Into the Woods

Into the Woods is the best musical of the decade. I would say best of the century, but I hold 2007's Hairspray in too high of a regard to relinquish that honor. Based on the stage musical, Into the Woods creatively intertwines versions of classic fairytales Little Red Riding Hood, Jack and the Beanstalk, Repunzel, and Cinderella. The primary story is focused on a baker and his wife on a quest to lift a witch's curse on their home. 

What makes this musical stand out so much is its approach. Sure, it has many of the same morals as the animated Disney classics you grew up on, but Into the Woods perfectly meshes the classic and contemporary - offering stories of love, bravery, parenthood, and loyalty with the heart and laughs that no one in the 21st century can complain about. 

Director Rob Marshall brings out the best possible performances from his impeccably casted troupe of actors. Ranging from the young to the old, every member of Into the Woods's cast delivers a performance that balances passion and professionalism in a manner that I have not so often seen. Daniel Huttlestone (one of the only good aspects of 2012's Les Mis) and Lilla Crawford play Jack and Red Riding Hood with skill beyond their years. There's a strong level of confidence that exudes from Crawford, while Huttlestone has outdone himself in yet another musical, securing his place in a legacy of motion picture sing-a-longs for years to come.

And let's not forget about the veteran performers. Meryl Streep, though underused, shines as The Witch, and while I don't see it as warranted, looks pretty solid to posit her 19th Academy Award nomination. Personally, I'd like to see a nod for Anna Kendrick's lovely performance as Cinderella, or Emily Blunt, who as The Baker's Wife does her best work since The Devil Wears Prada. Though any of the cast, including Streep, or even Chris Pine as The Prince, would be fully deserving of any award or nomination received. Their comedic timing is fully on point, and so not only is this the best musical of the year, but also the best comedy. Among these features, the film is bolstered by astounding art direction and cinematography.

Into the Woods is complete magical fun from the very first minute to the very last, offering a complete immersion into its music-filled fantastical universe. Despite being a PG-rated Disney musical, Into the Woods truly is for everyone - not just little kids and girls. Put away your pride, boys. There's nothin' wrong with a couple of bros going to watch a great movie musical, especially when it's as hilarious and well-made as this one.

Rating: 5/5

Birdman

Collider

Michael Keaton is back, Edward Norton is better than ever, and Emma Stone can now be considered a serious actress by everyone who doubted her prowess. In Birdman, Alejandro González Iñárritu brings out some of the best performances of the year with his ingeniously subtle screenplay and his dedicated style of directing. His script follows around Hollywood actor Riggan Thomson, a forgotten star of yesterday, who is trying to re-launch himself into the public eye. Riggan attempts to adapt, direct, produce, and star in a Broadway adaptation, but struggles with family, affairs, critics, and a shadow of his former self - all of which are trying to squash his dreams of emerging out of a terribly inconvenient midlife crisis.

Riggan Thomsen is relentless. He won't stop. He yells at his daughter because he loves her. He drops equipment on the head of one of his actors because he wants the role to be played by someone better. He punches that actor's replacement in the face because he wants to keep him in line. He run through Manhattan in his underwear because he refuses to see his play fail. He begs a critic to give him a fair shake because he doesn't just want this comeback - he needs it.

Birdman is about reality. Even though its characters may be drug addicts, 80s celebrities, angry cynical critics, and alcoholic method actors, its characters carry an intriguing sense of relatability. Their struggles and their pains, though not always mirroring those of our own lives, are human. I don't know about you, but I had no idea what it was like to be a depressed former celebrity with an ex-wife, a mistress with a pregnancy-scare, and a daughter who's no stranger to rehab. But thanks to Birdman, I do now, because the movie never forgets to remind the audience that it is simply a view into Riggan's quest for redemption, and that's something almost everyone can relate to. 

Iñárritu plunges his audience into Riggan's world. His characters are expertly constructed - we simultaneously root for and loathe Riggan, while we eagerly await the return of Edward Norton's Mike every time the camera pans away from him. Iñárritu had a vision for making this movie more than just a great screenplay, and with the skills of cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, Birdman's impact jumped from marvelous to historical. Following the cast throughout rooms, hallways, buildings, and massively mobbed city streets, the camerawork of Birdman is formatted in a way of making the viewer think the film is shot in one continuous take, and so when the cuts occur, you don't even notice it (which makes me wonder where this movie's Best Film Editing nomination is). Lubezki, winner of last year's Best Cinematography Oscar for Gravity, is in a pretty good position to get a second consecutive win. Equal credit goes out to the actors for not only going along with the experimental style, but embracing it. 

I'll try to avoid labels in my wrap-up, as I don't think Riggan would appreciate them too much were he a real person. Birdman is both inventive and revolutionary. Few movies dare to reach for the ambition that Birdman achieved, and even less will live up to that expectation with the bar of originality, cinematography, and bluntness that the film has set. Although it drags at times, Birdman is an accomplishment on various levels of filmmaking, and earns its recognition.

Rating: 4.5/5

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Moviepilot

Finally, we have the Hobbit movie that we have been yearning for, that we have been waiting for, and most importantly, that we deserve. After an iffy first installment and a better (yet still imperfect) middle chapter, The Battle of the Five Armies delivers on the promise of an impressive source material and production crew, giving us not only the best Hobbit movie, but also one of the best movies of the year.

The movie begins as abruptly as the previous one ended, showing us the destruction of Laketown at the hands (well, wings) of the dragon Smaug. After Bard the Bowman manages bring the beast to his demise, the refugees venture to the Misty Mountains for shelter and resources. Meanwhile, Thorin and his company of dwarves are sitting pretty in their hideaway full of gold.

Even though the men of Laketown played a part in helping Thorin claim his birthright, he tells Bard that he will not share his riches. Soon, tensions start to rise in Middle Earth. The dwarves build up their defenses and send for reinforcements while the survivors from Laketown form an alliance with elves to claim what they believe is rightfully theirs. At the same time, two separate armies of orcs march to the mountains to kill anyone who stands in their way. The hobbit Bilbo tries desperately to avoid war, but is unsuccessful as The Battle of the Five Armies ensues.

Technically speaking, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is one of the most impressive films ever made. Its style and execution of art direction, visual effects, cinematography, musical score, film editing, and sound mixing during the prolonged battle sequence was sheer perfection. I sat in awe and watched the masterpiece that the brilliant moviemakers had constructed for my viewing. It is my sincere hope that The Academy will recognize the movie for at least one of these cinematic aspects with an Oscar nomination or win. My trust in Jackson was restored with this film - it had the careful balance of countless characters and storylines with jaw-dropping action, drama, and the return of his smartly-implemented comic relief.

My complaints for this movie are minimal, though very similar to its predecessors. It's a shame we never got to know all the dwarves as individuals, but thankfully, all the other characters resonated like they never have before on the big screen. When Bilbo returns to The Shire, the wrap-up is more quick than I had hoped. In other words - too much "there," not enough "back again" (although there is a nice bridge from this Middle Earth saga to the next). The ending left a few storylines unresolved, most notably the madness-inducing Arkenstone's legacy and the enormous treasure that the tens of thousands of soldiers were fighting over. Who claimed which part of the riches? Unfortunately those who didn't read the book may never know.

Like the other two Hobbit movies, this film's story suffers a bit due to its unnecessary split. It is more than made up for, however, by its visual magnificence and the cast and crew's marvelous dedication to producing the most entertaining movie of 2014. The escalation in quality from the first movie to the last is remarkable. For one last time, Jackson has amazed me yet again with another near-perfect Middle Earth movie. The story is now complete, but thanks to this movie, it won't ever be forgotten.

Rating: 4.5/5

Interstellar

https://grist.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/interstellar3.jpg?w=660&h=371

To say that we, as moviegoers, were "expecting more" from Christopher Nolan in his latest film, is something that I believe is inaccurate. A more fair statement would be, perhaps, that we were expecting better, or perhaps, less. After over a decade of making films that didn't need to showboat every aspect, Interstellar went overboard. So how can we say that we "expected more" from Christopher Nolan's Interstellar when, in fact, it gave us "more" than we've ever had in a Christopher Nolan movie?

Let's look at his filmography. Nolan made a name for himself with screenplay-based thrillers like Memento and The Prestige. We loved the subtlety and pacing of Batman Begins and the suspenseful intensity of The Dark Knight, yet audiences seemed to be less enthusiastic towards The Dark Knight Rises. Why? Because the build-up was too long, and the excitement, although more explosive, wasn't as satisfying as in its predecessors.

Now, this brings us to Interstellar. In conversations about this movie, you'll hardly hear anyone complaining about the film's message about the power and scope of a human's capacity to love, its visuals, and even its sheer ambition. Yet Interstellar is being viewed as one of, or even as, Christopher Nolan's least impressive film. That's not to say that Interstellar is a bad movie. When you have Christopher Nolan directing Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, and Michael Caine (in space!), it really can't go too wrong. But somehow, Interstellar just never felt completely right.

Interstellar starts off with a graspable yet unique storyline. Decades from now, the world has destroyed its ability to sustain itself. Fearing for the future of humanity, NASA is running covert missions, sending teams to distant galaxies to explore the chances of finding a new home. When single father and former pilot Cooper (Matthew McCon-alright-alright-alright-aughay) inexplicably finds his way to NASA's secret headquarters, the man in charge (Michael Caine) sees it as a sign to send him on the next shuttle. Cooper's departure is understood by his eldest son but breaks the heart of his daughter Murph. After he takes off, Cooper and his team (Anne Hathaway and Wes Bentley, performing with their expected depth) spend years looking for a new Earth. Here's where things should've gotten interesting, but instead, it's where the movie took a turn for the worse.

To quote a member of YouTube's ScreenJunkies team (check them out if you don't know who they are, they're perfect), Interstellar takes its intriguing premise and becomes "a movie about a girl whose dad flies into a black hole, and through the power of love, travels back in time to his daughter's bedroom to haunt an old wristwatch so that it taps out the secrets of the universe in morse code."

I completely respect ambition in filmmaking, so long as it pays off in the long run, but Interstellar didn't pay off the way I was expecting. What really hindered my complete, unabashed praise for the movie was a terribly-edited montage sequence that failed at its efforts to balance four different story lines, spanning lightyears away and trying to simultaneously keep our attention on a grown woman in her childhood bedroom, three astronauts panicking, an angry farmer trying to save his burning crops, and Matt Damon trying to dock a spaceship. All of the other problems people had with these movie would've just been imperfections in my eyes, but following that horrendously constructed scene, all of those little problems, including the film failing to pay off on its build-up, added insult to injury.

Now that I've given Interstellar its deserved bashing, let's revisit why you should see this movie, because you should. Two things I've mentioned in this review are ambition and Christopher Nolan. No one will argue Interstallar is not ambitious, and for the places the movie goes, from the human heart to the farthest galaxy, the movie demands to be viewed.

I think it's fair to say that following this movie, the phrase "Christopher Nolan can do no wrong" would be a falsity, yet "Christopher Nolan is a brilliant filmmaker" would still hold true. Interstellar deserves praise for its themes, effects, music, performances, and set design; all of which truly will take your breath away time and time again. I just hope that one day, we can look back at Interstellar as a tiny blemish on the record of Christopher Nolan's work and not the beginning of the end.

Rating: 3.5/5