Hot Buttons – Controversial Movies and Whether or Not to Watch Them

clockwork eye torture

For as long as there have been movies there has been the desire to tell stories that depart from the norm and venture into sometimes dangerous new territory.  And whenever we see a movie that intentionally means to provoke a response, that response will usually manifest itself as a backlash from those who don’t like it’s message or content.  But whether or not the response the movie gets is positive or negative, the one thing that ‘s for sure when a film courts controversy is that it gets everyone talking about it.  What is amazing today, in our social media driven culture is that controversy can now become a viable marketing tool for a movie to run on.  Even if you have a movie that is drawing scorn from a large amount of people, it still boosts the exposure of the product, especially if it becomes controversial to the point of being headline worthy.  But the question remains whether or not a movie demands to be seen once it becomes a hot button issue.  Are we compelled to see what all the fuss is about or should we ignore the hype and stop feeding the beast?  Like most things, it really comes down to the product itself, and whether or not it can stand on it’s own amid all the noise.  But the fact that not only does controversy help put the spotlight on the film but actually helps it to gain much more success than it would have normally is really something interesting in the industry.  One other interesting outcome of this is finding out whether the controversy is warranted in the first place.  Sometimes a movie is just ahead of its time and looking back on past controversies can sometimes make them look ridiculous in hindsight.  It’s a cycle played out all the time in Hollywood, and even though it happens often, we can still be surprised by the extent of a movie’s impact on our larger culture, or at least the established order it can shake up.

This is something that we are currently seeing played out in our cinemas now with Clint Eastwood’s new film American Sniper.  In my review of this movie a couple weeks ago, I highlighted the fact that the film took a rather polarizing figure in our recent history of war and used him as a focal point for a larger examination of the life of a modern American soldier.  Understandably, basing a movie on the life of a controversial figure like Chris Kyle was going to ruffle a few feathers in both our pop cultural and political world, and sure enough, the last month has been a firestorm of everyone putting in their own two cents about the movie.  Interestingly enough, the critiques of the movie have run pretty much down party lines, albeit with a couple open-minded voices actually breaking from the predictable opinion.  Since the movie’s release, we’ve seen critics attack this movie as being right-wing propaganda and racists to Muslims, while others on the opposite side view it as a strong endorsement of American military might.  My own opinion is that neither extreme is true, and that the movie is an intriguing character study of a flawed but talented soldier in combat, and how that experience is indicative of many more like him trying to come back to a normal life at home.  But, what I find the most interesting about the movie is how much the controversy has fueled it’s box office numbers.  It broke all sorts of box office records for the month of January and is continuing to dominate headlines in both the entertainment and political world.  In this case, I think that the movie accomplished something good by being controversial, because it’s gotten everyone talking about important issues like the responsibilities of war and how we treat our wounded soldiers.  And it also offers up a picture of war that can’t be so easily defined by conservative or liberal talking points.

But, while American Sniper is the hot button issue of now, it’s not the first movie to stir up controversy, nor the first to have been the beneficiary of added exposure.  Cinematic history is full of movies that pushed the boundaries of taste and socially acceptable behavior.  In the early days of Hollywood, the standards of violence and sex had yet to be established, so for many years filmmakers were free to push boundaries all the time.  Even studio made movies had openly frank movies about violence (1931’s Scarface) and sex (1933’s Baby Face), but that all came to an end with the establishment of the Hays Code, a restrictive set of guidelines set up by religious figures in conjunction with studio heads in order to “clean up” the loose morals of the movies.  For the decades that followed, Hollywood would play it safe and movies became a lot more sanitized and morally righteous in the years after.  Restrictions on depicting violence loosened during the war years, but even still, approval by committee had to be given.  In the 50’s, the McCarthy trials also made the studio system weary of political messages in the films as well, which led to an unprecedented era of censorship in the realm of film-making.  And naturally, when restrictions become too much of a burden, it inevitably leads to a backlash, and for many years Hollywood started to fall behind as necessary controversy existed outside of the industry, rather than being guided within.  It wasn’t until the late 60’s, after the Hays Code and the Blacklist were abolished did we see an era where free expression and new ideas become a big part of the cinematic experience again, at least for a time.

During the tumultuous 60’s and 70’s, when Vietnam and Watergate dominated the headlines, Hollywood was finally embracing filmmakers who had ideas and stories that could shake up the world and even change it for the better.  One thing that came about in this time was the creation of the Ratings system, conducted by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), a corporation set up for the specific purpose of determining the appropriate audience for any select film based on it’s content.  Sort of a self governing body, the MPAA took the power out of the government and studios hands to determine if a movie should be seen or not based on it’s content and instead left that determination up to the customers, giving them the information based on the rating upon it’s release.  In the beginning of this new system, Hollywood didn’t prejudge movies by their ratings, and instead celebrated the changing attitudes that were starting to become popular at this time.  Even movies slapped with the highly restrictive X-rating (which banned any audience members under the age of 17 from seeing it) were celebrated; director John Schlesinger’s X-Rated Midnight Cowboy (1969) even won the Oscar for Best Picture that year.  But, even though hot button movies were embraced in this time period, there was also an inevitable backlash as well.  Religious groups organized to the point where they could put pressure on the studios once again, and the MPAA’s ratings system became less of a suggestion for audiences, and more of a standardized label that segregated movies away from each other.  In the 80’s and 90’s, it began to matter a lot more whether you were saddled with a PG or R rating.  And in this time, controversial movies began to stand out that much more.

But do filmmakers set out to make their movies controversial and do they really use that as a way to boost their production’s exposure?  For many, I don’t think that filmmakers really want their movie to be seen as controversial.  Provocative, yes; but I don’t think they have the intention to draw criticism onto themselves.  For a lot of filmmakers, their choice of project is more about the story they want to tell and their belief that people will indeed want to hear it.  Controversy will sometimes arise when the filmmaker runs into a wall of rejection when their tastes run contrary to a whole select of people, usually those who share different worldviews than the filmmaker.  What may seem rational to one will seem radical to another, and the storm raised between one and another is what fuels the controversy around any given movie.  This usually comes down to three certain areas of contention, which are politics, religion, and standards of violence.  Probably the most effective way to really push a few buttons in Hollywood would be through tackling religious doctrine.  The film industry is primarily secular, with a few religious camps present as sort of a niche market, but if a major filmmaker chooses to take on a religious subject head-on, it usually ends up drawing the ire of some.  I’m of the belief that religious themed movies can be worthwhile if they have something interesting to say; which unfortunately very few of them do.  But, when experimental filmmakers like Martin Scorsese and Darren Aronofsky tackle biblical tales in unconventional ways, it suddenly makes their projects much more explosive, because of how their breaking from an established order of things in Hollywood, both spiritual and secular.  Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ (2004) stands as one of the most controversial movies of all time, but that’s less because of it’s religious stance and more of because of how it affected different groups politically.  Even still, controversy got it exposure it definitely wasn’t expecting.

Whether expected or not, once a movie becomes a topic of discussion, it drives more people to want to see it.  Sometimes  it happens because of the movie’s content, and sometimes it just happens out of nowhere.  I’m sure that Seth Rogen and James Franco never thought that their silly buddy comedy The Interview would become so controversial that it would get pulled from the cinemas before release, but once you draw the ire of an international body intent on publicly shaming you just because you used them as your point of ridicule, you suddenly become on of the most controversial movies of all times.  And usually it’s just the timing of the controversy that matters the most.  Your movie may intend to push a few buttons, but unless it’s relevant to the times we live in, no one will really care.  Some controversial movies of the past now feel tame, and that’s usually because of the loosening of social standards on violence and sex in the years since.  Stanley Kubrick’s masterpiece A Clockwork Orange (1971) was so controversial in it’s time, that it was banned in the United Kingdom for decades for having inspired rising gang violence in that country.  Seen today, after all the violent movies that Hollywood puts out today, Clockwork Orange doesn’t have the same kind of shock factor, unless you count the unsettling eye torture that Malcolm McDowell’s Alex goes through later in the film.  But it’s notoriety was definitely fueled by it’s early explosive reputation.  And it’s button-pushing movies like this that have indeed moved society in a different direction that helps to make it’s content more acceptable.

Other controversial movies however loose their luster after their time has come and gone, especially if all that made them stand out in the first place was just their button-pushing content.  Documentaries are especially notorious for brewing controversy and gaining exposure right away.  Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) became noteworthy for being the highest grossing documentary of all time, mainly due to being a scathing critique of a sitting President during an election year.  It elevated Moore in the world of film and politics, believing that his movie would lead to the ousting of then President George W. Bush and would make  history becoming the first documentary to be nominated for Best Picture.  When neither happened, the aura around the movie diminished and Michael Moore has been increasingly marginalized as his kind of firebrand film-making has become less popular during the Obama administration years.  And indeed, political documentaries are the ones who can gobble up awards and get the most exposure quickly, but they are usually forgotten much quicker.  The documentaries that last longer are the ones with a compelling story like Shoah (1985) or Hoop Dreams (1994).  But sometimes controversies drive movies not by design but by circumstance.  For instance, the creation of Joseph L. Mankiewicz’s Cleopatra (1963) ran into controversy when both of it’s leading stars (Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton) began a highly publicized affair on the set.  In order to capitalize on the public awareness of the scandalous couple, Fox quickly streamlined the already troubled production and turned what was going to be a two-part series into one four hour long epic.  It was seizing a moment they had to save their over-budget monster, even though it was not planned that way.  Controversy is a double-edge sword sometimes.  Either it can give your film production a lot of headaches, or it can be that lightning in a bottle to boost your movie into places unseen before.
American Sniper likewise is finding itself caught up in a flurry of controversy that is driving a wedge between different political factions, but at the same time is also boosting it’s box office to unprecedented levels.  I for one believe that it’s a movie deserving of exposure in any way it can get it.  I just hope that people also go into the movie with an open mind.  The most interesting thing about controversial movies is the fact that they are unpredictable.  Usually, we can tell a lot about ourselves and where we stand as a culture by which movies we end up making the most controversial.  Sometimes they force us into confronting issues that need to be addressed, or it can force us to reevaluate or own standards of decency and acceptance.  Many controversial movies have benefited us in the long run, while others diminish when they prove to just be a product of their time.  But is it right to give into the hype surrounding a movie?  Sometimes these movies only become controversial because we are the ones fueling the fire behind them.  Even though a movie becomes a button-pushing issue, it should be stated at the same time that it’s also just a movie.  The only power you give it is the effect that it has on you.  You can choose to ignore it or you can participate in the frenzy and see what all the fuss is about.  Sometimes, your opinion may actually surprise you once you’ve actually witnessed the movie yourself.  But, there’s no mistaking the fact that these movies have a power over the industry, and are usually the ones that become the driving force behind what we see in the future.  Hot Button movies are just as important to the industry as the tried and true formula pictures.  In the end, it’s not a big deal if controversy and hype fuel the performance of a movie.  Time will tell in the end if it was all worth it and whether or not a movie can stand on it’s own.

Focus on a Franchise – Die Hard

john mcclane

If there’s one genre that has churned out countless spin-offs and unnecessary sequels, it would be the action film genre.  And not just any kind of action films; usually the one that you’ll see countless iterations of year after year will be the cops versus criminals sub-genre.  It’s an easy, go to plot-line to exploit for cinematic purposes, mainly because all the elements are so easily defined.  Morals are clearly delineated, with no gray areas between the good and the bad.  The good guys are clearly righteous and the villains are wholly despicable.  And, as is often the case, the task of saving the day is left to one lone wolf who breaks all the rules in pursuit of justice.  While this can fall prey to formula far too often, it doesn’t mean that crime based action movies aren’t without some bright spots.  Last year brought us the Keanu Reeves headlined John Wick (2014), which was a surprisingly engaging movie with perfectly choreographed shootout scenes and an engaging revenge plot at it’s center.  However, sometimes when one movie in this genre becomes a surprise hit, it ends up leading to a franchise that stretches the already thin premise of the first movie too much.  Liam Neeson’s Taken (2008) is a perfect example, where the first reasonably entertaining film spawned two tedious and painfully bad sequels.  Given the relatively easy production turnarounds that these action movies have, it’s easy to see why this happens so often.  But, if there’s a franchise that has clearly defined the genre, and has been stood the test of time, it would be the Die Hard series.

Adapted from a 1979 Roderick Thorp novel called Nothing Lasts Forever, the first Die Hard was released in the summer of 1988 to wild acclaim and huge box office.  While it still featured many of the same features typical of most 80’s action flicks, like the over-the-top pyrotechnics and the excessive gun-fire, it did break the mold from the genre with it’s characters.  In particular, the character of Lieutenant John McClane.  McClane was unlike any action hero seen on the big screen up until that point.  He was snarky and pop-culture savvy, and unlike the Stallones and the Schwarzeneggars before him, he wasn’t left unscathed by his ordeal.  Over the course of the movie, John McClane takes a beating, getting cut and bruised relentlessly, leading to a very weakened shell of the man just surviving off sheer adrenaline.  By humanizing the hero, the movie managed to make the character more relatable to audiences of all types, and in turn made him an endearing icon of the genre.  This is largely due to a very charismatic performance from Bruce Willis, who up until this point was more of a romantic lead on television, as one of the stars of the show Moonlighting.  After Die Hard, Bruce Willis would become the model of the new, modern action hero and it would be a career path that he would continue for years after, as well as continuing in more Die Hard sequels that followed.  In this article, I will be looking at each of the movies of the franchise; from the monumental first film to the awful and unnecessary final film.  In addition, I will be looking at how well the movies moved the brand forward and how well they stuck to the formula overall.  And with that, welcome to the party, pal.

die hard

DIE HARD (1988)

Directed by John McTiernan

Here is the one that started it all and launched a whole new era in action film-making.  Seen today, Die Hard may seem cliched and too familiar to anyone coming to it fresh, but that’s only because most of the tropes we see in action movies today were done here first.  Die Hard has become the go to Bible for how to make a solid action movie for many contemporary filmmakers, and that’s a strong testament to it’s legacy.  The story actually was inspired by the classic Irwin Allen spectacular The Towering Inferno, about a group of characters trapped in a burning high-rise.  Author Roderick Thorp took that idea and added a heist plot to the mix and this was the result.  Bruce Willis, as stated before, is perfectly cast as John McClane; a tough as nails New York cop thrown completely out of his element while vacationing in Los Angeles.  But Willis’ performance is even overshadowed in the film by his co-star Alan Rickman, who amazingly was making his feature film debut here.  Rickman plays the central villain Han Gruber and he steals every scene he is in.  His dry delivery bounces off of Willis’ manic performance perfectly , making it one of the best hero versus villain dynamics in movie history.  Reginald VelJohnson of Family Matters fame also lends great support as the lone sensible cop on the scene and McClane’s sole contact to the outside world.  In addition, the setting itself (the fictional Nakatomi Tower) becomes a character in the movie, proving to be just as perilous to John McClane as the bad guys who inhabit it.  Overall, it’s easy to see why this movie has become the classic that it’s seen as today and thankfully it’s still a lot of fun to watch.

die hard 2


Directed by Renny Harlin

So, with the monumental success of the first movie, it was inevitable that a sequel would follow.  And while Die Hard stands perfectly well on it’s own, there were more possibilities that could be explored with John’s story; like maybe showing him on the job on his home turf.  Surprisingly that’s not what the filmmakers did with this sequel.  What we got instead was John McClane going through the same kind of mayhem as before, only now it’s at an Airport.  The story this time finds John McClane wrestling with an espionage plot where armed mercenaries (led by William Sadler’s Colonel Stuart) wreck havoc with the flight controls and cause disorder on the airport runways in order to smuggle out a criminal drug lord (played by Franco Nero).  For some, this movie is probably a let down compared to the first, and it does indeed feel a little bit like a rehash at times.  But, there is still a lot to like in this sequel.  For one thing, Bruce Willis is still solid, making John McClane just as snarky and resilient as ever.  The setting of the airport (Dulles International, to be exact) also gives the movie a fresh new feel as well.  The movie amps up the comedic bits as well, without being too distracting.  Some of the meta humor here really works, especially when John McClane keeps complaining about how this stuff keeps happening to him.  The supporting cast is fine, particularly Dennis Franz as a fellow police officer, though the character dynamics don’t quite have the same effect as in the first film.  If the movie has a major fault, it’s with the antagonists, who are nowhere near as memorable as Rickman’s Hans Gruber.  But even still, with a solid lead performance by Willis and some wild action set pieces, like the famous ejector seat scene, this is a sequel that makes continuing the franchise worth it.

die hard with a vengeance


Directed by John McTiernan

Now we finally see John McClane on his home turf.  With John  McTiernan returning to the directors’ chair, Die Hard With a Vengeance marked probably the biggest departure for the series.  Instead of having the story confined to one singular location, the story instead takes John McClane on a wild goose chase all across New York City.  Led by an ominous voice on the phone (supplied with outstanding menace by Jeremy Irons), John McClane is led up and down NYC solving puzzles and finding clues, all in the hope of averting another terrorist attack perpetrated by the unknown villain on the phone line.  It’s great to see the series actually shift gears and try something different, and for the most part Die Hard With a Vengeance does a good job of that.  Bruce Willis, looking a little gruffer this time around, still manages to make John McClane just as appealing as ever.  Only this time around, the story brings in a new character for McClane to interact with; that being a civilian caught up in the mayhem named Zeus Carver (played by the always great Samuel L. Jackson).  The movie is at it’s best when Willis and Jackson share the screen, mainly because they work so well off of each other.  Unfortunately, the movie is only half a great film, because once the plot finally starts to unravel, it becomes less fun.  It turns out that the terrorist on the phone is actually Simon Gruber, brother of Hans, which is a plot revelation that goes nowhere in the end and only ends up being a ham-fisted way to link this movie up with the original.  In my opinion, the movie is better off without this detail, and some of the intrigue is lost once we finally put a face to our villain.  Jeremy Irons is a great actor, and he’s alright in this movie, but his character becomes less menacing once we actually learn his true nature.  Beyond that, the movie still has some impressive set pieces, like an escape from an aqueduct tunnel, and Willis gets a co-star that is able to match his charisma and help elevate it as well.

live free or die hard


Directed by Len Wiseman

For about a decade, it looked like the Die Hard franchise would stand solely as a trilogy, and then suddenly news broke that another film was in the works, with Bruce Willis attached.  The oddly titled Live Free or Die Hard (taking the phrase from the New Hampshire state motto) has an aged John McClane assigned to help bring an internet hacker (Justin Long) into custody after a few others are suddenly found murdered.  While on his way to Washington D.C., where he’s going to leave the hacker with the Feds, McClane soon becomes the target of the same organization out to kill the hacker; a group of cyber-terrorist led by a former government IT expert (played by Timothy Olyphant).  A lot of fans of the series saw this as a cash-in and an insult to the bombastic series that they grew up with.  Probably the biggest complaint came from the fact that the movie was rated PG-13 as opposed to the R-rating that the other films received.  Even John McClane’s “yippy ki-yay motherf***er” catchphrase was drowned out by a gunshot, making a lot of fans upset.  Surprisingly, I’m one of the few that doesn’t have a problem with this movie.  It’s nowhere near as good as the original, of course, but for what it is, I thought that it still kept the spirit of the series alive.  For one thing, Bruce Willis still delivers a fine performance as John McClane.  I still like how he’s able to still laugh at how crazy his life is and that he’s still able to toy with the bad guys by making snarky insults at them.  Some of the action scenes do go over the top a bit, but it still kept me entertained and it was neat to see the formula play out in a newer, high tech world.

a good day to die hard


Directed by John Moore

Unfortunately the mild success of Live Free or Die Hard made film executives believe that they could get even more out of this series and the end result was this clunker.  This is the one film in the series that absolutely no one likes, including me.  Honestly, as someone who has grown to love this series over the years, as flawed as some of the entries may be, this sequel is one of the most depressing experiences that I’ve ever had watching a movie.  None of the elements that made Die Hard a standout in the past are present here.  This movie really doesn’t feel like it belongs in the franchise at all.  It’s a poser and an undisputed cash-in.  Here we find John McClane involved in a convoluted espionage plot involving nuclear scientists and the Russian mafia.  The only reason McClane is in Russia in the first place is so he can find his grown up son, Jack (Jai Courtney).  The plot is all over the place and there is no real reason for John McClane to be in it.  He has no impact on what’s going on, as opposed to how he constantly threw a monkey wrench into the bad guys’ plans in the previous movies.  There are no clear motivations by the villains or the heroes, and the plot instead relies on constant back-stabbings by the characters in order to motivate the story from one action set piece to another.  It’s just a lazy movie all around, and it unfortunately drags the once mighty Die Hard brand down with it.  Even Bruce Willis looks bored, and it’s clear that he’s just cashing in a paycheck here.  There’s no glimmer of wit or surprise, and especially nothing of value in the bland performances.  It’s a very sad end to a great franchise that turns something that was once extraordinary into just another wannabe.

Still, even given the downward trend of the franchise, it’s amazing to see the impact that the Die Hard franchise has had over the years.  The way that filmmakers cast their action movies changed with the introduction of Bruce Willis as an action hero.  You no longer had to be built like Schwarzenegger or Stallone in order to headline an action movie.  What Bruce Willis’ John McClane brought was attitude and charisma into the action genre, showing that an action star could look and act like the every-man in all of us.  It also revolutionized how violence could be shown on screen, making the bloodletting feel more realistic as opposed to being an obvious special effect.  Witty banter has also become a staple of the genre ever since, with many movies trying to match the underlying humor that became such a big part of the series.  And while many films have tried to recapture some of Die Hard’s charm, few have ever matched it.  The original Die Hard is an icon for good reason.  It broke the mold and did so by putting the emphasis on the characters.  The characterizations may not be particularly deep, but they still leave an impact on you and that’s mainly due to the earnest efforts of the actors.  Only recently has it begun to lose it’s luster, but thankfully it doesn’t reflect negatively on the original that made the most impact in the first place.  After a quarter of a century, Die Hard is one of the action adventure genre’s best and it’s collection of sequels do a fairly commendable job of keeping John McClane’s iconic status going strong.  Yippy ki-yay.

American Sniper – Review

american sniper

Biopics have often been an awards season favorite for many years.  Considering that the motion picture Academy is made up mostly of veteran actors and actresses, it’s easy to see why they award so many of their peers when they take on a role of impersonating some great historical figure.  Sometimes that actor or actress pulls off the role in convincing fashion (like Daniel Day-Lewis in 2012’s Lincoln) or it can come off as phony and cartoonish (Leonardo DiCaprio in 2011’s J. Edgar). Clint Eastwood has developed a reputation as a director for bringing simple yet elegant techniques into his often very quiet yet endearing films, and some of his recent movies have indeed tackled real life subjects.  Some of his historical films have been interesting windows into both old and recent history, like 2006’s Letters From Iwo Jima and 2009’s Invictus.  But his record with biopics hasn’t been quite as strong.  His J. Edgar, for example, was a messy and convoluted take on the life of the notorious FBI founder, featuring Leonardo DiCaprio’s less than effective impersonation performed through some of the worst old-age make-up ever seen on film. Eastwood’s newest movie, American Sniper, again puts the director into the position of telling the story of a real life and controversial American icon, only this time, the end result is a much more assured and captivating story.  Recounting the true life story of Chris Kyle, a navy seal sniper credited with the most confirmed kills of any American serviceman in military history, Clint Eastwood has managed to craft a compelling account of the life of a modern American soldier, and how his experience is indicative of the world that we live in today and how it will continue into the future.

What’s most interesting about the movie itself is not the quality of its filmmaking; we already know that Clint Eastwood is capable enough to tackle this kind of material.  No, what’s really interesting is the subject himself.  Chris Kyle isn’t particularly the kind of person that Hollywood usually lionizes as a hero.  Kyle in real life was a staunch right-wing,  gun loving and militaristic Christian conservative; someone Hollywood would usually cast as the villain in their stories.  But Eastwood’s portrayal of the man is much more sympathetic towards the his life and is far more interested in showing the extraordinary things that he accomplished within and outside of combat.  Some more liberal audience members may find this kind of portrayal too reverential and off-putting, but I would argue that American Sniper is not a whitewash of a controversial figure either.  Though Easwood’s own personal politics do lean closer to Chris Kyle’s than to the rest of Hollywood, he still has been sharply critical of both Republican and Democratic administrations with regard to US policy in the Middle East, and some of that frustration comes out in a subtly drawn anti-war message behind this movie.   For Eastwood, the film is less about the combat and more about the side effects, particularly with regard to the psychological consciousness of those fighting in it.  And in this regard, Chris Kyle proves to be an ideal subject for examination and reflection of the cost of war.

Adapted from Chris Kyle’s own auto-biographical account of his war experiences, American Sniper covers nearly fifteen years of the man’s life; from his recruitment into the elite Navy Seals team to his post-war experience and his tragic assassination in 2013.  Chris Kyle (an almost unrecognizable Bradley Cooper) is first shown as a rodeo cowboy who is sprung into signing up for military service after seeing the embassy bombings in Africa and Afghanistan in the late 90’s. Hoping to push himself harder and closer to the front lines, Kyle signs up for the Navy Seals, and proves very quickly to be a reliable marksman shooter; a distinction that earns him the position of combat sniper in his unit. In the middle of his grueling basic training, he meets Taya (Sienna Miller) the woman who would become the love of his life, whom he marries just before heading off to his first tour of duty in Iraq.  While on tour, he quickly becomes a legend amongst his fellow soldiers, amassing a significant body count in his time there.  Once back home, Kyle welcomes the birth of his children, but also reveals to his wife an uneasy amount of bottled up tension.  Kyle, over time, becomes more and more obsessed with getting the job done over in the Middle East, which in turn causes him to feel more isolated and prone to erratic behavior, which puts both him and his units in far more precarious situations.  After four tours, Chris Kyle ends his time in Iraq and tries to settle into a normal life back home, which he soon finds to be increasingly difficult.  And part of that feeling of unease is built upon his belief that all his hard work still did not do enough, which then springs him into becoming an active voice for his fellow wounded soldiers, which in turn helps him to recover a bit of his own sanity.

Like I said before, Chris Kyle’s life is not one you would usually see given such a complex and compassionate treatment.  If given to someone on either extreme on the political spectrum, American Sniper could have become a far less effective biography of an interesting individual.  Either the movie could have been too reverential or too critical for its own good and Chris Kyle would have become more of a strawman for either side’s political agenda and less of a fully dimensional character.  Thankfully Clint Eastwood doesn’t delve into politics with this story, and instead portrays the man as a multilayered individual, warts and all.  Chris Kyle is shown to be an American hero, both on and off the field, and the movie honors the hard work that the man had accomplished in his life.  But at the same time, it also shows Chris Kyle as a vain and stubborn individual, with instances where his arrogance sometimes causes disunity in both his combat units as well as in his marriage.  While Kyle still remains a likable and resilient guy throughout, the movie rightfully avoids the trap of turning him into a saint  The story works because of this complexity and it manages to accomplish what most great biopics should do, which is portray the man and not the legend.  Because of this, we are able to put away any of our preconceived notions of who Chris Kyle was, and examine instead the conditions that made the person that he is.  Overall, it gives the movie a remarkably introspective look into the psyche of an Amercican soldier and what goes through their mind as they face almost certain death during combat.

Mainly the reason why this works so well in the movie is because of Bradley Cooper’s standout performance.  Cooper gained nearly 40 pounds of extra weight and muscle in order to play the physically imposing Chris Kyle, and the transformation is remarkable, especially when you compare the two side by side.  Cooper was attached to this film at a very early state in production, even before Chris Kyle’s untimely death, which probably gave him a very deep insight into the mind of his character.  You can see the hard work he put into the role throughout, not only in trying to look like him, but also getting his mannerisms and Texas drawl down perfectly.  Even with the imitation perfected, Cooper still needed to make the character come alive and compel us throughout the entire movie, and he accomplishes that spectacularly well.  His performance is actually at its best in the quieter moments, where he’s called upon to drop the swagger and show the inner turmoil under the surface.  I especially like the way he shows Chris Kyle’s reserved isolation, as he tries his hardest not to show weakness in front of others, even though it’s taking it’s toll on his mental well-being.  Sienna Miller also proves to be surprisingly effective in her role as Taya Kyle.  She matches Cooper’s subtlty quite well in a part that could have easily been lost in lesser hands.  She also hides her natural British accent very well and makes Taya just as much of a force in the story as Chris Kyle, acting as his anchor to reality.  Eastwood’s always been good at getting subtle and effective performances out of his actors, and this movie continues that strong trend.

The movie is visually a very strong one as well.  It’s remarkable that at the age of 84, Clint Eastwood is still making movies with this kind of scale and complexity.  The battle scenes in particular are all really well staged, and show a side of the director that we haven’t seen before. War movies are nothing new to Clint Eastwood; he acted in quite a few (1970’s Kelly’s Heroes for example) and directed a couple as well (his Iwo Jima duo).  But his direction here is far less about the bigger picture and much more intimate, putting us right in the middle of the action from Chris Kyle’s point of view.  It gives the movie a much more visceral feel, much like how Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker (2009) got us up close to wartime combat.  But, even still, this does feel like a Clint Eastwood movie, with the muted color palette and the workman-like approach to framing the shots. It’s distinctively his style, but it’s also neat to see the Hollywood legend flex his cinematic muscles a bit more in order to do what’s right for the scene.  One particularly memorable set piece is a spectacular shootout in the middle of a sand storm, which is grandiose in all the right ways, but never distracts with anything too over the top. And again, this is a Octogenarian filmmaker coming up with this grand vision, showing that good filmmakers always stay strong even into their twilight years.  Eastwood also makes good on the subtext behind the movie, showing the cost of war, without ever getting preachy or too one-sided.  Given strong support from a production crew that he has collaborated with for many years now, all delivering some of their best work to date, American Sniper definitely stands well amongst Eastwood’s whole body of work.

I’m sure this will be one of the most hotly debated movies of this upcoming Awards season, as well it should be.  Some may not like it’s politics, while others may view it to be much more complex than they first realized.  I for one found it to be a very rewarding cinematic experience.  Is it Clint Eastwood’s best movie?  Probably not.  I would have liked there to have been more time devoted to showing Chris Kyle’s pre and post-war lives, especially with regard to his work helping wounded veterans after he returned home; something that actually led up to his untimely death, as he was gunned down by a mentally disturbed veteran he was trying to help.   That part of the movie felt rushed in the end, but it’s not something that spoils the rest of the story.  It’s still a captivating experience and without a doubt the best biopic that Eastwood has ever directed.  I am happy that the movie has already begun to get some Award season recognition, especially for Bradley Cooper’s transformative performance.  It may not be the victor in the end, but it is neat to see that Hollywood still is able to honor challenging films like this with a nomination.  If this movie had come out earlier, it may have ended up on my list for the best films of last year, but since it’s out now in wide release in early January, it’ll probably be the best option available to you right now at your local multiplex.   It works as both an effective documentation of modern wartime combat, and as a multilayered character study, and is well worth exploring if you’re already a fan of Clint Eastwood’s work.   And probably most effectively, it puts the spotlight on a group of individuals that should never be ignored, that being the soldiers returning home from war both emotionally and physically scarred.  Even with an unconventional subject at its center like Chris Kyle, the message at the center of American Sniper will still ring true for all audiences.

Rating: 8.5/10


Epic Length – When is a Movie Too Long or Too Short?

chariot race

With the market changing rapidly and Video on Demand becoming a new, profitable venue for film distribution, many have to wonder if there is any reason to go to the movie theater anymore.  The way that Hollywood answers that question is to make movies that are more than just an afternoon diversion and instead turn them into all out events.  It’s the reason why we still see movie productions with massive budgets nowadays, because the studios need their tent-poles in order to draw in the big crowds.  While there are many standout epic productions made every year, very few of them live up to their potential, and in turn that has led to a lot of concerns about whether the studio system can sustain the rising costs of making “big” movies year after year.  For most films, a substantial budget can certainly help, especially if there is a visionary director keeping things under control on the set, but sometimes it doesn’t matter how much the movie costs.  Sometimes its the presentation that matters the most.  The one thing that makes or breaks an epic film is how well it is paced and structured in the end.  All the visual pastiche put on the screen won’t matter if there is no momentum to the story, or even if there’s too much.  Epic scale is only effective if it is given the right amount of purpose behind it.  Sometimes, if the story is able to support it, an epic movie can hold our attention for a very extended period of time, but if the foundation is flimsy, epic length can end up working against the film too.  And in order to be profitable, movies of epic size have to be available for multiple screenings as well, so time restrictions can put pressure on a film’s production, and that may also end up compromising the movie’s overall effectiveness.  There are many factors that may influence a film’s run-time, but in the end, you either end up with a small story that can feel enormous or a big story that can feel small, and how well that works in the movies favor is based solely on how well the filmmakers have used the time given to them.

When film-making first started to become a popular art-form, it was usually limited to simple productions that would run for a single reel at most (which is roughly 20 minutes of run-time).  No one in the turn-of-the-20th Century thought to take cinematic storytelling into a longer format, because in that time, cinema was just seen as a sideshow act meant to entertain passers-bys with short, amusing vignettes of life.  It wasn’t until the emergence of D.W. Griffith that we began to see the beginnings of feature length story-telling.  And not only would Griffith show the world that you could tell a screen story in a lengthier format, but he would do so with what is widely considered the first Hollywood blockbuster; the epic scaled and controversial The Birth of a Nation (1915).  Nation dwarfed every film that came before it, running at a staggering 3 hours in length.  And yet, by pioneering the use of inter-cutting between multiple stories and defining the look of epic scale staging (particularly in the battle scenes), Griffith’s picture was able to sustain audience interest over that incredible length of time, and it’s influence is still felt today.  Unfortunately, the film’s racist message mars it’s reception today, and it should be rightfully condemned, despite it’s importance.  Griffith’s even more ambitious follow-up Intolerance (1916) continued to redefine the rules of cinema, cross-cutting between four different time periods connected by a common theme, and it still captivated audiences for over 3 hours of run-time.  But, as Hollywood would define itself in the years after, film-making became more standardized, and studios imposed more restrictions on the length of their movies, choosing nice compact 90 minute crowd-pleasers, over the grandness of a Griffith epic.

In the peak years during the studio system, epic length became more specialized to certain productions.  In those years, a big movie had to be an event, so as to stand out from the regular matinee fare.  Producer David O. Selznick accomplished what he believed to be the epic to end all epics with his grand scale production of Margaret Mitchell’s epic novel, Gone With the Wind, making a movie that defined the genre as a whole.  At nearly four hours in length, it is remarkable to see how well Gone With the Wind is able to sustain it’s size and scale.  It never once looses audience interest, and that’s largely due to assured film-making that never wastes a single moment.  For years afterwards, Wind would be the gold standard for all Hollywood epics, and it wasn’t until the mid 50’s that we would see another film that came close to it’s epic length.  With the advent of television, Hollywood began to relax it’s tight restrictions on film length.  A new practice began to emerge in these years, taking a cue from Selznick’s presentation of Gone With the Wind, which was called the Roadshow feature.  This was a special kind of theater engagement where a film was presented much like a stage production would be; with specially written programs given out to audience members, and the movie would begin with an orchestrated Overture, as well as having an Intermission halfway through.  The inclusion of an intermission was especially helpful for movies at this time, because it helped to justify the longer run-times of epic length movies, making the 50’s and 60’s a Golden Era for the 3 hour epic.  In this period, we saw many of the best examples of epic length productions, like Ben-Hur (1959, 211 minutes), Spartacus (1960, 195 minutes), and Lawrence of Arabia (1962, 217 minutes); all unbound by time constraints and were all considered more than just a movie.

But, once the era of the Hollywood epic came to a close, mainly due to a rise in more intimate and smaller scale films from the New Hollywood of the 70’s, epic length became more about what was called for in the story.  Epics still existed, but they were more exclusive and dictated more by what kind of story the filmmaker wanted to tell.  Sometimes this would lead to some of the most unexpected of epics, including ones that took up a very short amount of screen-time.  Robert Altman, for example, managed to redefine the meaning of epic by creating movies both large and small, but still always grand in ambition.  Sometimes he could accomplish this with a modest sized film like M.A.S.H. (1970, 116 minutes) or a epic scale one like Nashville (1975, 160 minutes), both of which feel both big and intimate, largely due to out-sized performances by his large cast of actors.  Francis Ford Coppola on the other hand, made some the eras grandest cinematic achievements, each with epic lengths to match that ambition like The Godfather (1972, 177 minutes) and Apocalypse Now (1979, 153 minutes), and yet he still managed to do so with the more intimate film techniques of that era.  New Hollywood epics would largely come to define the rules of epic film-making that we still see in practice today, especially with the rise of the blockbuster film in this period.  This included the end of the Roadshow presentation and the beginning of epic scale action flicks that could give the audiences the size and scope they wanted in only a fraction of the time.  And in this blockbuster era, we see more and more examples of how a movies length can impact the effectiveness of it’s story.

The odd byproduct of the blockbuster era is that now we are seeing movies that never would have been given a large amount of screen-time in the past, but are now bloated up to epic size and length, mainly so that they can fulfill the expectations of a tent-pole release. Sometimes this can be a blessing for a film, but that’s only if the filmmakers use their time well.  Other times, we end up with movies that run about 2 1/2 hours, but only feature about 90 minutes worth of story.  Excess is a big problem with epic movies today, which comes from the mistaken belief that bigger always means better.  Sometimes it ends up making what could have been a good film into an underwhelming one, because if the story doesn’t engage the audience all the way through, all the unnecessary action is just going to feel tedious.  That’s often a case of adapting something from one medium to another.  If you have a lot of story to tell, like with Gone With the Wind, than you’ll find it easier to fill every moment of your movie with interesting material.  But, if you’re expanding beyond what’s already there, then you run the risk of wasting people’s time with things and ideas that don’t matter in the long run.  There’s a reason why How the Grinch Stole Christmas works so much better at 30 minutes than at 2 hours in length.  A movie’s length must consider what works best for the momentum of the story.  Sometimes just using the essentials is the best method.  But, if the director has enough good ideas and can execute them well enough over a lengthier period of time, then the opposite can also be true.  This is primarily what separates the Christopher Nolans from the Michael Bays.

There are rare exceptions for movies that actually fall victim to the opposite idea, however.  Sometimes we see too much story told in too short of a film.  This is usually a problem found in most animated movies, which is a genre that strangely still is restricted by studio imposed time constraints.  Now, there are many animated movies over the years that have managed to tell grand scale stories in a remarkably short amount of time and succeeded; 1959’s Sleeping Beauty for example tells a very epic scale story, but manages to pack it all into a very tightly paced 75 minutes.  1942’s Bambi even managed to tell a multi-generational story in just little over an hour.  But, given the more sophisticated tools we have nowadays in animation, there should be fewer limits to the run-times of an animated movie.  Sadly most studios like Disney and Dreamworks are still insistent on staying at or under the 90 minute mark.  Now, if you’re movie is something modest like Lilo and Stitch (2002), than 90 minutes is plenty of time to tell a story.  But when you try to make a movie that introduces a complex world with a cast of a dozen or so characters, like 1985’s The Black Cauldron or 2001’s Atlantis: The Lost Empire, than 90 minutes is nowhere near enough time to build momentum for your story.  Atlantis in particular is probably one of the most clear examples of a movie stifled by an unforgiving time limit.  It never gives us enough time to absorb the world that it’s trying to create nor does it give enough time for us to gain sympathy for the characters.  The argument can be made here that if you’re going to make an epic than you should make an epic.  Going halfway only makes the end product feel hollow and uninteresting.  Pixar Animation thankfully bucked the trend by making animated movies that didn’t restrict themselves with time limits.  The Incredibles (2004) ran at a solid 115 minutes, and never once lagged, showing that animation can indeed work in a longer format.  It all shows that too little time can also work against a story’s pace, and that a film’s length must again factor in what’s best for the overall picture.

Hollywood, not one to miss opportunities, has found a way to please all sides whenever a film’s length comes into question.  When a movie makes it to home video, we will oftentimes see multiple cuts made available for purchase, enabling the consumer to decide how much they want to see of a particular film.  Sometimes it’s a decision made in collaboration with the director; Peter Jackson, in particular, has made longer cuts of his already lengthy Lord of the Rings and Hobbit movies available on DVD and Blu-ray, some of which audiences prefer to the original theatrical cuts.  And then there are extended cuts of the movies that are made available after the original versions left their creators unsatisfied with the results.  These are usually called the Director’s Cut, which sometimes is a lengthier version of the film that includes scenes that the director wanted but had to cut due to time restrictions by the studio.  Sometimes a director’s cut can drastically alter the experience, like with Ridley Scott’s 2005 epic, Kingdom of Heaven, which is vastly improved in it’s longer 3 hour version.  Other times, a director’s cut changes nothing, like Oliver Stone’s multiple attempts to fix his 2004 epic Alexander, or Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now Redux, which showed that a shorter version left a better impact.  Ridley Scott in particular has often had the most interesting experience with Director’s Cuts, since both Kingdom of Heaven and his beloved 1982 classic Blade Runner are so drastically altered in their extended cuts.  Whether it adds a little, or a lot, or even subtracts from the original theatrical release, Director’s Cuts are an interesting example of how the usage of time can change the perception of a movie.  It all depends on how strong the vision is behind the story, and whether or not time restrictions benefits the overall product or detracts from it.

Overall, we’ve seen many movies over the years that either felt too long or too short for their own good.  Some audiences out there prefer movies that are quick and easy to watch, not wanting to have their whole day taken up watching just one movie.  I personally don’t mind a film’s length if it runs over three hours or more.  It all just depends on how well those three hours are used.  My two favorite movies in fact are both over three hours long, in fact; David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia (217 minutes) and Akira Kurosawa’s 1954 classic Seven Samurai (208 minutes).  Both are perfect examples of epic storytelling, not once wasting a single moment of screen-time on needless filler.  Watching these two movies in particular makes me wish that more Hollywood movies would display more control over the content they put into their lengthier movies.  When I think about movies that wasted their time, I usually think about bloated films like the 150 minute The Lone Ranger (2013) or any of the Transformers movies.  Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014) itself ran for 165 minutes, and yet I can’t even remember anything important that happened in the plot for all that running time.  Other epic films also run the risk of bloating themselves up with self-aggrandizing character monologues, which unfortunately have become a cliche of the genre.  Sometimes it works, like the pre-battle speeches in the 200 minute long The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003), while other times it comes off flat like with Brad Pitt trying to sound inspirational in 163 minute Troy (2004).  When it all comes down to it, it’s all about the pacing, and whether or not you’ve used the time you have effectively.  Movies can feel big, even at a shorter length.  But, if you’ve got enough story behind it, a longer length can prove to be better.  A great movie can come in any shape or size, but a truly epic sized one really does become something special in the end, and proves why it is indeed a great experience watching a movie on the big screen.

Top Ten Movies of 2014


The past year has come and gone and we can now look back on the cinematic highs and lows of 2014.  At a glance, 2014 proved to be a rather quiet year for Hollywood.  There weren’t any mega hits this year (with one or two exceptions), but at the same time there weren’t any massive bombs either.  Sure some movies disappointed (ExodusSin City, Godzilla), but at the same time, we didn’t see any flops on the level of last year’s The Lone Ranger, or 2012’s Battleship.  2014 actually represented a lot of trends being broken, best represented by a stronger than usual Spring season.  Movies like The Lego Movie and Darren Aronofsky’s Noah proved that you could release a commercially viable film in the early part of the year and still be remembered by year’s end.  Not only that, but the summer season also proved to be uncharacteristically strong.  Sure, none of this summer’s many tent-poles were record-breaking at the box office, but a surprisingly high number of them won critical praise and have remained popular all the way up to the end of the year, appearing on many critics top ten list (including mine as you will see).  Couple this with a remarkably underwhelming Oscar season in the fall, and you can see why 2014 became such an unusual year.  Though, as unpredictable as it may have been, Hollywood should still feel confident that all the studios had a good if not spectacular year (unless you’re Sony Pictures, for which you’re probably wishing 2014 never happened).  But, to show you how I observed the previous year in movies, it’s best that I share my picks for the overall 10 best of 2014, as well as the 5 worst.  Keep in mind, even though I saw over 50-plus films this year, there were some that eluded me towards the finale.  Unfortunately that includes some highly anticipated titles like American SniperWild, and Selma.  For this list, I’m strictly limiting it to the ones I saw in this calendar year.

Before I start my list, here are the movies that nearly made it, but had to be left off.  They are, in no particular order, Boyhood, Calvary, John Wick, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Interstellar, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Fury, 22 Jump Street, Jersey Boys, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Noah, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Nightcrawler, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and The Interview.  Now, lest’s get to the all important Top 10.


imitation game poster


Directed by Morten Tyldum

Prestige pictures are pretty much a staple of this end of the year cycle at the movies.  Films that try so hard to pluck at the heartstrings of the audience in order to appeal for the coveted Oscar gold.  Most of these kinds of movies usually are so superficial that the attempt to garner an Oscar win often backfires.  But every now and then, one movie ends up working the formula in it’s favor and actually achieves it’s goal.  The Imitation Game is that kind of movie.  Much like a similarly Oscar bait-y movie that succeeded years back, 2010’s The King’s Speech, this movie is elevated by two things: a sharp and witty screenplay and a standout performance by it’s lead.  The Imitation Game manages to avoid the trap of trying to play things too sentimental, and actually keeps focus where it needs to be.  The movie expertly displays the impact that mathematical genius Alan Turing made in ending WWII by deciphering the “unbreakable” Enigma code, and how his engineering skills led to the advancements we see today in modern computers.  It also shows the disgraceful way that post-war society destroyed the man purely because of his homosexuality.  But at the same time, the movie doesn’t turn Turing into a martyr, which greatly helps to make him a far more interesting and complex character, which star Benedict Cumberbatch brilliantly captures in a very nuanced performance.  Sure, The Imitation Game may seem old-fashioned and formulaic, but sometimes following the recipe still yields a satisfying meal.


locke poster


Directed by Steven Knight

This was one of 2014’s most interesting and unique cinematic experiments.  This film centers around a Welsh construction foreman named Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy) who spends the night driving from Manchester, England to central London, where he is going to witness the birth of a child he had with a mistress.  On the way there, he has to keep all the other issues in his life under control, including the final preparations for an important construction phase in the morning as well as confessing the truth of his infidelity to his family.  What makes this movie so remarkable is that the entirety of the film is played out inside of Ivan Locke’s car while he drives, with Tom Hardy being the only onscreen presence for the entire 85 minute run-time.  All of Hardy’s co-stars are merely disembodied voices heard over the phone line during the character’s long drive.  It may seem like a tedious experiment on paper, but thanks to Tom Hardy’s restrained and natural performance, you become completely engrossed into Locke’s harrowing night.  It’s an amazing exercise in restraint and working within boundaries in order to create a true cinematic oddity.  Tom Hardy proves once again with this picture that he’s an actor who can just disappear into a role and command a presence as just about anyone, even in something as intimate as this.  Who knew that watching someone drive and take phone calls for an hour and a half could make for captivating cinema?  It’s proof that are still some fresh ideas in cinematic experimentation out there.


gone girl poster


Directed by David Fincher

I already talked a lot about this film in my review, but it’s worth restating just how much of an impact a director like David Fincher leaves on cinema in general.  In less capable hands, Gone Girl could have turned into a soapy, ham-fisted murder mystery that we’ve seen done a million times already.  What Fincher manages to do, however is to really delve into the larger themes that author Gillain Flynn intended to address in her best-selling novel, which is the tabloidization of news media, the competitiveness between genders, and really the darker side of human nature itself.  With all the many twists and turns that this story takes, it’s clear to see why Fincher chose to tackle this rather unconventional story.  There’s so much going on under the surface, and unraveling every thread is part of the fun of watching this movie.  It also marks a career best performance from actor Ben Affleck, who perfectly captures the complex nature of a very flawed individual.  However, his role is overshadowed even more by a breakthrough performance by actress Rosamund Pike as the titular missing person.  This is one of the most talked about and widely debated movies of the year, and with good reason.  With this film, David Fincher once again proves why he is one of the great artists and storytellers working in cinema today.  Only he could have managed to get a great performance out of Tyler Perry for one thing.  And if that’s not the mark of a master director, than I don’t know what is.


edge of tomorrow poster


Directed by Doug Liman

Proff positive that I’m not the greatest forecaster when it comes to movies.  I highlighted this film as one of my “Movies to Skip” in my Movies of 2014 preview, based on what I saw as a really unremarkable and lousy ad campaign.  But, once I saw the actual movie, my whole perception changed and I’m just as surprised as anyone to see it here on my top ten list.  Essentially, I believe the pitch for this movie may have been ” could we take Groundhog’s Day and turn it into an action movie?”  Well they did, and it is awesome.  Director Doug Liman actually makes the outlandish premise behind this movie, about a military officer (Tom Cruise) forced to repeat the same losing battle in a war with an alien race hundreds of times until he finally succeeds, work remarkably well and with surprising creative finesse.   Cruise once again proves that he can carry an action thriller with a charismatic but never false performance.  Emily Blunt steals the film, however, playing the ultimate warrior in this seemingly un-winnable battle.  Her chemistry with Cruise helps to elevate this story above most other action thrillers and it’s their combined energy that you’ll remember long after the movie is over.  Also, the film is just a refreshing departure from most action fare, letting the gimmick of the movie flow naturally within the story, as opposed to overwhelming it.  It’s just unfortunate that the movie was saddled with such a poor marketing campaign.  It’s a movie that deserves a whole lot more and will hopefully get the recognition it’s due in the years ahead.


lego movie poster


Directed by Phil Lord & Christopher Miller

A movie that came out so long ago, that you’d think it belonged on last year’s top ten.  But, that just goes to show just how memorable this movie was in 2014.  Directors Lord and Miller have proven themselves to be one of the best pairs of humorist in today’s media.  Along with their live action effort, 22 Jump Street, they’ve achieved remarkable success making movies that should never have worked in the first place turn into bona fide classics.  I’m sure that when most people learned there was going to be something called The Lego Movie, their first thought was that it was going to be nothing more than a self-aggrandizing 90 minute commercial for the LEGO company.  Thankfully, what we got instead was an animated comedy that not only pleased audiences of all ages, but was also insightful and heart-wrenching as well.  I loved what the movie had to say about creativity and how it defines us as individuals, and how society as a whole functions on everyone’s own creative contributions.  I’m also sure many people were surprised by the fact something like The Lego Movie could even make them cry.  But overall, it also proved to be the most consistently imaginative and hilarious movie of the year.  Beautifully animated and filled with a cast of delightful characters from all corners of pop culture, The Lego Movie was much more than a commercial.  It was a celebration of imagination, embodied perfectly on the shared experiences that we have had through different generations of playing with LEGO’s.  And the movie also gave Batman a song, which was spectacular.  Everything is awesome in this animated gem.


snowpiercer poster


Directed by Bong Joon-Ho

In my list from last year, I named Neill Blomkamp’s Elysium as my worst movie of 2013.  This was mainly due to the lack of originality in it’s presentation and the unsubtle and ham-fisted way that it delivered it’s social commentary.  Korean director Bong Joon-Ho tackles similar themes in his action film Snowpiercer, but delivers it so much more effectively.  Like Elysium, the story takes place in a not-too-distant future where mankind is forced to adapt to a changing and unforgiving world.  But, instead of overpopulation, the scourge on the planet is climate change, and Earth has become unlivable for mankind after a deep freeze has covered the planet.  The only survivors exist on a perpetually running train that circumnavigates the planet, and tensions over the years have risen due to the gap between the “haves” at the front of the train, and the “have nots” in the back of the train.  Joon-Ho’s film clearly has a Socialistic bent to it, but’s it still is engaging to watch even if you don’t share it’s worldview.  The characters are all complex in the right way, with the heroes not being entirely pure and trustworthy, and the villains not entirely evil.  Joon-Ho works with an English-language cast for the first time here and he gets some truly outstanding performances out of stars like Chris Evans, John Hurt, and Tilda Swinton.  Also, the production design of this movie is amazing, giving character to each new section of the train that we visit, leading us on a great journey as the characters make their way to the engine room.  It’s proof that you can make social commentary work in science fiction again, and also make it transcend beyond it’s message.


inherent vice poster


Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

The always unpredictable P.T. Anderson delivers yet another quirky entry into his already impressive filmography.  I should note that if you’re expecting something more dramatic and meditational like his last two films, 2012’s The Master and 2007’s There Will Be Blood, then you might come away from this movie disappointed.  Inherent Vice marks a return to the quirkier side of Anderson’s style, probably best featured in his earlier dark comedy classic, 1997’s Boogie Nights.  And it’s a return that I greatly welcome.  Truth be told, I haven’t read the Thomas Pynchon novel that this movie was based on, but Anderson’s presentation leads me to believe that it’s a fairly faithful adaptation.  Set in Los Angeles during the waning days of the counter-culture movement of the 60’s and 70’s, the movie follows the adventures of private detective Larry “Doc” Sportello (a stellar Joaquin Phoenix) as he tries to unravel the mysterious disappearance of a Southland real estate tycoon and how that connects with a shadowy organization called the Golden Fang.  The plot meanders deliberately and doesn’t really resolve in the end, but that’s not really what P.T. Anderson intended for the film.  This, more than any other movie on this list, is more about the journey than the destination, and I credit Anderson for making the journey a whole lot of fun.  The overall vibe of the film is like a mixture of Roman Polanski’s Chinatown (1974) and the Coen Brothers’ The Big Lebowski (1998), and it includes the best of both worlds in that regard.  It’s not a movie for everyone, but it certainly hit all the right notes for me and was an easy pick as one of the year’s best.


whiplash poster


Directed by Damien Chazelle

Who knew that attending music school could be such a harrowing experience?  This little indie surprise may not seem like much on the surface, but after seeing it, Whiplash proved to be one of the most intense movie experiences of the year.  It follows the tumultuous story of aspiring drummer Andrew Nieman (Miles Teller) as he begins his training at the best music school in the country.  His confidence is soon tested once he runs into the ruthless Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), who pushes his pupils to the brink of insanity in the pursuit of absolute perfection.  Over the course of the movie, we see Andrew push himself harder than he is physically possible in order to win the approval of a truly heartless individual, even to the point of drumming until his fingers are bleeding.  It’s a movie that is going to take you for a ride in the most unexpected ways and it absolutely took me by surprise when I first saw it.  Miles Teller certainly cements his status as a rising star with his memorable turn here.  But the movie mostly belongs to veteran character actor J.K. Simmons, who delivers the performance of a lifetime as the ruthless Fletcher; a terrifying presence so intense, that he makes R. Lee Ermy’s drill sergeant from Full Metal Jacket (1987) seem humble by comparison.  Simmons will almost certainly be in the running for the supporting actor Oscar this year, if not already standing as the clear front-runner.  Overall, the experience of this movie is something you have to enjoy for yourself.  It perfectly encapsulates the lengths some of us will go to become the best at something, even if it means compromising our own well-being in the process.


guardians poster


Directed by James Gunn

The year’s big breakout hit, and it’s easy to see why.  This is a movie that just has it all; humor, action, amazing characters, and the promise of greater things to come.  What makes Guardians so remarkable however is that it comes from an unlikely source.  The Marvel Comics it’s based on has a fan-base, but nowhere near as large as some of Marvel’s other titles.  And yet, with an assured adaptation by director James Gunn, Guardians went from a C-grade comic brand into an A-lister overnight.  It’s amazing to see how well this movie connected with audiences, and for the most part, I believe that it’s largely because of how well they brought the cast of characters to life in this movie.  Star Lord charmed us, Gamora amazed us, Drax intimidated us, Rocket Raccoon made us all laugh, and Groot, well Groot just warmed our hearts.  Overall, this movie had the best character dynamics of the year, even letting minor characters like Yondu and The Collector shine through as integral parts of the story.  Overall, this movie just shows us how successful Marvel Studios has become at bringing their titles to the big screen, and Guardians may just be their crowning achievement; so far anyway.  I would actually say that it’s the first space based adventure in a long time to actually capture some of the same magic that Star Wars did many years ago.  Amazingly, Marvel has managed to create a viable franchise that can stand well on it’s own, even set apart from the larger cinematic universe, although I am excited to see how these characters will fit within the grander scheme of things.  It’s the first time in a long while where the highest domestic gross of the year actually belonged to a movie that deserved it.  The classic rock based soundtrack was also delightful byproduct of the film as well.  I honestly can’t wait until the next adventure we get to have with this eccentric family of oddball characters.

Which leads us to…


birdman poster


Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu

Top honors belong to what is truly the most original and captivating cinematic experience that I had all year.  Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s career has largely been defined by dark, socially-conscious dramas, but Birdman marks a big departure for him because it’s his first full-on comedy, albeit a very dark one.  I’ve already gushed about the remarkable cinematography, and it’s reliance on long unbroken takes, but there’s also a lot more to this movie that makes it a standout film.  Michael Keaton delivers a career best performance as a down-and-out actor trying to make a comeback after years away from the spotlight and being synonymous with playing a big screen superhero; a somewhat auto-biographical role for the man who once donned the cape and cowl as Batman.  There are also brilliant supporting performances from other heavyweights like Edward Norton, Naomi Watts and Emma Stone, all performing at their highest levels.  The Broadway setting also is used remarkably well, making you want to leave and visit the city of New York in a heartbeat.  But, with all the style and performances on display, Birdman stands out as 2014’s best film purely because there is nothing else that quite matches it.  It takes the medium of film to places that we haven’t seen it go before, and that’s quite an impressive feat for something that was done on a relatively modest budget.  Innaritu’s film also marks yet another outstanding entry from a Mexico-bred filmmaker.  This along with Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim and Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity (which was my #1 from last year) shows that these “three amigos” went 3 for 3 in this cinematic round, and hopefully the trio continues their hot streak in the years ahead.  With groundbreaking cinematography, career-defining performances, and an almost dream-like flow to the narrative, Birdman is easily the best experience that I had at the movies this year.

So, with my choices for the best of 2014 laid out now, it’s now time to share my picks for the 5 worst movies of the year.  These may not be the worst movies of all time (although one comes very close), but when compared with the rest of the year’s entries, these stood out as the movies that angered me the most, and represented the worst aspects of the film industry.  So, let’s start counting down.


Despite a surprisingly strong performance by Angelina Jolie, this movie takes a legendary fairy tale and it’s classic adaptation by Disney, and deconstructs it into an insulting piece of fan fiction.  It glorifies one iconic character to the detriment of the rest of the story, and it only makes you wish you were watching the original animated film instead.  It’s strange to see a fairy tale feel so lacking in magic.


This one’s pretty obvious.  What was promised as a revitalized reboot of the mega-hit franchise only proved to be more of the same.  Once again, the Transformers are sidelined for most of the movie, with director Michael Bay filling the bloated 2 1/2 hour run-time with needless banter between the uninteresting human characters.  Even removing Shia LeBeouf from the equation and replacing him with the more charismatic Mark Wahlberg did nothing to help.  And the sad thing is, because of the international success of the movie, there’s still more over the horizon for this franchise.


Where The Imitation Game was a formulaic, Oscar-bait movie that actually succeeded, The Theory of Everything is an example of the exact opposite.  Based on the life of genius astrophysicist Dr. Stephen Hawking, Theory unfortunately devolves into melodramatic tripe that teaches us nothing about Hawking’s impact on the world of science and instead focuses way too much on his disability brought on by Lou Gehrig’s disease.  But probably most insulting are the obvious “Oscar moments” in the movie, and the fact that Hawking’s story gets overshadowed by that of his long suffering wife.  Dr. Hawking deserves so much better than this pandering piece of garbage.


One of Sony’s many headaches this year, Amazing Spiderman 2 marks a franchise low for the once mighty box office draw.  With a ludicrous story-line and too many characters needlessly stuffed together with no real purpose (seriously, why did the Rhino need to be in this movie at all), this was effectively the Spiderman equivalent of Batman and Robin.  Plans for future expansion of this franchise have been put on hold after the movie’s mediocre performance, and rumors suggest that Sony may indeed give the character back to Marvel Studios, which is where he belongs.  This movie was a studio mandated mess and hopefully it marks the end of Sony’s run with the character.

And the absolute worst movie of 2014 is…


Shocking right?  I mean it’s only the worst movie of all time according to IMDb’s Bottom 100.  But, if there was ever a movie more deserving of that distinction, it’s this un-watchable film.  I had to see it through a bootleg copy, because one I didn’t want to give Kirk Cameron any of my money, and two I needed to see just how bad it was.  And boy is it bad.  The movie seems to exist purely for Kirk Cameron to pontificate his already warped world view (which by the way doesn’t represent Christianity authentically in any way) and more shamefully, he tries to wrap his own beliefs into every Christmas tradition possible.  Calling this a movie even does a disservice to cinema in general.  It’s a propaganda piece and nothing more.  The worst Christmas movie of all time, and easily the worst of 2014.

So, this is my breakdown of the year 2014 at the movies.  It was quiet for the most part, but not one that put Hollywood in the red either.  I’m certainly happy that so many big summer tent-poles actually delivered this year, showing that Hollywood is filling a demand for quality entertainment on a bigger scale and doing it better than in years past.  The year ahead hopes to continue that trend further.  What I find most interesting about 2015 is how the upcoming releases are mostly returns to old school franchises (particularly ones from the 80’s).  We’re getting a new Terminator, another Mad Max, as well as a return to Jurassic World.  Also ahead are not one but two films from animation power house Pixar (Inside Out and The Good Dinosaur) as well as the conclusion of Marvel Studios’ Phase 2 with Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man.  007 also makes his big return in Spectre. There are also big new films from high profile filmmakers like Robert Zemekis (The Walk), Quentin Tarantino (The Hateful Eight), Guillermo del Toro (Crimson Peak), and Brad Bird (Tomorrowland).  And of course, probably the most anticipated new film of 2015 is the return to that galaxy far, far away with J.J. Abrams’ Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens.  Overall, 2015 looks to be a spectacular year with many highly anticipated new films from some of Hollywood’s best talent.  And I will most certainly do my best to keep up with it all and continue to share my thoughts with you over the following year.