorry Bo, the Browns already have a “super” quarterback.
If the emphasized word is too cryptic…Tom Welling from TVs Smallville.

Final analysis: an educational, if fictional, behind-the-scenes look at the NFL draft.

Not as lightweight as some of Reitman’s earlier efforts, but not as engrossing as it should’ve been either.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. An original gridiron tale that should tide over diehard fans until the new season.

If Costner keeps on this career track, he’ll soon be the king of sports movies. How many has he made anyway? Bottom line, this is a decent film that effectively reveals the back room wheeling and dealing that accompanies an NFL draft. As exciting as that sounds the film is often devoid of excitement, owing largely to the fact that the character moments feel perfunctory and insipid. The blossoming relationship between Costner and Garner, the pressure Langella places on Costner and the family friction that results from the recent death of Costner’s dad all play out like vignettes in a Lifetime movie. Although it captures the flavor of an NFL draft, the movie is a pale reflection of the exhilarating, pulse-pounding drama that takes place during an actual draft. As such, some will choose to forego this film and just wait another month for the real thing.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (R)

tt2278388
Directed by: Wes Anderson
Starring: Ralph Fiennes
March 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 53

The opening matte paintings have a Mr. Rogers charm.
Something about the way the little tram moves up the model reminds me of the cheesy miniature sets seen on Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood on PBS.

Law dines with Abraham, who regales the story of the early days of the hotel.
Which, along with some minor crosscutting back to the present, constitutes the bulk of the film.

The reading of the will and a round of punches. A lot of fuss over “Boy With Apple.”
The Green Goblin lands the final blow…of course.

Elaborate breakout sequence is amusing.
I don’t think it’s possible to devise a more indirect route for escaping a prison. And once free, everyone would stand around and talk for a few minutes, right? Hilarious!

A second copy of the second will...quite the confession.

Old style filming on the ski chase is hilarious.
The increased film speed has a silent era feel akin to the Keystone Cops movies.

Final analysis: not as endearing as
Moonrise Kingdom, but a fine effort in its own right.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. A zany tale with a fine lead performance by Fiennes.

Enjoyably outlandish, this movie is vintage Anderson. It has all of the hallmarks that have come to define the auteur’s style: quirky characters, decorated ensemble, ornate dialog, stylish camerawork, lavish locations and high production values. Though a million miles apart thematically, this film actually boasts a narrative structure similar to the one employed in Christopher Nolan’s Inception (2010). Just as Nolan’s preeminent mind-trip featured a plot with multiple layers, this movie also follows different sets of characters (real and fictitious) through different periods of time. The film’s denouement seamlessly progresses forward through the levels until we’re back in the present, which is where the film began. It’s a clever framing device, brilliantly conceived and executed by Anderson and co-writer Hugo Guinness. Bottom line, if you’re in the mood for something outside the box, this film should do rather nicely.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (PG-13)

tt1843866
Directed by: Anthony Russo, Joe Russo
Starring: Chris Evans
April 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 35

“On your left.” Ha!
That kind of speed, and endurance, would definitely come in handy at times.

Triskelion equals S.H.I.E.L.D. headquarters. Also a planet in the original
Star Trek.
“The Gamesters of Triskelion” is the title. A largely forgettable second season show save for Angelique Pettyjohn’s tinfoil bikini.

Capt. America argues with Fury over freedom vs. fear.
This is a very incisive, and topical, discussion…a rarity among superhero movies.

The Sundance Kid moderates the Jedi council.
I kept looking for Yoda among the holograms.

Fury’s SUV gets a police sandwich.
I want to know the make and model of Fury’s vehicle, because it sure takes a pounding…yet keeps tearing down the street.

The elevator’s getting a little full.

A honeymoon in...New Jersey?
Hopefully not Bayonne.

First kiss since 1945?

The Winter Soldier’s rifle really packs a punch.
One of the coolest visuals in the movie.

“I am so fired!” Stan Lee sighting.
His brief cameos just keep getting better with each successive Marvel movie. Eat your heart out, Hitchcock.

“Captain’s orders.” Let the civil war begin.

Final analysis: a surprisingly airtight plot...

...that doesn’t allow the action scenes to run away with the movie.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. Next up: “Bucky’s Revenge.”

A marked improvement over the first film, The Winter Soldier features a taut plot, a rather ingenious conspiracy and a terribly mysterious antagonist, who, much more than a mere caricature of a villain, actually strikes fear into the heart…there are several moments when it looks like our hero might be defeated by the shrouded assailant. However, when the villain’s secret identity is finally revealed, it’s a bit of a letdown...comic junkies (who know far more about the character’s back story than I do) will have a different opinion, I’m sure. The movie is salient in the way it wrestles with the realities of the postmodern world, such as: corporate corruption, terrorism and rampant surveillance. This film is more down-to-earth than most of the other superhero movies released over the past decade, but it looses its artistic edge by trying to be too realistic. A main contributor to this is the utter lack of anything “super” in the movie. Most of the technology on display in the film isn’t that much more advanced than what governmental agencies use today. Also, and more significantly, the entire film takes place in D.C.—no globetrotting, no exotic locales and no extraterrestrial environments in this movie. Some would argue that the everyday nature of the story is what makes it compelling, and I can’t argue with that. However, the look and feel of the movie is essentially an episode of Heroes with a blockbuster budget. Despite the solid story and serviceable performances, there isn’t much to marvel at here.

Noah (PG-13)

tt1959490
Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Russell Crowe
March 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 65

Crowe and Connelly also portrayed a married couple in A Beautiful Mind (2001).

Not too worried about spoiling plot points for this one.

The intro is eye opening...never heard of the Watchers.

Noah is quite the humanitarian...looks out for white flowers and dragon dogs.
Just a guess, but his skill at taking care of animals might come in handy someday.

Noah encounters a Watcher. I wonder if it has any vulnerable spots?

Noah sings a lullaby. Guess Crowe didn’t want those singing lessons he took for
Les Miserables to go to waste.
Not that they did much good, mind you. It’s a good thing all of the canines are sedated on the ark. Otherwise, the howling over Crowe’s singing would make our ears bleed.

A cup of tea with Methuselah. I hope the tea leaves aren’t as old as he is.
Yeah, yeah. My jokes are as stale as the tea.

Amazing time lapse montage.
But it’s used once again during story time with Noah. This occurrence should’ve been skipped in favor of the latter usage of the technique, which has more dramatic impact.

Watchers remind me of
LOTRs Ents...right down to the lumbering gait and booming, gravelly voice.

You knew they’d be coming sometime...all manner of reptiles board the ark. Why did it have to be snakes?

Question: Wouldn’t the sedation incense also effect the humans?
Correction: affect. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to.

“The time for mercy is past.” Fortunately God didn’t feel the same way.

Total
LOTR battle to repel the advancing throng.
The 5.1 quake hit right in the middle of this sequence…just added to the overall effect. Who needs IMAX?

Noah’s creation story is brilliantly visualized.
But looses its visual vitality due to the movie’s earlier instance of time lapse photography.

Final analysis: a beautifully crafted film, but a very strange take on the flood narrative.

The film fails as a faithful Biblical account but works extremely well as a fantasy epic.

Noah, a venerated man of faith, is characterized here as a misguided, manic Ahab.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4. Had higher hopes for this one. Can theological accuracy and art coexist? Remains to be seen.

Yes, the beginning of the film contains a warning that artistic license was taken with Aronofsky’s stylized rendition of the Biblical account of the global flood as told in the book of Genesis. Despite the disclaimer, does that give Aronofsky the right to forge the Biblical narrative into anything his fertile imagination conceives (I mean, introducing aliens into a film about Napoleon might seem less odd and would certainly be less controversial)? As if to remove all doubt as to how far the director will stray from the inspired source material, within minutes we’re introduced to the Watchers, which, presumably, are a variation of the Nephilim but with the potential to achieve eternal redemption (except for the one that cracks open its chest because that’s suicide, right?). With the Watchers, Aronofsky sets the tone and expectations for the film right out of the gate. You’ll either accept his fanciful riff on the story of Noah or you’ll outright reject the whole affair as high art heresy. Theological accuracy aside, the story starts floundering once the rain starts falling. Besides a needlessly protracted battle, filmed with all the visual verve of a LOTR movie, the subplot involving Ray Winstone’s devious antagonist is utterly daft. Those who’ve heard the Sunday school story will know that Noah and his family survive the deluge, so the outcome of the fight scene is a foregone conclusion. Consider this a failed attempt at generating dramatic intensity. As for the characterization of Noah as a type of tragic and tortured Ahab, there’s really no justification for it other than the fact that Aronofsky needed something to sustain viewer interest during the 40 days/nights part of the tale. There’s no doubt that Crowe pulls off the neurotic Noah but could conflict have been generated some other way so that the hero of our story stays somewhere this side of sane? Despite the many ways Aronofsky tampers with the original Biblical account, his biggest disservice to the film is his narrative choices, which consistently sideline God during key moments of the story. For instance, in our human minds it seems impossible that Noah and his family could’ve built the ark by themselves, so Aronofsky introduces the Watchers to make the task seem more feasible, effectively eliminating any supernatural agency from the equation. Also, from a man-centric perspective, it doesn’t seem probable that Noah and his family can feed and tend to all of the animals in the world for 40 full days, so Aronofsky devises a way to sedate the animals. If God could shut the mouths of hungry lions to preserve Daniel’s life, couldn’t God put all of the animals on the ark into a state of hibernation? Explaining away divine activity also occurs in subtle ways in the film, like when Noah’s sons raise the main door to seal up the ark. In the Bible, it’s God himself who shuts the door (Gen. 7:16). These instances, along with many others, reveal that the movie’s underlying problem isn’t the creative liberties taken with the story but rather the removal of the hand of providence from appearing in the movie’s broad strokes. I’m okay with whimsical story elements like the Watchers—I wasn’t alive during Noah’s time, so I can’t deny their existence—but I’m not okay with the excision of a divine agency from the heart of the story or human explanations given for miraculous events. After all, if you erase God from the story it kind of defeats the purpose, right? Bible scholars aver that 99% truth is still heresy. The many liberties taken here evince a story that’s deserving of such ignominious status. I had hoped that this movie would finally be the perfect marriage of an artistic, commercial film with a story that’s faithful to the original text. Unfortunately, this movie isn’t the consummation of those desires. Now all I’m left with is the sinking feeling that this movie was a missed opportunity of biblical proportions.

Divergent (PG-13)

tt1840309
Directed by: Neil Burger
Starring: Shailene Woodley
March 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 79

Opening narration effectively sets up the particulars of this dystopian world.
It’s a CliffsNotes version in case you haven’t read the book.

Clever use of mirrors in the choosing ceremony. A nice embellishment to the book.
Director Neil Burger maximizes the mirror motif, which is a very keen choice since such reflective surfaces are considered the height of vanity by those belonging to the Abnegation nation.

Guess I’d be factionless in this world...I could never cut my hand with a knife.
Just watching others slice into their own flesh makes me faint. Can you tell I’d never hack it in Dauntless?

Who will be the first to jump into the black hole?

“What makes you think you can talk to me?” Snap!
Tris gets off a nice retort, though.

Mosh pit initiation is fitting for Dauntless.
Crowd surfing in a cafeteria seems wholly appropriate for this faction. Can’t see it happening at Hogwarts though.

First jumper versus last jumper to fight in the ring. Short bought.

Training tips from Four followed by a brutal cliffhanger.
Jai Courtney (A Good Day to Die Hard) was the perfect casting decision for Eric, the movie’s loathsome antagonist.

Neuro stim darts. Very cool. Let the games begin.

“Pull the break!” What a rush that would be.

Attack of the crows...didn’t we already see this in a Hitchcock movie?

Entering someone else’s fear landscape...double the terror.

Four shows off his tats during his tryst with Tris.
Does a scene get any more gratuitous than this? Still, we’ve gotta’ give all the teenage girls what they paid for, right?

Let the drone war begin.
Not clone war, because we’ve already had one of those in a galaxy far, far away.

“A beauty we can’t afford.” Socialism at its finest, folks.

Nice twist with Winslet. Different than the book. Clever resolution.

Final analysis: faithful to the book with minor additions/deletions.

A twist on
Brave New World and The Hunger Games, Divergent is a cautionary tale about a society gone wrong.
However well-intentioned the formation of the factions was, none of them (except for Amity because, by golly, they just don’t know any better) are currently operating within the parameters of their proposed purpose. Dauntless have become too brutal, Erudite too manipulative, Candor too honest and Abnegation too powerful. The original intention for the expressed function of each faction has been taken to an unhealthy extreme. Just goes to prove that no matter how altruistic a societal structure or governing system is when it’s established, people will always find a way to frack it up. Pardon my Galactican.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. A decent dystopian yarn with adequate action and suspense. Next up: Insurgent.

The similarly themed The Hunger Games series was the exception to the rule that says you can’t do a point by point narrative reconstruction when adapting a book to the big screen. Adhering to the written page served those movies extremely well, with kudos going to Suzanne Collins for the strength of her source material. Divergent, to its own detriment, is the rule rather than the exception. Though there are minor alterations between book and movie, and despite the fact that the book series was written readymade for a big screen trilogy, the book didn’t translate as well to the film in this instance. Perhaps it’s that too much screen time is spent on Dauntless training and testing (and that too much time is spent in Dauntless territory). Perhaps the military overthrow and subsequent containment of the coup seems far too sudden and too cause and effect in its treatment. Perhaps the deaths of Will, mom and dad all come too quickly in succession for believability and for maximum impact. I mean, at least Luke had appropriate breathers in between the deaths of his aunt and uncle, Ben and Biggs in Star Wars. Perhaps it all boils down to the tried and true adage that the book is always better than the movie. Whatever the reason, here’s hoping the sequel will do a better job of visualizing Roth’s words onscreen. As is, the movie is a diverting tween-centric, near future thrill ride. However, it could’ve been, like its hero, a unique force of nature.

Non-Stop (PG-13)

tt2024469
Directed by: Jaume Collet-Serra
Starring: Liam Neeson
February 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 56

Two vices in as many minutes.

Yay, Michelle Dockery from
Downton Abbey.
Hugh Bonneville recently appeared in The Monuments Men and Jessica Brown Findlay was the object of Colin Farrell’s affections in Winter’s Tale. It’s nice to see some of the fine Abbey cast members getting some exposure in American films.

Neeson squeezes his “good luck” ribbon.

Anson Mount from #AMC’s #HellOnWheels. Barely noticed him at first.
Clean cut, clean shaven and not a speck of dirt to be seen—quite a transformation.

Mile high melee.
It’s a whole other kind of club.

Fractured text messages and a fractured mirror.

One year free international travel. Ginsu knives included.
What makes the scene so funny, besides Neeson’s earnest delivery, is that some people would actually fall for his bluff.

“Control is an illusion.” How true.
We learned that on 9-11. Consider this movie yet another echo of that fateful day, since it also invokes terrorists hijacking an airplane.

“You should’ve just handed out pamphlets.” Ha!

Final analysis: a decent who-dunnit that’s fairly predictable all the way through.
Correction: whodunit.

Rating: 2 1/2 out of 4 stars. About as entertaining as the similarly themed Flight Plan with Jodie Foster.

It wasn’t that long ago, back when he was the leading man in Schindler’s List (1993), Rob Roy (1995) and Michael Collins (1996), that Liam Neeson was considered a top shelf dramatic actor. Then his career took a sharp left turn when he played Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn in Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace (1999). Now, Neeson has become firmly ensconced in a new phase of his career with B tier thrillers such as Taken (2008), Unknown (2011), Taken 2 (2012) and now this film. One can’t help but wonder if Neeson’s considerable acting talents are being wasted on such middlebrow projects. Still, I’m sure the paychecks are nothing to squawk about and Neeson certainly has commercial viability—despite the fact that he’s an aging action star. But hey, if Sly and Schwarz can do it... There isn’t anything special to the plot and the high altitude thriller concept has been done enough at this point that what the writers consider to be ingenious twists are merely egregious contrivances. Still, the movie isn’t without merit or entertainment value, especially when Neeson asserts his authority and beats up bad guys—the zero G shootout is one of the movie’s standout scenes. Worth a watch if you’re in the mood for a remedial thriller. Final thought: I wonder how many airlines will include this film as part of their in-flight entertainment package. There are a lot of idiots out there and you just don’t want to give them any ideas.

Heaven is For Real (PG)

tt1929263
Directed by: Randall Wallace
Starring: Greg Kinnear
April 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 34

Hospital and pizza...well as long as it isn’t hospital pizza.

Lions and bears and unicorns, oh my! Strange sermon illustration.
Not sure I got the point here. Seems like a bit of a stretch. Plus, were unicorns ever mentioned in the Bible? I don’t recall David taking one of those down with his sling.

Be careful how you slide into third.

I’ve been to the Butterfly Pavilion...and I’ve held Rosie.
Twice, actually. I have the pictures to prove it.

Kinnear’s tantrum provides a crucial defense to his son’s incredible testimony.

Jesus has markers...not the color markers on the table though.

A second sister...some much needed proof for Colton’s mom.

Kinnear’s titular sermon is so stirring it leads to a hug-fest; not that uncommon in small town Nebraska.
Consider this homily a successful Hail Mary. I guess someone was listening up there…in heaven.

Final analysis: a “religious” film that challenges our notions of the afterlife with minimal sermonizing.

A decent cast, headlined by Kinnear and Thomas Hayden Church, but Connor Corum steals the show as Colton.
Correction: Thomas Haden Church. Guess I can expect to be sandblasted for that mistake.

Rating: 2 1/2 out of 4 stars. A powerful message of hope. Hopefully it’s not just preaching to the choir.

One of the revealing aspects of this movie is how people’s reactions to the concept of heaven can be so radically different. Some accept its existence blindly and others reject it out of hand since, in their minds, it isn’t scientifically feasible. What fascinated me most about this movie is how church parishioners dealt with the version of heaven young Cole claims to have seen in a not so near death experience. Some are filled with hope by his story, others are threatened by it and still others just want it to blow over so that the media blitz will end and life can return to normal. The fact that it evokes such varied and extreme reactions indicates just how polarizing and inspiring a topic heaven can be, especially when broached in a “true story” film. Though the production values are hamstrung by insufficient financing, director Randall Wallace makes the most of the heartfelt story, based on the book by Todd Burpo, and capitalizes on the A list performers at his disposal, Kinnear, Church, Kelly Reilly (Flight) and Margo Martindale from TVs The Millers and The Americans. Just as convictions concerning the reality of heaven widely differ, opinions regarding the quality of this film will also vary. Some will view this film as overly sentimental, while others will regard it as heaven sent.

Nebraska (R)

tt1821549
Directed by: Alexander Payne
Starring: Bruce Dern
January 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 31
Payne previously directed The Descendants (2011) starring George Clooney.

“I’m not trusting the mail with a million dollars.” Hilarious!

Will Odenkirk become the Brokaw of Billings?
Hard to know for sure. Guess we’d better call Saul.

A side trip to the “roughed in” monument.

Family reunion in Hawthorne is a hoot.
However, this super slow mo existence is agonizing to watch and even more unbearable to experience in real life.

“The next round is on Woody!” The cat’s out of the bag now.
It’s nice to see Stacy Keach again, even though his character is a scum bag in the film.

Cemetery scene ends with quite the exclamation point.
I think it’s safe to say that this is one of the most outrageously unexpected moments in film history.

A visit to the homestead...just a bunch of old wood and weeds.
Woody expresses many memories, good and bad, about being raised on a farm.

Wrong farm, wrong compressor. Uproariously funny.
Equally sidesplitting is the follow-up scene where Woody and Kate (June Squibb) carry on a conversation with some old friends while sitting in the back seat of their car. Absolutely pitch-perfect acting by Squibb.

Victory lap in new truck.
Success is sweet…even if it only lasts for a few blocks.

Final analysis: a no frills, B&W drama with much to say about human behavior...both good and bad.

Straightforward premise from the start and deliberate pacing throughout.

Authentic small town atmosphere and beautiful framing of landscape shots.
All the more effective visually since they were shot in black and white.

Rating: 3 out of 4. A road trip film where the “buddies” are father and son. Dern and Forte are a superb duo.

Bruce Dern delivers a career performance as Woody, an aging man on a mission to claim his million dollar sweepstakes winnings. Payne’s direction is superb and cinematographer Phedon Papamichael’s (yep, that’s his name, and Payne’s real last name is Papadopoulos) framing of the movie’s Midwestern landscapes perfectly establishes the mood and visual identity of the film. Wim Wenders would be impressed by such deftness at capturing the stark beauty of the American heartland. Above all, this movie is a fascinating look at the human condition, specifically in how old friends will magically appear whenever an individual comes into some money. Everyone’s looking for a handout these days, and the “Hey, Woody, you remember me, don’t ya’?” scenes are amusing and telling. Any such social commentary is presented with the utmost subtlety, which is fitting since that’s also how Dern delivers his lines. All told, this film is a rare cinematic treasure and a unique slice of Americana.

RoboCop (PG-13)

tt1234721
Directed by: Jose Padilha
Starring: Joel Kinnaman
February 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 67

Cylons patrolling the streets in Tehran. Peace through superior firepower.
An ironic, and in this instance fitting, quote from ST:TNG’s “The Arsenal of Freedom.”

Do the robots factor in collateral damage?

Robophobia. Ha!

“What do these machines feel?”

Robo’s first step...gotta’ love those mechanical servo sounds.

There’s a metal man in my rice paddy.

The pumping lungs are pretty well unsettling.
For some reason this scene is far more disturbing than the myriad people blown to bits in the movie.

Old Batman and new Commissioner Gordon argue over Robo’s effectiveness.

Cylons vs. Tin Man...who will win?

“The illusion of free will.” Hmm...
If there’s any complexity to the story, this is it. An interesting argument when applied to media’s power over the consumer.

Maybe they should’ve uploaded the criminal database after the media circus.

Reconstruction of the accident sequence is awesome.

Warehouse shooting is like a video game.
Which is already on its way to your local game store, I’m sure.

“Bad cop, RoboCop.”
Getting a bit cutesy now.

Robo vs. the AT-STs. A flurry of bullets.
You just knew this scene was coming. It’s a smoother sequence with CGI, but there’s something charming about the old, clunky stop motion FX in the original.

Final analysis: far better than I expected for a remake. Appropriately updates the story.

Oldman holds the whole thing together and Jackson’s opinion TV show is entertaining and topical.
If not heavy-handed in the way it lampoons a particular political slant.

Rating: 2 1/2 out of 4 stars. Has some heart and a decent plot, but something’s missing here.

This is a valiant attempt at updating the 80s classic with modern technology and trappings, but it’s ultimately an effort that falls flat. Hollywood has always been sequel happy, but was remaking Robocop (1987), which hasn’t aged very well, a solid choice for a sequel? Aside from the nostalgia factor, is this story even that compelling? The movie reveals acts of terror abroad and at home and I suppose it’s cathartic to see a good guy with the power to defeat evildoers, but a superhero movie could’ve just as easily fulfilled such a need. Is this premise too silly for the more sophisticated modern viewer? Everything in its time I suppose, but hasn’t Robocop’s time already passed? Box office returns will reveal all.

Her (R)

tt1798709
Directed by: Spike Jonze
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix
January 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 52

“Choke me with the dead cat.” Okay we just took a wide left turn.

OS1. We’re not that far away from this technology folks. Frightening possibilities.
Even the name sounds probable for this hypothetical technology.

Mini Stay Puft man in the video game has a potty mouth.

“I’d like a slice of cheese please.” A computer that knows what you want to eat.
But can it always account for mood or a finicky palate?

Samantha hints that she might be exceeding her programming. Fascinating!
Maybe she’ll magically appear as Seven of Nine.

Ingenious use of fade to black. The morning after...awkward.

“The past is just a story we tell ourselves.”

Beta test for a computer game...Phoenix looses many “mommy points.”
He still does far better than I would.

Phoenix is afflicted by a “socially acceptable form of insanity.”

Signing the papers...one of the most heart-rending experiences imaginable.
Been there, done that…have the emotional scars to prove it.

A surrogate. This is so strange. It’s true what they say...three’s a crowd.

Samantha is experiencing growing pains. Disturbing implications.

“Are you in love with anyone else?” Always a dangerous question to ask.

Final analysis: one of the most astounding examinations of the human condition ever to grace the big screen.

Jonze’s prescient, near-future tale juxtaposes our need for love with our growing sense of isolation.
Prescient is the perfect word to describe this film. Jonze has captured the zeitgeist of where our society and technology will be 5 to 10 years from now. His vision here is past the cutting edge…truly astonishing.

The world Jonze creates is staggeringly real and downright frightening in its implications for our future.

And yet, hope remains as long as we don’t loose connection with each other...as we witness in the final scene.

Rating:
4 out of 4. Profound beyond description, Her is a truly moving experience. Now I’ll take out my earpiece.

I have little to add to the above statements, so at the sake of compounding compliments or stockpiling superlatives, I’ll keep this wrap-up short. The one caveat I offer is that this is an extremely graphic (sexually) movie, so precautions should be taken if such content is deemed inappropriate for potential viewers. That said, a more profound film concerning the nature of love, belonging, sex, heartache and loneliness you’ll be hard-pressed to find.

The Monuments Men (PG-13)

tt2177771
Directed by: George Clooney
Starring: George Clooney
February 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 37
A blunder right out of the gate…no apostrophe appears in the title.

Two spits for Stahl. Drink up!

Who will make sure the Mona Lisa keeps smiling? Compelling argument.

“They’re not blanks.” Ha!
This training sequence feels like it was lifted right out of a classical Hollywood war movie. Uproariously funny.

Post D-Day Normandy. Gorgeous revolving shot of the characters as they step onto the beach.

Damon’s poor French ensures brief subtitle scenes...thankfully.
A very clever decision on the part of scriptwriters Clooney and Grant Heslov.

Clooney’s speech to his men is inspiring...and depressing.
Inspiring for the audience, depressing for his team.

A German standoff. Smoking with the enemy.
Another riotously hilarious scene. Balaban and Murray are pitch-perfect in their deliveries.

Murray’s gift 45 hits all the right emotional notes.
A really special moment amid the atrocities of the war.

Talk about a bad place to take a cigarette break.
This scene is shot in Germany, and for those who’ve never been there, this is exactly how it looks…right down to the overcast sky.

Blanchett entrusts Damon with “her life.”
She actually wants to give him something more.

Talk about a national treasure!
The Dwarves or Erebor couldn’t have stacked it any better.

Grab and go...the Russians are coming.
No, Alan Arkin doesn’t make an appearance here, although that would’ve been a choice inside gag.

Final analysis: for the often heavy subject matter, this is a surprisingly feel-good movie.

Phenomenal production values, fine performances and a gorgeous score from Alexandre Desplat.

Rating:
3 out of 4 stars. An important film with a poignant message. Will it be forgotten by next Oscars?

To start with, it’s just a blast to see all of these stars together on the big screen. Secondly, it’s nice to see a war movie that doesn’t take itself too seriously and is affecting only when it needs to be. There are some gorgeous shots (Dujardin sprinting across the field) and scenes (Bonneville’s heroic stand to protect the Madonna and Child statue in Bruges) in the film and the production perfectly captures the look and feel of Europe in the 1940s. This is just an incredible story that illuminates a sidebar event during WWII. Much appreciation goes to Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter, who wrote the book upon which the movie is based, and to director Clooney for capturing these recreated events with such verve and veracity.

Jack Ryan (PG-13)

tt1205537
Directed by: Kenneth Branagh
Starring: Chris Pine
January 2014

This review was originally tweeted in Real-time from the back row of a movie theater and appears @BackRoweReviews. Though efforts were made to tease rather than ruin this movie’s memorable lines and moments, some spoilers may exist in the following evaluation. The original tweets appear in black, while follow-up comments appear in red. For concerns over objectionable content, please first refer to one of the many parental movie guide websites. All ratings are based on a four star system. Happy reading!

Pasted Graphic 36

Flying in helicopters can be such a backbreaker.

What do you do when you need security from the security?
Better have some fighting skills, I suppose. Fortunately, Ryan is covered in that department.

Pine tells Costner his very scary scenario.

What kind of a man steals a dog?
What’s more, a dog belonging to a family living in a foreign country?

“This is geopolitics not couples therapy.” Great line.

Big splash scene is spectacular.
But seems somewhat hackneyed as a climactic event.

Final analysis: a good action/spy flick but not nearly as pulse-pounding as the
Bourne films.

Rating:
2 1/2 out of 4 stars. Clancy would be proud of this effort. Will the Shadow Recruit return?

This Jack Ryan movie is the first in the series that isn’t based upon a novel written by the late Tom Clancy. I think Clancy would be proud that the character he created is still thriving on the big screen, and, what’s more, getting a youthful overhaul. However, I’m not sure he would be as sanguine about a story that’s sub-standard to the intricate, multi-layered work the author churned out consistently throughout his career. Pine is an effective choice for Ryan and the supporting cast of Costner, Knightley and Branagh are each well suited for their roles. Bottom line here is that the movie’s action sequences and overall narrative effectiveness fail to measure up to Clancy’s criteria. My suggestion is to return the series to the source material that made Jack Ryan a compelling character to begin with…Clancy’s novels.