Films of 2014

2014 was not the best year for film. For me, it is a year defined by disappointing submissions by very capable directors and a string of clichéd, over-hyped biopics that proved the flaws of the format. And in some cases, the two overlap.

I am going to do my best to not be overly critical here. The last time I reviewed a year in cinema that was this poor, I got several E-mails and comments about my negativity (Sorry, 2009 was really that bad and I hold firm on that).

There is some reason to celebrate this crop of films. In fact, the very best films in 2014 would be stand outs in any year.

The most creative films were the ones that stood out most in 2014. I am usually one to stand against the oedipal nature of art and will almost always prefer quality over uniqueness, but this year will be the exception, because that uniqueness was only a part of why these films were so good.

Anyway, like last year I am juggling a lot of projects so I will keep these relatively short. If you are new to these reviews here is how this works: These are a list of films I feel strongly about in one way or another. It is not every film I have seen, and it is not a countdown from worst to best (though it is in a rough order that follows that thinking). There are always a lot of films that come out each year that don’t need commenting on. I usually steer clear of the Hollywood Blockbusters as good as they sometimes are (For instance, I will not review Guardians of the Galaxy or Captain America: The Winter Soldier, though they are both Marvel’s best films to date and that company is starting to hit a serious stride). I usually lay off sequels as well. I also missed a few this year that I may edit into this once I remedy that (Nightcrawler, Still Alice, Two Days, One Night). And, in an attempt to be less negative, I will leave off a handful of terrible films I was somehow recommended to see (I’m talking about you Snowpiercer).

Let’s start with some of this year’s big disappointments and work our way to some of the better films.

Noah:

As anyone who has read these reviews in the past knows, I am a huge fan of Darren Aronofsky. Each of his films before this one had been better than the last and the way he has evolved into one of, if not the best filmmaker working today, has been a joy to watch.

But this film did not work.

Passion projects sometimes go this way. He wanted it to be epic, and in a sense, that scale is what weighed it down and made the story that much more ridiculous.

Every artist will have some dogs that plague his or her career, and I think this will be one that sticks for a while. Even the reliable Clint Mansell score was weaker than his previous installments. A couple bright spots were Russell Crowe, who manages take everything seriously enough to pull you into the story and characters and Emma Watson who steals every scene she is in. Aronofsky can always be counted on when bringing great performances out of his actors, but that couldn’t save this film from an overuse of CGI and ridiculous Rock Giants.

Gone Girl:

Again, I am a fan of David Fincher and usually will make a point to see any film of his in the theater. I even saw Panic Room. So this one is another big disappointment by a very talented (I hate that word) director.

I tried reading Gillian Flynn’s very popular novel last year and stalled out early on. After talking with a couple friends on New Year’s Eve I decided to go back and finish the job before seeing the film. I was not a big fan of the book but I also didn’t hate it. It had moments of satire about modern media built around a fluid prose of a he-says she-says storyline. It spirals in a way where you don’t quite know what is opinion, paranoia or reality and ends on a sour note with a loose analogy of modern marriage.

Then I saw the film. I know it was adapted by the author, which makes it that much more frustrating that the film takes a way too literal interpretation of the text. There is no room for point of view arguments, and you’re left with this misogynistic, ugly film with one of the most unsatisfying, unrealistic endings I can remember.

If this is in any way an analogy of modern marriage, then I have to assume that every man is a blank slate, waiting to adapt himself to the likings of the woman he fancies, and will slowly revert back to the sloth like nothing once the courtship has ended. And every woman is a varying level of self-important sociopath who will routinely use victimization and falsify rape to meet their simplest whims and needs.

That is a pretty bleak world view.

Usually if a film affects me this much, even in a negative way, I tip my hat at the artistry. Not this time. In the book, things have a bizarre normalcy at the end that has a tinge of humor and satire. In the film, the characters seem to change and do things that nothing in the film previously would lead you to believe they would do.

If I am to take some positive away from this film, Rosmund Pike continues to impress. It is a meaty role for her and she is fantastic in it. So good, that the stain of the rest of the film does not harm her performance.

Hopefully Fincher will bounce back with his next film.

American Sniper:

This film and the next one on this review share a shockingly similar flaw considering how different each subject is from the other. But before we get into that, let’s get one thing out of the way – my disappointment in this film is not a political one. People claiming this film is irresponsible propaganda for a war that is ending and should not be glorified, maybe they have a point. But it is not one I am going to make, because this is a film not just about Chris Kyle, but a story from his point of view. And whether or not you share that view is irrelevant. Clint Eastwood, if he is going to make this film, from this autobiographical source, has an obligation to maintain this world view. But unfortunately, this is also why the movie was so bad.

Maybe, in 20 years or more, when families and friends are not still suffering so much loss, this material could be revisited in a different light. Because (like The Theory of Everything), there is a story here if the director didn’t have to be so damn complimentary. For a film set in wartime, there is no real conflict in this film. No moral grey areas or questions of right and wrong. Everything Chris Kyle does is with clear eyes and a true heart. Which is not drama, and makes for a terrible film. And that is a shame because, with a little distance that ending could have been shaped to be about a patriotic figure who could see well enough to shoot an enemy a mile away but was unable to see the damage and negative aspects of war which eventually cause his end. Instead, we get an homage of this larger than life war hero that can do no wrong, never questions his actions and is never portrayed in a bad light. In other words, no drama.

I know some people saw it differently but I feel, if Eastwood was going for a Fog of War angle, he missed the mark by a mile (see what I did there). The other controversy about this film is a lack of American sensitivity, both in its subject and the idea that it shattered the January box office records while being about a sniper and opening on Martin Luther King Day (While another Biopic, about King, was also in theaters). Does that bother me? Ugh maybe a little. But people are always going to see what they want, not feel obliged to see what would paint them in a better light. For me the bigger question is how Bradley Cooper got nominated for an Academy Award for this film.

The Theory of Everything:

Another Biopic that refuses to give its subject any humanity, opting instead for homage and a safe, complimentary view of all parties involved. And, just like American Sniper, misses that fact that there is a story there to mine. As much of a fan of Clint Eastwood that I am, this film is the greater disappointment of the two because of the subject, Professor Stephen Hawking, but it is also a better film.

First the bad – this film reduces Hawking’s story into My Left Foot territory and typical actor Oscar bait. There is little cosmology, math or science touched upon throughout the film for fear of alienating a larger audience, which is a peculiar way to go with a figure that broke boundaries such as these and has sold millions of books to a wide audience, many who were never interested in his field of study. But fine, make the film about the side of the man the public doesn’t know, and about his wife Jane (who wrote the book the film was based on). But for God’s sake, have the courage to make it compelling and interesting and fully develop these characters so that we have a vested interest in their struggles. Fleshing out Stephen as a brilliant but distant atheist, tackling his illness with a cold realism vs his overly romantic and religious Girlfriend/Wife’s blind faith and how they attempt to balance each other would have been compelling and interesting. Scenes of Stephens shaken resolve, or the questioning and realization in Jane that her teenage ideals and over romanticized views of love and drama may have lead her down a path she was not prepared for – that would have been dramatic! Instead, neither ever question their love and strength and are incapable of wrong. Their relationship failed because of time and outside forces and I’m not really clear what else, because it just kind of dies onscreen in a safe and boring way where no one can take any blame. Again, like American Sniper, a refusal to show these characters in any poor light, even though it would make them more human, relatable and even likable, cost this film its heart and drama. The conflict instead simply became the illness and nothing else.

Now the good- There were times, especially early on, that the direction, the visuals and the way the music built up at just the right time, made me forget all the things that bothered me. It is a great looking and sounding film. The performances do what they can with such limited range. Felicity Jones is a bit of a weak spot, as her character and some of the lines she has to speak are so simplistic and one dimensional. A shame too, because she was fantastic as Dickens mistress in The Invisible Woman. Eddie Redmayne is the current favorite to win the Academy Award for this role, and while he is outstanding in the film, I am firmly rooting against him. I am sick of the cripple role being automatic Oscar bait, and there were other outstanding performances this year that far exceeded the range of this flawless and polite impersonation.

Inherent Vice:

This is two films now by Paul Thomas Anderson that have left me disappointed. But I did not hate this film like I did The Master. In fact, there is a lot about this film I really liked. But on a whole, it did not quite know what it wanted to be and took far too long trying to figure that out.

A bit Chinatown by way of Hunter Thompson, I can’t decide if this film needed more comedy or less. But it is one of those. Or maybe some of the comedic beats were just off. Either way, I am usually the last person to be calling for clear labels and the need to categorize genre, but because this film never fit any structure, I was left waiting for something, anything to happen that made sense of it all. But it never came.

I think I would be much more forgiving of Inherent Vice if my expectations were not so high and if it wasn’t such a grueling commitment. This is a film that could have easily have been an hour and a half to maybe two hours. Two and a half hours was way, way too long to have next to nothing to say.

There was a cool 1970’s feel and humor to this film that made it enjoyable, and the very physical performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin added to the comedy and were a better fit here than the over-the-top acting in The Master.

I wanted more from this film. It just misses being something different and memorable. I can only fault it so much for the attempt and maybe this is one worth seeing for yourself.

Foxcatcher:

A two hour long political cartoon pulled from The New Yorker, where shades of wealthy American exceptionalism are shown through hunched over impoverished primates and marble-mouthed, giant nose-in-the-air rich elitists. It is also a scathing account of wealth in sports, where rich white men live vicariously through more able-bodied gladiators.

This was an amazing story. It works on so many levels, and the way it is filmed with such a disconnect from its subjects, as if we are looking at humanity through some third party perspective, heightens the performance and the inevitable tragic ending. And that social science experiment aspect of this film is what allows you to take the make-up and prosthetic enhanced, overly physical performances seriously. At least, after a little getting used to.

This was another film that was almost great. Is this a biopic, based on real people? Yes, but it doesn’t suffer for it. These are not public figures and icons, and almost no one comes out of this film in a flattering light. And the true story aspect may help the more bizarre elements from being questioned.

Unfortunately what drags this film down is a simple rule in screenplay writing – each scene needs to set up the following one in a series of ups and downs and highs and lows to pull at the audiences emotions and keep their attention. This film flat-lines for an hour and a half. It is excruciatingly slow moving. And because of that, the clever moments of comedy and heart never catch the right beat and stick the landing.

Worth watching, and the performances (especially Mark Ruffalo) and directors praise is well deserved. With better editing and a more polished script, this could have been extraordinary.

The Imitation Game:

My feelings towards this film are my feelings towards the genre of biopics in general. And the Award Season campaign for this one sums up the problem perfectly. The pitch for awards made by The Imitation Game is this – “Honor the Man, Honor the Film”. This is so absolutely abhorrent in any medium of art that it makes me angry. But I will try not to take it out on the film itself. If you believe in that statement, the Oscars should basically be split up beforehand between Selma and this film and you can just skip the movies themselves. Unless someone makes a film about Jesus, in which case we can all just go home.

This, unlike many of the biopics this year, is a story that is worth telling. Alan Turning is a name not everyone is familiar with, and that is a problem. He was as influential to the twentieth century as Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King Jr, Gahndi and whoever else you think belongs on that list. In fact, he probably had an even greater impact than those men. Beyond his impact on fiction from Isaac Asimov and Phillip K. Dick to The Matrix and The Terminator, he is often referred to as the father of the Computer, maybe the biggest advancement in mankind’s history since electricity or even the wheel. And, (AND!) he has the distinguished honor of being the most influential single figure in winning World War Two, saving an estimated 14 million lives. If you did not know his name before, you should see this film and find out why that is.

Enough honoring of the man, let’s talk about the film. Is it possible for a film to be both melodramatic and wooden at the same time? There is a coldness here that somehow makes the clichéd embellishes throughout the story seem all the more out of place and ridiculous. Every time the story was shaped to fit genre expectations, these characters lost their humanity. And by the end, the impact was deadened and fell well short of what it could have been.

It is a strange film (which may be fitting for its idiosyncratic subject). At times it has big budget CGI war scenes, and in others there are crude montages of old, real footage. It’s as if they ran out of money half way through production. And at the very end, much like the weak ending to American Sniper, The Imitation Game goes for a more “tell, don’t show” wind down.

Biopics can be good films, and this is one worth seeing. But, unless they are done without reverence, without concerning the feelings of the subject or the subject’s family, and without caring about how the world views the specific subject and instead worries about what makes a better movie, biopics cannot reach any level of greatness. This is a dead horse I am sadly going to be beating throughout this year’s reviews…

The Drop:

It is a fine film, and the acting here is certainly underrated. But I implore you, read Dennis LeHane’s novel of the same name first, or at the very least the short story, Animal Rescue, that it was adapted from. The reason being (beyond the obvious book to film reasoning) is that one major change from the novel hurt the film greatly. But I can also see why they made it. Sort of…

James Gandolfini is a phenomenal actor, and I know a lot less people would have seen this film if he was not in it. He is probably the reason the film got funding to begin with. And it is a great performance. But he was also the reason they set the film in The Bronx. Both the short story and novel are set in The Polish Triangle in Dorchester MA, and the neighborhood is as important a character as anyone in the story. If I hadn’t known that going in would I still care? Maybe not? But certain things just don’t make sense, from the closing times at the bar, the neighborhood mix of Irish Catholics and Eastern Europeans, etc. And the film lost its personality because of that.

The abandoned pit-bull storyline, which was the focus of the short story, takes a back seat here as well which I thought was a strange decision. I felt it had such an impact on what the characters do at the end that it left something missing.

Still, good performances by the three leads, and it stands as a fine visual for a very good read.  

Interstellar:

I saw Interstellar months ago but am still trying to process it. There is a lot about this film I love. There is a lot about it I thought missed the mark. It is nearly impossible for me to place it among other films this year because it is so different from the rest, and the aspects I loved about it should put it at the very top of this list. Unfortunately, there were some things, from a filmmaking standpoint, I feel were mishandled or could have been much better, so it is hard for me to put it higher than films I thought were nearly flawless. Like Nolan’s other Sci-Fi head-scratcher Inception, this is a film that will rattle around upstairs for years to come.

Is this film hard-sci-fi, like so many other people have noted? I’m not so sure. For all the science, there is also a prevailing argument throughout the film for quantifiable love and the need to have a family to fight for vs cold and calculated reasoning. Those are not aspects that fit the mold. And yet, it is a film that focuses so much on the science of gravity and time and shows exploration in as wonderful (and at times terrifying) a light as possible.

This film is an artistic response to the defunding of NASA and the loss of imagination that comes when you stop exploring. And for that, I loved it.

This was also a beautiful film. If you saw it in the theater, I hope you saw it in IMAX. The music, the photography and the special effects are in a class by themselves this year.

Now you are probably wondering why I have this film so low on my list. Again, sometimes it’s about expectation. Christopher Nolan is one of my favorite filmmakers working today and I expect the level of creativity and greatness from the films he works on.

From the start, I though Mathew McConaughey was wrong for the lead. He is a fine actor, but just seemed like off casting. I know they were going for Hal Jordan here, but it never fit. But the worst casting was Matt Damon (and acting too. Maybe the worst, phoned in performance I can remember. And I think he is a very good and capable actor).

I can get into a lot of issues I had but instead of making a list of complaints I will just paint them on with broad strokes. There is a scene towards the end, when there is a lot of exposition to muscle through, but it is overshadowed by Cooper screaming his daughters name and throwing a fit. It is classic misdirection (film school students will know it better by “The Pope in the Pool” scene). But that exposition was important. And this film had and needed so much of it that the story suffered. People came out confused and glassy eyed. And there was only so much subtext you can milk out of scientific explanation to an audience of laypeople.

Am I glad I saw this film and do I recommend it? Absolutely. But it is far from perfect. It needs to be given credit though for being one of the most ambitious films in a long while.

A Most Violent Year:

The biggest criticism I have for this film, and I am not alone in this, was the way it was marketed and, because of that, the expectation going in. I hate to start with the negative, because this was a very good movie, but anyone who thought they were going into a Scorsese like gangster movie was left waiting for the violence promised in the title and probably left the theater a little confused.

But, I say again, this was a very good movie. The acting was fantastic, and in a year where any decent females roles were few and far between, Jessica Chastain’s role as the overcompensating tough-guy gangsters daughter was, arguably, my favorite to come out of that weak pool. This film, like 2011’s Drive, was a bit of a slow burn. A building tension that keeps you on the edge of your seat. The final payoff is somewhat predictable, a little bit of a letdown for anyone still expecting this to be a violent shoot em’ up, but rooted in a realism that makes the film work as a whole.

Just be warned, this is a film about corruption being the norm and one ambitious immigrant fighting for his somewhat naïve belief in the American Dream. This is not a stylized gangster movie.

Whiplash:

This is a small movie, and I mean that in a good way. There is an almost Cormac McCarthy like talking heads aspect, as if the film was one conversation. And, because of the wild tension and drama, it keeps you focused throughout.

J.K. Simmons channels Lee Emrey is a great performance, even if it has become a little bit of typecasting for him. Either way, he is a great actor and is deserving of the praise.

In any other year, the jazz beat that defined the film would stand out as visionary and creative, but unfortunately one other film managed to do it bigger and better. And that is not the only comparison to Birdman I will make. Both films had a behind-the-curtain aspect to them, but Whiplash shied away from unique and creative story and character arcs. My big complaint with this films is that it had a “Prime time scripted drama” feel, like an episode of Law and Order. You know the structure so well from having seen it before. You know how it will end. You just watch for the incidentals and character moments.

Whiplash is a pretty good film. I’m a little surprised at the Best Picture nomination, but this year’s crop was a strange one. I will be very interested to see what writer-director Damien Chazelle does next.

Selma:

Call it the racism of expectation, but I unfortunately have to admit to judging this film before seeing it. I knew it had not received much awards buzz and had a handful of detractors complaining about the historical accuracies, so I saw it as a film that could wait until I was caught up on what I expected to be the best films of the year. I read the reviews (something I try not to do before seeing a film like this), and saw the dispassionate, across the board praise that I immediately assumed was because no one wanted to criticize a film about Martin Luther King Jr.

I, in a rare case, was happy to be wrong. Selma, while far from perfect and definitely falling into several of the traps many other biopics this year suffered from, is a very good film. One with moments of greatness and worthy of its important and still very topical subject matter.

David Oyelowo had a great year, with roles in Interstellar and A Most Violent Year, but his portrayal of Dr. King, such a recognizable icon, will be what he is remembered for from 2014. Probably for his whole career. There are moments where he is larger than life, and the film certainly focuses on those, but it is the smaller moments of Kings doubt, anger and all the other flaws that make him human where Oyelowo shines. Those scenes and flaws are what make his character so exceptional.

The critics that point out the embellishes of history could complain about almost any historical film, but their criticism of Tom Wilkinson’s LBJ are not without merit. I’m not sure what he was like behind closed doors, but Scooby Doo villain would not be my guess. That may be harsh, but I do know that he had a Texas accent, and Wilkinson plays him with something that sounds Chicago-Polish by way of New York. His entire storyline, and the awkward scenes with Coretta Scott King just bog the film down.

Luckily, the rest of the film was as dramatic and emotionally engaging as anything else this year. I am shocked Selma wasn’t a bigger presence this awards season. 

A Most Wanted Man:

How did this film fall through the cracks this year? I know it came out in the wrong season, but so what? It is topical, written by one of the most beloved writers of both novels and films in history, and is the final starring role of one of the best actors of the last 2 decades.

Granted, I am huge fan of John Le Carré. I have read several of his novels and seen almost all the films adapted from them. I had not read A Most Wanted Man though and I hesitated on whether or not to see the film first. His resume is so long though and it was admittedly down the list on books I am currently reading and am planning to read. I cannot comment on the novel (I’m sure it is fantastic though), but the film was great. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays an eastern European version of Le Carré’s George Smiley, and shows why he was an actor with few peers. And the rest of the film fits that world where James Bond is a ridiculous fantasy and spies are more likely to drink themselves to death alone than die in an epic shootout. The world of The Spy Who Came in From the Cold, The Honorable Schoolboy and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

If you are not familiar with these previous films, A Most Wanted Man is a fine place to jump in. Gray areas abound and you will question yourself and what you believe in. This is as engaging a film that came out this year and it is a shame that so few people have seen it and it was not considered for any awards.

Mr. Turner:

Of all the many, many films this year about very famous, real life people, Mr. Turner is the one stand out that doesn’t fall into cliché biopic territory. And that is because of the director, Mike Leigh, and the way his films never quite fit the mold of any genre that came before them. Leigh makes films that are intimate character pieces, devoid of plot and story structure, famously choosing to avoid screenplays entirely. Some of his films are great and some don’t quite hit the mark, but the freedom he grants his actors in Mr. Turner, especially Timothy Spall in the title role, pays off huge. And this is probably his best film yet.

Mike Leigh is as British as they come, so making a film about Turner just seems logical. The relationship that the Brits have with Turner has always been amusing in the art world, crediting him with the birth of impressionism and the Barbizon School to Abstract expressionism and everything in between. Many films have made light of this in the past, and seeing a very British film reduce him to the stature of an honest-to-goodness human being is an accomplishment in itself. Not only that, they let Spall take him to some great depths and heights of eccentricity. Looking at this film from that viewpoint, Mr. Turner is Leigh’s The Last Temptation of Christ (and in the British art world, may be seen as just as blasphemous).

My only complaint about this film was that, because of the experimental nature of the story, some scenes did not feel entirely necessary. And when a film reaches 2 ½ hours, those unpolished moments are harder to sit through. If the editing was a little tighter, this could have been a masterpiece. As it stands, it is a great film that will hopefully open the door to similar subjects, far enough removed by time that they will not fall into the same traps that films about real life people so often stumble into.

The Trip to Italy:

This film, the second in what will hopefully be several more in the series, captures almost all of what made the first film, The Trip, one of my absolute favorite viewing experiences in years. Almost I say, because with any sequel you lose that originality, and that was a major aspect of what made the first one so great. Before I say anything about this film I need to tell you, if you have not seen The Trip, do so right away.

The Italian countryside will certainly be a bigger audience draw than quaint English Inns and restaurants, and the scale is bigger as well as the HD camera work. If this wasn’t two talking heads doing self-deprecating humor in between Michael Caine impersonations this film could have been shown in IMAX. If you enjoy traveling, Rick Steves, Anthony Bourdain and any of the other countless HDTV travel slash foodie shows then this will be an enjoyable overdose.

Beyond the food porn and beautiful landscapes though is what makes both these films so unique and wonderful compared to everything else in the theater these days. It is mature in its handling of male friendships and humor. You may not understand without seeing these films, but almost everything out there is juvenile, man-child humor and it has been like that for decades. This is different and should be applauded for showing another side of male humor and comradery, beyond the dick and fart jokes that dominate the industry.

Boyhood:

I will say again, uniqueness does not trump quality or even necessarily count as quality in art. So, knowing the gimmick behind the filming of Boyhood had me prepared for a film that skated by on said gimmick and nothing else.  But in this case, the way it was filmed was not a simple gimmick, and was the entire reason the film worked as a whole.

There is not much of a plot or drama in Boyhood. No discernable story structure, no antagonist or character goals. The only thing that moves and motivates, challenges and rewards these characters is unknown to them and only viewable from our position. And that is time. The passage of time is the source of all the drama in this film, and it works in a way that words cannot describe.

The idea of this film, on paper, does not work. But when the lights came on and people stood up in the theater, we were all emotionally exhausted. And in a good way, as if we had just sat through and shared some epic drama and not some small Indy film with talking heads and realistic, analogy and subtext free dialogue. That is the power of seeing these characters change and age over such a length of time. You cannot help but become invested and attached to them.

Here is a case where the uniqueness of the film is its quality. And it is one of those films that can be talked about and discussed in ways that don’t necessarily fit the norm of acting, score, cinematography etc. Discussion about this film is about the lives of the characters, which I think is a great accomplishment.

The Grand Budapest Hotel:

There comes a point, when an artist peaks and reaches a level of recognizably in their style, where everything that comes after seems like self-parody on the way back down to earth. Beyond that point is where I would have placed Wes Anderson, so I did not rush to see his latest when it came out in theaters. Considering it was staring Ralph Fiennes, who may be my favorite actor working today, that should show you where my expectations were for The Grand Budapest Hotel. But unlike most artists, Anderson stayed the course and owned that recognizably. He embraced it, and ultimately took a step towards perfecting his craft. This may be an unpopular statement amongst the rabid fans of Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums, but I think The Grand Budapest Hotel is Wes Anderson’s best film to date.

From a production standpoint, this and Birdman are alone when it comes to set design, art direction, costumes etc. They are beyond impressive in both scale and design. The details and willingness to use such elaborate stages as secondary visuals, quick takes and background only shows a confidence in the filmmaking that is really extraordinary. This is even used as a gag in the film but also fits the narrative about a changing world and the loss of certain aesthetics, shown subtly with the use of artwork by Austrian masters like Egon Schiele and Gustav Klimt.

But what sent this film over the top for me was Ralph Fiennes. M. Gustave is a character that will stand the test of time, and it is absolutely criminal that he was not nominated for an Academy Award. It is an amazing performance.

This is a film I look forward to visiting again soon.

Birdman:

The best film this year. And, when I saw it I knew nothing coming out in the follow months had a chance of taking that spot. This is a decade defining masterpiece that deserves every single bit of praise it has been receiving. And, the best part is that people actually are praising it across the board, which is so surprising and goes against everything I would have predicted.

I don’t want to wax poetic about this film for a thousand words because words cannot do it justice. That is why it is uniquely a film and not an adaptable source or medium. Just know that, when I saw the trailers and heard the descriptions, my first thought was that all those gimmicks will not work. But they do. Everything comes together so perfectly, from the insanely long takes, edited together to make one long and emotional journey through claustrophobic hallways and metaphorical doors, the tribal drum beat that moves you along the way, to the mesh of each actor weaving in and out of character while somehow still wearing their hearts on their sleeves.

Words cannot do it. See it for yourself. I envy you for being able to experience it for the first time.

So there you have it. As always, thank you for reading and please let me know what you think. Arguing the merits of other peoples art continues to be my favorite pastime, so don’t be shy.

Oscar picks!

Best Picture
Should Win: Birdman
Will Win: Boyhood. Though Birdman could still win.

Best Director
Should Win: Alejandro González Iñárritu for Birdman
Will Win: Richard Linklater for Boyhood.

Best Actor
Should Win: Michael Keaton
Will Win: Eddie Redmayne. It was a good performance but I am sick of the cripple rule. If they could have combined Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance and this one, so that Steven Hawking had been in the closet and fought Nazis, the head would have blown off the Oscar.

Best Actress
Should Win: Julianne Moore
Will Win: Sadly, I have seen so few of these that I will not comment.

Supporting Actor
Should Win: Edward Norton for Birdman.
Will Win: J.K. Simmons. Though Mark Ruffalo could steal this one.

Supporting Actress
Should Win: I really like Emma Stone in both Birdman and Magic in the Moonlight. But Patricia Arquette is a fine winner.
Will Win: Patricia Arquette

Adapted Screenplay
Should Win: Weak category. I’ll say Whiplash
Will Win: The Theory of Everything.

Original Screenplay
Should Win: Birdman
Will Win: Birdman

Cinematography
Should Win: Emmanuel Lubezki for Birdman, Robert Yeoman for The Grand Budapest Hotel or Dike Pope for Mr. Turner would all be fine choices.
Will Win: Emmanuel Lubezki for Birdman but the great Roger Deakins might steal this for Unbroken.

Editing
Should Win: Barney Pilling for the Grand Budapest Hotel. I am still trying to fathom Birdman not being nominated.
Will Win: Barney Pilling for The Grand Budapest Hotel.

Original Score
Should Win: Hans Zimmer is finally eligible and he absolutely deserves it for Interstellar.
Will Win: Jóhann Jóhannsson for The Theory of Everything.



And again, I could go on to Make-up, costumes etc, but those are secondary in my opinion. And I really hate the Animated film category.



Thanks,




Ryan Black
February 21st, 2015