Feb 27, 2014

Oscar Predictions 2014



On Sunday, the Academy Awards ceremony airs on ABC at 8:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Having reviewed all but one film nominated for Best Picture -- that film being "Philomena" because it never came to my area -- I decided to write my predictions for who will win this year.


First of all, know that what I think and what the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences thinks are very different. According to Oscars.org, the awards are decided among people in the Academy. These are people who actually work in the film industry, who know exactly what it takes to make great movies.


I myself am just a film critic, an outside observer. I can speculate -- having seen a lot of movies -- but I do not know exactly what professionals who make the films think. I will do my best to put myself in the shoes of those who decide on the awards, but my own biases will also be there.


Another thing to note is I am not listing every single award. There are areas, such as costume design and film editing, that I know very little about.

For each category I will both make my prediction and say which film I would like to see win. Most of the time I agree with what I think will win, but I also want to give an honorable mention.


Writing Original Screenplay


Nominees: Erick Warren Singer and David O. Russel for "American Hustle”; Woody Allen for “Blue Jasmine"; Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack for “Dallas Buyers Club”; Spike Jonze for “Her”; Bob Nelson for “Nebraska”


Who will probably win: Spike Jonze for “Her

Who I would like to see win: Spike Jonze for "Her"


When I first heard of this film, I thought it sounded very weird. However, I started seeing excellent ratings for the film, and when it came to my area, I had to see it.


The script is so well-written and the characters so well-developed that it makes a very odd concept believable. The story is ultimately about a man who has an intimate relationship with his computer in a not-too-distant future in which artificial intelligence is perfectly possible. That definitely sounds like a stupid premise, but once the computer starts talking, I could see why he would fall in love with “her.”


Writing Adapted Screenplay:


Nominees: Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke for “Before Midnight"; Billy Ray for “Captain Phillips”; Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope for “Philomena”; John Ridley for “12 Years a Slave”; and Terence Winter for “The Wolf of Wall Street”


Who will probably win: Terence Winter for “The Wolf of Wall Street

Who I would like to see win: Terence Winter for "The Wolf of Wall Street"

The film is about the rise and fall of a very shady Wall Street tycoon named Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio). While it was very long winded -- at just over three hours -- and filled with a little too much sex and nudity for my taste, the way it was written is very interesting. The dialogue is very witty, and it is one of those movies that knows it is a movie.

DiCaprio’s character breaks the fourth wall to talk to the audience in several scenes. His language is very conversational, and it is easy to see why people would fall for his charm. The film shows how despicable he is, but the dialogue is strong enough to where he is still likeable.

Visual Effects:

Nominees: Tim Webber, Chris Lawrence, David Shirk and Neil Corbould for "Gravity"; Joe Letteri, Eric Saindon, David Clayton and Eric Reynolds for "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"; Christopher Townsend, Guy Williams, Erik Nash and Dan Sudick for "Iron Man 3"; Tim Alexander, Gary Brozenich, Edson Williams and John Frazier for "The Lone Ranger"; Roger Guyett, Patrick Tubach, Ben Grossmann and Burt Dalton for "Star Trek: Into Darkness"

Who will probably win: Tim Webber, Chris Lawrence, David Shirk and Neil Corbould for "Gravity"

"Gravity" is entirely set in space around Earth's orbit. There are a lot of awesome visuals of explosions, stars in the distance and even lights on the surface. It all looks very real. There is no moment where I think it looks like CGI.

Who I would like to see win: Joe Letteri, Eric Saindon, David Clayton and Eric Reynolds for "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"

I won't be disappointed to see "Gravity" win, but "The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug" features the most awesome, menacing dragon I have ever seen. The trailers do not do justice to the sheer enormity of him, and that combined with the voice of Benedict Cumberbatch makes him incredibly scary.

Music Original Song:

Nominees: "Ordinary Love" from "Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom"; "The Moon Song" from "Her"; "Let it Go" from "Frozen"; "Happy" from "Despicable Me 2"

What will probably win: "Let it Go" from "Frozen"

I actually had to look up the other songs because this is the only one out of the list I actually recognized. It has become incredibly popular. Anyone who spends any time on social media has seen several different covers, only one of which I think does any justice to the original song.

What I would like to see win: "Happy" from "Despicable Me 2"

This song has recently come on the radio station I listen to, but I had no idea it came from "Despicable Me 2." Every time I hear it, I feel the exact emotion described by its title. As good as "Let it Go" is, I am rooting for this one partly because I really like it and partly because I am a little tired of seeing all the covers from "Frozen's" song.

Cinematography

Nominees: Philippe Le Sourd for "The Grandmaster"; Emmanuel Lubezki for "Gravity"; Bruno Delbonnel for "Inside Llewyn Davis"; Phedon Papamichael for "Nebraska"; Roger A. Deakins for "Prisoners"

Who will probably win: Emmanuel Lubezki for "Gravity"

Part of what makes this film so great is the look of it. There are a lot of beautiful shots of earth and space as mentioned under "visual effects."

Who I would like to see win: Phedon Papamichael for "Nebraska"

Part of the charm from this movie is it is completely done in black-and-white. Despite this there are some very creative shots throughout. It makes a statement that a film can look interesting without color.

Animated Feature Film:

Nominees: “The Croods”; “Despicable Me 2”; “Ernest & Celestine”; “Frozen”; “The Wind Rises”

What will probably win: “Frozen”

What I would like to see win: "Frozen"

“Frozen” seems like a no-brainer to me. The animation is very well-done, the comedy is very funny and the story has the best message I have seen come from a Disney princess movie. Furthermore, it is amazingly popular among audiences. It has made over $985 million worldwide.

Actress in a Supporting Role:

Nominees: Lupita Nyong’o for “12 Years a Slave”; Jennifer Lawrence for “American Hustle”; Sally Hawkins for “Blue Jasmine”; Julia Roberts for “August: Osage County”; June Squibb for “Nebraska”

Who will probably win: Jennifer Lawrence for “American Hustle

Who I would like to see win: Jennifer Lawrence for "American Hustle"

It is just amazing to see the range of Jennifer Lawrence’s acting. She does an excellent job as Katniss Everdeen in “The Hunger Games” films, which is a very different character from who she plays in “American Hustle.” In that film, she is a dim-witted housewife who is constantly messing everything up. This makes for some very funny moments, and she is the best part of the show.

Actress in a Leading Role:

Nominees: Amy Adams for “American Hustle”; Cate Blanchett for “Blue Jasmine”; Sandra Bullock for “Gravity”; Judi Dench for “Philomena”; Meryl Streep for “August: Osage County”

Who will probably win: Cate Blanchett for "Blue Jasmine"

I honestly have never seen this movie, so I cannot say too much about it. However, I have heard about her delivering an outstanding performance in it. I took the liberty of looking up a few clips on YouTube, and she is pretty good. I know her as the lady Galadriel from "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, and the difference between her and Jasmine is like night and day.

Who I would like to see win: Sandra Bullock for “Gravity”

This would not be an easy role to do. For a big chunk of the film, Bullock’s character is alone trying to navigate through space with nothing but her spacesuit. She pulls it off so believably that I would not be surprised to find out the movie really was filmed in space. Her performance is so intense that I was at the edge of my seat whenever she was on-screen alone. The other star of the film, George Clooney, is very needed to calm everything down.

Actor in a Supporting Role

Nominees: Barkhad Abdi for “Captain Phillips”; Bradley Cooper for “American Hustle”; Michael Fassbender for “12 Years a Slave”; Jared Leto for “Dallas Buyers Club”; and Jonah Hill for “The Wolf of Wall Street”

Who will probably win: Jared Leto for “Dallas Buyers Club

Jared Leto plays a transgendered man who has AIDS. I admit that I have not seen a lot of portrayals of transgendered people, but this one is very easy to sympathize with no matter how conservative one is. He sells himself as someone who identifies as a woman so well, that I actually thought he was one at first.

Who I would like to see win: Barkhad Abdi for "Captain Phillips"

I still would like to see Leto win, but I am also rooting for Abdi. He does a phenomenal job being a menacing, yet sympathetic, Somalian pirate. This is the only film he is in, which makes him all the more amazing. Furthermore, he is a very charming young man. Just watch this interview with him and Conan O'Brien to see what I mean.

Actor in a Leading Role

Nominees: Matthew McConaughey for “Dallas Buyers Club”; Leonardo DiCaprio for “The Wolf of Wall Street”; Chiwetel Ejiofor for “12 Years a Slave”; Bruce Dern for “Nebraska”; Christian Bale for “American Hustle”

Who will probably win: Matthew McConaughey for “Dallas Buyers Club”

McConaughey definitely deserves it this year. One of the first scenes is him in a room with some other men. I was super confused at first because I knew the film starred him, but I was not sure which one he was. Not only does he do a great job in his portrayal of a bigoted, white, trailer-trash hick, he does this while also portraying a man who is sick with AIDS. There is also a very interesting dynamic he has towards the transgendered man played by Leto. At first, he is unfriendly towards the character, but the relationship changes throughout the film in a very believable and satisfying way.

Who I want to see win: Leonardo DiCaprio for "The Wolf of Wall Street"

I still would like seeing MConaughey win, but DiCaprio does an awesome job "The Wolf of Wall Street." He has been nominated three other times without winning. He is an all-around amazing actor who deserves an Oscar!

Directing:

Nominees: Martin Scorsese for “The Wolf of Wall Street”; Steve McQueen for “12 Years a Slave”; Alexander Payne for “Nebraska”; Alfonso Cuarón for “Gravity”; David O. Russell for “American Hustle”

Who will probably win: Steve McQueen for “12 Years a Slave

Who I would like to see win: Steve McQueen for "12 Years a Slave"

McQueen’s direction for this film is uncomfortable to watch, which is one of the reasons the film is so great. It is about a very serious issue that needs to be remembered so we, as human beings, do not do it again. One particularly memorable scene is a long, several-several minute shot of a man standing in a very precarious position trying to survive.

Best Picture:

Nominees: “American Hustle,” “Captain Phillips,” “Dallas Buyers Club,” “Gravity,” “Her,” “Nebraska,” “Philomena,” “12 Years a Slave” and “The Wolf of Wall Street”

What will probably win: “Dallas Buyers Club”

This is a very hard choice for me. While some of these films are better than others, it all came down to five for me. Those were “Dallas Buyers Club,” “Gravity,” “Her,” and “12 Years a Slave.” If “Dallas Buyers Club” does not win, I am confident it will be one of those five.

While “Dallas Buyers Club” is not the best constructed movie, it is very eye-opening and socially relevant. It deals with AIDS in the 1980s, when it was still newly discovered. It discusses the incorrect assumption people had at the time that only homosexuals could have it, and it goes into how unfair the Food and Drug Administration can be. Furthermore, it portrays homosexuals very tastefully. They are very human in this film, and this fact is not polarizing no matter what political orientation one may have. Overall, I walked out of the theatre after seeing this one with the feeling that I had learned a lot.

What I would like to see win: "Her"

"Her" is a near-perfectly constructed film. Writer/director Spike Jonze created a futuristic world that looks like how things will be in the next 20 years. The dialogue is witty, the story is fascinating and there is an awesome overlying message about how relationships work that I had never thought about before.


A version of this article was originally published in "The Utah Statesman," a student-run newspaper at Utah State University on February 27, 2014.

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Feb 26, 2014

"Pompeii" Review

Pompeii is not the best movie ever, but I would probably see it again.

The fact that it is very different from most disaster movies makes it very fun to watch. I am admittedly not an expert on them, but from what I have seen, they are often set in the present day with a scientist as the protagonist. There is usually a leading lady as well, and they set out to either warn people of an imminent threat, they want to study it or they want to stop it -- which was the case in "The Core."

Coming into this film, I was very curious to see how there is a film about Pompeii. It is set a couple millennia ago, so I doubt there were scientists who knew about it and tried to warn the people. There is also no way to actually stop a volcano, so it could not be about that. In fact, it is well known that Mount Vesuvius did erupt, and that the city right under it was completely covered in ash.

Instead of sticking to the same formula, the film simply tells the story of a Celtic man named Milo (Kit Harington) who is the only survivor of a genocide committed by the ruthless Roman senator, Corvus (Kiefer Sutherland). Milo was a child when this happened, and now he is a slave who fights as a gladiator.

He and a big group of other slaves go to Pompeii, a large city at the base of a volcano, to fight each other. During the time he is there, Corvus comes to watch, not knowing who Milo is.

The story is written well enough to where I found myself wanting to know what will happen. This is especially true with the relationship between Milo and Atticus (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), another gladiator who is to fight him to the death. At first, Milo is cold towards him, but their relationship changes throughout the film. It is involving in that it presents a certain curiosity as to who is going to win the fight and what is going to happen when the volcano explodes.

Though Kiefer Sutherland's voice is very distracting in an English accent -- which come to find out is natural for him -- he does a great job playing the villain. There is no disputing that he is a one-dimensional, Saturday-morning-cartoon character, but he is very entertaining to watch especially at his most vile.

The main problem with this film is there really is not a lot of set-up for what it wants to be. It starts off as a film about gladiators and politics, and it ends up being about revenge. The revenge plot is not as powerful as it should be because Milo does not announce any desire to avenge his people. There is also a hint that those in the city believe the volcano is the gods being angry, but that is not discussed enough for a certain line at the end to payoff as much as it wanted to -- though I still
thought that line was pretty cool.

Overall, I'm giving this four out of five stars. I know it has been slammed by a lot of critics with only a 27% on Rotten Tomatoes. Though I acknowledge that it is not the perfect movie, it is entertaining enough to where I would recommend it in theatres.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is fake-looking blood on swords. Stabbings are shown after they happen. One scene shows a man's bloodied back after he is whipped. There are brief glimpses of people burning in ash. There is one scene of brief sexual content in which some women are inspecting the slaves. The film never says what they are doing exactly, but I think they are buying the slaves for an evening.


For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Feb 24, 2014

"3 Days to Kill" Review


When "3 Days to Kill" throws down a punch, it throws it down. However, it is not clear whether it wants to be an action movie or a family drama.

The film opens up to a mission in which CIA agents Ethan Renner (Kevin Costner) and Vivi Delay (Amber Heard) have to take out two baddies known as "The Wolf" (Richard Sammel) and "The Albino" (Tómas Lemarquis). They are to do this while some kind of deal happens in a hotel. 

Everything goes wrong, and the scene intensifies. Ethan Renner shows his sharp shooting skills as he fires with excellent precision. He is almost invincible in that he always gets out of tight spots.

Kevin Costner does an excellent job at selling himself as this type of hero. He is reminiscent of Liam Neeson in "Taken." There are moments where it seems impossible for him to get out of a particular situation. At the same time it is obvious he will, but how he will is why it is so much fun to watch.

Even though he can defeat any bad guy, he has one weakness: sickness. It is this that ensures the bad guys get away. He finds out later that he has cancer, and that he has just a few months to get his affairs in order before he dies.

It is then that the film becomes more of a family drama than an action-espionage film. Being a CIA agent, Renner had left his wife and daughter years ago. Now that he is dying, he wants to reconcile with them. The story ends up being about how he gets to know his daughter, Zoey (Hailee Steinfeld), a troublesome teenage girl with abandonment issues.

While this is happening, he takes a job from Vivi, the CIA agent who was supposed to take out "The Wolf." Her target got away, and now she wants Ethan to do the job. His reward for doing so is an experimental drug that is supposed to prolong his life.

Vivi is the main thing that is wrong with this film. The character is over-the-top and tries to be seductive. Rather than adding a sense of "hotness," she is out-of-place and awkward. She is more of a parody than a believable character. I honestly cannot tell whether this is the fault of the writing, directing or overacting. It is probably all of the above.

A lot of the comedy comes from Ethan trying to get information vital to finding Wolf while bonding with his daughter. There are several scenes in which his daughter calls while he is on the job. The film plays off the fact that those working for the bad guys are normal family men as Ethan asks for their advice on what to do with his daughter.

The reason I have been saying "bad guys" in this review is that is the best way to describe them. They are not meant to be very well developed. In fact, they are usually pretty quiet. The movie focuses less on them and more on how he develops a relationship with his family. The moments he spends with his wife and daughter are hit and miss. Sometimes they are very sweet, and other times his daughter annoys me.

I give this movie four out of five stars. It does have its flaws in that it is not very consistent on what it wants to be. Despite this, it all works together along with some very fun action scenes to make an overall enjoyable film.

Rating: Rated PG-13. There is moderate language. one "F" word is spoken and another one is in subtitles while some characters are speaking another language. There is a lot of action violence throughout, but nothing gory. There are also a few scenes of sensuality. In a couple scenes there is partial nudity showing the top of women's buttocks.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Feb 16, 2014

"RoboCop" Review

On the surface, "RoboCop" is just an exciting action/sci-fi, but it goes deeper than that. It is a dark satire about corporate manipulation.

In the future, a company called Omnicorp is trying to get legislation passed in the United States allowing robots to patrol the streets as police officers. The corporation makes its money by designing and building this new form of law enforcement that is being used in other countries.

The heads of the company realize that in order to get this legislation passed, the public needs to see they are doing something moral. Though the argument is that the country would be safer because robots do not discriminate, there is controversy over the fact that they do not have any feelings. If one of them were to kill a child, it would not feel remorse. Omnicorp wants to appease these concerns by combining man with machine. It will have all the analytic abilities and strength of a robot, but it will also have the feelings of a person.

Alex Murphy (Joel Kinnaman) is the person the company decides to create their half-human machine out of. He is a cop who went undercover to take out a criminal known as Antoine Vallon (Patrick Garrow). When Vallon finds out Murphy was after him, he sends people to kill him. They plant an explosive in his car, and he get seriously injured.

Omnicorp's manipulative tactics are shown as they try to get permission from his wife, Clara (Abbie Cornish) to operate on him. Dr. Norton (Gary Oldman), the one who is to perform the operation on Murphy, tells Clara of all the medical complications that the explosion caused. While in a vulnerable state, Omnicorp's heads tell her they can save him, but they need her consent before it is too late. Of course, they are not really interested in helping her family. They are thinking only of themselves as they give her a sense of urgency to act.

Further corruption is shown through the news coverage. The film actually begins on a news show called "The Novak Element," a parody of "The O'Reilly Factor" that is run by Pat Novak (Samuel L. Jackson). Novak has the same agenda as Omnicorp: he wants legislation passed that would let robots patrol America. He uses distorted footage and information to prove his point that the country would be so much safer.

It is never explicitly stated, but my own personal theory is the reason for his view on robots is because Omnicorp is paying him off. The reason I think this is because the fact that media is run by companies that are out to make money is a topic that is under a lot of discussion. Often, what the news says is not what the public needs to hear but what the corporations want people to believe.

I saw the original film about one year ago, and it was very fun to watch. Part its charm comes from its age. There was not a lot of technology at the time to make a robot move quickly. In that movie, Murphy walks loud, slow strides in straight lines. When he needs to switch directions, he turns his head left or right -- creating a mechanical sound -- and walks that way. This lack of pace is made up by violent, brutal action scenes.

Coming into this film, I was a little skeptical. There is no way it could top the original. Where that one was slow moving, this one is quick. Where that one was R, this one is PG-13. I was pleasantly surprised. While it does not show as much bloody violence, the action it does have still maintains some of its brutality. It simply leaves more to the imagination. This one is not necessarily better than the original, but I would argue that it is not worse either.

A big difference between this and its predecessor is the nature of Murphy's consciousness. In the first one, he does not say very much. Everyone thinks he was completely taken over by a machine, but later on, it is apparent that Murphy is still there. In this one, he is cognizant of what is happening, and he is capable of communicating with everyone.

I personally like both approaches. In the first film, his lack of communication adds intrigue. He is the silent hero, and this has audience guessing whether or not he knows about his existence. In this version,   it is interesting to see how his knowledge of what is happening affects his psyche.

The action scenes are fun to watch. The one that sticks out to me involves Murphy fighting in the dark. It is something that has already been done in other films, but the way it was shot and edited is enjoyable to see.

The main problem with this movie is some of the characters are not written very well. For example, the character Rick Mattox (Jackie Earle Haley) is supposed to be a person the audience loves to hate. While the actor does a great job, the script really does not do a lot for him to be sincerely hated by anyone but Murphy. He does say some derogatory things to Murphy, but it is not enough for us to hate him. There are some moments that are supposed to be awesome because something happens to him, but they are not as powerful as they should be.


I have the same problem with Alex Murphy's wife, Clara. Abbie Cornish does a fine job with what she has, but all the script gives her is she has to always be serious. Even before Alex Murphy has his accident, she is that way. After he gets injured, she just cries in every scene. I understand that it is a traumatic time for her, but the writer and director could have figured out something different for her to do than cry.


I give this film four out of five stars. It has a great satirical element and fun action scenes. I recommend seeing it in theatres.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is moderate language throughout the movie including one F-word and a bleeped out F-word at the end (from television footage). There are a couple disturbing scenes in which the brain and lungs are shown. The film contains mild violence throughout. In the explosion scene, Murphy's burned body is seen from a distance. It is obvious he is injured very badly, but details cannot be scene. Graphic photos of what he looks like before he undergoes the operation are also seen.


For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Feb 9, 2014

"Monuments Men" Review

"Monuments Men" is such an underwhelming film that had it not been for my cousin, Johnny, reminding me, this review would never have been written.

The main concept sounds like it would be more interesting than it really is. A team of art scholars led by  Frank Stokes (George Clooney)  are on a mission to protect art from the Nazis, who are going around various places like churches to steal pieces. Hitler wants to use all of the stolen art to be part of a really big museum.

In all reality, I personally do not see why that is such a bad thing. I mean yeah, it is owned by Hitler, but the ultimate art museum sounds pretty cool to me. This brings me to the main problem with this film. It really does not give the audience any reason to care about the mission. It certainly tries. There are several speeches by Clooney's character in which he talks about how important it is to culture. However, it does not do anything to show why it is important other than art scholars getting excited about art. A way they could have done this better is by showing normal people being deeply affected by the fact that the art was stolen.

Another problem with this movie, is it really does not utilize its extremely talented cast. It has George Clooney, Bill Murray, Matt Damon and John Goodman. All of them are perfectly capable of producing good comedy. While there are some good comedic moments -- particularly in the beginning -- some of it either falls flat or does not make sense. Furthermore, the script never took time to distinguish the characters from each other. John Goodman's character is not any different from Bill Murray's and those are two very different actors who have very different styles of comedy.

The conflict in this movie is also pretty weak. They simply need to find where the Nazis are hiding the art before they...put it in a museum I guess. At a certain point, the characters find out that Hitler sent a decree for the Nazis to destroy all the art if he dies before the war. Then it becomes them needing to find the art before the dictator dies. Even with this in mind, there is no sense of urgency given to the audience because the movie never gave it a reason to care.

There is another attempt at conflict between James Granger (Matt Damon) and Claire Simone (Cate Blanchett). Granger wants to get some information about the arts, and Simone will not give it to him. Her reasons do not seem very logical. She seems to think the Americans only want the pieces for a museum, which -- unless I missed something -- is not the case. For some reason, Granger never corrects her by saying "No lady, that's not us, that's the Nazis." Don't worry though, the conflict is eventually replaced by some forced sexual tension that comes from out of nowhere.

I will give this film credit. There are some good parts. One in particular is when Granger steps on a mine. This scene is introduced in the trailer, and it is pretty intense. Had the rest of the film been like it, this movie would have received a better rating from me.

I give it two out of five stars. You do not need to go out of your way to see it. However, it is not mind-numbingly stupid. It is just kind of boring.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is some shooting violence with some blood shown afterwards (no blood splatters like many R rated films do). There is mild language.


For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Feb 7, 2014

"The Lego Movie" Review

If it were possible for a movie to drink five gallons of pure caffeine, I would say "The Lego Movie" did just that.

It is a fast-paced, high-energy film set in a world made up entirely of Legos. This includes everything from houses and roads to fire and water. Whenever a machine explodes, it appears as a cluster of red and orange pieces. It was made through a mixture of stop-motion animation and CGI. The result is the most visually appealing animated feature since "The Nightmare Before Christmas."

Watching the story unfold is like watching a child come up with it while playing with toys. There is a point to this that becomes apparent in the end. While it is simple, it is far from dumb. It is tightly written, the characters are well-developed and it strongly teaches that living life to its fullest involves being creative and true to oneself. Furthermore, it heavily implies that this creative individuality is how Legos should be used.

The voice of Emmet, the main character, is "Parks and Recreation's" Chris Pratt. There could not have been a better fit. In the NBC sitcom, he is Andy, a big goof who people do not take seriously. In "The Lego Movie," no one -- including him -- thinks he will ever amount to anything. There is only one original idea he has ever had, and to everyone else it is a stupid one. However, it eventually proves useful.

As the story progresses, he comes to the realization of what makes him unique and what his value is. Emmet becomes very useful in the resistance against Lord Business (voiced by Will Ferrell), an evil dictator who wants everything to stay the same. He gives everyone a set of instructions everyday telling them how to live their lives. His evil plan is to unleash the ultimate weapon called the "Kragle," which ensures that no one does anything unpredictable ever again.

This potentially dark concept is done with surprising lightheartedness. Everyone the villain rules is excited and happy all the time. The problem with the way these characters live is their individuality is stifled. They are not able to express themselves or explore their creativity. They live their days ignorant of the fact that their lives could be so much better.

The jokes in this movie are very witty. Some are situational and others are funny because of the characters. Some of the most hilarious moments involve DC superheroes like Batman, Superman and the Green Lantern. This film is one of the funniest parodies of Gotham City's hero. He is portrayed as an overly confident jerk who always throws his personal problems in people's face.

I give this movie five out of five stars. It will one day join the ranks as one of the great American animated classics. It is definitely worth seeing at full price in the theatre. Words cannot give it justice. In order to understand why it is so good, it needs to be seen.

Content: Rated PG. There are some mild innuendos that will go over children's heads. The only language is comprised of words like "gosh" and "dang."

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Feb 6, 2014

"Dallas Buyers Club" Review

"Dallas Buyers Club" is a socially-relevant film that discusses important issues of government regulation.

It is set in the 1980s, when the world did not know a lot about HIV/AIDS. In fact, when Ron Woodruff (Matthew McConaghey) -- a white piece of trailer trash addicted to sex and drugs -- finds out he has it, he does not believe the doctors. He is under the impression that only homosexuals had it, and so are his neighbors.

When Woodruff is told he has HIV, the doctor says he only has 30 days to live. Desperate to prolong his life, he illegally buys a medication known as AZT, which is being tested by the FDA. It is successful, but it takes a toll on his overall health. In fact, the administration's study proves that it does work, but it never measured long-term effects. Based on this evidence alone, the drug is approved, and it is what doctors recommend for their patients.

Woodruff finds medication that does not have those long-term effects. They are not illegal drugs. They are mostly vitamins, but they are not approved by the FDA, which means they cannot be sold in the United States. He knows a lot of people like him who would pay a lot to have this medication. He figures out a loophole to get rich in exchange for the product. He has AIDS victims pay $400 a month to be in a club. These people in turn get all the medication they need for free.

The conflict of the film comes from the FDA finding ways to shut down his business. The audience never gets to see the administration's side of the story, but it is implied that the power it has is too much. It only regulates what it wants to. If a pharmaceutical company wants to sell a drug legally within the United States, it must go through the FDA. In order for this to happen, the company must pay the administration.

The film points this out by asking the question "If the product is beneficial, why is the FDA not willing to approve it?" It also addresses the fact that while important drugs are being tested, people are dying from not having access to them.

Another important issue this film discusses is that of acceptance towards homosexuals. There is a gay transgender person named Rayon (Jared Leto), who is also diagnosed with AIDS. At first, Woodruff meets the man with hostility. He does not want anything to do with Rayon. However, as the story progresses, they develop a friendship.

The thing I like about this subplot is that it is done very tastefully. It refuses to be polarizing by addressing gay marriage or featuring homoerotic scenes. However, it shows that homosexuals are people. They need to be treated with respect, friendship and love.

Matthew McConaghey does an excellent job at playing Ron Woodruff. It is amazing how great he has done in 2013. He played the title-character in the critically acclaimed "Mud," and he was my favorite thing about "The Wolf of Wall Street." In this film, he believably portrays a very colorful character, who is being killed slowly by AIDS.

I give this film five out of five stars. It is well-acted and very informative about issues that should be discussed more.

Content: Rated R. There is quite a bit of language including F-words. A few scenes feature topless nudity and/or scantily clad women. One scene near the beginning shows people about to engage in a three-way. There are a couple other scenes that either show intercourse happening or imply it.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Feb 5, 2014

"Nebraska" Review

Coming into the theatre, I knew nothing about "Nebraska" except that it is nominated for an Oscar. I was in for a surprise. Within the first scene it was apparent that this is different from anything else I have seen in theatres lately: it is black-and-white.

The lack of color is a statement that a film does not need to be vibrant with crazy action and special effects to be visually appealing. It features many beautiful and interesting shots. Some are visuals of the countryside, and others simply show dialogue from unique angles. In some scenes, the way the camera is situated makes it impossible to see who is talking without physically moving your eyes.

Aside from being black-and-white, everything else is modern, showing everything from flat-screen televisions to new cars. This contrast between the lack of color -- which is how a lot of older films are -- and being set in the present day is in itself a statement about one of the main themes of the movie: generational differences.

This is especially apparent in one scene in which the protagonist, David Grant (Will Forte) is talking with his father, Woody Grant (Bruce Dern), in a bar. The son tries to discuss his relationship problems with his father. When David asks what Woody thinks, he cannot give an appropriate response because the nature of relationships is way different between the two generations. David has been dating his girlfriend for a while, and he does not know whether or not to take it to the next level. Woody, on the other hand, got married to his wife without taking time to get to know her. The result has been an unhappy marriage, but because of how society was at the time, the couple never divorced.

The story is ultimately about hope and humanity. The plot is centered around Woody wanting to go to Lincoln, Nebraska because he wants to exchange a letter he received for the million dollars it "promises" him. Everyone else around him knows that it does not guarantee this, but it is a promotional tool to get people to buy magazine subscriptions. However, the story is not so much about whether or not he will get the money as to what motivates him to want it so much. His life has not always been how he wanted it, and he simply hopes for something better. It is also about David coming to this realization and doing something about it.

I give this movie five out of five stars. It is a simple movie, but that's part of the beauty of it. It does not rely on being vibrant to be a good, interesting film. It makes due with what it has, and the result is an enjoyable film experience.

Content: This film has a very light R rating. It has a moderate amount of language, but it only has two F-words, which I have seen in some PG-13 movies. There is also a moderate amount of sexual content. One scene features a deep cut on a man's head being stitched up by a doctor.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02