"Philomena" Review

The only Oscar nominee for Best Picture I did not get to see before the Academy Awards was "Philomena" because it did not come to my area on time. It arrived about a week later, and over spring break, I had the opportunity to see it. Like "Dallas Buyers Club" this one was eye-opening to me.

Rather than being about AIDS in America, it deals with corruption among Catholic nuns. In the 1950s, Philomena (her younger self played by Sophie Kennedy Clark and the older Philomena played by Judi Dench) is impregnated by a man she is not married to. Shunned by her parents, she seeks help from a convent where the nuns agree to provide basic living needs – including childcare – in exchange for working grueling hours of labor.

However, there is a catch: the nuns are free to give her child up for adoption without consent. Needless to say this happens, and she is never told where her child went. Fifty years go by without her telling anyone until she discloses the story to her daughter, who gets in contact with a bitter, out-of-work journalist named Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan). Seeing that there could be a good story from it, he and Philomena go on an adventure to find out what happened to her long-lost son.

Telling anything more about this movie would give away spoilers. A big part of its entertainment value is finding out what happened. Later on, it is revealed that there are more details to what the nuns did, and it makes them look even more awful.

A lot of the film  is about how differently Philomena and Martin Sixsmith look at what the nuns have done. The bitter journalist sees it as a reason to hate God, and he goes through several rants about why this makes it easy for him to not believe. Philomena, on the other hand, does not see it that way. Even though her faith is shaken at times because religious people have done bad things, she never loses her belief in God. Without spoiling anything, a major theme ends up being forgiveness.

The problem with this is while the film certainly tries to have an uplifting message, it is not nearly as powerful as it should be. Leaving the theatre, Sixsmith's rants stuck out in my mind more than the message of forgiveness. While the movie does address Philomena's distaste of the journalist's behavior towards other people, it does not seem as obvious as what he says about the nuns. This does not make the film bad at all. It is just a minor nit-pick looking at the film from surface level.

Judi Dench was nominated for Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role in the 2014 Academy Awards for her portrayal of the title character. Having now seen this film, I understand why. She does an outstanding job playing a lovable, forgiving woman, who strives to treat people in the most Christian way possible. This is in stark contrast to the character I know her by: M from the James Bond films. In that franchise, Dench plays a cold, professional woman, who keeps her distance emotionally.

As M, she is more like Steve Coogan's portrayal of Martin Sixsmith. Recently unemployed, he is a bitter man who has learned to keep an emotional distance because of his profession in journalism. Coogan did a great job in his performance.

I give this film four out of five stars. It is definitely worth seeing, but it is not something you need to drop everything to watch right now.

Content: Rated PG-13. Keep in mind, this film was rated R originally before being re-rated on appeals. It was only that rating because it has two "F" words in it. While it does not show anything, the characters do talk about sex two or three times, which includes Philomena talking about how she enjoyed her sexual experience.

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

"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

"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

"The Wolf of Wall Street" Review

After about two hours, the charm "The Wolf of Wall Street" builds up quickly wears down, and there is still one more to go.

Leonardo DiCaprio enthusiastically plays Jordan Belfort, the cocky owner of a multi-billion dollar stock firm. He is a very entertaining character. He is charismatic, he is charming and he is a womanizer. To accurately describe him, think Barney Stinson on drugs.

The beginning of the film is very interesting as it shows how he became a major tycoon from a poor, newly-married, young man. Belfort originally worked on Wall Street, but he lost his job due to the major crash in 1987. He then started selling penny stocks, which is pretty shady because the investors make little to no money while he gets 50 percent commission. Eventually he starts his own penny stock firm with the classless Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill) along with some other sleaze-balls who have a lot of sales experience from vending marijuana.

Essentially, this movie is the rise and fall of a very wealthy man. The main conflict comes from an FBI investigation into his company. He and the people who helped him start it know that much of what they do is illegal, and they proactively seek to cover it up.

In a way, this film is a satire of the Wall Street culture. This is set up in the beginning when Belfort's boss, Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey), gives him advice that their job as brokers is not for their clients to earn money, but to gain profit for the company. Hanna also instructs him that in order to survive the frantic industry, he needs to do cocaine and relieve himself sexually as much as he can.

Belfort takes this advice from someone who is obviously not the best of people, and he becomes just like him. He only looks out for himself, he undergoes two marriages and he becomes increasingly dependent on many different drugs. Furthermore, he becomes addicted to sexual activities with multiple partners. After seeing this, I would not be surprised to find out that there really is no morality on Wall Street.

After about two hours, it starts dragging. Director Martin Scorsese is very detailed, but he seems to think he needs to include everything about everything. It becomes very repetitive, particularly in scenes dealing with drug abuse. During those moments, I wondered if it is meant for people who are on drugs.

I do not know the exact reason the film was so long. My own hypothesis is it is intended to put the audience in the perspective of those close to Belfort. He is completely immoral throughout the film, but there is a certain charm to the character in the beginning. By the end, it starts wearing out because of the length. That would make sense to me, but the enjoyment of the film itself also starts to wear out, and this movie would have benefitted with a much tighter cut.

As someone who is religious, I also do not appreciate all the sex and nudity in this film. There are quite a few scenes that depict it. The reason for it was to show an important part of the culture this film depicts, but there is so much of it, that I wonder if Scorsese just wanted to make pornography.

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. It is a very interesting film. However, it is bogged down by a lengthy running time and too much sex and nudity. I recommend seeing it on DVD. If you tend to be someone who wants to avoid sexuality in films, I advise you do not see this. I myself will probably never see it again.

Content: Rated R. There is a lot of language including the F-word and even a few uses of the C-word. There is a lot of full-frontal female nudity and sex scenes. There is a scene of bloody violence, and at least one scene of spousal abuse. There are a couple scenes that might depict rape, but the way it was filmed, I am not sure if that is what it is.

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

"12 Years a Slave" Review

There are plenty of films dealing with racism in America both past and present. However, none of the ones I have seen are as descriptive about slavery as "12 Years a Slave."

Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor, "American Gangster") is an educated man who owns a nice house with his wife and children. He is an excellent musician who is known for playing the fiddle. The color of his skin happens to be black, and he happens to live in America during a time in which slavery is prominent in the South.

One day he is approached by two men who have a job opportunity for him. They want him to use his talents to perform in a traveling show they are doing. He is offered money for his services, and he agrees to go with them.

They get to Washington D.C. and that night, the two men get him drunk. He wakes up the next morning in a cell with his wrists and ankles bound by chains. The man had been duped, and now he is to be sold into slavery.

As the title suggests, he spends twelve years working for white people as a piece of their property. He should not be there because he was initially a free man, but because he is black, he has no power. There is no way for him to convince anyone about his predicament because they all assume he is lying to get himself out of slavery.

The day I saw this, I had a conversation with someone who said she would never want to see this movie. Her reasoning is slavery is something she already knows about, and I can see her point. It is something that has been taught in schools and discussed in many different media. Whoever does not know about it has obviously been living under a rock. It is an uncomfortable topic especially among white people like me. Knowing that slavery exists is knowing that my ancestors committed horrors against humanity.

A few months before seeing this, I had a different conversation with an African American man who works at the Diversity Center of the school I attend, Utah State University. He said it is an uncomfortable topic, but it is necessary to see films such as this so that we are reminded about what happened.

From my own experiences growing up in a religious home, I understand how important these types of reminders are. I was always taught that I need to read our religious texts everyday, which include "The Holy Bible" and "The Book of Mormon" among other things.* I have read all of "The Book of Mormon" two or three times, and I continue to do so even though I know the stories. The reason I do this is so I never forget the kind of person God wants me to be.

That is why this movie needs to be seen. Slavery is something we need to be reminded about so it does not happen again. Furthermore, it also needs to be known just what evils humans are capable of. "12 Years a Slave" does this, but it is not always comfortable to watch. It uses brutal violence, nudity and a depiction of rape to paint the picture of slavery in America.

Chiwetel Ejiofor brings the necessary caliber of emotion to give life to the character, Solomon Northup. The man is separated from his wife and kids without being able to write them a letter explaining what happened. Furthermore, he has been a free man for his whole life, and now he is forced into slavery.

In the beginning, most of the slaves are completely submissive to their masters will. Northup is not, and it is empowering to see. When he goes into slavery he says he does not merely want to survive, he wants to live. He is more educated than some of his white masters, and he has too much dignity to let them push him around when he can help it. When someone messes with him, he fights back.

Throughout the movie, his worldview changes, and by the end he is different. He has seen how complicated fighting back makes his life. In the most memorable scene, he is forced to do something horrendous. Having no choice, he does it. The scene is very difficult to watch. It presents a feeling of helplessness that made me want to rebel or at least see Northup do so. However, as an audience member I can only watch it happen, and he cannot do anything about it.

Director Steve McQueen does a great job making the audience think about the events that are going on. It is not something that should be watched in a hurry. One scene in particular has a long, continuous camera shot that shows the same thing for several minutes. It intended to make us reflect on what is happening, and it adds a sense of discomfort that is important to feel given the circumstances.

I give this movie five out of five stars. It is as realistic a depiction of slavery as it possibly can be. There are segments that are uncomfortable to watch, but it needs to be seen. Right now, it is up for nomination for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, and I would be happy to see it win.

Content: Rated R. There is brutal violence. A couple scenes show backside male and female nudity as well as full-frontal female nudity. The N-word is said quite a bit, and the B-word is mentioned in one scene. Another scene depicts a rape, but all it shows is the facial expressions of the man and woman. The rape scene is a fairly tame scene in that I barely recognized what it was at first. There is another scene like it in the beginning, but it is not a rape. In both scenes, the characters are fully clothed.

*There are people reading this who are not of my faith. I am not trying to be preachy. I use this to make a point by drawing from my own personal experiences.

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

"American Hustle" Review

Note: There are some things about this movie that were pointed out as I finished this review. This is more of a first impressions review of what I thought after seeing it the first time. When it comes on DVD, I may rent it and do a follow-up review.

"American Hustle" has great performances, but the story is a little too convoluted for my taste.

Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) makes a living of cheating people of their money with his partner-in-crime/lover, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams). The couple does this by telling some poor, unsuspecting souls of an awesome investment opportunity. If they but write a check for $5,000, they will be paid back $50,000. The catch is, these people are not paid back. It is a scam.

This works pretty well until the couple tries to screw over the wrong man, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). DiMaso turns out to be an FBI agent, who arrests Rosenfeld and Prosser.

The agent makes a deal with the con-artists that if they can help him make four busts by using their skills, he will let them go. They decide to take on Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), a mayor in New Jersey who is well-liked for having taken steps create jobs. They want to bust him for taking money illegally, which he would only do as a means of helping the economy.

This movie has an all-star cast, and they all did a very good job in their roles. They were often over the top, but they were also believable.

Christian Bale does a great job. He gained a lot of weight to be in this role, and every time he was on screen I could not help but think "I can't believe that dude was Batman!" It is easy to forget that it is indeed a fatter version of Bale.

The person who stole the show was Jennifer Lawrence. She plays DiMaso's wife (yeah, he has a wife and a lover). Her character is an air-headed, blonde housewife who is constantly messing everything up. Some of the biggest laughs from this movie were caused by her. My favorite scene has to do with her and a microwave oven.

I really did not like Amy Adams in this movie. She is always dressed provocatively, leaving very little to the imagination. To me, who grew up in a religious home, it looks like her choosing to be in this film and show all the skin is demeaning to her. Every time she is on screen, that is all I can think about. It actually distracted me from the story. This is from my own personal bias, however. I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this.

As an actress, Adams does a good job in her role. A friend of mine pointed out that there might be reason for her to have worn what she did. It has something to do with what she plans to do with DiMaso. I will not reveal what it is, but she talks about it with Bale near the beginning.

I was a little disappointed with this movie. With a 93 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, I was expecting something as awesome as "Her." I did not think it was. The plot is very convoluted. As I sat in the theatre, I wished I had a remote control to rewind the film so I could hear some of the important plot points.

Leaving the theatre, I wondered if I was an anomaly for not thinking this movie was worth the hype. In order to get some confidence back, I watched one of my favorite internet reviewers, Jeremy Jahns, who speculates that the film might have been made because director David O. Russell had worked with a bunch of people in previous films. He wanted to make a super film with a super cast. Jahns said there were too many characters, and having a little less would have made the film better.

I have to say that I agree with him. The reason the plot is so confusing is because there are so many characters and side characters doing so many different things. Had it been more focused, it would have been much better. There is a really cool mobster played by Robert DeNiro, and it would have been great if the plot focused more on him and less on the complicated love triangle between Rosenfeld, Prosser and DiMaso.

What was great about this movie is how it ended. It is well executed and it leaves some interesting questions to ponder about right and wrong.

Overall, this is a pretty good movie. I do not think it is worth the 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, and I do not recommend seeing it in theatres. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. Go see it when it comes to Redbox.

Content: Rated R. There is some brief topless nudity. There is quite a bit of sexuality including one sex scene. One character is constantly dressed provocatively in tops that are very revealing. There is about the average amount of language for a rated R movie: quite a few F-words including some in a sexual context.

For more details on what I base my ratings off of, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

"Her" Review

The concept of "Her" sounds like it would be dumb and not worth seeing. However, it is a well-thought-out film with a lot of emotional depth.

Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) is a man living in the not-too-distant future. He has been feeling down lately because of a failed recent relationship. His mind is constantly running flashbacks of how excellent things had been before.

Theodore lives in a time in which technology has now become so advanced that operating systems with consciousnesses are being sold. Not only are the owners able to communicate with the them--which seems to have been the case anyway--but the computers are becoming very much alive. They think for themselves, they learn,  and they even have emotions.

Theodore buys one of these operating systems and sets the voice to female. She names herself Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). At first, they are just getting to know each other. But as their friendship deepens, an intimate relationship forms that helps him progress and be a better person.

Had this film been made by a studio that only wanted money, it would be as stupid as it sounds. A guy dates his computer. What a joke! However, this film constructs the relationship so brilliantly that by the time they start dating, it is not nearly as absurd as you would think.

The moment Theodore downloads the operating system and starts talking to Samantha, you can see why he would fall in love with "her." She is nice, she is charming, she is funny and she is lively.

What is interesting, is she is very much as human as anyone else. She has emotions and gets hurt when someone says something she does not like. With those emotions, she also feels joy, which comes about as her meaningful relationships progress and as she learns new things.

This movie could not have been pulled off without writer/director Spike Jonze's ("Where the Wild Things Are") construction of an interesting script with careful attention to detail. Not only is the dialogue believable, it brings out what my high school drama teacher always used to call "universal truths" that make scripts worth studying and provoke thought. For example, there is one part where they are walking along the beach, and Samantha says something about how humans look that is very close to some thoughts I have had before. It was interesting hearing it put the way she said.

Johnze also made sure the futuristic world is believable. His direction shows a world with advanced technology that could probably come about within the next twenty years. The people walk around with cordless buds in their ears that hook up to their computers and read e-mails to them. Their video games are holographic and require no controller. The computers are all activated by voice.

Even Theodore's job is something that is unique to the world created by Spike Johnze. I like how the film introduces it, so I will not reveal anything about it. What I will say is I think it is commentary by the director on how impersonal society is getting in their communication.

Joaquin Phoenix's performance as Theodore is excellent. I have only seen him in "Gladiator" and "Walk the Line." In both those films he plays a man who does a lot of despicable things. In this film, he is a normal man who is at a low point in his life. He brings out so much likability that when a character says something very hurtful to him in one scene, I feel his pain.

I give this movie five out of five stars. It is such a brilliantly crafted movie that it makes something that would be very dysfunctional in real life seem at least a little understandable. It also teaches a lesson about relationships that I feel is very important to know. Walking out of the theatre I felt edified.

Content: Rated R. Though it does not have any explicit sex scenes, there is a lot of sexuality and sensuality in this film, which is mainly provocative noises. There is also one scene of frontal female nudity near the beginning that happens while some of the noises are heard. There is also moderate language--about average for a film of this rating--with quite a few F-words. It is not a family movie by any means.