2015 Cinema & Stadium Film Awards

2015 Cinema & Stadium Film Awards

Last year was an exceptional one for film overall, and so unsurprisingly there were many outstanding performances among the diverse films that I got to see.  To highlight the ones I thought were best, here is my third annual Oscar-style awards post.  Feel free to comment on where you agree or disagree with my selections.  I've pointed out, as well, the "real" Oscar nominees and why I didn't nominate some of them for my awards.  Only films that were released widely in 2015 were eligible.


I hope you enjoy, and please also check out my film year-in-review post here, where I pick my top 10 movies of the year, give out other miscellaneous awards, and more.


Acting Awards

Best Actor:
Michael Fassbender (Steve Jobs)
Harrison Ford (Star Wars: The Force Awakens)
Ian McKellen (Mr. Holmes)
David Oyelowo (Selma)
Jason Segel (The End of the Tour)

Oscar nominees not named here:  Bryan Cranston (Trumbo) - haven't seen the film; Matt Damon (The Martian) - I don't think he merits a nomination above the others; Eddie Redmayne (The Danish Girl) - didn't qualify due to wide release in 2016.

First of all, I want to give very honorable mentions to two different co-leads in top films from 2015:  Christian Bale and Steve Carell in The Big Short, and Michael Keaton and Mark Ruffalo in Spotlight.  Due to sharing the spotlight (pun intended), none of them had quite substantial enough roles for my nomination, but all of them were outstanding and worthy of recognition.

I had my (serious) doubts about the old Star Wars coming back for The Force Awakens, but Harrison Ford completely obliterated them in easily resuming his iconic role.  Ian McKellen was fantastic as Sherlock in Mr. Holmes, both frail old man and genius sleuth in other parts.  Jason Segel blew me away with his acting chops in inhabiting a simultaneously eccentric and normal David Foster Wallace in The End of the Tour.  Michael Fassbender continues to up the ante with his astonishing performances in playing the title role in Steve Jobs.  He easily snaps out Sorkin's smart, rapidfire script in conveying both the technical genius and frequent social failings of his character.

But the best was David Oyelowo as Martin Luther King, Jr., in Selma.  "Overwhelming" would be understating the pressure on Oyelowo in playing the civil rights hero.  Still, I felt like I was watching a living, breathing legend on the screen; his King had that presence at all times, yet he also shows  vulnerability when he (King) allowed himself to.  Selma must be seen, for many reasons but Oyelowo's performance is among the top.  It is one of the very best that I've ever seen.  The Academy's failure to even nominate him is likely the worst Oscar snub of all time.


Best Actress:
Emily Blunt (Sicario)
Daisy Ridley (Star Wars: The Force Awakens)
Charlize Theron (Mad Max: Fury Road)
Alicia Vikander (Testament of Youth)
Kristen Wiig (Welcome to Me)

Oscar nominees not named here:  ummm... all of them - I have not seen any of the films (Carol, Room - neither of which would have qualified for me, anyway, due to wide releases in 2016 - Brooklyn, Joy, and 45 Years)

I want to start, once again, by naming an honorable mention; here, it is to Jennifer Lawrence for her role in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2.  I made it plain that I didn't think much of her in the first three films, but it finally clicked to terrific effect for the last one.  Alicia Vikander, seen all over the place in film in 2015, did especially well in carrying the WWI memoir-based Testament of Youth, with building heartbreak.  Charlize Theron proved her toughness again as the true hero of the great Mad Max reboot this summer, equaling her male action counterparts.  Emily Blunt provides a piece of humanity to cling to in the chilling Sicario, as she swims against a current of darkness.  Daisy Ridley was a true wonder, a previous unknown within the galactic-sized Star Wars franchise.  Making her predecessor Luke look pathetic in comparison, she not only gave an excellent performance but her character stands as a great model for a generation of strong female leads and heroes.

Among a strong assembly of performances, Kristen Wiig stands out for her work in Welcome to Me.  Known of course for her comedic brilliance, I don't think any other actress could have pulled off her borderline personality disorder-affected character as well.  She's frequently hilarious, though always deadly serious in her respect to the character and her condition.  I didn't predict the Academy to recognize her, but it's their loss; do yourself a big favor and check out this funny, poignant, and excellent film led by Wiig's performance.


Best Supporting Actor:
Colin Firth (Kingsman: The Secret Service)
Ryan Gosling (The Big Short)
Mark Rylance (Bridge of Spies)
Liev Shreiber (Spotlight)
Benicio del Toro (Sicario)

Oscar nominees not named here:  Christian Bale (The Big Short) and Mark Ruffalo (Spotlight) - I didn't think they fit in this category (but are definitely awards-worthy); Tom Hardy (The Revenant) - didn't qualify due to wide release in 2016; and Sylvester Stallone (Creed) - haven't seen the film.


Ryan Gosling's part in The Big Short is minimal, but he really digs into it with an almost sick gusto, stepping up to his co-stars' level.  On the opposite end is Colin Firth in Kingsman, who gets close to a lead role but was so effective as a deadly yet gentlemanly agent that he deserves mention as well.  Liev Schreiber's character in Spotlight plays a pivotal role in the plot - but he extends the part well beyond just a device to a give it true depth.  Benicio del Toro is literally scary good in Sicario; early on he is superbly restrained yet highly menacing.  Never losing control, he joins the ranks of Anton Chigurh as film villains go.

All those roles make way for the best of the year, Mark Rylance in Spielberg's Bridge of Spies.  He shines most effectively in the opening sequence - which not coincidentally is by far the best in the whole film.  Both his character and his performance play tricks on the audience:  he is a frail old man whose spying does far more damage than Red Army divisions; and his almost unbelievable quiet is made up for by unbelievably expressive body language.  A great performance.


Best Supporting Actress:
Rose Byrne (Spy)
Raffey Cassidy (Tomorrowland)
Jennifer Jason Leigh (The Hateful Eight)
Rachel McAdams (Spotlight)
Kate Winslet (Steve Jobs)

Oscar nominees not mentioned here:  Rooney Mara (Carol), Alicia Vikander (The Danish Girl) - didn't qualify due to wide release in 2016.

Rose Byrne continues her development as a scene-stealing comic actress in Melissa McCarthy's Spy, with an effortless, clever take on a femme fatale.  Rachel McAdams may be overshadowed in some ways by her male co-stars, but she also shows the most heart in a genuine, poignant performance.  Kate Winslet's character gets the thankless job of trying to keep up with the grind, exhausting Steve Jobs, but audiences thank her for her steadying and much-needed empathy.  Jennifer Jason Leigh plays the Joker of Westerns in The Hateful Eight, with nearly as much glee and skill as Heath Ledger.  In a film filled with dangerous men with hair-trigger paranoia, her character is chillingly - madly - calm.

This may be my oddest acting award selection in three years.  But to me, young Raffey Cassidy's performance in Tomorrowland is the strongest in the category.  And not because she had no competition; I was transfixed by her work.  Younger actors have a tendency to over do it, whatever the role, but Cassidy harnessed an incredible energy and magic into a restrained, professional performance.  The film is one of my favorites of the year, and she is its heart and soul.  Bravo.



Other Awards

Best Director:
J.J. Abrams (Star Wars: The Force Awakens)
Pete Docter, Ronnie del Carmen (Inside Out)
Ava DuVernay (Selma)
Tom McCarthy (Spotlight)
Adam McKay (The Big Short)

2016 Oscar nominees not named here:  

My honorable mention for this category goes to Denis Villeneuve for Sicario; though not quite as good as Prisoners, he is clearly one of today's best filmmakers with a distinct style both artistic and entertaining.  And now I'm going to cheat here, and say that I have no winner in this category - they all did such fantastic yet diverse work that I can't choose just one - or two.

J.J. Abrams brought the biggest film franchise of all time - and if you couldn't tell by all the box office records The Force Awakens has obliterated, yes, he was very successful.  The pressure was beyond any other anticipated blockbuster, yet he navigated the famed galaxy far away by keeping just the right amount of the old feel and adding in a great new core of characters.  Ava DuVernay rallied a bravura solo performance (Oyelowo) together with a broader tension-building plot - and great care and patience for historical detail with relevance to contemporary society - for the outstanding Selma.  Tom McCarthy and Adam McKay, in Spotlight and The Big Short, respectively, fostered stellar ensemble casts in stories seemingly too boring and/or technical for great drama but resulted in great entertainment and impact.  And Docter and del Carmen directed the animated efforts of Inside Out, the greatest film by of a gold-standard studio (Pixar), harnessing the creative but insane idea of emotions as characters in a classic story full of heart.


Best Screenplay:
Donald Margulies (The End of the Tour)*
   *based on Although Of Course You End Up Becoming Yourself by David Lipsky
Tom McCarthy, Josh Singer (Spotlight)
Adam McKay, Charles Randolph (The Big Short)*
   *based on The Big Short by Michael Lewis
Aaron Sorkin (Steve Jobs)*
   *based on Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson
Paul Webb (Selma)

Best Visual Effects:
Ant-Man
Avengers 2: Age of Ultron
Jurassic World
Mad Max: Fury Road
Star Wars: The Force Awakens





"Academy Award trophy" by Source (WP:NFCC#4). Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Academy_Award_trophy.jpg#/media/File:Academy_Award_trophy.jpg

Spotlight

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by Tom McCarthy
Starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, et. al.
Running time:  129 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Spotlight is a historical drama based on the 2001 Boston Globe investigation into the Catholic Church's priest abuse cover up.  Featuring a non-showy but fantastic cast and a remarkable script, the drama is very interesting and entertaining.  But it also reports the real story itself both vividly and powerfully, making for an unforgettable film.  A must-see.


In 2001, the Boston Globe goes through a major transition, hiring editor Marty Baron (Schreriber), an outsider among a staff of mostly Boston natives.  One of Baron's first actions is to get to know the Globe's crack investigative team, known as Spotlight.  Led by Walter Robinson (Keaton), the team of four spends months doing in-depth research on individual reports.  Initially skeptical of the returns on this slow, expensive process, Baron nevertheless gives them a chance by putting them on the case of a possible cover-up by Cardinal Law of a local priest's pedophilia.  Spotlight is doubtful of the case; as city natives, they know how central the Catholic Church is to the city.  Not only will this make the investigation sensitive, it also gives them few good sources to work with.

Still, Robinson and his team of Michael (Ruffalo), Sacha (McAdams), and Matt (James) dig in and begin to find out things that startle them.  Working with an ostracized victims' rights activist and a harried but determined victims' lawyer, among others, Spotlight finds that the initial abuse case was hardly isolated.  Even more disturbingly, a pattern of behavior in hiding the cases emerges.  Despite  intimidation from some of the most powerful figures in the city, and intervening events (9/11), the team brings the case to its shocking, but essential, conclusion.

Spotlight features a rather odd assembly of actors for its ensemble, but one that works brilliantly together.  Spotlight, the group, is a true team and therefore there is no one main character.  So I'll start with Michael Keaton as Robinson, the coordinator.  The script, and Keaton himself, could have tried to make this the star of the show, wise and heroic.  He is both of those things, but not in a Hollywood way.  As is true for all the Spotlight members, Robinson is a nose-to-the-grindstone everyman whose journalistic experience, and specifically to Boston, flows naturally from Keaton's performance.  As a decision-maker, Robinson can't afford to be quite as idealistic or passionate as the others, forcing some truly agonizing decisions on him and recalling painful past mistakes.  An excellent job, if not a showy one.  Mark Ruffalo's Michael is next up, as he is the most fervently involved.  His dogged persistence as a journalist, undeterred by failure, is realistically done - comes across as the practiced professional - especially early in the film.  Ruffalo gets the most of the film's few bursts of emotion, and they are both genuine and feel earned.  Excellent work here, too.  McAdams' Sacha is next, not featured quite as much as Keaton or Ruffalo but still crucial.  She is often even more understated than her two co-stars, although she makes for an excellent audience surrogate in her interviews of the priests' victims.  The heart of Spotlight in many ways, McAdams does a really impressive job.  I've seen Keaton do this before (Birdman), but I had not seen such bravura performances from Ruffalo or McAdams before.  Now I know they are capable, too.  Brian d'Arcy James is the fourth member of the team, but he's the odd man out; not much to say here, he's fine but irrelevant.

It's worth pointing out a few of the non-Spotlight actors as well.  John Slattery and especially Liev Schreiber as the Globe editor are both great "others" at the paper.  Schreiber's Baron has to deal with everyone else's skepticism of him (minor or major) as a non-Bostonian (and Jew).  Yet he portrays great confidence and competence, and quietly moves forward against all opposition.  Stanley Tucci is great as a bedraggled victims' lawyer, his keen intelligence and constant state of annoyance/ exasperation on display.  And finally (though there are more good ones), Neal Huff as Saviano, a victims' advocate, steals a few scenes and is among the first to inject the moral urgency of the story.

A "biographical drama" about the Globe's investigation of the priest abuse cover-up in 2001, Spotlight succeeds brilliantly in both providing an immersive story and conveying the horror of the realities of the case.  A ton of credit should be given to the writers:  despite the fact that we know the outcome (although familiarity with the details may vary), and the not very Hollywood-like stakes, the film is riveting, dramatic throughout, and even suspenseful occasionally.  The pace is great, and even when a certain inevitability starts in, alternate foci (past journalistic mistakes, etc.) slide in naturally to compensate.  It can be difficult for a script to know just how much to tell about its characters - how deep to go - and Spotlight gets that just right.  Its characters are fully realized humans, but we aren't distracted from the main story ever.  Although Spotlight works on the steady, grounded work of its journalists, there are moments of excitement in the everyday, too.  As a librarian, I was especially happy to find some good scenes of searching the archives and even using microfilm (don't worry, there's not too much of that but it really is fun!).

Alongside the great dramatic structure and proceedings, Spotlight also engages the real subject matter head on in powerful ways.  It starts with interviews of victims, now adult, and the authentic weight of their retelling is chilling, shocking, and likely to bring you to tears.  It's not done sensationally, but it drove home, for me, the reality of the effects, both short- and long-term, better than anything else I've read or seen.  Scenes dealing with the lawyers and the Church itself are not as powerful, of course, but no less effective.  Yes, there are some true villains, but many of the responsible were just part of a huge web, their lying eventually becoming a habit whose true meaning became lost to them.  So by the end, culminating in a perfect last shot, you get a sense of the scope of that historic Globe report.  I should also mention its clear message about the importance of good journalism itself, under threat by today's demand for instant gratification which is symbolized here by everything from the Globe's circulation pressures to a big AOL billboard, among others.

***

Spotlight finishes off the year 2015 in spectacular fashion, a film absolutely worthy of its awards nominations (and wins).  It shares a lot in common with other fantastic 2015 films*, Selma and The Big Short, though of course they are quite different in other ways.  Essentially, these films took major historical developments (from the recent past, at that) and ingeniously combined both vivid, effective portraits of those real events with the most engaging drama and characters that you can find in Hollywood.  Frankly I'm often skeptical about historical films - especially of recent events - because they can rely too much on "but it's a true story!" and overdramatize events.  However, these three films not only avoided those pitfalls, they embraced the opportunities of using real life to make their films that much better.  What a way to end the year, possibly the best year in the modern era for film.  Stay tuned to my blog next week for my traditional year-end posts:  top 10 films, Oscar-type awards, and more.  And certainly, if you have the chance make sure you see Spotlight.

*I define a film's release year as the date of its wide release in the U.S.  Thus Selma is a 2015 film (January 9) as is Spotlight (November 25) - though "wide release" still sometimes means only in cities since Spotlight just got to my (rural) area last week.





"Spotlight (film) poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spotlight_(film)_poster.jpg#/media/File:Spotlight_(film)_poster.jpg

The Hateful Eight

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Directed by Quentin Tarantino
Starring Kurt Russell, Samuel L. Jackson, Jennifer Jason Leigh, et. al.
Running time:  167 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Hateful Eight is Tarantino's latest, and also one of his longest and slowest films yet.  Fear not - you still get everything you expect from Tarantino, from the great dialogue to the inventiveness to the suspense.  And led by Russell, Jackson, Goggins and Leigh, the cast and characters are among his best ever.  Still, it is long, so you may want to Netflix this and watch it in pieces.  If you can get through it, you'll have more to think about than the ever-present gore.


Shortly after the Civil War, a stagecoach carrying a bounty hunter (Russell) and his prize (Leigh) charges through the harsh winter Wyoming landscape.  Trying to outrun an approaching blizzard, they come upon a man on foot, another bounty hunter (Jackson) hauling trophies - dead ones - of his own.  Ruth allows Warren to hitch a ride on the stagecoach, but before long they oddly come across another man on foot in the brutal conditions.  Claiming he is the new sheriff of the next town over, Ruth and Warren grudgingly let him on, too.  Ruth the bounty hunter grows more nervous all the time, now traveling with a prisoner, another bounty hunter, and a man who may be a sheriff (or just after the prize money).  Before reaching town, they are forced to stop at a small lodge, Minnie's Haberdashery, where four other men already stay - but Minnie's nowhere to be found.

Forced together by the storm, it's a cramped and tense environment.  Ruth not only has to keep a close eye on his prisoner but also keep the other on the seven strangers he doesn't know or trust.  Surprises and circumstances lead to confrontations, and each of the eight just hopes to be the last man standing - and out of Minnie's little lodge.

As usual, Tarantino has assembled a fine cast for The Hateful Eight and they bring life to the character-driven film.  Kurt Russell is the main character, bounty hunter John Ruth, whose transporting of his prisoner is the basis of the plot.  Gruff, rough, and independent, Ruth is still earnest and likable.  Russell does a very good job grounding Ruth as the central player around whom the others revolve, yet not resorting to turning him into a hero.  If one thing is true in this film it's that appearances are deceiving, though Ruth is more straightforward than the others, and thus more sympathetic.  Samuel L. Jackson is next up as former Union soldier turned bounty hunter Warren.  Warren is an amiable character, though he's also (understandably) skeptical of his companions.  Tarantino creates a rich and complex backstory for his frequent muse, though I won't spoil it.  Suffice it to say the character suits Jackson perfectly, and he doesn't let us down with his combo of smooth, cool control and righteous, withering outbursts.  Walton Goggins, an actor I know from Justified, plays Mannix, the apparent new sheriff hitching a ride.  A former Confederate, he is the opposite of Warren in many ways yet also possesses the same cool head and savvy.  Mannix reminds me a lot of Goggins' character on Justified (besides just being a Southerner) - I'm equally impressed with the smooth charm he can display yet always underlying it is a dangerous menace.  Rounding out the main characters is Jennifer Jason Leigh's Domergue, Ruth's prisoner.  She doesn't get many lines, and early on seems almost a mute savage, a simultaneously crafty and thick one at that.  She often sinks into the background - probably intentionally - as the boys do the talking (and make the mistakes).  Fully immersed in the revolting character, Jason Leigh does a great job and when she gets the spotlight she makes the most of it.

The other cast members do well in their various supporting roles.  Perhaps the best of them is Bruce Dern as a former Confederate general.  He has quite a confrontation with Jackson's Warren which is spectacular, but otherwise conveys the subtle complexity of an extremely bigoted old man worn down by both age and experience.  Tim Roth is one of the more fun and upbeat characters to watch as, coincidentally, the man who is to hang Domergue.  Playing the diplomat in confrontations, he still always seems to be scheming just behind the smile.  The others do fine as well, and there is one major role toward the end that I'll keep a surprise.

A slow-build Western, Tarantino's latest film is less action-packed and more thoughtful than his recent films - for both better and worse.  Adding to the slower nature of the film is its considerable running time of two hours, forty-five minutes.  Filling all this time, besides a few extended shots of the landscape, is the rich roster of characters I've just described.  Tarantino is definitely strong when it comes to dialogue and trademark tense scenes - here, the former is certainly apparent though surprisingly the latter does not really show up.  There is absolutely tension, but it is more spread out rather than concentrated in a few scenes (other than one, but since it's the climax I don't count it as part of Tarantino's usual style).  The overall tensions and the relationships that rise and fall among the characters are the main focus here and it's a credit to Tarantino and the actors that's enough to sustain the film, at least most of the way.  Warren and Mannix's relationship in particular is crackling to start, and the way that it subtly evolves as the two move beyond the initial black-Southerner conflict is fascinating.  In fact, the resolution of that relationship is the resolution of the film, a surprising one that nonetheless is both believable and poignant.

***

The Hateful Eight is not my favorite Tarantino film, but it's a favorable sign that as I think back on it, I gravitate to the strengths rather than the weaknesses.  The film is too long - quite simply, that is the main reason that this is not in the "A" range.  I don't think I'd want to go back and watch it again soon because of that.  There's just too much filler, even if none of it is entirely wasteful or pointless.  Yet in some ways, it is the very length of the film and the (sometimes frustrating) pace that sets the tone of the film, and it's a good one.  I scored Django higher than this, but I'm much in doubt that it's actually a better film.  Easier to sit through and enjoy the shorter, more action-packed proceedings, sure.  But Hateful Eight's characters certainly make a much larger impression, and leave you more to chew on afterward.  I guess in conclusion, this is a very worthy addition to Tarantino's filmography and while it retains his distinct style and strengths, it does so in ways that are enjoyed and appreciated much differently.  As always, there is plenty of gore here - not the whole way through - so you know whether you should avoid it (or at least be ready to cover your eyes).  If you can get through that, then I highly recommend this either in the theater or via Netflix.




"The Hateful Eight" by Source (WP:NFCC#4). Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Hateful_Eight.jpg#/media/File:The_Hateful_Eight.jpg

Sisters

Score:  ***1/2 out of ***** (B-)

Directed by Jason Moore
Starring Tina Fey, Amy Poehler, Ike Barinholtz
Running time:  118 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  Sisters is the latest comedy from the fan-favorite duo Tina Fey and Amy Poehler.  Throwing one last party in the old family home, the two adopt a raunchier comedy style than usual.  While the two stars are fun to watch as always (and helped by a few of the usual good cameos), the new blend of comedy just doesn't work as well as you'd hope.  An overworked story also pushes the film too long, so feel free to wait for this one on Netflix.


Adult sisters Kate (Fey) and Maura (Poehler) appear to have been separated at birth:  the latter is a successful, recently divorced nurse, while the former is an unemployed single mother of an estranged teenage daughter.  For Maura, life seems just fine until she gets a call from her parents who tell her that they will be selling the family house to move into a smaller place.  Rattled by this news, Maura informs Kate and thinks they should use the opportunity to reconnect and revisit their past.  Once there, Kate and Maura become nostalgic and decide to throw one last party at the house.  They invite all their old friends as well as a new guy who caught Maura's eye - and specifically forbid an old rival of Kate's (Rudolph).

It takes a little while for the party to get going, but get going it does.  As they say goodbye to their old home in one last bash, the sisters also grapple with their adult identities.  Can Kate become more responsible, a better parent for her daughter?  Can Maura finally loosen up and embrace a passion?  One of those might sound more appropriate to a party than the other, but all that and more comes together in one wild night.

Sisters is populated by an impressive comedic cast.  Tina Fey and Amy Poehler star as the titular sisters, probably the biggest comedy duo working today.  Both SNL alums, they also both helmed hilarious comedies on NBC (30 Rock and Parks and Recreation) but have yet to find big success in the movies.  The good friends have great comedic chemistry, and it's not difficult at all to buy them as sisters.  I was surprised by how far Fey takes her bad girl character - it is rated R, after all - while Poehler's sister is calmer (much less exuberant than Parks' Leslie).  Despite more comfort on the small screen, they both easily hold the audience's attention for a film's longer running time.  Maya Rudolph (another SNL alum) plays rival Brinda, with only hints of her previous zanier characters but just as great as always.  Ike Barinholtz, a comedy vet himself, is pretty bland as the romantic interest.  There are plenty of small roles at the party, the funniest (to me) being those by Bobby Moynihan (current SNL) who accidentally gets a rather large dose of drugs, and Rachel Dratch (former SNL) who channels Debbie Downer in waxing poetic on the aging process.

Sisters is a fairly conventional party comedy whose most notable feature is, of course, its high-powered pair of leads.  Perhaps because of its convenionality, the film achieves neither too high of highs nor low of lows from the comedy.  There are certain comedic elements that many may come to expect from a Fey-Poehler production - clever wackiness, sharp asides that spare no one particularly themselves, a generally positive tone, etc.  These are all here, particularly in the first part of the film, but they mold it into the frame of the party subgenre, too.  The result is... OK, by their standards.  Once it comes to the party wildness, there are some good exchanges between characters (particularly some of the SNL cameo roles) but the stunts often feel forced and don't work that well.  Even early on, where Fey and Poehler are at their strength mostly just talking with each other, the "need" to make it raunchier or highlight Kate's nastiness saps the level of creativity - and humor.  The story, as I've said before, being an obligatory yet often quite crucial element, starts with a jolting abruptness and has a few too many branches growing off it.  There's nothing bad about it, but also not much interesting, either.

***

Sisters ranks as a decent comedy, though by the standards (mine, anyway) for Fey and Poehler it ranks as a disappointment.  The strength of their comic acting and chemistry is good enough to make it watchable, by all means, the supporting cast adds some nice touches throughout, and there are some funny moments.  I can also certainly see that this might appeal more to other people/demographics (this occurred to me more than a few times while watching it).  The premise has potential, and ultimately Fey and Poehler tried to go broader with their humor here.  Apparently not sufficiently helped by others while they worked outside of their comfort zone, though, their own brand of humor also was less effective.  And at two hours, it's also simply too long.  Removing some elements of the story entirely and tightening some of the sets would have helped other areas of the movie tremendously, too.  I hope Fey and Poehler continue to work together, but they can and have done much better.  Netflix this if you're a fan of theirs, but not really worth a trip to the theater.




"Sisters movie poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sisters_movie_poster.jpg#/media/File:Sisters_movie_poster.jpg

The Big Short

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by Adam McKay
Starring Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Brad Pitt and Ryan Gosling
Running time:  130 minutes
Rated R

Long Story Short:  The Big Short is a dramedy with documentary elements (your own description may differ!) based on the nonfiction book about the 2008 financial crisis.  The script does a fantastic job developing the drama while explaining the complex stuff, and the superb cast led by Christian Bale and Steve Carell bring it all to life exceptionally well.  Plus, it's even funny!  A must see.


In 2005, the American housing market was making a lot of money for a lot of people.  The good times kept rolling, and everyone thought they would keep going that way.  Almost everyone.  Some things are too good to be true, and eccentric hedge fund manager Michael Burry (Bale) takes a closer look at the numbers.  Sure enough, he finds a large degree of risk due to increasingly poor loans, and decides, against conventional wisdom, to bet against the market with a new concept called credit default swaps.  Elsewhere, investor Vennett (Gosling; also the film's narrator) catches wind of this unusual move and comes to the same conclusion - in fact, his theory goes even further.  More actors get wind of this as well, including trader Mark Baum (Carell) and his team, and the amateur duo of Charlie and Jamie, working out of a garage.

Baum, deeply cynical of the system yet entrenched within it, digs deeper and begins to discover the true level of fraud and negligence from everyone, including the government.  The early excitement of finding a massive opportunity for profit which just a handful saw, including Burry, Vennett, and Baum, turns to varying levels of numbness, guilt, and anger as the consequences begin to play out.

The Big Short is ably led by an impressive cast both in the big star leads and the supporting players.  Christian Bale's Burry is the first character introduced, and the co-lead.  One of my favorite contemporary actors, Bale fulfills expectations in playing the brilliant yet socially inept investor.  He shows a single-minded determination to solve the housing question, which he does impressively, yet he is also believably helpless in dealing with people both above and below him who are incredulous at his bet against popular opinion.  Steve Carell as Mark Baum is the other co-lead, and gives an equally great performance.  Due to personal tragedy, Baum is angrily determined (and unafraid to be an asshole) to "call the bullshit" he finds in the corporate world, and wins by profiting handsomely.  The indifference to others' feelings recalls Carell's boss on The Office, but he is no buffoon - he is deadly serious and smart.  And despite that trait, he somehow also serves as the on-screen moral surrogate as even his expectations of corporate misbehavior are upended.  Grating yet in command, Carell is superb.

Gosling and Pitt each have smaller roles.  Gosling's Vennett is mostly highlighted, beyond the narration, in humorously and vividly explaining the situation to Baum and his team.  Slick, arrogant and not nearly as regretful as the others, we get just the right dose of Vennett and Gosling does a great job with him.  Pitt plays a former banker who has turned against not only banking but most of society; yet still decides to help out his young friends Charlie and Jamie.  I've seen this kind of calm crazy from Pitt before (not sure where), and he also exudes the competence and even a little of the cool that you expect from him.  Also wisely kept to a minimum, Pitt is a positive presence as well.  There are several  cameos, but I want to give a shout-out to the impressive supporting cast, which provides everything from humor (Hamish Linklater's partner to Baum) to depth (Marisa Tomei as Baum's wife).

The Big Short is difficult to define, and sometimes to watch (for the subject matter), but it is equally easy to see for the surprising entertainment value and overall quality it presents.  The film is based on Michael Lewis's (Blindside, Moneyball, etc.) 2010 book and has an interesting hybrid drama-documentary feel to it.  This is partially because, in addition to having the actors I just described in roles like any other film, Gosling's narrator also speaks directly to the audience and there is definitely an effort to try to explain it all (including a few well done asides).  Both aspects work exceptionally well.  I thought I mostly understood the background to the 2008 financial crisis before seeing this, but I still learned a lot from the film, the housing market aspect itself in particular.  Remarkably, the script also creates a genuinely riveting drama around this with real people (adapted to one degree or another, I'm sure).  To rephrase my acting section a bit: the film has the unique individual who starts to unravel it (Bale); the central character (Carell) whose career and even personal life is in tune with yet deeply challenged by the crisis; and the side story of the "little guys" (Jamie, Charlie) naively trying to swim with the sharks.  The editing and pacing as these strands are weaved together is remarkable and makes the two-plus hours fly by.  Finally, I also have to mention the strong comedy involved here.  Despite being about a recent and very painful event, The Big Short is funny in all the right ways.  Not only does it leaven the pain, but it also often effectively complements the natural anger and outrage that the story produces.

***

The Big Short is an excellent film, and not just as art or entertainment; you'll probably learn something about the financial crisis here, too, no matter how familiar you are with it.  I was pulled to this film because of Christian Bale and Steve Carell, as well as to what seemed to be a humorous spin on a complex, important recent event.  It had all of that and used it to the maximum, in addition to featuring the impressive narrative that I explained previously.  Admittedly, the film starts to gloss over some details later in the film - particularly in how the CDOs came to truly infect the banks and bring about the sensational, shocking news headlines.  But there had already been enough technical details explained, and the focus on the initial, housing market component was wise.  I truly can't think of any significant flaws with this film.  The film's ability to simultaneously explain the complex situation as it arose and develop its characters, and by the end to convey the scope of the real, overall damage and pain that was done along with the dramatic resolution, is quite impressive.  A must-watch film (try to see it in the theaters, but Netflix will work, too).






"The Big Short teaser poster" by Source (WP:NFCC#4). Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Big_Short_teaser_poster.jpg#/media/File:The_Big_Short_teaser_poster.jpg

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Directed by J.J. Abrams
Starring Harrison Ford, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Adam Driver, et. al.
Running time:  135 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  One of the most anticipated films of all time, Star Wars: The Force Awakens - or episode seven, if you're keeping track - meets its high expectations.  The new cast and characters are great, including new trilogy lead Rey (Daisy Ridley), ex-stormtrooper Finn (John Boyega), and they get fantastic help from Harrison Ford reprising his role as Han Solo.  The space battles and one-on-one duels are familiar, yet fresh and excitingly done, and the story is set up with great potential for the next films.  It's not perfect-a little too nostalgic in the final act, and a shaky intro for the new villain-but that doesn't put a dent in the sheer joy that this film presents.  Must see.


A long time ago, in a galaxy far away... it is thirty years after the destruction of the Emperor and the second Death Star.  While the Empire no longer rules the galaxy, remnants survive as the First Order, which itself now resists the governing Republic and Resistance military arm.  Both sides, good and evil, are looking for Luke Skywalker (Hamill), who has disappeared.  On a remote planet named Jakku, a First Order squad led by Kylo Ren (Driver), an agent of the Dark Side, seeks a rumored map that leads to Skywalker.  The rumor is true: a droid named BB-8 flees with the data as the First Order arrives.  Soon, BB-8 comes under the care of an unlikely pair: a native scavenger from Jakku, Rey (Ridley), and a First Order stormtrooper fleeing from his post, Finn (Boyega).

Rey, Finn and BB-8 managed to escape Jakku and as they attempt to get the map into the right hands, they receive help from a legendary hero.  All of them grapple with the dangerous new game they have been thrown into, each bringing vastly different backgrounds - and future goals - into the situation.  Ready or not, though, great responsibility is thrust upon them as the First Order seeks to plunge the galaxy back into the darkness of its forebears - the Empire and Darth Vader.

As the iconic Star Wars franchise enters its third trilogy, it does so with a great cast of new faces, along with some very familiar and welcome old ones.  The primary new character is Rey, played by Daisy Ridley, and both the actress and her character provide a great foundation on which to build the newest films.  Rey is tough-as-nails, clever, scrappy and focused - characteristics of her background as a scavenger, and Ridley portrays them all very convincingly and compellingly.  As Rey is thrown into a whole new setting and she interacts with other characters, Ridley both responds to the new conditions realistically - fearful yet determined - and forms good, interesting relationships with others, particularly Finn.  Props also to the Star Wars team for having a female lead in the male-dominated series.  All in all, an excellent new character.  Boyega's Finn is also a welcome addition.  As a former "bad guy", not to mention not typical hero material and clearly second fiddle to Rey, Finn is definitely a new archetype.  With plenty of charisma and Boyega's fit in the film style, he also complements Rey quite well.  Adam Driver is the new Dark Side bad guy, Kylo Ren, and unfortunately here I am much more skeptical.  Wearing a mask for most of the first part, he is fine if unremarkable.  However, when Ren reveals himself, it's uncomfortably similar to the prequel trilogy's angsty Anakin played by Hayden Christensen.  He is not at all frightening or intimidating and frankly sticks out a bit like a sore thumb here; some of his acting veers perilously close to parody.  Oscar Isaac plays a new hotshot pilot named Poe Dameron.  His role is small, but he's a fun character and certainly brings out that element for the film overall; of course, Isaac himself is also awesome.  The last I'll mention, though it's not exactly a traditional character, is BB-8.  This little droid has earned its place alongside C-3PO and R2-D2 for its distinctive motions, sound effects, and yes, personality - well done!

We also, of course, have some returning characters.  The biggest role by far goes to Harrison Ford's Han Solo.  Despite his advanced age, Ford has done a remarkable job of reconjuring Solo's magic from thirty-plus years ago.  All the personality aspects and energy (I just rewatched the original trilogy prior to seeing this) are there, with just some slight tweaking to incorporate the events (alluded to briefly) between episodes 6 and 7.  Maybe he used to hate Solo, but Ford gives it everything he has - which is, of course, a lot.  Bravo, Mr. Ford!  Chewbacca ("Chewie") is naturally back at Solo's side, and is also as good as ever; in fact, he gets spotlighted quite a bit more than expected, but effectively.  As with the new guys, there is one downer here, too.  Carrie Fisher returns briefly (mercifully) as Leia.  Mostly due to her unrecognizably altered voice, her few scenes are a little painful to watch.  C-3PO and R2-D2 get welcome appearances - but also appropriately brief.

After a first viewing, I believe that Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a worthy new entry in the franchise, though with my strong personal liking of the films and the large canon it enters, it's difficult to appraise it immediately (more on this later).  Still, here are my initial thoughts.  The Force Awakens does two things very well that any Star Wars film must:  create interesting characters, both unique and connected to the franchise-level narrative; and put them through a hell of an adventure with great action.  I've already gone through the characters individually, but it's worth reiterating that the combo of Rey and Solo as the leads is fantastic, pushing the story into new territory while retaining ties to previous tales.  The supporting cast around those two is also great; and even though Kylo Ren is a weak link in this film, his relationship to other characters is crucial.  The action is great, and true to the franchise.  The Millennium Falcon is back and heavily featured, including a fantastic desert chase with TIE fighters; Poe Dameron also kicks butt with great style in his X-wing fighter.  With both enhanced technology and creative new ideas, the Force is also expanded on in everything from mind trick "battles" to more menacing- and dangerous-looking lightsabers.  The original trilogy certainly had its share of humor, and The Force Awakens if anything increases this.  It's not just old Han and Chewie gags; the new characters and BB-8 hold their own here just as they do with the other aspects of their personalities.

An important element of The Force Awakens' success is its establishing a new feel for the new trilogy. All kinds of things affect this "feel" - from the technology and filmmaking styles of the day (from the early 80s to the early 2000s to the present) to the types of stories being told to the actors and their characters.  Episodes 4-6 had their own "feel", in all those ways and more.  So did Episodes 1-3 (I believe this is the major reason why many people dislike the films - because they simply weren't the same as the original trilogy [duh!], which is unfair to the prequel films but I'll leave that argument for another day).  Now Episode 7 brings its own to the table.  The photography and editing are not what you remember from the old films, but they are well done.  If you've seen Abrams' new Star Trek films, you can see his action style, in particular, in this film.  The new style, which is both necessary and good to have, still makes it difficult to assess the film as I mentioned previously.

WARNING: SEVERAL MAJOR SPOILERS IN NEXT PARAGRAPH

Finally, both a look back and a look forward.  After the general outcry that episodes 1-3 weren't Star Wars-y enough (no Han Solo, not "fun" enough [supposedly], etc.), it was inevitable that the new films would have some significant connection to the original trilogy.  I remember one of my first concerns, though, was exactly how they would make these connections.  The result: a mixed bag, but mostly well done.  Solo is the most significant returning component, and once again he is excellent here.  Ditto the Millennium Falcon, and some other returning elements (X-wings, etc.) which get some small updates. Unfortunately, we get yet another Death Star (equivalent) as the climactic battle.  Really?  This was by far the laziest and least interesting of the transition/nostalgia elements.  Plus, to a much smaller degree, Leia... *cringe*  What can we expect moving forward?  Honestly, that's one of the strongest parts of the film, which is admittedly somewhat frustrating.  There are lots of questions for Episode 8: what did Luke do while he was gone?  Who is the leader of the First Order?  What are Rey's mysterious origins and how do they effect her obviously strong abilities in the Force?  And so on.  I did like Han Solo's confrontation with - and subsequent murder by - his son, Kylo Ren.  Not only logical from the plot, as good as Solo was in this film, he played his part in getting the new guys "on board" - now it's time to hand off the baton.  It also gives Ren significant material to develop upon, and one can only hope and pray that it results in his being more interesting and effective in episode 8.  If only they replaced the Death Star conclusion with pushing forward some of these questions and themes more - maybe not answer them, but provide additional depth.  Still, the final shot is a great one and sets the scene for the next episode, which has the potential to be even stronger than this fine start to the new trilogy.

***

After several years of highly anticipating the next chapter, it was wonderful to see the new Star Wars and find it a great success.  Is it a perfect film?  No, of course not.  And as I mentioned, I'll need time and a few more viewings to get a more accurate sense of where it stands among the other Star Wars films, not to mention its quality as a film in general.  Right now, my biggest disappointments are with its use of another Death Star climax and its shaky introduction of new villain Kylo Ren.  Occasionally some lines also seemed a bit clunky or out of place, but that could be part of my (and everyone else's) getting used to the new style I talked about earlier.  However, none of that can compare to the great work from (most of) the characters and the exciting action and adventure.  I can't emphasize how important it is that not only was Solo a great inclusion, but that Rey and Finn (and Poe, though largely in potential) are such fun, interesting (not to mention diverse) new characters.  Abrams took great care in injecting new life, using both technology and inventive filmmaking, into the magic and action of the franchise as well, from lightsaber battles to space ship dogfights.  And finally, it all sets up the next chapters with a maximum of anticipation and potential.  With all that, I think we can forgive the film a few stumbles (remember, the old films had them, too!).  Highly recommended for all.




"Star Wars The Force Awakens Theatrical Poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Star_Wars_The_Force_Awakens_Theatrical_Poster.jpg#/media/File:Star_Wars_The_Force_Awakens_Theatrical_Poster.jpg

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Directed by Francis Lawrence
Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Julianne Moore, Donald Sutherland, et. al.
Running time:  137 minutes
Rated PG-13

Long Story Short:  The epic, blockbuster YA Hunger Games franchise comes to its conclusion in Mockingjay Part 2 - and it goes out on a high note.  Jennifer Lawrence finally turns Katniss into the interesting, complex character that the books created.  Even as the final part of the journey enters darker territory than before in the books, the film embraces this tone better than any of the others.  Highly recommended for those who've followed the series.


Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) begins the final chapter of her journey with a single, overwhelming goal: to kill the leader of the future, dystopian land: President Snow (Sutherland).  Having just recovered from an attack by her mind-warped fellow survivor Peeta (Hutcherson), Katniss assists the rebels of Panem to conquer the final fortress leading to the Capitol itself.  For the final attack, however, the rebel commander Coin (Moore) tries to hold Katniss back to use her for more propaganda material, spurring on the troops as a symbol.  Katniss sneaks her way to the front lines regardless, but her fame prevents her from hiding any longer, allowing Coin to adjust her plans to protect the Mockingjay.

Working their way through the devastated but still dangerous streets of the Capitol, Katniss' new "all-star" propaganda team includes the still-unstable Peeta and her lifelong friend Gale (Hemsworth).  Things go awry as they do in war, though, and Katniss seizes the opportunity to resume her original mission.  She may not control the army that seeks to bring down a murderous regime, but her actions and status as the Mockingjay will shape the world to come.

All the familiar Hunger Games faces return for the finale, to a greater or lesser extent, providing a nice send off.  However, it's significant improvement in Lawrence's performance (with no small amount of help from the script) that leads the way.  I have noted in my reviews of the other Hunger Games films that Lawrence is talented but either uncomfortable or unsuitable in the role of Katniss.  Well, better late than never.  Lawrence seems to have connected with Katniss, particularly her relationships and motivations, rather than acting generically sullen with the occasional (and unconvincing) dollop of distress.  Thanks to her performance, I felt that Katniss was at last a character worth investing in for the journey.  Hutcherson is still a bit uneven in his acting (sometimes over-the-top) but overall solid, and his Peeta gets a nice part to play here.  Woody Harrelson's Haymitch and Elizabeth Banks's Effie get very little screen time, which is the biggest disappointment of the film - but their characters simply aren't major parts of the story, so it's better than trying to awkwardly stuff them in.  The two leaders in the film, Coin and Snow, are portrayed excellently by the veteran actors Julianne Moore and Donald Sutherland, which is crucial given their importance here.

Mockingjay Part 2 is the best film in the Hunger Games series.  Certainly, Lawrence's aforementioned improvement (and in addition, Katniss as a character) is a major part of that.  The other characters have also become settled in.  Peeta's new potential threat status mixes quite interestingly with his gentle, quiet personality, and Gale (played by the hopeless younger Hemsworth) accepts the role of simple, hardened rebel soldier.  The chess match between Coin and Snow, mostly felt in the background but felt powerfully in a few personal moments, adds intrigue and complexity.  The other parts of the film are great, too - the action and adventure.  The level of suspense and quality of choreography and effects are at least as high here as they were in the second best film, Catching Fire.  And now we get all of that in a new, urban warfare environment, where the danger feels even more ubiquitous.  Clever traps are still everywhere, and a dark, frenetic battle against freaky monsters in the sewers is expertly done (and allows Katniss's skill with the bow to shine).

The biggest reason that this film is the best of the Hunger Games, though, is that it embraces the dark tone of the books, which is even more so in this final part of Katniss's story.  Catching Fire did this alright, too, but it was by far the biggest problem in the first film.  The story would have had to be changed significantly, particularly toward the end, to avoid this darker tone - but I wouldn't have been at all surprised if the usually over-cautious studios had done just that.  Instead, we thankfully get a film that really probably should be rated R; it is not for younger viewers.  Mockingjay Part 2 does still revert to some of the franchise's worse habits, like Peeta and Gale's awkward, forced discussions about Katniss (only one here!), but these elements are minimized and usually at least serve some small role in the plot.  The events of this film gradually shift Katniss's perspective, from that of revenge (albeit in service of a good outcome) to justice and peace.  When tragedy strikes, it only seals that transformation and earns Katniss the eloquently depicted ending that she receives.

***

Although I looked forward to seeing the conclusion to the Hunger Games film franchise, it was not among the top of my most anticipated films for 2015.  Due to the uneven quality of the previous films and their star, I largely felt compelled to see how it all ended up.  Thus I was quite surprised - pleasantly - that it turned out to be the best of the series.  Jennifer Lawrence's performance and the film's unflinching portrayal of the dark, complex plot are certainly the main reasons, but those are well supported by the other characters, good pacing, action scenes, and so on.  There still might be enough nits to pick for some to lower this to an A- or so, but I'm impressed that they got as much out of this as possible so it earns an A from me (note: in fact, later I did in fact move it back a notch to A-).  While the franchise doesn't measure up to the top tier of its sci-fi and fantasy peers like Lord of the Rings and Star Wars, this high-quality conclusion ensures that it is a journey worth returning to some day.  Highly recommended, but of course that's only if you've seen the previous films (or at least read the books).




"Mockingjay Part 2 Poster" by Source. Licensed under Fair use via Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mockingjay_Part_2_Poster.jpg#/media/File:Mockingjay_Part_2_Poster.jpg