Lone Survivor

It is pretty obvious that movies have desensitized us to violence in a lot of ways. Action movies are filled with explosions and guns that average 1,000 shots before they actually hit a target. But Lone Survivor proves that the ferocity of warfare still has an impact. The film tells the brutal true story of four Navy SEALS attempting to survive a fire fight with the Taliban after they are discovered by a group of goat herders in Afghanistan. As the film’s title suggests, the viewer knows the mission isn’t a success and that most of the characters don’t make it out. But that does little to soften the blow.

Director Peter Berg has a strict eye for realism in the film. The real life survivor of the events shown in the film, Marcus Lutrell, played a big part consulting on the project. He also wrote the book that was the inspiration for the film. Mark Wahlberg plays Lutrell, who gives a strong performance. He is even able to infuse some comedy into the tough as nails plot in a way that only Wahlberg could. Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch and Ben Foster play the other leads in equally as impressive fashion.

Wahlberg is featured prominently in the advertising as the most famous of the bunch and title character, but for the first two-thirds of the film, the cast are equal in their screen time. It seems petty to talk about the script and pacing when the message of the film is so intense, and ultimately heartbreaking, but both are strong. It’s easy to forget that countless servicemen and women have risked so much like the individuals in Lone Survivor did. And that’s why the film is so important. It should be remembered as one of the best military films of all time. Its story comes first. The film is shot beautifully, but that won’t be remembered in the face of the true story.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Her

Well people asked for a sci-fi movie to be respected in the Oscars discussion and now they have one. But with no lightsabers or Avengers in sight, I don’t think Her is really what people meant. The movie follows Joaquin Phoenix, who plays a lonely, newly separated man as he buys a new computer operating system. As the “OS,” voiced by Scarlett Johansson, and Phoneix’s character get to know each other, they develop a relationship. Written and directed by Spike Jonze, Her is an odd film, but odd in a way that is totally believable.

Throughout the majority of the movie, Phoenix is the only actor on screen. But with a strong performance, it’s very easy to forget that. Johansson also deserves significant credit for her performance as Samantha, the OS. We can talk about the commentary on modern love that the film represents, but it needs to be said that there are moments where the film is just plain weird. Iconic images like Phoenix dancing in the cabin actually come off better out of context than in the movie. It’s not really the fact that the character is dating a computer; it’s the world Jonze has created.

But as many of the award shows have agreed, the screenplay is well written. Jonze establishes the characters and their relationship in a short amount of time as we see a couple take a natural course in a standard length motion picture. Her is paced well and will be remembered for Phoenix and Johansson’s chemistry. So this isn’t the type of sci-fi movie you were looking for at the Oscars. But it’s likely the only type of sci-fi story the stodgy Oscar voters would get behind.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

I often like to do a bit of research before I go and see a new movie. In the case of The Secret Life of Walter Mitty I watched the 1947 version of the film. Well it is quite different from the 2013 release and both vary a lot from the 1939 short story. All three incarnations are centered on a mild-mannered guy who escapes reality with elaborate daydreams. The new release has Ben Stiller, who also directed the film, starring as Mitty. When he misplaces an important photo, he turns his daydreams into reality as he crosses the globe looking for the photographer, played by Sean Penn. Kristen Wiig also stars as Mitty’s love interest.

Stiller, the occasional director, presents one of the most visually impressive films of the year capturing the vast locales presented on the character’s journey. In addition, the daydreams are complimented well with visual effects that bring to mind epic sci-fi projects. Stiller’s directorial style in the film fits the character he plays as each scene takes its time to establish relevance. In the vast majority of cases, those scenes deliver. In terms of his acting, Stiller gives a rewarding performance that has subtle humor alluding to his over the top legacy as a comedic a-lister while staying true to the quiet Mitty.

As a story that has a tumultuous history filled with failed attempts of getting made, Stiller makes the concept look easy. The daydreams carry the story in the first half, but the focus is always on Mitty and that internal struggle of comfort versus adventure. It’s such a relatable premise that the audience establishes a quick likening with the character. Even though the marketing pushes the daydreaming elements heavily, the story is more about realizing those dreams in actuality. That is a theme shared with the 1947 effort. So at the end of the day, the two movies aren’t that different after all.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

47 Ronin

When you hear about the budgetary and production problems like the ones 47 Ronin has had, it’s tough for it to turn a profit and be considered successful. But being promoted to look like a samurai version of 300 is a good way to appeal to the masses. Keanu Reeves stars in the film about a group of Ronin, samurai without a master, attempting to avenge the death of their master. The premise is based on the true story that is well known in Japanese culture. But the shape-shifting witch lady from the film who can turn into a dragon seems to be missing from the historical accounts.

Keanu Reeves actually fits well into the movie as a former slave. He gives a mysterious performance with convincing sword skills. His dialogue isn’t the best, but when his mouth is closed, Kenau carries the film well. Japanese actor Hiroyuki Sanada, who plays samurai as often as Robert De Niro plays mobsters, gives depth to the plot in a way Reeves isn’t asked to do. As a respected samurai, the character’s plight throughout the movie is used to represent the emotions of the whole group.

Even with all the sci-fi elements, there are a number of dull moments in the middle of the film. The action and fight choreography delivers though as the epic samurai sword fights frame the conflict well. The movie is a decent action film that would have benefitted from a different release date. The large number of films that shared the Christmas opening cancelled each other out in many cases. Plus there are far too many heads being cut off by swords for families to enjoy this on Christmas Day. But Keanu and company have success in the film that capitalizes on the intriguing elements of samurai culture.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

American Hustle

In 2010, The Fighter starred Christian Bale and Amy Adams. 2012’s Silver Linings Playbook had Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence. Now, the culmination of director David O. Russell’s cast cycle, American Hustle stars all four of them together. The film, loosely based on a true story, has Bale playing a con-man. But when he and his partner (Adams) get caught by a FBI agent, (Cooper) they are forced to help in an operation. Lawrence plays Bale’s character’s caddy wife. Jeremy Renner also stars as the mayor of Camden, New Jersey, who plays a prominent part in the sting.

Bale’s intense immersion into his roles has been well documented, so the gained weight and comb over are accepted almost instantly as another layer of the Oscar winner’s legacy. Harder to accept is America’s sweetheart, Jennifer Lawrence’s turn as the annoying, meddling housewife. She does well with the role as it doesn’t take the audience long to turn on the character, which is the desired effect. Similarly, it’s not often we see Cooper as the shady confusing guy he plays here, but I would argue this performance is even better than the Oscar nominated one from Silver Linings. It’s more layered and complicated.

The story has the effect that it’s tough to know if you should be laughing or not. The plot development is perfectly paced and without any hiccups as the large number of central figures are each developed. But like the main character, the movie is complicated and not overly concerned with genre. American Hustle is a strong movie through and through. It’s witty and filled with twists, but not in the way an average moviegoer would appreciate. The characters are the focus, and with a cast list that looks like an Oscar ballot, it’s easy to see why the film is so successful.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Wolf of Wall Street

Everyone is talking about how much swearing there is in The Wolf of Wall Street. Well beyond that there is a lot of nudity, drug use and illegal activity. But this is a Martin Scorsese movie. There is always something to annoy the censors. The film, like most of those in the Oscar conversation, is based on a true story. Leonardo DiCaprio plays Jordan Belfort, a powerful stockbroker, who navigates Wall Street with sex, drugs and corruption. Eventually it all catches up to him.

DiCaprio gives a strong performance that is on par with the year’s best. The character is so intense and full of negative traits, it’s a testament to DiCaprio that the audience still cares about him. Jonah Hill, who co-stars as DiCaprio’s right-hand man, shows his acting prowess as he builds his résumé outside of more standard comedy. But it must be said that the drug-fueled fight scene between DiCaprio and Hill is the most ridiculous (in a good way) scene either have been a part of. And remember, this is the guy from Superbad and 21 Jump Street we’re talking about. Margot Robbie, who plays DiCaprio’s wife, is the other standout in the film.

The movie is certainly a long one, running just under three hours. But that doesn’t mean it is slow moving. In fact, The Wolf of Wall Street has a pretty quick pace, even if there are a number of scenes that could be cut without sacrificing any plot development. At this point, it’s hard to pinpoint what works Martin Scorsese will be best remembered for. It probably won’t be this, but it is a well done film and one of the best collaborations between Scorsese and DiCaprio. Following up the child filled ode to film, Hugo with the drug-filled orgy that is The Wolf of Wall Street may seem like a strange choice. But one look through Scorsese’s filmography and it’s one that makes perfect sense.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

12 Years a Slave

With many of the less mainstream actors deservedly earning the recognition, it’s easy to forget the big names that round out the great cast in 12 Years a Slave. But this isn’t a movie about star power. The film tells the true story of a free black man (Chiwetel Ejiofor) from New York in the mid-1800s who is abducted and sold into slavery in the south. As an educated man who has known freedom, the film gives a different perspective than usually seen in movies addressing slavery. Plus, director Steve McQueen does a tremendous job elevating an already emotional script.

Ejiofor, who is no stranger to strong performances, handles the weight of the film well. With the attention it is getting, this is the role of a lifetime and he never struggles adapting the frequent emotional changes his character goes through from scene to scene. Relative newcomer Luptia Nyong’o provides the most intense performance as an abused slave. Beyond those two, the cast is a parade of familiar names that don’t always fit as well as you’d think. Paul Giamatti sells the main character to Benedict Cumberbatch, who plays a “nice” slave owner; Michael Fassbender plays a mean one. Paul Dano works for Cumberbatch’s character and then Brad Pitt shows up at Fassbender’s to build a gazebo. The list is just huge. Of that group, Fassbender is the most memorable as a God-fearing, abusive southerner, who is essentially the stereotype for what a slave owner was. He isn’t predictable however and does well to make the character unique.

The film is paced with emotional turmoil and small victories that keep the audience from going through the story in a full depression. The character is a strong protagonist grappling with the morality of lying low while injustice is done to him. The supporting characters all partake in that injustice under the laws of the time. Slavery is a tough period to cover in a film since there is an innate want to paint the antebellum south as a population of brutal monsters. 12 Years a Slave doesn’t do that. Instead a well-crafted, look at injustice during that time is presented.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

Do you remember all those years where the idea of an Anchorman sequel really excited everyone. Well we asked for it and now Ron Burgundy (or Will Ferrell dressed up) has starred in a ton of car commercials, appeared on every possible talk show (TV and radio) and completely overhyped Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues. But we saw it anyway. The sequel has Ferrell and his team getting back together to work on the first 24 hour news network. The plot features everything from Forrest Gump-like historical explanations to bizarre science fiction. After all, John C. Reilly plays the ghost of Stonewall Jackson.

The cast of the original returns with their collective and individual celebrity status much larger than last time. The film recognizes that as their parts have been expanded. Steve Carell’s dim-witted Brick gets a love interested, played by Kristen Wiig. Brian Fontana, played by Paul Rudd, has become a famous cat photographer and has a visible increase in screen time. There are too many actors in the film to acknowledge them all, but the cameo list is quite epic. Mirroring the battle between rival news stations in the last film, there is a similar scene filled with Hollywood A-listers, comedians and some other random celebrities. This is definitely the film’s most memorable moment.

While I know many view the first Anchorman as comedic perfection, I don’t necessarily see it that way. Both the original and sequel have laugh worthy moments spread out through a lot of forgettable build-up. Crediting Burgundy for the rise of sensationalist news coverage is a fun plot device, but the film is too long and gives itself too much credit. We wanted an Anchorman 2, but that doesn’t give the writers (Adam McKay and Will Ferrell) a free pass to jam in every Anchorman related idea they have had since the last one came out in 2004. I definitely laughed my share while watching, but it’s not the legendary effort it was hyped as.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I bought into the release of The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. I rewatched all four of Peter Jackson’s previous Middle Earth efforts to help me better gauge the context of the film. This revealed some of Smaug’s weaknesses and strengths. This middle chapter of the trilogy based on JRR Tolkien’s book, has Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the company of Dwarves closing in on the Lonely Mountain where Smaug the dragon occupies their former kingdom. In the meantime they encounter elves, a skin changer, orcs and other things you would expect to come about in such a story.

The expansion from Tolkien’s relatively straightforward novel provides space for Jackson to introduce new characters (Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly), bring back some fan favorites that aren’t in the book but very well could be (Orlando Bloom’s Legolas), and even turn this into a true prequel to The Lord of the Rings trilogy. The segments that have Gandalf coming face to face with Sauron and investigating the Nazgul tombs are captivating to fans of the other stories. Ultimately, this second chapter cements the fact that Jackson is using The Hobbit films to tell other Middle Earth stories he has wanted to tell. Since these very well may be our last chances to visit these locations on film, I’m not complaining.

While the Desolation of Smaug ramps up the story with big action, some other elements are left on the back burner. Freeman’s performance, which was very strong in An Unexpected Journey, is much less prominent this time. There are many occasions where it is easy to forget that he is the title character and not just another player in the massive cast. This realization comes after the fact since the film keeps the audience’s attention with scenes like Legolas balancing on dwarf heads while shooting orcs with arrows and a dragon swimming in gold, very much like Scrooge McDuck. At this point, we know what to expect in Peter Jackson’s Middle Earth. The slightly less dire circumstances in The Hobbit provide more opportunities for fun than LOTRand they deliver in that regard. Plus the cliff-hanger ending in this one leaves a real intrigue for the final chapter next year.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Out of the Furnace

Out of the Furnace, has Christian Bale playing a man attempting to track down his brother, played by Casey Affleck, after he disappears under mysterious circumstances. The film takes place in suburban Pittsburgh and features such prominent imagery of working class struggles that the town is the most important character throughout the movie. Then there is Christian Bale, Oscar winner, Batman and one of the best actors around. This performance emphasizes his strengths as he balances subtle intensity next to his usual brand of reserved acting. With that being said, Out of the Furnace is not the Taken derivative it has been billed as.

Supporting players Zoe Saldana, Woody Harrelson and Willem Dafoe do well, but Bale understandably dominates the screen time. Harrelson’s turn as the sadistic villain gives an instant reminder of the actor’s range before he became a tween celebrity in The Hunger Games. Saldana, who has had her share of big roles recently, (Star Trek) isn’t given much of a part to work with as Bale’s girlfriend. The same goes for Forest Whitaker, who plays the police chief looking for Affleck’s character and a romantic rival to Bale.

Out of the Furnace masterfully sets a tone from the dreary setting to a Pearl Jam heavy soundtrack and some gritty visuals. After showing restraint for the majority of the film, the climax leaves something to be desired with its brutality. It just seems that there is a rough reality to how most of the plot unfolds and everything is tied up too neatly in the final third. Christian Bale deserves a look for this performance from the award show voting masses, but it was probably disregarded in favor of his flashier turn in American Hustle. But American Hustle had a distinct lack of Pearl Jam. Doesn’t that count for anything these days?

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Frozen

I must admit I was not fully prepared for Frozen before I saw it. First of all, it is not a Pixar movie. That would explain why it is so much fun. Secondly, it is a musical. Walt Disney Animation has been doing musicals for a very long time, so this makes sense, but we have all grown so accustomed to Pixar that we have forgotten about the catchy singing princesses who tragically lose their parent(s) before discovering something important about themselves. Well that’s the plot of Frozen actually. Anna (Kristen Bell) teams up with a misfit crew to track down her sister who has trapped the kingdom in eternal winter.

The film isn’t a predictable princess story though. The sister, Elsa (Idina Menzel) is kind of the bad guy, but she isn’t bad. Instead there are sister princesses who are both likable. Josh Gad plays Olaf, a talking snowman and is quite funny. The character will likely become a fan favorite. In terms of the plot, the lines between good and evil are blurred to the point where it’s not entirely clear who the bad guy is through the majority of the movie. This is a fresh approach since the wicked Queen and other heartless villain stereotypes have been exhausted by the studio in the past.

So take the inevitable popularity of a Disney animated movie, combine it with the fact that the movie is actually a fresh story and successful effort and you have a huge box office success. Also, it probably doesn’t hurt that the movie is about the winter and released in a holiday season completely void of new Christmas films. But after another Disney movie where the parents die, the writers must be doing this on purpose. I mean, people do become independent while their parents are still alive. Someone go tell that to Disney Animation.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Delivery Man

Delivery Man is about that age old problem we all go through. Vince Vaughn plays a down on his luck meat truck driver who discovers he fathered 500+ children through his anonymous fertility clinic donations. With the children attempting to find out who the donor is, he has to decide whether he wants to tell them or not. We’ve all been there. The film is a remake of director Ken Scott’s 2011 French-Canadian film, Starbuck.

Vince Vaughn plays his usual lovable loser, but this time the comedy is a bit more subtle in order to emphasize the emotion in the script. After establishing the story, the character decides to get to know some of his children without telling them who he is. These are some of the best moments as they keep everything moving at a fast pace and quickly establish some personality to the 500 children that are first presented as a faceless mob. The supporting cast do well enough. But Chris Pratt, who plays Vaughn’s character’s friend/lawyer, has never been so unlikeable in his current rise to stardom. He’s funny, but that’s about it. The diverse actors who play the children complement Vaughn very well.

Delivery Man isn’t the type of movie that Vince Vaughn will be remembered for. It’s not his funniest role, but it does fit his strengths. Beyond the jokes, he gives a heartfelt performance. The scenes with one of his children who is handicapped comes across as emotional and authentic. All of the top comedic actors would not be able to pull that off. So he deserves some credit. The biggest obstacles appear with Pratt and Cobie Smulders, who plays Vaughn’s girlfriend. Both are proven in comedy, but their performances stifle the fun tone of the movie. If I had to describe Delivery Man, I would have to say it is a nice movie, nothing more and nothing less.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Oh Katniss, what are we going to do with you? In The Hunger Games: Catching Fire Jennifer Lawrence returns playing the bow wielding heroine, who stuck a thorn in the side of the Capitol when she survived the Hunger Games along with her district-mate Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). Now as word of a rebellion spreads throughout the districts, the two victors go on their cross-country victory tour. That seems nice. Well, it’s not and then they get thrown right back into the arena for a victors only Hunger Games. Panem is such a dramatic place.

The story is pretty clearly split in half with the victory tour and the games each taking their share of screen time. But the film, which runs close to two and a half hours, is paced out very well and is quite exciting throughout. I would even argue that a good portion of the story is more exciting than the original novel. I know Hunger Games fans, those are fighting words, but they’re true. In her first return to the franchise since winning an Oscar, Lawrence shows just how good of an actress she is, with a more balanced effort than the first installment.

A newcomer to the series, but not action franchises, Sam Claflin (Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides, Snow White and the Huntsman) does very well as trident wielding tough guy, Finnick Odair. Beyond Lawrence, he is the most impressive in his role. I mean I like Peeta, but the guy just gets hurt a lot. Both fans and casual moviegoers will enjoy Catching Fire, which is a loyal and impressive adaptation of the best-selling book. What they’ll do with Mockingjay being split into two films is anyone’s guess. It could be really great like the Harry Potter 7 split or pretty dull like Breaking Dawn. Let’s cross our fingers.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Thor: The Dark World

It seems every time a Marvel project hits theaters, I’m already looking past it toward the next bigger and better chapter. The extended preview of Captain America: The Winter Soldier did just that before Thor: The Dark World began. But that is a bit unfair because Thor’s second solo effort is quite successful. In this instance, Jane (Natalie Portman) stumbles on an ancient power and gets possessed. So Thor, played by Chris Hemsworth, has to try and save her. The main villain is a Dark Elf, Malekith the Accursed. But don’t worry; Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is in there plenty. After all, he is everyone’s favorite Asgardian.

At this point, there isn’t much mystery about whether or not a Marvel Studios film will deliver. The Dark World has big drama, a twisting plot and some witty humor sprinkled in. One difference in this chapter is the amount of death that occurs. Characters seem to bite the dust more than usual. But that is understandable since there is now the difficult task of adding weight to the individual character movies after The Avengers. The other difficult task is trying to make the audience understand why the other Avengers wouldn’t help out with this dire circumstance.

As Hemsworth’s career defining role to this point, he has Thor pretty much figured out. The performance is solid, which allows for others in smaller roles an opportunity to shine. For example, Idris Elba plays Heimdall, a flat character, who shines in every scene he appears in. But at the end of the day Hiddleston steals the show again as the god of mischief. The after-credit stingers predictably show up also to hype Guardians of the Galaxy, but all it tells us is that this project is going to be WEIRD. Weird, but awesome. Just take my money now, Marvel.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Last Vegas

After The Hangover there was Bridesmaids, which was described as The Hangover for women. Then there was Project X, The Hangover for teenagers. Well if that’s the case, then Last Vegas is The Hangover for the elderly. Is there an audience for such a thing? Not really, but luckily the movie is more than old people making idiots of themselves. There is a healthy amount of that though. In the film, Michael Douglas’ character is getting married, so a group of lifelong friends get together for a bachelor party in Las Vegas. Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman and Kevin Kline play those friends.

The films brand of humor is pretty predictable with old jokes ranging from medications they are taking to common injuries that come with age. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t funny. That can be credited to the caliber of the cast. Kline is most comfortable in the comedic setting, but Freeman isn’t far behind with his drunken ramblings that work very well. De Niro is mostly an annoyed grump, which is consistent with the majority of the roles he has played in the past 15 years. Douglas is the central figure of the film, playing a character that is likeable but too cool to carry the laugh heavy script.

The film’s dramatic center is passable, but the audience catches on to the story’s emotional reveal much sooner than the movie intends them too. Since there are four legendary actors who continue to work consistently, the theme of the elderly still having worth is quite obvious. Morgan Freeman was in four movies this year, it’s hard to picture him as a guy who sits home and does nothing all day. With that being said, Last Vegas is a fun effort that’s worth watching to see the four Oscar winners interact on screen.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Ender's Game

There are so many sci-fi movies that it is difficult to find a new one that comes across as fresh and intriguing. But the visual styling and tactical based plot of Ender’s Game does just that. The story, based on the 1985 novel, follows Ender Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), a gifted child recruited to help save the Earth from an alien invasion. Dealing with normal adolescent issues like bullying on top of the strategic sci-fi warfare the characters are preparing for creates a layered dynamic that gives the film legs to stand on for the full running time.

The 16 year old Butterfield already has quite the résumé. He proved he could carry a big film by playing the title character in Martin Scorsese’s 2011 hit, Hugo. This time around he does very well balancing all of Ender’s necessary characteristics. From the vulnerability of a teenager leaving his family (and the planet) to a battle hardened military leader, there is never a moment where he misses the mark. It is great seeing Harrison Ford back in sci-fi as he plays Colonel Graff. The performance is balanced even if it is mostly one-dimensional. The rest of the star-studded cast follows suit as strong but mostly underutilized.

Director Gavin Hood does a great job presenting the war games and simulations as highly dramatic moments of character and plot development. The enemy is ambiguous and the inner-team politics give authenticity in place of the usual good vs. evil addressed in genre fare. A cast of teenagers hogs the screen time over Academy Award caliber adults and I’m not complaining. Throwing a teenager into a sci-fi hero role doesn’t always give us Luke Skywalker. Sometimes we get Jaden Smith in After Earth, but not this time. Ender’s Game is book smart sci-fi for the modern age. It trades in blasters for drone warfare, which is something that seems more poignant in 2013 than it did in 1985 when the book was written. Visually impressive with a story to match, Ender’s Game snuck up on me 27 years in the making.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa

I completely forgot the feeling I get when watching a Jackass movie. That painful cringing, the writhing in my seat when I want to look away, but need to know what happens next. Then there are the multiple moments where I legitimately consider leaving the theater. But, of course I don’t. Well Jackass Prsents: bad Grandpa isn’t a true Jackass movie, but it’s pretty close. Johnny Knoxville returns to his crude old man role frequented throughout the series and the movie trilogy. But this time we get a story associated with him. Irving, the old man, is forced to take his grandson, played by Jackson Nicoll, across country to move in with his deadbeat dad.

The vast majority of the film is skits played out with Knoxville, Nicoll and normal citizens, who don’t know they are being filmed. Some scenes are just awkward like Nicoll telling a stranger on the street he is going to be his new father. Others are more uncomfortable as when Irving’s apparently dead wife falls out of her casket at her wake. Then there are the ones that cause the reactions I described above. How about Irving going to a male strip club and joining in the act? All three different types of skits are equally represented.

The story elements prove to be pretty weak. Early on they establish the premise for the movie, but any type of story arc is abandoned until the final act when all of a sudden an emotional context is forced on the audience. It comes across as completely out of place even though Johnny Knoxville shows that he actually is an actor, with the ability to do more than insult passers-by with insulting sexual innuendos. Nicoll is also decent, but he’s better in the improv situations than he is in the traditionally scripted segments. Bad Grandpa proves to be a worthy Jackass substitute, but it lacks the variety the previous films had.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Captain Phillips

Captain Phillips gives a look at the hijacking of an American cargo ship by Somali pirates. Tom Hanks plays the titular captain, a real person who went through this ordeal in 2009. What makes the film memorable is the fact that the pirates are not the faceless villains that we think of when Somali pirates are mentioned. Instead their motivations and situations are examined alongside the civilians who are forced to take action in order to save their lives. The most prominent of them, Phillips is a heroic every man played by America’s favorite “every man,” Hanks.

As with most films based on true stories there are some questions about the authenticity of some of the scenes. But since the screenplay is based on the book account of the incident co-written by the real Richard Phillips, it has to be recognized as his version of the situation. But the actual story is so strong that there is no need to embellish it. Then the Navy SEALS show up to resolve the situation and the intensity ramps up even more. Visually, the film has a realist perspective that emphasizes the unappealing aspect of life on the sea.

At this point in his career, Hanks could play most roles and be hailed for them, but his take on Phillips presents a complex character that is tough to nail down. He does well balancing the reserved elements that define the character until he is finally able to pile on the emotion in the film’s final third. Those last scenes with the SEALS closing in on a resolution will earn Hanks a seat at a number of award shows, which frankly is a place he should be more often. This may not be the most glamorous credit on his résumé, but is intense and worthy of recognition. Also worthy of recognition is Barkhad Abdi, whose supporting performance compliments Hanks’ very well.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Gravity

The hype for Gravity reminded me a lot of that which surrounded Avatar a few years ago. Everyone was talking about the 3D technology that accompanied the film. But those of us who follow movies closely have been told for years now how unnecessary 3D is. Gravity isn’t made by its 3D technology but it is a pretty cool implementation of it. The film has Sandra Bullock playing an engineer, and George Clooney is an astronaut, attempting to survive an accident in space. It’s enough to expel those childhood dreams of going to space, that’s for sure.

Director Alfonso Cuaron creates an incredible look at space that seems an accurate representation. I have never been, so I can’t confirm that. The look is so convincing in fact, when Bullock is spinning uncontrollably through space, the viewer feels that claustrophobia. When Clooney can’t move through open space, the viewer clings to the floor beneath them a bit more. Rarely have we seen a movie that has such an all-encompassing feel that brings the audience into the story with them. I mean, I even felt cold throughout the entire movie. But maybe that was just the drafty movie theater.

Bullock is the prominent figure in the movie with a vulnerable fish out of water performance. Clooney exudes the confidence of an astronaut in his element, but Bullock gives off the sense that her situation is how any of us common folk would feel in this disaster situation. Gravity is an emotional ride with an accessible presentation that gives it the rare feat of appealing to film purists and interesting the masses. So maybe I won’t ever go to space, but at least this movie told me what it’s actually like. I didn’t see a single Wookie in there.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Runner, Runner

I’m a fan of Justin Timberlake the actor. From his legendary status on Saturday Night Live to his unsung performance in The Social Network, he deserves the recognition he gets. But Runner, Runner is not his strongest performance. The same can be said for Batman-to-be, Ben Affleck. The film follows Timberlake’s character, a monetarily struggling grad student who loses his small amount of money in online poker. Since he’s a genius, he figures out he was cheated and goes to confront the tycoon responsible, Affleck. Intrigued by the big paydays offered to him, he accepts a position with the company whose dealings aren’t quite legal.

After a few strong performances, which were relatively subdued, Affleck’s character is full of big monologues and over-the-top moments. Affleck does well with it and is believable even though he usually plays the good guy. His bad guy persona is pretty intriguing. Timberlake’s character develops throughout the film, as we expect a lead character to do. Yet for a genius, he learns pretty slowly, especially when he gets set up on a few separate occasions.

Timberlake is a talented actor, but he continues his recent trend of sounding like he’s reading his lines for the first time on screen. It may be the fact that he is so natural in certain settings that when he’s forced to show range it’s a bit forced. We all know comedy sketch and talk show JT, so since he sounds different in drama, it’s noticeable. I still think he’ll have an Oscar in the next few years though. Runner, Runner is a compelling story filled with adequate twists and turns. The drama of the poker and gambling is underutilized in place of character development by repetition, which gets a bit old. To say the movie is predictable would be unfair because there are surprises, but after the fact I’m surprised I didn’t see what was coming.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Rush

Ron Howard’s Rush pushed its superhero lead, Chris Hemsworth heavily during promotion. But the film splits its screen time with Daniel Bruhl acting as a very intriguing foil to Hemsworth. Rush is the true story of the 1970s Formula One racing rivalry between James Hunt (Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Bruhl). Hunt was a playboy and risk taker, while Lauda was much more calculated and reclusive. It makes for a very intriguing dynamic acted out by two strong actors with great performances. The movie shows range for Hemsworth beyond his Thor cape and is an important establishing performance for Bruhl after his breakout in Inglourious Basterds.

Formula One racing and the inherent risk involved is definitely an exciting topic to cover in a film, but with Rush the character elements are just as engaging. Hunt has the traits Hollywood movies love to portray. He has a drinking problem, is promiscuous and more interested in success than following rules. But throughout the film, Lauda’s introverted personality and scientific understanding of racing is presented as equally admirable to Hunt’s dynamic likeability. Credit is due for writer Peter Morgan and director Ron Howard because this very easily could have been a rivalry that had audiences one-sided with their allegiance.

Beyond the characters, the story balances insider racing information well with enough race car terminology to make it authentic without overloading those not familiar with the sport. The pace covers a few racing seasons, which frames the story well. A number of career developments are brushed over like Hunt’s early success in Formula One, but only big fans would really want to watch too many car tune up scenes explaining why he does well. Lately Howard is best known for his work on The Da Vinci Code and subsequent sequels, but that should change with this return to form as a true Oscar contender.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs 2

Children’s film franchises usually follow the trusted timeline of releasing as many sequels as possible in the quickest amount of time possible. It makes sense since once a kid becomes a teenager their interest in their childhood favorites has probably waned a bit, unless that movie is Shrek because those are the best. Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs had a four year break between the first film and the new sequel. But it just so happens the cast contributing their voices to the film have all become more famous during that time, so maybe that break wasn’t so bad.

Cloudy 2 has Flint (Bill Hader) getting a job at his idol’s company. But when he finds out his food machine is still working and making living food, he has to return to his home island and try to stop it. The plot borrows heavily from Jurassic Park, but these similarities come across as intentional since the menacing dinosaurs are replaced with creatures like the “toco-dile supreme” and the “double bacon cheese-spider.” For a while seeing the different “foodimals” is fun, but naming them off takes up entirely too much time on screen.

The voice cast led by Hader and Anna Faris does well to give the characters personalities beyond their own comedic tendencies. It may seem like that goes without saying. They are actors after all. But very often famous voices overwhelm their animated counterparts. That’s not the case with Cloudy 2. Overall, it’s a pleasant movie that lacks a bit of depth in terms of plot development. They wander around Jurassic Park, I mean Swallow Falls, for a long time both admiring and hiding from the “foodimals.” But it has the fun concept that will draw in young viewers. Plus the long break between the two films is solved by some quick exposition early on. So there’s no issue with that.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Don Jon

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is a pretty likeable commodity in Hollywood at the moment. That doesn’t change with Don Jon, but the star’s directorial debut, which he also stars in and wrote, deals with a topic not necessarily common in Hollywood. Gordon-Levitt plays Jon, who is committed to his family and church while also being a ladies man with a porn habit. When he begins dating a girl (Scarlett Johansson) with a strong liking for romantic comedies, unrealistic expectations for the opposite sex begin to make things difficult.

As an actor Gordon-Levitt is a strong lead for the film giving depth to his character that could have very easily been a 90 minute impression of “The Situation” from “The Jersey Shore.” Instead we get a guy happy with his life, who comes to a realization that his habits may not be as well-rounded as he thought. As for his direction, the film looks good, well thought out and composed for a hybrid audience of mainstream viewers and art house fans. Johansson and Julianne Moore, who plays Jon’s night school classmate, don’t come across with the depth Gordon-Levitt has however. In fact, all other characters are flat and serve a singular purpose.

Don Jon is not your typical September release. I don’t really know what month would be more fitting for the film because it’s different than all other releases this year. I’m not seeing the star turned director is the next Spielberg or anything, but there’s no doubt he went for it and aimed to make a strong first impression. The way the script addresses pornography in mainstream culture isn’t preachy in the least, but it still gets a point across about separating one’s thoughts from gender stereotypes. Don jon sends a message that Hollywood (and western culture in general) needs to hear. And it all came from the pen of the long-haired kid in “3rd Rock From the Sun.”

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Ain't Them Bodies Saints

After watching Ain’t Them Bodies Saints, I have no idea what the title means. Internet research tells me it means nothing. But I do know what the movie is about. Casey Affleck and Rooney Mara play a young couple torn apart after a robbery and subsequent shootout with the police. Affleck’s character goes to jail and Mara is forced to raise their daughter alone. He then escapes from jail to try and be with them. The two Oscar nominees give understated and strong performances for first time director David Lowery in the indie drama that was released to big buzz at the Sundance Film Festival.

Visually, Lowery does well making each shot count with impressive visuals to accompany the classic feeling plot. The simplicity of a jailbreak story to reunite a husband and wife is not anything new, but the emotional themes that confront Mara’s character in particular carry the film. Her main allegiance shifts from her husband to her daughter and that creates some tension filled scenes. Ben Foster, who plays, a cop Mara shot during that initial showdown proves to be a worthy foil for Affleck’s character, well-equipped with a mustache and cowboy hat. The movie does take place in Texas after all.

The story’s pace begins slowly but hits its stride as an engaging character story, well written and tension filled. After seeing Mara’s recent movie choices, this less tortured character suits her acting style very well as a quietly engaged and introspective mother. It’s not like she’s playing a character with a peachy life, but compare it to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Side Effects and this is a cake walk. The film has flown under the general public’s radar to this point, but if it sneaked its way into a few award categories this season, it would be well deserved.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Butler

It turns out The Butler isn’t the big screen adaptation of the life and times of Geoffrey from “The Fresh Prince of Bel Air.” Instead it’s the much more serious, and real, account of Cecil Gaines. Gaines, played by Forest Whitaker, was born into slavery and worked his way up to become a White House butler serving under eight different presidents. Those presidents are all portrayed by different well-known actors in an often strange guessing game presented to the audience. John Cusack as Richard Nixon, is the strangest one. The plot follows Gaines and his family through the Civil Rights Movement and a number of other important historical events in a timeline through 20th century American history.

Whitaker shows his ability as a strong actor by developing his character through a number of difficult situations. He’s more believable as the middle aged version of Gaines than he is the young 20-something, but that’s probably because Whitaker is 52 years old. David Oyelowo plays the main character’s son, who becomes a Civil Rights activist progressing through the different movements. They include marching with Martin Luther King Jr. and dipping his toes in the Black Panther Party. This role allows for an emotional performance that leaves him sympathetic while being one of the main causes of drama in the story.

The film addresses a number of serious and personal topics to Americans who lived through the powerful moments depicted in the film. But the presidential acting choices mentioned earlier take the focus off of Whitaker’s character and on to the roulette of big names. Robin Williams, James Marsden, Liev Schreiber and Alan Rickman also play the commanders in chief. It also must be noted that the script does a great job of keeping things a-political for the first two acts, making the moments about the characters and the events not the ideology. But this shifts when Rickman’s Ronal Reagan takes office and a strange back and forth ensues where the story seesaws between how the character and the audience should view the conservative leader. It’s by far the clumsiest portion of the film. But The Butler is overwhelmingly a strong presentation of American history through the eyes of a likeable, unsung hero. With a strong script and quality lead performances, it is strange there is so much weight put on the supporting role casting.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.