2015 Movies to See

These are my personal most anticipated movies of 2015. They are arranged in alphabetical order, not in order of most anticipated to least anticipated or vice-versa. There are a number of movies being released next year that look like they could be really interesting, and I have compiled a list of many different types of movies I'm looking forward to. Superhero movies, space epics, animated movies, even a John Green movie. 2015 looks like it's shaping up to be a great year for movies.

So without further ado, let's start!

Ant-Man

Starring: Paul Rudd, Evangeline Lilly, Michael Douglas, Corey Stoll, Judy Greer
Ant-Man is a film that's coming from Marvel, yet it's likely no one has heard of it. The only publicity it has received has been for the many debacles it's gone through during production. Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) was set to direct and write, but his script was scrapped and he quit, or as many say, fired. This led to Ant-Man being suspended indefinitely, but Marvel wanted it to still have the July 17 date, so that's when you'll be able to see it. The problem with Wright was that apparently he wrote a movie that didn't connect with the cinematic universe, or set up the Avengers' third movie. And I wouldn't be against having an original superhero movie with no franchise ties.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Mark Ruffalo, Chis Hemsworth
On May 1, we're getting the sequel to one of the most popular movies in recent memory: The Avengers. The Avengers: Age of Ultron picks up where Captain America: The Winter Soldier left off, and is the concluding entry in Marvel's Phase II. The Avengers was one of my favorite movies of 2012. I saw it three times just in theaters, and I've seen it a number of times since then. I still believe that when I first saw The Avengers it was one of the greatest movie experiences I've had so far. Everyone was standing up and cheering, and the theater was packed. I'm hoping this will capture that same feeling. I'm incredibly excited for this, and will most likely see it multiple times.

Cinderella

Starring: Lily James, Cate Blanchett, Helena Bonham Carter, Richard Madden, Stellan Skarsgård
Most people know I'm a major fan of Disney and anything they produce, so I'm looking forward to Cinderella coming out on March 13. However, I'm not going to lie, Cinderella is one of my least favorite stories. I'm not looking forward to this because I'm a fan, I'm looking forward to it because I want Disney to reinvent it so I can like it. Some people have problems with the trailer, because it "shows too much" but I think that everyone is familiar with the story, so spoilers can't really happen.  After Maleficent and Into the Woods (say what you will, but I thought they were both horrible) they can only go up from here. I will admit, Anna Kendrick was a very good Cinderella, so Lily James has to create a version that isn't anything like Kendrick's.

The Divergent Series: Insurgent

Starring: Shailene Woodley, Theo James, Octavia Spencer, Ansel Elgort, Kate Winslet, Naomi Watts
Everyone loved Divergent. The Hunger Games-esque dystopian film about a society divided by human characteristics was a surprise success. And by surprise, I mean the extent of it's success, both in theaters and on DVD and VOD. I was a huge fan of the book, and while critics tore the movie's thin storytelling apart, I'm still fond of it and thought it was a great movie. Clichéd? Absolutely, but I think with The Divergent Series: Insurgent, they can remedy the holes. The trailer shows a much bigger budget that looks like it's being put to good use. And with new cast members like Octavia Spencer and Naomi Watts, both great in every movie they touch, this looks likely to be the big knockout of the usually quiet spring season.

The Fantastic Four

Starring: Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara, Michael B. Jordan, Jamie Bell, Toby Kebbell
Words cannot describe how angry I am about this movie. As any comic book movie fan, I was hugely disappointed in The Fantastic Four movie from 2005. It was a mess, the acting was terrible, and it was mostly unwatchable. But they made a sequel, and it was less horrible, but still bad. And ten years after they messed it up the first time, 20th Century Fox is doing it again. And they're making the main characters into kids!!! I'm interested in the cast and the cast alone. Michael B. Jordan is playing a black Human Torch, which hasn't been imagined before, and I like both Kate Mara from House of Cards on Netflix (where she's AMAZING) and Miles Teller from Whiplash. Marvel has released nothing about this movie besides the cast, and everyone just assumes that means it's horrible and they're trying to hide it. Seriously, there is nothing about this movie on the internet besides theories on how bad it will be. But it will be hitting theaters August 7, if it's released.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 2

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Julianne Moore, Woody Harrelson
Many people know that I wasn't a huge fan of Mockingjay- Part 1. I thought it was a fine film, but it lacked the intensity what made me love the first two films, especially Catching Fire, which is still in my opinion the high point of the series. I do have to admit, that the previous one did set up Mockingjay- Part 2  to be an epic finale, so that's why it's on my list. Plus what movie reviewer wouldn't see a Hunger Games film? I have high hopes for this movie, and while I still don't think it will live up to Catching Fire because of the source material, I'll see it opening weekend nonetheless.

Inside Out

Starring: Amy Poehler, Lewis Black, Mindy Kaling, Bill Hader, Phyllis Smith, John Ratzenberger
Pixar's coming back in 2015, with their first original movie since 2012's Brave. It features a girl navigating through a move to a new town, but it stars her emotions as the main characters, as they help her through her adjustment. I know everyone talks about losing faith in Pixar after their most recent efforts like Monsters University, and Cars 2. But only 5 years ago, they made Toy Story 3, one of the greatest animated movies of all time. I like that they're being original again, and the concept and trailer make it look like an interesting one not to be missed. Less inspired than say, their classics like Up and WALL-E, but it's time for the most original company to bring back their brand.

Jurassic World

 Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Vincent D'Onofrio, Jake Johnson, Irrfan Khan
I consider Jurassic Park to be one of the landmarks of cinema. If you haven't seen the film, it's a technical masterpiece that I've seen multiple times and still can't figure out how Steven Spielberg pulled it off. It helps that it's also just a fabulous film. I've stayed away from the two sequels at everyone's warnings, but this long awaited fourth film looks like it will finally be the addition the franchise deserves. Plus, Chris Pratt is such a hot commodity after Guardians of the Galaxy and The LEGO Movie, this is destined to either succeed greatly, or fail horribly. I hope it's the former.

Minions

Starring: Sandra Bullock, Jon Hamm, Michael Keaton, Alison Janney, Steve Coogan
Unless you've lived under a rock, you're probably somewhat aware of the Despicable Me movies and franchise. While the film focuses on reformed villain Gru and his daughters, the franchise, is centered around the Gru''s yellow minions. Despicable Me 2 almost made a billion worldwide, so the minions get their own movie. Anyone complaining? Nope, I didn't think so. Without a clear plot, the teaser trailer centered on the antics of the minions without giving much more, but it'll still be one of the biggest movies of the year guaranteed. These little guys know how to sell a movie.

Paper Towns

Starring: Nat Wolff, Cara Delevigne
Here's the first unknown of my list. Paper Towns is based off of the novel by John Green. But unlike The Fault in Our Stars, this one doesn't have quite the following. Undeservedly so, because I've read the novel, and it's his best work in my opinion. I'm a huge fan of John Green's literature, and seeing TFIOS in movie form really capitalized on his writing style. Paper Towns is about a girl who disappears, and the trail of clues her friends follow to try and find her (or her body). It has a great message about the changing times and entering adulthood, so I hope they can capture that in a film.

Pitch Perfect 2

Starring:Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson, Brittany Snow, Skylar Astin, Elizabeth Banks, Hailee Steinfeld
So if there had to be a last place for this list, Pitch Perfect 2 would be last. I don't know, but I'm just not that excited for this movie. I loved the first one, and that was a complete surprise that came out of nowhere. It was a thousand times more popular on DVD than it was in theaters. But maybe, just maybe, this will be a box-office hit that capitalizes on the popularity of the first film, and even the song (cause who doesn't know "Cups" by now?) and be an actual success that demands to be seen.
 
Serena

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper
This movie is a striking example of how bad publicity doesn't exist. Serena was supposed to be released in September 2013. It was pushed back to the spring, then indefinitely. Then it got picked up in France, but with no U.S. release date. Now it will be released on February 25, 2015. Why the changing dates? Many people have said Jennifer Lawrence doesn't want this movie to see the light, and felt that it would hurt her awards campaign first for Silver Linings Playbook for which she won, and then for American Hustle last year. It tells the story of Macbeth through a colonial timber empire, with a woman manipulating all around her to get her way. It may be awful, but I'm interested.

Spectre

 Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Ralph Fiennes, Léa Seydoux, Monica Belluci
So who isn't excited about Bond 25? Just recently, they gave it a name: Spectre. SPECTRE is short for SPecial Executive for Counter-Intelligence Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion, and the film is based off of MI6 and Bond having to defeat a terrorist organization that has grown inside them. Not much is known, but Christoph Waltz playing a Bond villain? I don't think anyone's arguing with that.

The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water

Starring: Tom Kenny, Bill Fagerbakke, Roger Bumpass, Clancy Brown, Antonio Banderas
I know that I'm supposed to be a serious reviewer. But somewhere inside me there is a little kid who is just so excited for this movie. I don't even care if it's bad, if it's funny and does the show justice I will love every second of it. I'm a little disappointed that it feels the need to be computer animated in the real world instead of the show's animation, but if it needs to make the technological jump to feel more relevant, I'll allow it. I'll still go opening week and love it. SpongeBob was something I grew up with, and while it's goofy, the characters are still close to my heart.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Starring: John Boyega, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Andy Serkis, Oscar Isaac
Now this is my personal most anticipated movie of 2015. The original Star Wars is near and dear to my heart. I loved the original trilogy, loved watching them a second, third, and ourth time, and felt lukewarm about the prequels like everyone else. So while I will complain about the need for a sequel just like everybody, I will go see it, just like everybody. It's bound to be the biggest movie in a long, long time. They can disappoint me, but right now I am just super excited for the experience.

Into the Woods Review

Starring: Emily Blunt, James Corden, Meryl Streep, Anna Kendrick, Chris Pine, Johnny Depp

Into the Woods is a musical based on the famous Broadway play of the same name. In it, the subjects of multiple fairytales such as Rapunzel, Jack and the Beanstalk, and Cinderella, are bound together by a witch who seeks to use a childless Baker and his Wife to reverse a curse put upon her, and in return she will take back their curse and give them what they want most: a child. The theme of the film is the often overused "Be careful what you wish for" theme. While I'd like to say it comes off fresh in Into the Woods, it doesn't. This is a movie that is mediocre at best, and while the performances try desperately to save the movie from caving in on itself, it unfortunately fails on almost all accounts in its third act. I am a fan of musicals, and I liked the first third of Into the Woods immensely. It ended up losing just about everything it had gained. Spoilers ahead will be hidden.

The one saving grace is Meryl Streep. Without a doubt, she is the movie's shining star. When she appears, she suddenly becomes the most interesting thing onscreen. Her performance as the Witch is unlike anything I've ever seen her do before, but her acting ability shines in this very whimsical and sometimes dark role. It's clear she's having fun, but she also adds gravitas to the role. While the film's awards hope slowly drifted away as I watched it, I can't argue with all the awards Meryl Streep has won and may win down the road. Once again, Oscar is written all over her. Emily Blunt is also solid as the Baker's Wife. She's arguably the lead, and keeps the film grounded while she's onscreen. The two child actors who play Little Red Riding Hood and Jack are good in there roles as well, but their singing voices far outreach their acting abilities. Anna Kendrick also shines as Cinderella, both in acting and singing. Her song "On the Steps of the Palace" is probably one of the best scenes in the movie, and my personal favorite song. I could go into every actor, which includes a stunning list of cameos and small supporting roles like Christine Baranski as the Evil Stepmother and Johnny Depp as the Wolf, but just understand that the acting is fine. None of the acting ability contributes to the film's major flaws.

For me, everything was ruined in the third act, and that was due to a script failure. The story just lost me. There is a point about halfway through, where the Baker and his Wife have broken the Witch's curse and she has broken theirs, Cinderella's getting married, the giant's dead, the Wolf is killed and Red's grandmother saved, and everything is exactly like the fairytales we've all read. There's also a modern-day spin which makes it seem fresh. That was where it should have ended, and it would have been a great movie. But no, it went on for about an hour longer, and proceeded to show that wishes can't really be granted. It also killed many main characters with random circumstances. The ending felt like a cop out to me, and like an excuse to tie everything together "Disney-style". The studio obviously couldn't decide if they wanted to make it dark and reach out to older viewers and awards, or make it fun and kid-friendly for the whole family. The result is something neither kid-friendly or awards-worthy. It also ends on such a corny note. The Baker narrates the story from the beginning, and it all ends up being a story he starts to tell to the survivors at the end. After they've just pulled off one of the most ridiculous and convoluted schemes I've ever seen in a movie and every character is just okay with the horrors they've seen. Besides the Witch, none of the characters could ever be connected with because of how much the movie jumped around. Rapunzel and her prince are basically dead to me, as they served absolutely no purpose. Cinderella was the next best character, and the Baker and his Wife were good leads, but mostly everyone did exactly as they were written to do, bringing nothing interesting to their roles.

MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW. DO NOT SHOW UNLESS YOU WANT THE ENDING SPOILED

After the Witch dies it all falls apart. She dies in the most ridiculous way possible. She gets angry that they blame her for everything and curses herself, and she is struck by the heavens and turned into a tar pit. A tar pit that ends up defeating the foe and saving everyone. Which felt like a completely random act to me, that didn't need to happen. She was not nice, she was wicked and vengeful, so her intent shouldn't have been to save anyone. Also, as I said above, without Meryl Streep in the last half hour, the movie suffered. She was carrying it.

So for me, Into the Woods is a movie I would see only for the acting. It's long and slow at the end, an ending that basically ruined the whole thing for me. I'd like to point out, I have not ever seen the stage version nor was I aware of anything about it before I went in to see this. I had no preconceived ideas of what would/should happen. I am judging this as a movie alone, which is why I am singling out the acting (particularly Streep) as well as the costumes and set for praise. The film as a whole does not succeed in my opinion because of so many mistakes it makes in the end. The last thing I will say is about the music. Not memorable in my opinion. Besides the opening "Into the Woods" which I can't get out of my head (NOT a good thing) and the already mentioned "On the Steps of the Palace", "Agony" sung by the princes, and "Stay With Me" sung by the Witch are the only standouts. Everyone had a nice voice, but it honestly felt like the same song was playing over and over and over again.

Rating:

The Homesman Review

Starring: Hilary Swank, Tommy Lee Jones, John Lithgow, Meryl Streep, James Spader

I saw this little movie called The Homesman. I made a spur-of-the-moment decision to see it, and was pretty adamant I wouldn't like it. I was actually prepared not to review it. While it was far from being a perfect movie, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. The Homesman is set in the colonial Midwest, and tells the story of Mary Bee Cuddy, a depressed single woman looking for adventure, who agrees to transport three insane women across the prairie to a reverend in Iowa. Along the way she picks up a George Briggs, a criminal, and the two form a bond as well as a deep attachment to the women they are carrying.

I'm going to be honest and say that there isn't much that I have to say about this movie. While it is very good, and I enjoyed it, it's very standard. The best part for me was Hilary Swank's acting. As Mary Bee Cuddy, she was incredible. But when isn't Swank incredible?  She is rejected by every man for being too "plain and simple" as well as bossy, and for being too much like a man. She presents herself as this powerfully independent woman, but it's clear she has an inner struggle. It's evident that she deals with depression, and I won't spoil the movie's truly shocking twist, but her demons are a part of her until the movie's closing. I believe that that is why she cared so deeply for these crazy women. She volunteered to take them across the prairie, and obviously cares for them while Briggs is just in it for the money. I think she thought that doing it would help her own mental illness. Unfortunately it does not, and she finds herself pushed to the edge on her journey multiple times.

I thought Tommy Lee Jones was good as well. He actually directs the film, and he does a fine job behind the camera. The three crazy women are good at being insane. They don't really talk. One has lost all her children to diphtheria, one killed her child, and one is raped and suffers numerous self-abusive breakdowns. They don't communicate very well, but all are integral characters. Speaking of the characters, one of my problems was that I simply couldn't figure out who was who in the beginning. Everyone looked like each other, and the women weren't introduced very well. I think some things the director and crew might think would be clear to the audience, but I certainly didn't understand a lot of the first half hour. I enjoyed the film, but ultimately it's a forgettable period drama that doesn't necessarily resonate with you. I enjoyed it, but it only goes skin deep. During a period with many emotionally resonating films with superb casts, The Homesman becomes overlooked. If you enjoy period dramas, you'll like it. Don't get me wrong, I really liked it. But is it a must-see in theaters? Not in my opinion. Rent it on DVD and you will be rewarded with a surprisingly good film.

Rating:

Foxcatcher Review

Starring: Steve Carell, Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo, Vanessa Redgrave, Sienna Miller

Foxcatcher is a deeply disturbing film. Many may know the story of the Foxcatcher wrestling team, the Schultz brothers, and John du Pont. I won't spoil the ending (though it is horrific, to say the least), but John du Pont was the heir to the Du Pont dynasty's fortune. He starts this wrestling team named after the Du Pont's Foxcatcher farm, and recruits brothers Mark and Dave Schultz to join his Olympic team. What follows is a story of lies, betrayal, domination, and submission. The whole movie is disturbing, but it's Carell's performance that really puts the nail in the coffin. As John du Pont, Carell makes the movie what it is. I'll get into the other actors later, but this really is Steve Carell's movie. And his body language is spot-on. You would never guess this was Steve Carell if you didn't already know it. He has completely transformed for this role, which may be the best of his career so far.

Besides Carell's acting, the other two main characters also give phenomenal performances. As this movie looked incredibly dark, the performances were the only reason I really wanted to see Foxcatcher. A lot of the actors use their body language to an incredibly effect. For Carell, his body language is what makes his performance so eerie. When he opens his mouth, the words are usually some profound cliché, that could be considered good acting. But his body language is what really makes you dumbfounded with his acting ability. Channing Tatum plays Mark Schultz, the object of du Pont's obsession, and he is great as well. I feel bad that Carell is getting all the praise and awards recognition for his performance, while Tatum should be getting some too. Both are considered leads, and when they share screen time it's like a battlefield. As Mark, he perfectly conveys his inner struggle. While we never know what du Pont did to Mark, besides mentally abuse him, we feel bad for him nonetheless. Tatum has also transformed his face and body to take on the role of a determined wrestler. The real knockout performance is Mark Ruffalo as Dave Schultz. Ruffalo is a guy who plays the supporting role in most movies, and it must be because he is so good at it. He is the moral compass of the three leads. He's the always supportive brother of Mark, who becomes the assistant coach at Foxcatcher, and the object of du Pont's envy. He is, after all, the real coach. And he has Mark, while du Pont is losing him. I was amazed at how different Ruffalo was. He changed his voice, face, and body for this movie.

To really understand this movie, you have to have a little background on the Du Pont family. The film fills you in pretty nicely, but it's good to have some knowledge of the subject. The Du Pont family is the wealthiest family in America, and head the Du Pont chemical company. In this time, Jean du Pont, John's mother, runs the company. She has many awards for horse competition, and she is really obsessed with them if you ask me. John has problems of his own, but I think his mother is where many of his behavioral issues come from. He had one friend. And his mother paid that friend. She was so consumed with wealth, she didn't care for her child, and he's always tried to impress her. I think he suddenly decides on wrestling to prove her wrong, as she has preconceived ideas on the sport. He's unable to, and one scene where she visits a practice is the only time we see him become a human, rather than the creature we've seen for the rest of the film. He tries so hard to show her he's a good coach, but as she leaves his practice with disgust, you see his face fall. While I don't condone any of his actions, I blame his mother for a lot of his issues. And Vanessa Redgrave plays the character perfectly. She has only one dialogue scene, but her body language makes her performance an instantly hateable one.

I don't have that much more to say about Foxcatcher. The directing choices are interesting. He opts to have more silence than dialogue. The score will play when you watch actors, and watch their mouths moving, but hear nothing of what they're saying. I think this further emphasizes my point that body language is so important in this movie. I have a few problems I'd also like to mention. I hated how slow it felt. Yes, it was tense in a few parts, specifically the ending, but I felt I'd been in that theater for three hours, not barely two. I enjoyed it, but it was just so slow. I had some problems with the subject matter, but that's just a warning that this movie is incredibly dark and disturbing. I wonder if the Academy will even embrace it. I think Ruffalo is a lock, but Carell for Best Actor and the movie for Best Picture might be difficult to nominate, because of how disturbing this movie and his performance is. They should, but I don't know if they can. So only see Foxcatcher if you're familiar with the story, and if you're okay with a lot of dark content. You may not enjoy all of it, but you'll appreciate how good of a movie it is.

Rating:

The Theory of Everything Review

Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Charlie Cox, Emily Watson, David Thewlis, Maxine Peake

The Theory of Everything is a poignant biopic with a lot to say. It tells the remarkable story of Stephen and Jane Hawking. For those not familiar with Stephen, he is one of the smartest men to ever walk the earth, except lately, he hasn't been walking. He is debilitated by a form of ALS, also known as motor-neuron disease, or Lou Gehrig's disease. It has left him in a motorized wheelchair and unable to speak a single word by himself. A brilliant physicist, he developed a theory of everything, that directly linked space and time to form a conclusive idea that the universe had a beginning that came from a black hole explosion. The only thing is, ALS usually has a life expectancy of two years at the most. And Stephen Hawking is still alive. The movie chronicles his life and marriage with his college sweetheart Jane, and the various struggles they go through to try and cope with his illness, and share his incredible mind with the world. It's a wonderful movie, with two powerful performances by Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones. Redmayne especially, completely becomes Hawking. It also gives a stark portrayal of an honest relationship, and strips away many preconceived ideas about love, marriage, and dealing with a serious illness.

If I were to award this movie stars just for acting alone, I'd give it ten stars. Five full ones for Eddie Redmayne, and five full ones for Felicity Jones. They are both incredible as Stephen and Jane Hawking. Eddie Redmayne physically debilitates so much through the movie, and his immense dedication to role is apparent. When he isn't diagnosed with his disease yet, Redmayne has a few ticks to subtly build up to the climax. It may be a slight eye twitch, or his foot catching on the stairs. You have to be observant to see it all, but it's there. When his disease sets in and he slurs his speech and loses all body control, it's even more powerful. Even when he becomes silent, Redmayne delivers expressions that are unbelievable. With a role so powerful and recognizable as Stephen Hawking, it's a feat that Felicity Jones could hold her own. But she does so much more than that. In a role less showy than Redmayne's, but no less powerful, she truly moves you as the wife struggling to find her own identity and follow her own goals next to such a successful and consuming husband. Their story isn't a fairytale romance, but it is a happy one. I'll get to that when I talk about the messages this movie has to say.

Now let me talk about my problems with the film, which are very few. I did not particularly enjoy the pacing at the beginning. I really loved seeing Stephen and Jane's courtship for the first half hour, but  it felt incredibly slow, and I just wanted to get to his illness. Of course, I realize this was essential to the film, I just wished there were things that made it move a little faster. I also felt the concept of time was thrown out the window, which is ironic, because Hawking's theory is completely based on time. I never knew what year it was, how long he'd been ill, or anything like that. I went by how old his kids looked, and Jane's changing hairstyles to figure out how long it had been. Only once, did Jane ever make a note that time indeed had passed over his expected two years of life. Which I feel is a mistake, because I think that Jane and Stephen would in some way react to him still being alive after his expectancy date, instead of waiting years to finally convey those feelings. I blame these errors on script and continuity, but that does not mean it has a bad screenplay. The script is exceptional, with great characters created and great lines. Perfect moments of humor, blended with the emotional scenes. The problems I have are incredibly minimal.

The film has a repeated message of religion. Jane is a very religious individual, and her introduction includes her being a member of the Church of England. And as expected, Stephen does not believe in any sort of religion, preferring the scientific explanation. And it's evident that Jane and Stephen perfectly embody their beliefs. For those who don't know what happened with the two, they did not end up together. But they did end up happy. And I think that this movie gives the rarely seen message that a relationship doesn't have to last forever. It was obvious that Jane was struggling with herself and her identity with Stephen, and being the wife and caretaker to such a man was taking a toll on her. And some of her actions she believed were wrong, simply because of her religious background. Stephen, being of no religion, did not see a problem in it, and both were happier apart. They still remained friends, and I'm confident that they still loved each other in some way. The poignant message was that they didn't have to be together. And I feel there is an incorrect stigma with being married to someone with an illness. You're supposed to stay with them until they die. Obviously he didn't die, and I think she didn't expect to have to stay that long with a man like him. Their courtship was beautiful, but if you observed their ideals, you could see that they weren't necessarily "star-crossed lovers".

It's important I mention the technical achievements. The score for this movie is absolutely beautiful. Music plays a large part in the film, and there is almost always a beautiful musical piece playing during a powerful scene. And like I've stated and restated, the acting in this film is phenomenal. Eddie Redmayne could see himself getting his first Oscar, and I think Felicity Jones is definitely in the running. I think The Theory of Everything's greatest aspect is its portrayal of ALS and its portrayal of love and marriage. All of this loops back to the great direction, and acting. The ending is particularly moving. It's so great that I don't want to spoil what happens. I'd recommend it to anyone who's a fan of slower movies with really fantastic acting, because the whole movie is rooted in these two characters, See it,  and you will be rewarded.

Rating:

72nd Annual Golden Globes Nominations

Earlier this week, the nominations for the 72nd Annual Golden Globe Awards were announced. This gives us a better look at what movies and performances are being recognized, and have the best shot at the gold at the Academy Awards Ceremony. The Golden Globes ceremony will be hosted by Tina Fey and Amy Poehler on January 11th, 2015. And boy, do we have some good movies nominated.

 *note- Best Picture and the lead performances are separated by Drama and Musical/Comedy

Best Picture- Drama

Boyhood
Foxcatcher
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
  
I think in the end, Boyhood has to win it. For those not familiar with it, it's a twelve-year epic that chronicles the life of a boy into adulthood, and the multiple factors that affect his life. It's a perfect movie, whose scope is just too huge to pass up. Other nominees include Foxcatcher (the Steve Carell movie where he plays a schizophrenic wrestling coach who abuses the wrestlers), The Imitation Game (the biopic about the man who created the world's first computer to break the Nazi code during WWII), Selma (the MLK biopic), and The Theory of Everything (the film chronicling the marriage of Stephen and Jane Hawking). I think Boyhood has it in the bag, but any of these movies could win. I have yet to see any of the others besides The Theory of Everything, but the other three are very well received. I think The Imitation Game will take it if Boyhood doesn't. I'm disappointed Gone Girl didn't get nominated, it being the audience favorite, but it got many nominations in other categories. Notice Interstellar didn't either, but it's not really an audience favorite, now is it?

Will Win: Boyhood
Could Win: The Imitation Game
Should Win: Boyhood
Should've Been Here: Gone Girl

Best Picture- Musical/Comedy

Birdman
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Into the Woods
Pride
St. Vincent
 
Usually the Musical/Comedy categories are weaker, and less grittier than the Drama counterparts. That's not to say they're not good movies, but usually you don't get a year like this, when so many carry profound messages. Birdman is the favorite to win, and it is an ambitious movie that delivers. But I wouldn't count out The Grand Budapest Hotel. What a movie... I loved it so much I had to buy it, and I just think the message, the comedic timing, and every camera angle was just executed to perfection. Also nominated is the fairytale musical Into the Woods, Pride, which is an LGBT musical? Comedy? I've actually never heard of this movie and am really surprised it got this one nomination. And St. Vincent, which if you remember my review, I absolutely loved. There's nothing really here that got left out in my opinion. I think this category is a very interesting one that could go a couple ways Don't count out Into the Woods though. Two years ago, Les Misérables won over Silver Linings Playbook, the latter of which had better reviews, and almost won Best Picture. Sometimes the epic musical just wins it.

Will Win: Birdman
Could Win: Into the Woods
Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel
Should've Been Here: N/A

Best Actor- Drama

 Steve Carell- Foxcatcher
Benedict Cumberbatch- The Imitation Game
Jake Gyllenhaal- Nightcrawler
David Oyelowo- Selma
Eddie Redmayne- The Theory of Everything

Holy cow, is this one hard to predict or what? This is such a strong category, by far the strongest out of any in the acting field. We have a schizophrenic wrestling coach, a troubled genius, an obsessed TMZ-style cameraman, a civil rights leader, and a physicist with a crippling disease. Your guess is as good as mine. I've seen Nightcrawler, and while my reception was lukewarm, I do think Jake Gyllenhaal was fabulous and I want him to go all the way to the Oscars. Will he? I think not, but it's good that he's being recognized here. Steve Carell and Eddie Redmayne are the transformation factors. Carell, so well known for being comedic, is in a darkly serious role, and he has gained weight, and has so many prosthetics on it doesn't even look like him. Redmayne has perfectly acted Hawking's illness, to a point in which it's almost impossible to tell he is acting. If you've seen the performance, it's amazing to watch him become this man. Cumberbatch has a fair shot too, and Selma still has a while to come out, so I know very little about it or its star actor. But if you're playing MLK, that's a pretty meaty role.

Will Win: Eddie Redmayne
Could Win: Benedict Cumberbatch or Steve Carell
Should Win: Eddie Redmayne
Should've Been Here: Miles Teller- Whiplash

Best Actress- Drama

Jennifer Aniston- Cake
Felicity Jones- The Theory of Everything
Julianne Moore- Still Alice
Rosamund Pike- Gone Girl
Reese Witherspoon- Wild

This is another strong category where anyone could win. But I think Julianne Moore has it, and rightly so given the role. She plays a linguistics professor diagnosed with early-onset Alzheimer's. It's a powerful story, and I can't see someone not winning for a role like that if she's as good as everyone says she is. Hot on her heels though, is everyone's favorite (or should I say, least favorite): Rosamund Pike as "Amazing Amy" in Gone Girl. The one thing holding Pike back is the fact that no one can talk about her performance or really appreciate it if they haven't seen the film. It truly is a hidden gem, with no hints in the trailers or publicity. I think she was extraordinary, and deserves to win. It's definitely the most complex, and it's the role of a lifetime but it's not her year, sadly. Also here is Felicity Jones, playing Stephen Hawking's supportive wife who becomes his caretaker in The Theory of Everything and Reese Witherspoon as the drug and sex addict going on a 1,100 mile hike to recover from the death of her mother and find herself. Jones was incredible, but her acting is mostly through her facial expressions. Jennifer Aniston in Cake...let's talk about that. This is a movie that slipped through the cracks. I didn't even have it on my awards list! Yet she's been raking in the nominations for her stripped down performance as a suicidal pill addict with chronic pain. In a movie I only became aware of last weekend. I love Aniston's work, and am really excited for her that she's getting recognition, it's just the true surprise of the season that this movie literally came out of nowhere.

Will Win: Julianne Moore
Could Win: Rosamund Pike
Should Win: Anyone
Should've Been Here: Shailene Woodley- The Fault in Our Stars

Best Actor- Musical/Comedy

Ralph Fiennes- The Grand Budapest Hotel 
Michael Keaton- Birdman
Bill Murray- St. Vincent
Joaquin Phoenix- Inherent Vice
Christoph Waltz- Big Eyes

I've seen three out of these five nominees. I have yet to see Inherent Vice and Big Eyes, so I can't really count Phoenix and Waltz out for this race. Bill Murray is incredible in St. Vincent, but I don't think this is his big year. I see Fiennes and Keaton battling this one out. Many people will say it's not even an argument, that Keaton will win for his turn as a washed-up star in Birdman. But I would never count Fiennes out. His hotel concierge really led the movie, and it was such a great role for him. This is pretty straightforward, and even I agree that this is Keaton's year, and his award spree will continue with a Globes win.

Will Win: Michael Keaton
Could Win: Ralph Fiennes
Should Win: Ralph Fiennes
Should've Been Here: Bill Hader- The Skeleton Twins

Best Actress- Musical/Comedy

Amy Adams- Big Eyes
Emily Blunt- Into the Woods
Helen Mirren- The Hundred-Foot Journey
Julianne Moore- Maps to the Stars
Quvenzhané Wallis- Annie

This one is hard to predict due to lack of competition. I've heard great things about Amy Adams in Big Eyes, but I've also heard horrible things about the movie. I find it really strange that it's in the Comedy field, because it seems very serious. I think this will easily go to Blunt, but how easy is it? Helen Mirren could win it, Julianne Moore could win it, and Quvenzhané Wallis is just lucky she got nominated for Annie. Moore's turn as a washed-up star echoes Birdman, and could be the theme this awards season.

Will Win: Emily Blunt
Could Win: Amy Adams
Should Win: Julianne Moore
Should've Been Here: Kristen Wiig- The Skeleton Twins

Best Supporting Actor

Robert Duvall- The Judge
Ethan Hawke- Boyhood
Edward Norton- Birdman
Mark Ruffalo- Foxcatcher
J.K. Simmons- Whiplash

If J.K. Simmons doesn't take this the whole world will flip its lid. I'm dead serious. His turn as a horribly abusive music teacher has been taking every single award for this category, and the Globes will go the same for him. Norton stands a fair chance at beating him, but his role as a method actor isn't quite the meaty part that Simmons has. I think the one that could win is Ruffalo, because in Foxcatcher, he has a lot of scene stealing parts, and it's hard to steal the show from Steve Carell from what I've heard. Also nominated is Robert Duvall for his turn as a judge accused of murder in The Judge, and Ethan Hawke for his role as a divorced dad struggling to keep his kids in Boyhood. Both good performances, but nothing like Simmons.

Will Win: J.K. Simmons
Could Win: No one else (But probably Ruffalo is next in line)
Should Win: J.K. Simmons
Should've Been Here: Tom Wilkinson- Selma

Best Supporting Actress

Patricia Arquette- Boyhood
Jessica Chastain- A Most Violent Year
Keira Knightley- The Imitation Game
Emma Stone- Birdman
Meryl Streep- Into the Woods

Supposedly, this is an extremely strong category. However, in terms of who deserves it, I think it has to go to Patricia Arquette. What Arquette did in Boyhood was unmatched by any other actor in that movie. She is a huge component of why the movie is as spectacular as it is. I've also seen Emma Stone in Birdman and again, she is a main component of why the film works as well as it does. Each performance is so different in scope, I think it will be hard to judge who is best. You have a divorced mother fighting for her kids, a mob wife, a mathematician, a drugee, and a magic with. Keira Knightley is supposed to be phenomenal as mathematician Joan Clarke in The Imitation Game, and Jessica Chastain has been wowing indie circuits as her scenery-chewing role as a mafia wife in A Most Violent Year. The real wild card is Meryl Streep in Into the Woods. She plays The Witch, who manipulates the fairytale characters to do what she wants. Awards guilds LOVE Meryl Streep, so don't be surprised if she wins here.

Will Win: Patricia Arquette
Could Win: Meryl Streep
Should Win: Patricia Arquette
Should've Been Here: Carrie Coon- Gone Girl or Laura Dern- Wild


Full Nominations (By Movie)

Annie
Best Actress- Musical/Comedy

Big Eyes 
Best Actor- Musical/Comedy
Best Actress- Musical/Comedy
Best Original Song

Birdman
Best Picture- Musical/Comedy
Best Actor- Musical/Comedy
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Director
Best Screenplay
Best Original Score 

Boyhood
Best Picture- Drama
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Director
Best Screenplay

Cake
Best Actress- Drama

Foxcatcher
Best Picture- Drama
Best Actor- Drama
Best Supporting Actor

Gone Girl
Best Actress- Drama
Best Director
Best Screenplay
Best Original Score

The Grand Budapest Hotel
Best Picture- Musical/Comedy
Best Actor- Musical/Comedy
Best Director
Best Screenplay 

The Hundred-Foot Journey
Best Actress- Musical/Comedy

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1
Best Original Song

The Imitation Game
Best Picture- Drama
Best Actor- Drama
Best Supporting Actress
Best Screenplay
Best Original Score 

Inherent Vice 
Best Actor- Musical/Comedy 

Into the Woods
Best Picture- Musical/Comedy
Best Actress- Musical/Comedy
Best Supporting Actress

Interstellar
Best Original Score

The Judge 
Best Supporting Actor

Maps to the Stars 
Best Actress- Musical/Comedy 

A Most Violent Year
Best Supporting Actress

Nightcrawler
Best Actor- Drama 

Noah
Best Original Song   

Pride
Best Picture- Musical/Comedy

Selma
Best Picture- Drama
Best Actor- Drama
Best Director
Best Original Song 

St. Vincent
Best Picture- Musical/Comedy
Best Actor- Musical/Comedy 
 
Still Alice
Best Actress- Drama
 
The Theory of Everything
Best Picture- Drama
Best Actor- Drama
Best Actress- Drama
Best Original Score

Whiplash
Best Supporting Actor

Wild
Best Actress- Drama

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 Review

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Jeffrey Wright, Sam Claflin, Donald Sutherland

                                             Katniss visiting a  District 8 hospital, as rebels give her the salute.
I was met with a mixed reception after viewing The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1. In this film, the games are over, and the war's begun. Katniss Everdeen, victor of the 74th Hunger Games has become a symbol for defying the oppressive Capitol, and as the "Mockingjay" she leads the rebellion. I'm afraid to give my honest opinion, because when you have a beloved series, some people who love it will jump at your throat at the mention of any criticism. Luckily, I'm not dealing with a beloved book, because the book was 50/50 in terms of approval. Some hated it, some loved it. I loved it, but never even dreamed I'd see it be divided. It's a 300 page book. So fanboys and fangirls, hear me out, because I am about to deliver the 100% honest review of this movie. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed this movie. But as a movie reviewer, I need to keep my integrity.

                                                           President Alma Coin and Plutarch Heavensbee
Before I reveal what I didn't like, let me first say what I did like. Specifically the acting. I particularly liked Lawrence. She has really stepped up her game, and as Katniss, she perfectly conveys her inner struggle. Katniss is just such a force to be reckoned with, and she's a great heroine. She gives a very raw performance. Katniss is no longer twirling around in dresses, or being prepped by the Capitol. She's almost without makeup, and angry for most of the movie (at least they saved that from the book). Josh Hutcherson is very good as well. He plays the "drone-like" Peeta hauntingly, and the end scene is spectacular. Just in case, I won't spoil it, but he's great in his role. I really enjoyed Philip Seymour Hoffman as well, I think he did a very good job with what he was given. It was a great nod to have the movie dedicated to his memory, as he's a prime example of great talent gone too soon. We'll talk about Julianne Moore as President Coin with the stuff I didn't like. Finally, Donald Sutherland as President Snow. I finally got to see the evil Snow from the books. I know the third installment in the series is where Snow really gets wicked, but Sutherland is phenomenally evil in the role, and he steals every scene he's in. Even from Lawrence.

                                         Katniss finding Snow's signature white rose in the ruins of District 12
I did enjoy the political aspects of the film. Non-readers of the books should be warned: this is nothing like the first two. There are no Games. I feel that this will really turn off a lot of viewers, because the franchise is so well known for the Games, which pits children against each other in a fight to the death. This is a total departure from that idea. I particularly enjoyed how the movie handled the propaganda aspect of District 13, and how the rebellion fights with that tactic, while the Capitol fights with violence and fear. The scenes that are the most moving are Katniss' propaganda scenes, with her delivering the famous "If we burn, you burn with us" line, and standing in the rubble of her own bombed District. I think the best scene in the film is when Katniss sings "The Hanging Tree" to a montage of rebellions starting once people see the video with her song. It really captures the domino effect rebellions have, and demonstrates the power Katniss has as the Mockingjay of the rebellion.

                                                   Jennifer Lawrence's performance of "The Hanging Tree"
So what didn't I like? I think my one true argument is just the separation aspect. I don't think the book should be separated into two parts. Think of past movies that were split. How many people buzzed about Breaking Dawn's first part, rather than just anticipating the finale? The same goes for The Hobbit. I think that this whole movie just slowly builds to a great conclusion to a great series. I think we'll look at this as the "bad" movie in the saga but by no means is it bad. Once The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 2 is released, we'll see how good this one really is. It is good, just not great. I think it splitting it is failing to capitalize on the source material. Also notice I didn't bring up the Harry Potter split. That's because that first part did not add random scenes not from the book that seemed disjointed. The Hobbit's first part was more new material than it was anything from the book. This movie does have a lot of that, but I think it easily balances the two. Just know, there's a lot of new stuff in this movie. Julianne Moore was the one performance I heavily disliked. In the book, Coin is a horribly stiff ruler who rivals President Snow in terms of tyranny. Katniss immediately recognizes her true colors and instantly dislikes her. But in the movie, Coin is sometimes using positive energy to rally troops, giving Katniss compliments, and basically being the nice guy. And you can tell she's moving to a conclusion for the character, but I wished she didn't go in that direction. She does fine if you separate the book and movie, but all in all I couldn't get past how much of a departure from the source the character was. As a performance I think it's very flat, save for her ending speech, which is so full of fluff you can tell she's not the white knight, and is holding back the talent I know Moore has.

                               Coin speaks to the rebels after a successful raid, bringing Katniss onstage.
So I did like The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1, I just don't believe it is a perfect film. Look to The Hunger Games: Catching Fire for a much better, much more action-packed installment in the series. This movie sets up a conclusion I'm anxiously waiting for, I just wished it delivered a little more. I'm writing this review unmoved by the movie I just saw. After the last movie I was excited, and I just don't feel that after this one. I look at the reviews and see critics feeling the same way. It stands at 66% (almost rotten) on Rotten Tomatoes, which is a large step back from the 85% of The Hunger Games, and an even bigger step back from The Hunger Games Catching Fire which has 90%. The same consensus, is that splitting it was just a bad idea, and it led to a dull movie with few bright spots. I like those kinds of movies but a lot of people don't Is it bad? Not by any means. It's just not great. But it carries a great potential.

Rating:

Birdman Review

Starring: Michael Keaton, Zach Galifianakis, Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone

                                        Riggan walking the streets as Birdman, the voice in his head, taunts him.
I just saw Birdman. Let me tell you what I thought going into this movie. I had seen the trailers, and knew this was going to be a weird movie. So I was dreading that a little bit. I was solely holding onto the promise I'd read about that the movie delivers if you can just forget the oddities onscreen. One promise I was salivating over, was its one-shot technique. Yes, this movie is filmed in one take (or what appears to be one take). And I was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed Birdman. The visuals are stunning. This camera shot is absolutely beautiful to watch. The acting is phenomenal. I can't imagine Birdman without any of the characters. So "let's stop with the labels", as Michael Keaton's character says to the critic in one scene, and get to the details of why I loved this movie.

                                                Riggan trying to shut out the voice as he prepares for showtime.
Birdman tells the story of Riggan Thomson (Keaton), the washed-up and aging actor who used to play Birdman in a multi-billion dollar franchise. He's suffering from some serious schizophrenia and depression, and believes he has superpowers like levitation and telekinesis. To bring himself back to the forefront, he is directing, writing, and starring in a Broadway play. The play is produced by his best friend/lawyer (Galifianakis) and stars a first-time actress Lesley (Watts), and a seasoned professional method actor Mike (Norton). Emma Stone plays his daughter Sam, who is a recovering addict he has a very difficult relationship with, as he was absent for her entire childhood. Keaton gives a powerhouse performance as the titular character. The role is so bizarre and demanding, and is fueled by his real-life parallels of his own career after Batman. I think a bunch of actors could play this role, but the fact that it's Keaton really brings it up a notch. Edward Norton was my favorite part, and he is such a lovably hateable character. He was a complete jerk and a pretentious snob, but I was enthralled watching him act in this role. He brings a certain gravitas to all of his scenes. Emma Stone was very subtle in most of her scenes, but she has definitely returned to prestige after a little dabbling in the Spider-Man blockbusters. Naomi Watts is the other standout for me. I just saw her in St. Vincent, where she was also amazing, but such a different role! I know I said the same exact thing about her in my review of that movie, so this only supports my claim that she is an incredibly versatile actress.

In a fantasy sequence, Riggan imagines his Birdman movies coming to life.

The one-shot technique was beautiful. The whole movie is filmed to at least look like it was done in one camera take. I wouldn't be surprised, with the talent involved, if it was really one take. In this form, you could see one character's reaction to a conversation. There is one scene where Emma Stone's character gets so angry at her father, she is screaming at him. Instead of cutting to his reaction after, or even what he says to her after, it stays on her face. Showing her face turn from intense anger to regret. There were so many scenes where the character speaking was speaking offscreen. Also, in the outdoor scenes, you could just feel the environment as if you were right there with the characters. You heard the crowd, and instead of using multiple cuts, it felt like you were right there.

                             Mike confronts Riggan after practice and presents his demands for opening.
The script is amazing. It's probably one of the best scripts I've ever seen in a movie. Just the way everything unfolds is really fun to watch and laugh at. Speaking of laughing, this is a black comedy, so you're laughing at stuff you really shouldn't be. The whole storyline and interactions between characters was so incredible. That's what I feel Edward Norton did the best. He really sold his interactions with Keaton and Stone. Especially his scenes with Michael Keaton. Seeing them fight was hilarious and serious at the same time. You felt the tension, but couldn't help laughing at it. I'd also like to point out that the three core performances (Keaton, Norton, and Stone in my opinion) have all been in superhero movies. Keaton was Batman in two blockbusters in the 80's. Norton had a failed attempt at being the Hulk, and Stone was Gwen Stacy in the new Spider-Man movies. In a movie that's basically criticizing the entertainment industry in a Hollywood vs. Broadway style fight, I don't think it's irony that they've been cast. I also really enjoyed all the jokes about superhero movies and blockbuster entertainment vs. the stage, and it was the fuel between Keaton and Norton's characters duels. It's definitely an interesting fight with good arguments on both sides. This is a year with so many films showing criticism of the entertainment industry and fame. You have Whiplash, which depicts what it takes to be famous, and you have Gone Girl and Birdman, which show the effects of fame and the self-obsession (and self-loathing in Riggan's case) that comes with it. I think Birdman definitely is an honest depiciton of the industry, and could go down in history as one of the best movies about movies ever made.

                                        Emma Stone as Sam Thomson, staring out of the window at her father.
I think that this is definitely a perfect movie. It's awards-bait that wasn't intended to be awards-bait. You can sometimes tell that certain actors take on movies expecting an Oscar, and certain scripts are written attached to certain directors to create the perfect storm. But I feel that Birdman did not intend this. It's simply art. Michael Keaton is a shoo-in for a nomination, and he could win. Norton's a definite as well. There's no way they're not getting nominated. Emma Stone could get in, and I'd like to see her get recognition she deserves. And it basically has cinematography and visual effects in the bag with it's camera take. I think it'll definitely play well over the next few months until the Oscars, where it will likely be nominated in a handful of the categories. It's just simply an original movie that succeeds with everything. I found myself loving it more and more throughout the running time, and would recommend it to anyone who loves awards and prestige movies. It's a little weird, but if you can get over that I think you'll enjoy it.

Rating: