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

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

Variety

A year ago, in my review for Catching Fire, I told you not to get your hopes up too high for this movie. Well, this doesn't happen too often, but here it goes - I was wrong, and I admit it. As expected, the installment about political propaganda commercials in a cinematic franchise about kids killing each other is clearly less exciting in comparison to its previous installments, but working with the source material, Mockingjay - Part 1 represents a significant step up in quality compared to the book, and has me eager for what Part 2 will bring. But unfortunately, we have to wait a year for that. Thanks, Hollywood.

Following her escape from the Quarter Quell arena, Katniss Everdeen finds herself a pawn in the rebellion against the Capitol. Located beneath the bombed surface of District 13, the home base of the rebellion features several returning characters, like Katniss' (more-than-a?) friend Gale, a sobered-up (but still gleefully sarcastic) Haymitch Abernathy, determined ex-gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee, a wig-less Effie, and resentful Capitol darling Finnick Odair. New characters include District 13 President Alma Coin (brought to life with a confident performance by Julianne Moore), Commander Boggs, and a camera crew led by a team of Capitol refugees joining the cause.

Noticeably absent are former Hunger Games winners Peeta Mellark and Johanna Mason, who were unable to be saved by the District 13 army during the fall of the arena, and along with Finnick's girlfriend Annie, were taken captive by the Capitol. After the revolution begins, and riots throughout all of Panem's districts start, the Capitol brainwashes Peeta into speaking to calm down the rebels. Katniss sees through the charade and demands Peeta's rescue in exchange for serving as the poster child of the rebellion.

In the absence of child-on-child violence, the film shifts focus on the rebellion's efforts to use Katniss to ignite a fire in the districts. After agreeing to be a living embodiment of the Mockingjay, Katniss, her camera crew, and bodyguards Boggs and Gale travel around Panem to film propaganda videos and unite the districts. This leads to a few actions scenes, involving land mines, suicide bombings, and exploding hovercrafts. Despite their infrequency, these scenes were almost perfectly timed and executed, and while not as enthralling as the arena, they sufficiently kept the film afloat by showing the more visually exciting moments of the rebellion.

Much is to be said about the pacing of the film. When you take away the excitement of the arena from the weakest entry of the Hunger Games series, then split that story in half to make two separate films, I wholeheartedly expected the film to be a comparative letdown. And while virtually no case can be made against the statement that both of Mockingjay's prequels are better movies, it's commendable that director Francis Lawrence and screenwriters Danny Strong and Peter Craig were able to balance action sequences with pivotal character moments and necessary storytelling so effectively. Not once could I say I was bored, although to be fair, I wasn't able to say I was as entertained as I was during either of the first two films.

One aspect that wasn't explored as much as I expected (or wanted) was the Peeta-Katiss-Gale love triangle. This will definitely be looked into more in the final entry, but while there were certainly sparks in the districts, there weren't that many between Katniss and Gale, which seriously had me doubting my #TeamGale stance. And another thing - I definitely could've gotten on with more screen time for Effie and Haymitch, who, thanks to portrayers Banks and Harrelson, are able to bring comic relief to an otherwise serious franchise so effortlessly.

Although the content of this movie varies from its predecessors, it has at least one thing in common with them - it was too short. As a result of its split into two parts, Mockingjay - Part 1 felt very much like an incomplete story. I firmly believe this split was non-essential, and while they were able to take their time, develop a respectable pace, and explore the characters thoroughly, I do think it could have been done just as well in one single, two-and-a-half hour movie. Maybe my opinion will be different after I see Part 2 (if you recall, I was wrong the last time I wrote a review of a Hunger Games film), but just a reminder, the last Lord of the Rings movie wasn't split into two parts, and it won Best Picture.

Rating: 3.5/5

'71

A mild disclaimer before I start this review: '71 is not yet playing in theaters outside of the UK…so take that for what it is. Anyways, on to the review of the movie you probably won't ever see!

IndieWire

From what I saw in this movie, 1971 wasn't the best time to join the army. Gary Hook (Jack O'Connell, star of the upcoming Unbroken) apparently had a different idea, and enlists during the time of the ultimate Protestant/Catholic religious turmoil in Northern Ireland. After his troop's deployment from Great Britain, Gary becomes separated from his brothers in arms when a riot in the center of Belfast goes violently awry. With most of the city eager to put a bullet in his head, Gary struggles to survive the night and find an ally who can help get him back to his barracks.

'71's action sequences can be frustrating, to say the least. While the film jumps right into action after ten minutes or so, and the realistic bombardment of violence more than captivates, it's hard to keep focus on the deadly haywire when the filmmakers decide to go for a shaky cam approach. It may have been done to add the appropriate sense of urgency, but I paid for a ticket to '71, not Cloverfield. The approach didn't work for The Hunger Games, and it didn't help much here either.

On top of that, I've always found action sequences to be more gripping when we care about the characters who might be dying during them. '71 sacrificed sufficient character establishment in order to throw us right into the action, and while this did make it stand out from other films of its kind, I never really got the answers I was looking for regarding the players. All we really know about Gary is that he's from Great Britain and has a younger brother, and aside from that, his life's story is anybody's guess. Oh, and the other characters? Forget about their back stories and motivations as well. "Who are the two red-headed guys? And are they good or bad?" I guess I'll never know the detailed answers to those questions. (Side note: the accents were very strong in this movie, and the dialogue was a bit mumbly. Had I watched this at home with subtitles, the character's decisions and words might've been a bit clearer).

Still, much is to be said about the originality the film took in its approach. When the camera holds steady, you'll see that '71 has some of the most jaw-droppingly graphic war scenes since Black Hawk Down, which usually show up abruptly and hold nothing back. What really makes the film worthy of your time is its underlying messages about violence and war relating to children.

Gary is probably around 18 or 19, and so when a Belfast citizen intervenes when a group of town members are savagely beating him and his comrade, proclaiming that they're young enough to be the attackers' own sons, that was my first clue. But from the moment the camera takes us to Belfast, we see kids around the age of six or seven leaning over a fence, cursing, yelling, and throwing things at our heroes. One kid steals a machine gun, while another who is out far past his bedtime drinks from a pint in the bar and loses both his arms in an explosion that almost takes his life, all because he wanted to be apart of what was going on around him. We are also exposed to another character, Shaun (probably in his early teens), who is seen abandoning his family's home to help find and kill Gary. Immediately following this, we see his sister stop drawing a flower with her colored pencil, and get up from the table she was using. The camera waits just long enough to see the pencil fall off the table, and if that's not a direct message about the literal fall of innocence during times of war, I must be reading the movie all wrong.

With its messages, atmosphere, and (usually) visionary action scenes, '71 stands out in the large canon of pre-existing war films. While the characters and cinematography were a letdown, the film's authenticity was enough to save it.

Rating: 4/5

Gone Girl

IndieWire

Director David Fincher once again invites viewers into his signature universe with Gone Girl. He, along with his actors, create one of the year's most immersive motion pictures, exploring such themes as commitment, betrayal, instability, and even media saturation. In Gone Girl, Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) becomes the subject to a barrage of murder accusations following the disappearance of his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) on the couple's fifth wedding anniversary.

Like any marriage gone wrong, Nick and Amy's started on the highest of highs, only to be brought down by overexposure to each other, a lack of effort, the recession, lost jobs, and a move from NYC to Nick's hometown in Missouri. While Nick opens up a bar with his twin sister Margo and teaches as a professor to make ends meet, Amy stays home, mostly keeping to herself. Nick's distant and erratic behavior begins to disturb Amy, and she starts to fear for her safety being under the same roof as her husband.

Nick is adamant about his innocence in his wife's disappearance, but news coverage from the media convinces the entire country that Nick a sociopath who killed his wife. The cops hesitate to believe Nick as well, and soon, almost everyone is calling for his arrest. The only ones who seems to believe Nick are Margo, his college-aged mistress Andie, and his lawyer (Tyler Perry). Nick looks for answers as to what happened to his wife, even checking in on Amy's ex-boyfriend Desi (Neil Patrick Harris, in an impressively dramatic turn for the actor).

In an unexpected move, the story reveals what the circumstances surrounding Amy's disappearance relatively early, a decision I was at first skeptical about. However, the story went in an interesting direction from that point, emerging from a mystery film to a psychological thriller. There was a hair-raising moment every time you began to realize the pacing was a bit slow, ranging from a scene where detectives find out Amy planned to purchase a gun for her safety to a scene involving a bed, a box cutter, and quite a lot of blood.

Had the filmmakers been more fearless, Gone Girl would have been even higher on the list of the most disturbing films of recent years than it already is. Rosamund Pike was intimidatingly stoic in the moments showing Amy's collected state of insanity, but the actress fell short in the moments when she should've delivered a more impending and haunting performance. Affleck's performance is one of the main reasons to go see the film, as it's arguably the actor-director-producer's best on-screen work yet.

Fincher directs movies that are rife with subtlety (with the exception of Fight Club), and this subtlety has always been a bit too strong for my liking. I applaud the filmmaker for constructing the movie in a thought-provoking manner, but I always felt like his stories could be even more immersive than they already are. In other words, sometimes I like my movies with a bit of substance with its style. Gone Girl had both, as well as strong characters and an extraordinarily unsettling atmosphere, but the pacing and heavily dialogue-driven plot could have been approached differently. At the end, though, it's all worth it, and Gone Girl is one brilliantly twisted movie that fills its two and a half hour run time effectively.

Rating: 4/5

The Maze Runner

CinemaBlend

Welcome to The Glade. It's a huge field surrounded by giant walls, where an underground elevator delivers supplies, food, and a new addition to the community. One day, the elevator brings up Thomas (Dylan O'Brien). Like everyone in The Glade, he remembers nothing about his life before entering The Glade, but it soon informed of the situation by his companions.

The Glade is actually the center of a giant maze. For three years, a chosen few run out to the maze every day to try and find an exit from their prison. The passage from the maze to The Glade closes every night, where giant, spider-like killing machines, known as "Grievers" (kind of like metallic Shelobs from Lord of the Rings), are released. Thomas starts questioning their purpose for being trapped in the maze, and begins investigating a bit too zealously for the liking of The Glade's other inhabitants.

As Thomas uncovers a few clues about their prison, he starts to show skill in the maze, so much so that he's promoted to be a maze runner. He also befriends the group's leader Alby and fellow runner Minho but quickly butts heads with Gally, a character who might just be the biggest jock d-bag in this dystopian universe. Thomas's discoveries soon lead to death, confusion, and destruction within The Glade, and even more eyebrows raise when the newest arrival, Teresa, recognizes Thomas by name.

The Maze Runner doesn't answer all the questions it poses, which hits as a "whoa…wait a minute!" moment when you walk out of the theater. It is a functional mystery, however, and manages to build suspense, both immediate and long-term. The characters don't stand out too much, and the story itself is so-so, but the movie covers its weaker components with an impressive Hollywood-esque action movie pace, a few surprising twists towards the ending (although one too-similarly evokes a scene from The Hunger Games… there's even a spear involved), and some pretty great performances.

Will Poutler (We're the Millers) surprised me with his screen time as Gally - his accent was unnoticeable but his intimidating presence sure was. Teen heartthrob Dylan O'Brien (TV's "Teen Wolf") is trusted to hold the film on his shoulders, and while he sold me Thomas, he definitely shows promise for better performances than this one. Blake Cooper's portrayal as the youngest member of The Glade's community, Chuck, adds heart (and even a bit of comic relief) to the film. But the film's best actor is Thomas Brodie-Sangster ("Game of Thrones"/Love Actually). Sangster's confidence as an actor exudes in his performance as Newt - it's clear this is what he was born to do, and he knows it.

It's nothing spectacular, but The Maze Runner is a solid and consistent Saturday-afternoon matinee flick, filled with mystery that intrigues and a few hit-or-miss suspenseful action sequences. The ending makes you feel like you made a good choice going to see The Maze Runner, and what can I say? I am pretty excited for the sequel.

Rating: 3.5/5

The Equalizer

http://www.flickeringmyth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/
the-equalizer-denzel-washington-martin-csokas.jpg

Martin Csokas and Denzel Washington play perfect adversaries in The Equalizer.

The Equalizer is just an R-rated Taken with Denzel Washington that, frankly, isn't as good. It has some well-executed moments and, what I would argue to be, one awards-worthy performance. But The Equalizer felt empty at times, and the movie's hits don't always make up for its misses.

Denzel Washington plays Robert "Bob" McCall, a hardware store manager who isn't very open about his past. The movie sets him up as an all-around good guy. He's overly friendly to his staff, volunteers his time to help a co-worker meet his goal of becoming a security guard, and befriends and life-coaches a young Russian-American prostitute named Alina (Chloë Grace Moretz). After Alina's pimps beats her up to make an example of her, Bob tries to buy her out, but her boss won't hear of it. In retaliation, Bob kills them all using his particular set of skills. His actions lead to the head of the Russian mob sending ruthless hitman Teddy (Martin Csokas) to even the score with McCall. McCall spends the rest of the film responding to each threat in an increasingly violent way.

The movie tries to sell an inventive approach, and overall, is enjoyable. Washington and Moretz, as expected, continue to impress with their acting abilities, and in their early scenes together, showcase a unique on-screen chemistry together. Bob's range of weapons throughout the movie varies from a shot glass, to a corkscrew, to a barbed wire noose, and a few others that I'll save for your soon-to-be-bewildered eyes. The movie's style definitely has its appeal, but the real reason to go see The Equalizer is to see Csokas's performance as Teddy.

Teddy is one of the most interesting and complex characters I've seen in an action movie, and Csokas grasps his inner insanity flawlessly. In one of the most suspenseful scenes of the year, he builds up a prostitute's murder in a room full of killing opportunities, finally taking her in the way you'd at first least suspect. He plays off as Robert's perfect adversary, which Robert himself acknowledges. Both seem to have the contradiction of complimentary compulsiveness and methodology. Robert is aware of this trait and even shows remorse after killing four hardened criminals. Teddy embraces it, making him all the more terrifying. If anything in this movie is worth noting, it's the perfectly matched minds of these two men.

Sometimes the movie gets lost in its style, especially in its second half. Alina basically disappears until the final scene, which even though partially makes sense storywise, was a bit of a letdown seeing as she was the whole reason the movie's conflict started. Towards the end, you might ask yourself who Robert really is and what the true secret of his past exactly was, because even though it's hinted at, it's never explicitly stated. You might wonder why he blows up a giant boat aside from the special effects show that follows. You might wonder precisely he's fighting for after a certain point and why and how he got himself so deep into the conflict. And most importantly, you might be wondering why he's even called the equalizer, since no one even refers to him as that in the movie.

The Equalizer is good by modern-day action movie standards, but I'd gladly take Die Hard or Air Force One over this any day. Its style kept my attention mostly focused, but with its countless subplots and lack of clear direction, it was easy to lose interest, and had it not been for the characters and their portrayers, it would've been a lot easier.

Rating: 3/5