Insurgent

http://s3.amazonaws.com/bo-assets/production/tiny_mce_photos/26398/original/insurgent.png

I feel like I owe the filmmakers of the Divergent series an apology, because walking in to both of their installments, I had my expectations admittedly low. Last year's Divergent surprised me with its brutal action, entertaining atmosphere, and unexpectedly high quality. So, in terms of Divergent's follow up, was it really fair to me to judge it so harshly beforehand? Let's just tack that one to the societal disdain for young adult novel adaptations. But what movies like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and now Insurgent prove is that there's sometimes so much more to this genre than it's given credit for. 

Insurgent picks up with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), boyfriend Four (Theo James), brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort), and ally Peter (Miles Teller) hiding from the government following the deadly societal fallout at the end of Divergent. Together, this cast of characters (portrayed arguably by perhaps four of Holywood's most talented and promising young actors) work to evade the autocratic Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet) and recover from the loss of their friends and family. Meanwhile, Jeanine recruits those who have betrayed Tris and her fellow divergents to discover the hidden secrets within an coveted artifact that could change dystopian Chicago forever. 

Like Divergent, Insurgent has the potential to surprise you, especially if you continue to hold low expectations for films within this genre. Insurgent is action packed, with sequences that assist the film in boldly emerging from its category. I've only seen 3 other films this year, but the scene where Tris and her friends escape from their enemies with the help of a train is far and above the most intense scene of 2015 (that'll undoubtedly change once we start seeing some summer blockbusters, though). It then goes on to keep the pace it set with gripping moments of Tris in a simulator and continuous twists of character allegiances.

Coming off of more dramatic films like The Fault in Our Stars, Shailene Woodley proves to be quite a badass. Her character's skillset - both physical and intellectual - never fails to captivate or entertain. Tris is relentless, mature, compassionate, and strong. If I had a daughter, I'd much rather see her grow up to be like Tris than Lily James' Cinderella.

Now, it wouldn't be right to say that either Divergent or Insurgent is better than Harry Potter or The Hunger Games when they're all at their best, but Insurgent proves that even when films in this genre aren't perfect, they can still be pretty good. The score is fitting, the visuals are spectacular, the acting is first-rate, and its scope is surprisingly mature. In fact, Insurgent is an improvement on Divergent in many aspects, and so if you weren't expecting much following the 2014 film, you might have your mind changed after this movie. 

To be honest, I am a bit skeptical on how Allegiant will be able to tell an additional story (in two movies :/ ) since Insurgent ended so well. However, if these past these two films have taught me anything, it's not to underestimate the series' production staff. If the filmmakers can match and/or exceed the quality of what they've done so far, we could be in for quite a ride when it comes to the Divergent series' two-part finale. But let's see what happens.

Rating: 3.5/5

Cinderella

http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/810x540/a_c/cinderella_glamour_19nov15_pr_b_810x540.jpg

It's 2015. We don't need a new Cinderella movie. However, if Disney feels so inclined to give us one, I don't think it's too much to ask that we get a new Cinderella movie. But is this what we're given? Nope. The film, its characters, and its messages are just as animated as if they were taken straight out of a classic hand-drawn movie. And when I say animated here, I don't mean "lively" or "spirited," I mean "fake" and "cartoonish."

So why do I hate this movie so much? Well, I wouldn't say I hate it, per se. In terms of the film as a whole, it wasn't terrible - it just wasn't very good. But to make matters worse, there was plenty in this movie to not only dislike, but to loathe. Keeping in mind, once again, that it is the year 2015, the portrayal of Cinderella as a weak-willed and pathetic damsel is anti-feminist, extremely offensive, and possibly quite damaging to the young viewers in the audience. But hey, at least they got to enjoy Frozen Fever beforehand if they weren't standing in the popcorn line for too long.

In this movie, Disney had the chance to improve on the so-so reputation it has in regards to its messages towards young girls. In the past, it's been slammed for painting Belle as a victim of domestic abuse and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty as helpless women in comas who can only be awoken by the kiss of a man they barely know. A retelling of Cinderella was Disney's opportunity to follow the suit of strong females seen in Frozen and Tangled. Instead, they keep the orphaned girl exactly as she's always been, negatively socializing girls into believing the only time they should stand up to someone is when that person is threatening the impressive status of the man they have a crush on. Because, you know, be kind and have courage, and all that good stuff.

But let's take a step back from the harmful approach this movie has, and look at its general storytelling capabilities. Here, too, it's unsuccessful. It takes far too long to get into the grown Cinerella's storyline, and when she's an adult, she's surrounded by a ridiculous group of terribly directed actors. Say what you will of her character, but as Cinderella, Lily James is able to bring her dimension when the writing gives her none. Unfortunately, I can't say this for anyone else. Even two-time Oscar-winner Cate Blanchett, who plays the stepmother, doesn't add much to the movie, especially in the unnecessary and often torturous scenes with her wicked daughters. As the prince, Richard Madden disappoints, especially when compared to his previous fantasy period-piece work in "Game of Thrones."

But what about the artistic aspects, where the movie probably shined brightest? Again, you'd be wrong (unless you're talking about the film's score, which is completely magnificent). While some costumes and set pieces dazzle, others are so clunky they have the appearance of being designed by a high school prom committee. On top of that, the visual effects were laughable, given that it is, once again, 2015.

So in Cinderella, we're force-fed these dated and damaging messages for nearly two hours, whether it be through Cinderella's indifference towards her abuse or through the sight of her waistline shrinking as the Fairy Godmother prepares her for the ball. But even worse is the fact that the film seems to make zero attempts to be original, or that fact that Helena Bonham Carter's Godmother is essentially a cameo. Rats don't live for 18 years, smashing a human-sized pumpkin against a stump while you're inside leads to death, and no one looks under secret floorboards unless they're lead to believe there's something there. Cinderella may look good at times, and might not bore your brains out, but it's offensive, uneventful, and potentially detrimental to the future of some of its young viewers.

Rating: 2/5

2015 Oscar Predictions

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/934921/thumbs/o-OSCARS-2013-facebook.jpg

Another cinematic year has passed, and on Sunday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will be handing out their coveted Oscars for achievements in producing, directing, writing, technical construction, music, and more. While the Academy is expected to follow the previous awards circuits, there are always a few unexpected winners on Oscar night. So I'll be taking a crack at who I think the winners will be in each of the major categories, who I think should win, and who was somehow ignored for their efforts.

Best Picture

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2014/01/boyhood_still.jpg

Predicted Winner: Boyhood

Birdman's Best Picture momentum has picked up recently following wins at the Director's, Producer's, and Screen Actors Guild Awards. Since the Academy consists of industry professionals, and not critics, there's a possibility Birdman could edge out over Boyhood. Yet I think this is unlikely - Boyhood will be remembered and admired for far longer than Birdman. While Birdman was inventive and fun, Boyhood was even more inventive and offered a mesmerizing blend of narrative and realism. Birdman is an achievement, but Boyhood should ultimately prove victorious on Oscar night. As for the other nominees, Selma and Whiplash will probably be discounted, but shouldn't be in my eyes. American Sniper could make a surprise showing, but given its lack of a Best Director nomination, it's not too likely. Grand Budapest could be a potential spoiler, but you should probably just expect it to pick up wins in the artistic categories.

AJ's Rankings

1. Boyhood
2. Selma
3. Whiplash
4. The Theory of Everything
5. Birdman
6. American Sniper
7. The Imitation Game
8. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Should have been nominated: Into the Woods, Noah, The Fault in Our Stars, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Fun Fact: This is the first year since I've started blogging that I've given all the best picture nominees positive ratings, and if any of my top 5 on that list won, I wouldn't be too mad.

Best Director

http://www.cinesnob.net/wp-content/uploads/linklatercoltranepic.jpg

Predicted Winner: Richard Linklater, Boyhood

Another toss-up between Boyhood's Linklater and Birdman's Iñárritu. Both were risk-takers and brilliantly realized the strong visions for their films. Again, I'd give the edge to Boyhood here. Linklater effortlessly captured the trials of growing up, and gave an unfathomable amount of dedication to this film's success. It paid off, and I think the Academy will reward him for his work.

AJ's Rankings

1. Linklater, Boyhood
2. Iñárritu, Birdman
3. Miller, Foxcatcher
4. Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel
5. Tyldum, The Imitation Game

Should have been nominated: Ava DuVernay, Selma; James Marsh, The Theory of Everything; Rob Marshall, Into the Woods; Damien Chazelle, Whiplash; Peter Jackson, The Hobbit; Dave Green, Earth to Echo

Best Actor

http://www.wxou.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2_img_inset.jpg

Predicted Winner: Michael Keaton, Birdman

The biggest race of the night will be between Birdman's Keaton and The Theory of Everything's Eddie Redmayne. It's a showdown of comedy and drama, of a fresh face and a classic Hollywood comeback. Both gave equally impressive performances, and personally, I'm still trying to decide who I think is the better choice to win. Redmayne gave a painstaking performance as the renowned physicist, while Keaton immersed himself into becoming Riggan. It's not an easy call, but I think the Academy will veer more towards the traditional and conservative choice by giving Keaton the gold. But with SAG and BAFTA wins under his belt, Redmayne may be walking on that stage on Sunday. It's anybody's guess. Potential spoilers could be Cumberbatch and Cooper, especially if the votes between Redmayne and Keaton draw to a deadlock.

AJ's Rankings

1. Michael Keaton, Birdman
2. Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything
3. Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game
4. Bradley Cooper, American Sniper
5. Steve Carell, Foxcatcher

Should have been nominated: Ansel Elgort, The Fault in Our Stars; Ben Affleck, Gone Girl

Best Actress

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com

Predicted Winner: Julianne Moore, Still Alice

Well, this is embarrassing. Since Still Alice and Two Days, One Night haven't been given a wide release yet and I have not seen Wild, I can only offer commentary on two of the nominees. Felicity Jones seems a bit out of place here for The Theory of Everything, so I'd give my vote to Rosamund for Gone Girl. However, know that Moore is a lock to win this Oscar, and in my opinion, a win for her is long overdue.

Should have been nominated: Shailene Woodley, The Fault in Our Stars

Best Supporting Actor

http://cdn.indiewire.com/

Predicted Winner: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

Okay, time for a tiny rant. Simmons was scarily good in Whiplash, yet I think the reason he's winning so many awards as opposed to just being nominated is because no one expected he could pull off such a performance. As the treacherous Terrence Fletcher, Simmons gave one of the best performances of the year, but in my eyes, he didn't upstage Edward Norton in Birdman. And think of it this way, when we look back twenty years from now, and for some reason Edward Norton - who gave us truly impeccable performances in movies like Primal Fear and American History X - still doesn't have an Oscar, won't we regret this time when we had a chance to give him one when he really deserves it? On another note, if neither Simmons or Norton were nominated this year, I'd be pulling for Ethan Hawke for bringing such an intriguing character transition to the screen so well as Mason Sr. in Boyhood.

AJ's Rankings

1. Edward Norton, Birdman
2. J.K. Simmons, Whiplash
3. Ethan Hawke, Boyhood
4. Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher
Also nominated: Robert Duvall, The Judge

Should have been nominated: Marton Csokas, The Equalizer; Neil Patrick Harris, Gone Girl

Best Supporting Actress 

http://markcz.com

Predicted Winner: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

I swear to God, if Arquette opens up a packet of three or four pages of 8 1/2 x 11 paper and asks the presenter to hold onto her Oscar while she unpreparedly reads from them, I may just fly to L.A. and take the trophy from her. Incidentals aside, Arquette played the role of Olivia reasonably well, though I'm thoroughly befuddled as to why she's winning every supporting actress award under the sun this year. Tilda Swinton should have been in the category, and frankly, should have won it. Otherwise, this year's supporting actress field is incredibly weak.

AJ's Rankings

1. Patricia Arquette, Boyhood
2. Meryl Streep, Into the Woods
3. Emma Stone, Birdman
4. Keira Knightly, The Imitation Game
Also nominated: Laura Dern, Wild

Should have been nominated: Tilda Swinton, Snowpiercer; Sienna Miller, American Sniper

Best Original Screenplay

Predicted Winner: Iñárritu & Co., Birdman

Birdman's originality should win it at least one Oscar, and that'll likely be for this category. The biggest snub here is for Paul Webb's screenplay for Selma. This could, however, be the Academy's chance to give Anderson's Grand Budapest an Oscar for a major category.

AJ's Rankings

1. Richard Linklater, Boyhood
2. Iñárritu & Co., Birdman
3. Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. E. Max Frye & Dan Futterman, Foxcatcher
Also nominated: Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler

Should have been nominated: Paul Webb, Selma

Best Adapted Screenplay

Predicted Winner: Anthony McCarten, The Theory of Everything

This is a tough one, as no real frontrunner has been named in this category. Because of that, I'll follow suit with the BAFTAs and predict The Theory of Everything, which also happens to be my choice for the win. Count no one out in this category: The Imitation Game fared much better over here than it did in its home nation of England, Whiplash could win to incentivize young filmmakers, and no one's quite sure what to expect from American Sniper.

AJ's Rankings

1. Anthony McCarten, The Theory of Everything
2. Damien Chazelle, Whiplash (even though it's an original screenplay)
3. Jason Hall, American Sniper
4. Graham Moore, The Imitation Game
Also nominated Paul Thomas Anderson, Inherent Vice

Should have been nominated: Gillian Flynn, Gone Girl; Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber, The Fault in our Stars; Darren Aronofsky & Ari Handel, Noah
_________________________________________________

And here are the rest of your 2015 Oscar winners, followed by AJ's Pick (AP) in parentheses:

Best Visual Effects: Interstellar (AP: Interstellar)
Best Film Editing: Boyhood (AP: Boyhood)
Best Costume Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel (AP: Into the Woods)
Best Makeup & Hairstyling: Guardians of the Galaxy (AP: Guardians of the Galaxy)
Best Sound Mixing: Whiplash (AP: Whiplash)
Best Sound Editing: American Sniper (AP: The Hobbit)
Best Cinematography: Birdman (AP: Birdman)
Best Production Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel (AP: The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Best Original Score: The Theory of Everything (AP: Interstellar)
Best Original Song: "Glory," from Selma (AP: "Glory")

Tallied Predictions:

Boyhood: 4
Birdman: 3
The Grand Budapest Hotel: 2
Whiplash: 2
The Theory of Everything: 2
American Sniper: 1
Interstellar: 1
Still Alice: 1
Selma: 1
Guardians of the Galaxy: 1

See also: 2015 Oscars - Snubs and Surprises, AJ's Top 10 of 2014

Fifty Shades of Grey

Today

Alright, let's get this over with.

I'd just like to start by saying that Fifty Shades of Grey is exactly what you are expecting it to be. If you think you'll love it, you will. If you think it's going to be ridiculously awful, it will be. If you think it portrays BDSM in an abusive light, that's probably the way you'll see Anastasia and Christian's actions. So if that's sufficient enough for you, no need to read on. I know I'm not going to sway those with strong predetermined opinions one way or the other.

But for those of you curious about the film, allow me to enlighten you. To all who think that Fifty Shades of Grey is just the adaptation of that "classy porn" novel, there's actually a plot. Washington State senior Anastasia "Ana" Steele is asked by her roommate, fellow senior and Journalism major Kate, to interview the man giving their school's commencement address. The man, as you probably guessed, is Christian Grey - 27-year-old self-made millionaire. He prides himself on being a people person, ironically.

After developing a mutual attraction, the two enter into a partnership (not a relationship), complete with a contract, terms, and everything. Christian promises to devote himself completely to Anastasia if she willingly surrenders herself to him as his submissive. With some reservation, Ana agrees to be Christian's new plaything, but gets increasingly frustrated when his attention and affection to her outside the bedroom becomes episodic.

In the lead roles are Dakota Johnson as Ana and Jamie Dornan as Christian. As Christian, Dornan is just what the character demands of him. The character of Christian Grey is a walking penis, and all attempts to develop him beyond that role are thwarted by the laughable dialogue given to Dornan, who makes no effort to make the part believable. Twice, Ana asks Christian what his reasoning is behind his sadistic behavior. Both times, his response is "because that's who I am."

Ana, on the other hand, is a rather interesting character. She's stronger and smarter than you may think, and Johnson brings about a clever performance that is able to convey Ana as awkward, headstrong, and complex. In one of the movie's better scenes, she calls a formal business meeting with Christian to discuss the terms of their arrangement, turning the tables by controlling him in his professional setting. She's aware of the power she has over Christian, even though in his eyes, she's his object. She knows when to speak up, when to say when, but doesn't realize why Christian has had 15 other girls in her role until the end of the film, which comes about and concludes in the most frustrating of ways.

Again, my rating is probably of no use to those of you who already have your mind made up about the film. There's a good chance you already know if you're going to see Fifty Shades or not (if you haven't already), so at this point, I'm just trying to make sense of this to myself. Because even though the film is ridiculously scripted, runs too long, and contains a score that was probably ripped off from a 1970s X-rated videotape (save for the lead up to a remix of Beyoncé's "Crazy in Love"), there's a consistent pace and signs of good direction. The first half hour of the film, completely devoid of sex, had me raising my expectations. Though as it went on, those expectations were not met. For me, at least, Fifty Shades of Grey wasn't the train wreck I was expecting, but it wasn't that good either. When it comes to iffy romance movies, I've had better.

Rating: 2/5

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Indiewire

Kingsman was supposed to be a fun movie. Don't get me wrong, parts of it were fun, but based on the trailers and on Matthew Vaughn's previous film Kick-Ass, I expected it to be consistently and ridiculously fun throughout while still maintaining a certain level of quality. With Vaughn serving as director/writer/producer, a score conducted by Henry Jackman, and top-billed actors like Colin Firth, Michael Caine, and Samuel L. Jackson, I don't think this expectation was entirely unjustified.

Yet despite its more enjoyable moments, the charm of its main character, and sleek camerawork, Kingsman: The Secret Service wasn't always as fun as the filmmakers had intended. Parts of it were rather negative, actually. In one scene, a hypnotized crowd in a church assembly begin slaughtering one another. Sure, the expert cinematography follows Colin Firth's character quite impressively, but they follow him massacring dozens of innocent people by means of gun, fist, knife, and various pieces of the building - and it's not until after he kills all these people that we realize he wasn't doing these acts intentionally. Yet another scene follows the villain's henchmen and a slew of world leaders having their heads blown off in a flashy, fireworks-esque display as glorious music plays. Never mind the fact that all the deceased probably had jobs, families, and loved ones - just as long as the scene looks cool. Maybe we didn't care as much because the churchgoers played a strong resemblance to Westboro Baptist Church, so I guess that makes it okay.

Kingsman is the story of a twenty-something Londoner named Eggsy (Yes, Eggsy). After his father's death in the line of undercover duty, Eggsy grows up with a distant mother and abusive step-father to become a delinquent. He's contacted by Harry Hart (Colin Firth), his late father's former colleague, and is told he would make a good addition to the team of the Kingsman - a group of British spies with a wide array of physical skill and intellect. As Eggsy trains for the job, the movie's villain Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) sets up an operation to basically press the restart button for Earth's population. 

Which brings me to a vital question I have for the filmmakers - what in the world were they thinking with their execution of Jackson's character? Talk about a bad performance. In a feeble attempt to add more humor to the film, Valentine's character says all his words with a terribly-employed lisp, which proved to be more of a distraction than a riot. What's so frustrating is that we all know Jackson can do better (Pulp Fiction? A Time to Kill? Django Unchained? The man's a legend.). We also see another serious sin here - the inclusion of Michael Caine. In a clear move to add credibility to the film, Caine's inclusion was a poorly-concieved way to add a familiar face for however brief a time.

What was even more disappointing is that in the film's final act, it really started to sway me toward a recommendation. I started feeling a similar level of amusement that I felt watching Kick-Ass. Unfortunately, it was never to the point where I would say that Kingsman a must see. The film suffers from an overlong start and training period which are only kept afloat by sporadic action sequences, the confident, star-making presence of Taron Egerton in the role of Eggsy, and the expected benefits of having Colin Firth involved. Towards the end, the movie had those fun moments I was hoping for, but I wouldn't say that it's a fully "fun" movie - even though that's what it wanted to be.

Rating: 2.5/5

AJ's Top 10 of 2014

Yes, I'm aware we're almost a month into the new year. Blame movie companies for distributing movies via platform rollout techniques and delaying wide release until January. Anyways, I slacked a bit at my theater attendance last year but still managed to see some phenomenal pieces of cinema. There were highly original films like Boyhood and Birdman, some entertaining sci-fi and fantasy features like Mockingjay, X-Men, and Planet of the Apes, and some very moving biopics like The Theory of Everything and Selma. Speaking bluntly, this was probably one of my least favorite years for movies in a long time. Nonetheless, these ten movies were achievements in various aspects of filmmaking, and in my opinion, were the best movies of 2014.

Honorable Mention: Earth to Echo

When wielded wisely, nostalgia can be quite a powerful tool in moviemaking, and Earth to Echo's atmosphere made me feel a sense of reminiscence towards a time that I'm still living in. Earth to Echo is one of the most enjoyable family-friendly movies I have ever seen. Its approach had me excited, laughing, and hooked from the very beginning.

#10: Gone Girl

Functioning as both a captivating mystery and a brilliantly twisted psychological thriller, Gone Girl is an absorbing motion picture, featuring Ben Affleck at his best, equally matched by the performances of Neil Patrick Harris and Rosamund Pike, as the trio bring the characters from Gillian Flynn's novel to the life.

#9: The Fault in Our Stars

Someone I met last year told me that liking a movie like The Fault in Our Stars goes against my manhood, and it was one of the most shallow things I've ever heard. The Fault in Our Stars is among the most carefully made, well-acted, and life-affirming romances. Teens and adults, men and women alike, will agree - The Fault in Our Stars proves that movies made for teen audiences adapted from young adult novels can be of the highest cinematic quality.

#8: Birdman

Who would've guessed following around a washed-up actor trying to make his comeback could be one of the year's best films? Well, thanks to shining performances from Michael Keaton and Edward Norton, the writing and directing by Iñárritu, and a bit of groundbreaking cinematography and film editing (what an Oscar snub that was!), Birdman soared.

#7: Noah

It's a shame that Noah fell off the radar as awards season progressed. Its all-star cast, visuals, and daringly post-modern approach were its keys to financial and critical success, and it has cemented its place among the best Biblical adaptations in film history. Not only does it hone in on the story of the Great Flood, but it also has a signature of 21st century filmmaking. Noah deserves to be remembered.

#6: The Theory of Everything

It's official - I'm an Eddie Redmayne fan. His ability to portray Stephen Hawking from his fullest to his lowest, and all the gradual dilapidation in between, was impeccable. But don't just see it for the performances - see it for its ability to bring this amazing man's life so beautifully to the big screen. 

#5: Whiplash

It's so great to see young filmmakers being recognized for their work. I'll admit it - had it not been for the Academy Award nominations I may never have seen this film. But even with its indie production value, Whiplash has the feel of a mainstream thriller. It's an extremely exciting film that, like its star-making performances from J.K. Simmons and Miles Teller, came out of nowhere to become one of 2014's greatest achievements. 

#4: Selma

I was waiting to publish my Top 10 until I saw this, and boy did I make the right choice. Magnificently directed and fiercely powerful, Selma is an unbelievably moving portrayal of a flawed and brave man following his dreams to better the world. Frankly, I don't care about any political or controversial concerns surrounding the approach to this movie - it is a crowning success of filmmaking. 

#3: The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

I'm not sure how else to say this, so I'll say it again - The Hobbit is one of the most technically impressive films ever made. As we say goodbye to Middle Earth one last time (supposedly), the production crew spared no expense in delivering an exhilarating final chapter to this trilogy. The Battle of the Five Armies is utterly breathtaking, and made the whole journey worthwhile.

#2: Into the Woods

I'll make the case that Into the Woods was the best musical, best comedy, has the best ensemble cast, and was the most fun movie to watch in the theater this year. Enjoyable for everyone and with a fair amount of worthwhile messages, Into the Woods builds on a sweeping magical story with a meticulously designed set, never failing to capture you into its mystical world.

#1: Boyhood

Okay, I know this is the third year in a row I've placed a coming-of-age film at the top of my year's best list. But even though Boyhood started out as an idea for a coming-of-age film, it evolved into so much more. It's a portrait of existence, a window to the past, and a reflection on the frequency and subtlety of our ever-changing lives. Boyhood was a labor of love - a love of childhood, a love of innocence, a love of filmmaking, a love of life. 

Selma

EW

There's no manipulation, no ulterior motives, no imposition of white guilt, and no sense of Oscar bait in Selma. The movie succeeds because it was an emotional, technical, and trailblazing feat in the history of cinema. It is being hailed as a masterpiece simply because it is one. It's being praised because it deserves praise. And people are saying the film was snubbed at the Oscars because it absolutely was snubbed. Its direction, screenplay, score, and film editing all raise Selma to the heights of being one of the best films of 2014. 

Selma shows just a snippet of the tumultuous life and time of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. After he is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, he turns to the executive power of President Lyndon B. Johnson for assistance in striking down the prejudiced voting restrictions in the 1960s South. With the President ignoring the pressing issues of violence, racism, and murder by the corrupt cops and officials in Alabama, King and his comrades decide to take matters into their own hands by raising the stakes of immediacy in the public's eye.

King orchestrates a march of protestors - black & white; men & women; Christian, Jew, & otherwise - from the unflinchingly racist city of Selma, Alabama to Montgomery. Amidst the hardship the marchers and supporters face, opposers of the march - including Alabama's governor and even President Johnson himself - are forced to re-evaluate the impact of their indifference.

We see King in an environment that the average citizen isn't familiar with. There's no epic re-enactment of the "I Have a Dream" speech, nor is there a scene depicting the assassination of the civil rights leader. The assassinations we see are those on the street, inside church, or in restaurants, making the deaths more unexpected and real. What we see of King encompasses his days in the height of his troubles, his interactions with acquaintances and enemies, and how he handles his role as a father, a husband, a friend, and a leader. To include the more well-known facts of his life in the movie would have been unjust to this film. Those aspects would have made Selma a superficial biopic that displayed King as a figurehead and an unchallenged hero. With Selma's approach, we see King as a man, and more importantly, as a martyr. Because of this approach, Selma's screenplay is a true work of art. Writer Paul Webb's labors are obvious, and his efforts pay off.

The film is wonderfully directed by Ava DuVernay, who before Selma was predominantly concerned with making documentary features. I can't image the film having a more fitting director than DuVernay - a woman who is was so clearly able to convey her passion for both filmmaking and equality through this magnificent movie. Her vision for Selma is fully realized and benefits from a fine performance by David Oyelowo as the historical man behind the movement. 

Selma is fiercely powerful, with a patient approach, raw emotion, and spectacular performances to keep the film engrained in your memory. How and why this film was overlooked at the Oscars evades me, but I cannot stress enough that, in my opinion, it was a wrongful overlook. I implore you to see Selma, even if the Academy, for whatever reasons, may not agree with me as strongly on that statement. 

Rating: 5/5