Maxwell Meyers' Favorite Films of 2014

2014: THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM by Maxwell Meyers

Above: Chris Evans in "Captain America: The Winter Soldier," from Marvel Studios

 

Once again, another year has come and gone.  And now, as I change my calendar from corgis to Archer, I find myself reflecting back on the year of cinema that was 2014…and I can't think of anything.

            Okay, I remember some of my favorite films of the year after a minute.  But 2014 is the first year in awhile where they didn’t immediately leap to mind.  So, I consulted with my good friend the internet and found that the reason I don't remember a whole lot of movies from this past year is because the best word to describe 2014 would be “understated.”

            Allow me to explain.  Normally, every year (and summer in particular) is full of massive blockbusters, chiefly sci-fi and fantasy crowd-pleasers.  But 2014?  Not so much.  Of course, there were two hit Marvel films (“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and “Guardians of the Galaxy”), and also the new, big-budget “Godzilla.”  Yet in terms of both scale and ticket sales, even that movie wasn't what one would consider a huge blockbuster.  In fact, some of the best films of 2014 weren't very big at all—they relied on strong ideas, compelling acting, and thoughtful storytelling, rather than scope.

            That’s true of some of my favorite movies of 2014, namely Charlie McDowell’s “The One I Love,” Ari Folman’s “The Congress,” and Jonathan Glazer’s “Under the Skin”—all of which fall into the “understated and brilliant” category.  “The One I Love” has a gifted cast of three (Mark Duplass, Elizabeth Moss, and Ted Danson) and soars thanks to a unique idea that you never see coming; “The Congress” has a fairly large ensemble (led by Robin Wright), but is similarly heartfelt and heady; and “Under the Skin” utilizes a truly unusual narrative style and still holds your attention for its entirety.

In other words, 2014 was a time of movies that were small but mighty.  But not all small movies are microscopic, and this year I saw two wonderful “studio indie” pictures—James Marsh’s “The Theory of Everything” and Wes Anderson's “The Grand Budapest Hotel.”   Their stories may be different in nature (“Everything” is a Stephen Hawking biopic; “Budapest” chronicles the quirky misadventures of a dashing concierge), but they both captured my attention, thanks to the outstanding performances that elevated their every shot.

            2014 was also a year of surprise successes, most memorably Chris Miller and Phil Lord’s “The Lego Movie.”  I will be one hundred percent honest—I thought this film was going to be stupid and fall so hard on its face.  I mean, come on!  It was a movie about Legos, performed by Legos; it sounded like an episode of Robot Chicken.”  And yet, there is no word to describe “The Lego Movie” other than “awesome.”  Every time I watch the movie, I feel overjoyed, and rightly so.  Because what makes this film work is its heart, and the fascinating reveal of what is actually happening in this Lego world.  Also, who hasn't felt like Emmet every once in awhile?

            In the grand scheme of 2014 movies, “The Lego Movie” is definitely one I’ll remember.  Yet it’s not my favorite film of the year.  No, that title belongs to two movies—Anthony and Joe Russo’s “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” and Richard Linklater’s “Boyhood.”  For me, they’re two very different loves.  “Cap” is a years-in-the-making adventure that boldly destroys the foundation of an entire franchise; and “Boyhood” is a different beast completely—a twelve-year coming of age story that was actually filmed over twelve years.  Both films are daring in their own unique way, and they take cinematic risks that I’ve never witnessed before—risks whose rewards will likely never again be equaled onscreen.

            So yes, I believe 2014 was a quiet year in film.  But why was it so?  My theory is that this past year was the calm before the storm.  Because, lest we forget, 2015 will see the release of “Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Star Wars: Episode VII—The Force Awakens,” “Jurassic World,” two Pixar films, the final chapter in the “Hunger Games” series, “Terminator Genisys,” and “Mad Max: Fury Road.” 

In short, 2015 will be the year of the blockbuster.  Who will come out on top?  Who’s to say.  But for now, I will look back at the subtler times in cinema this past year.  Things were quiet.  Things were small. 

Things were memorable.

Movie Review: "Mystery Spot" (Ben Eastman, 2015)

MYSTERIOUS, AND CONVERSATIONAL by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

There is a moment in “Mystery Spot,” Ben Eastman’s smoothly intriguing new short film (which premieres at the Fifth Avenue Cinema on Saturday) in which two young guys park their bright blue car by the side of a desert road.  There’s nothing there, save for a hulking, motionless man standing by a sign that reads “Mystery Spot.”  Which begs the question—are we simply witnessing an odd encounter?  Or a prelude to the second (or rather, the zillionth) coming of “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”? 

To say anything more would dilute the film’s climactic turnabout.  It might also diminish the experience of watching “Mystery Spot” for the first time.  Which would be a shame, because Mr. Eastman has made something impressive—an elegantly staged and grippingly strange work that ensnares you with its clean imagery and throbbing guitar score. 

            “Mystery Spot” begins with the aforementioned youngsters driving.  The first guy begins by admonishing the other for sticking his feet on the dashboard…yet soon, he’s listening while his friend tells him a wistful, profanely melancholy anecdote about a high school dance, a girl, and a station wagon. 

That sequence is the finest fixture of “Mystery Spot”—Mr. Eastman’s eye for the delicate details of shadows, heads, and feet make this ordinary conversation poetic, as well as meaningful.  In fact, so seamless is his feel for everyday chatter that it’s a little disappointing when the tranquil mood is shattered by the sinister suspense promised by the titular sign by the road.

            Still, the moody and the menacing are an intrinsic part of the appeal of “Mystery Spot.”  And as a creepy yet poignant close-up of a man’s eye reveals in the movie’s final scene, the combination of both danger and humanity is a crucial part of Mr. Eastman’s direction—the way he leads you into a series of events that seems casual, then punctures them brutal force.

 

"Mystery Spot" premieres Saturday, January 24th at the Fifth Avenue Cinema, at 8:00 pm

Movie Review: "Selma" (Ava DuVernay, 2014)

A WINDOW TO THE PAST (AND THE PRESENT)

by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Above: David Oyelowo is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in "Selma"

 

How to review “Selma”?  I’m not sure that I can—at least not in the usual way.  It’s not that I have nothing to say about the film; quite the contrary.  It’s just that the usual things I always mediate on (editing, acting, directing, et cetera) seem almost inconsequential.  Because “Selma” is not a movie that’s meant to be savored as a piece of art.  It is a grim, methodical account of injustice and the fight against racism.  It is a call to action.

             Issuing that call is Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (David Oyelowo).  Like most of my millennial peers, I grew up studying Dr. King’s famed fight for civil rights in elementary school and hearing sound bites of him crying out “I have a dream” on the radio.  Yet that’s merely a fraction of his achievements.  And what Mr. Oyelowo and writer-director of Ava DuVernay grant us is the complete tapestry—not just Dr. King, but the true scope of the movement that surrounded him. 

When we first see Dr. King in “Selma,” he’s accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and for a moment, all seems well.  But it’s not long before the screen is shattered by a bomb, an agonizingly abrupt explosion that kills several black children.  The fight is not over, the movie reminds us, and Ms. DuVernay soon brings us to the real core of the story—the marches Dr. King lead to secure equal voting rights.

            At times, the battle seems already lost.  Mr. Oyelowo speaks many of his lines in a low, heavy voice; his Dr. King is a man who often sounds sluggish and weary.  He does come alive whenever he addresses a congregation from a church podium, but the fear of violence and the horror of the hatred are never far away.  And even though the film ends with Dr. King crying out to an approving crowd on steps of the Alabama capitol building, the song that rings over the movie’s end credits (“Glory,” performed by Common and John Legend) reminds us that the fight is not over yet. 

            But is it too much to hope that “Selma” could help make things right?  After all, it is a movie that brilliantly rouses your empathy.  Rather than deify Dr. King with the grandeur of sleek showmanship, Ms. DuVernay has created a film that feels stoic, natural, and still.  Even at the beginning, when Dr. King implores Lyndon Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) to pass a voting rights act, Ms. DuVernay refuses to accompany Mr. Oyelowo’s delivery with a nobly righteous score; she just lets him speak the lines, with nothing but ambient noise behind him.  And the restraint pays off—the subtlety of Ms. DuVernay’s direction is what makes Dr. King’s struggle take hold of us cinematically, reminding us that we can’t sit on the couch with a clean conscience while racism runs rampant.

            So maybe I was wrong; perhaps musings on filmmaking techniques do have a place in this review.  It is, after all, the tools that Ms. DuVernay employs as an artist that make “Selma” as soul-pulling as it is, that make it remind us not that we shall overcome, but as Dr. King says so many times in the movie, that we must.

Mo Shaunette on the Movies of 2014

OF CHILDHOOD FANTASIES AND ADULT FEARS by Mo Shaunette

Above: Ralph Fiennes is Wes Anderson's "The Grand Budapest Hotel"

 

 

Year-End Round-Up!  Interesting movies I saw this year!  Let’s go!

 

“Boyhood”

It’d be one thing if Richard Linklater’s experiment was just that: an experiment.  If his twelve-year production wound up as a failed attempt to make something new in modern cinema, that’d be fine enough.  The fact that his movie is not only ambitious, but also good, is nothing short of astounding.

            Without special effects, without high-octane action, and without big ideas or histrionics, “Boyhood” succeeds as an engaging drama about the simplicity of life; the ups and downs, the ins and outs, and everything in between.  It’s a grand, albeit quiet, journey through adolescence.  The characters grow and change (not only because of the time passing) and as a result, we get stellar performances out of supporting players Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke.

            “Boyhood” is a film confident enough to be great while also being quiet, unassuming, and honest.  With limited artifice and a small yet epic scope, it’s one of the more unusual pictures I had the pleasure of seeing this year.

“Gone Girl”

“Gone Girl” feels like a magic trick being performed before your eyes: a moody murder mystery that changes into a pitch-black satire of modern media before changing again into a taut, edge-of-your-seat thriller—all without missing a story beat or losing your attention.  Simply put, it’s one of the smartest and most engaging movies I've seen in years.

            You can thank the filmmakers.  David Fincher’s direction is as masterful as ever, Gillian Flynn’s screenplay is as tense and bizarrely funny as it needs to be, and the actors all bring their A-game.  Still, particular attention has to be paid to Rosamund Pike’s leading role.  She’s astounding for the full 149 minutes of the film and leaves a powerful impression.  Come awards season, she’s earned more than a few nods, and I hope to see more from her from here on out.

 

“The Lego Movie”

This could have gone south so easily.  A movie adaptation of a toy that lacks a solid identity of its own beyond “you can build stuff”?  In the wrong hands, this could have been another “Food Fight.”  Yet under the direction of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, “The Lego Movie” amazes with its quality.  Not only is it uproariously funny and beautifully animated, but it’s also a statement on playtime and children’s toys AND a deconstruction of Joseph Campbell’s “Hero with a Thousand Faces.” 

            In other words, you can look beyond the clever meta-narrative, the stop-motion aesthetic translated into CGI, the spot-on parody of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight, and the ecstatic cries of “SPACESHIP!!!”  Because at its core, “The Lego Movie” not only strips the hero’s journey monomyth down to its basics, but points out why it’s important. 

So yes, the film’s hero, Emmett, is declared “the Special.”  But by the journey’s end, everyone is the Special and the film shows that everyone has the capability to be extraordinary; they only need the opportunity.  And that’s why the hero’s journey matters: because everyone, just like everything, is awesome.

 

“Captain America: The Winter Soldier”

It takes courage to adapt a character as archly written as Captain America.  It takes more courage to make a Captain America movie that abandons his familiar World War II trappings for a paranoid spy-fi action flick.  And it takes yet more courage to use that film as an opportunity to tear down the foundation of a cinematic universe.

            Man, Marvel can just straight-up get away with murder, can’t they?

            Even without its larger continuity connotations, “Winter Soldier” is just a fun movie.  I especially love what it brings to Captain America’s personal corner of the universe: a toolbox of advanced espionage gadgets, an eye for brutal hand-to-hand fight scenes, and Steve Rogers’ brand new posse of soldiers and spy-smashers.  I don’t know exactly what’s next for the star-spangled man with a plan, but I’m looking forward to finding out.

 

“X-Men: Days of Future Past”

Wow, this movie was really, really…okay.  That’s it.  Just okay.  Not great, not terrible, just quite simply okay.  And that’s a little disappointing to me.

            Look, I love Bryan Singer’s original “X-Men” movies, I really do.  But superhero movies have evolved since then.  Matthew Vaughn’s “X-Men: First Class” (a more comic book-y vision of the X-Men saga) was the shot in the arm the franchise need to reinvigorate itself and keep up with Marvel Studios and DC’s latest efforts.  That’s why “Days of Future Past” (which marks Mr. Singer’s return to the franchise as director) feels like such a step backwards to me.  Bright, colorful uniforms have been exchanged for black leather jumpsuits; Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is once again the center of the franchise; the story elements are borrowed wholesale from 2003’s “X2”; and nearly every character who didn’t grow up to be someone important in Mr. Singer’s movies apparently died off-screen between features.

            And yet, there’s a lot about “Days of Future Past” that still works.  The actors (including James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender) are still game for anything and everything; the action is creative and lively; and while they don’t exactly break the mold, the movie’s giant killer robots and time travel elements feel like a step in the right direction towards the real weirdness that’s part of the X-Universe.

Maybe we’ll get more of this brand of madness in future installments.  I’m not holding my breath for murderous amusement parks, inter-dimensional television programs, or islands that walk like men, but maybe some aliens?  Apocalypse is in the next movie and he was friends with some aliens, right?

 

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2”

This is what happens when people who don’t know how to start franchises try to start franchises.

            “Amazing Spider-Man 2” is bad.  It’s really, really bad.  Why?  Because the film’s barely-functional script (whose writers include the notorious Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci) feels less like a cohesive three-act narrative and more like six different, lesser stories that were stitched together in order to create the illusion that there was a larger universe beyond what can generously be called the central story.  It’s just a complete mess, one that’s not helped by the lax editing that makes a 2.5 hour movie feel much longer.

            What hurts even more is that there’s still good stuff there trying to get noticed beyond all the crap.  Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are solid actors and as Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy, they have real chemistry.  Plus, the effects are polished and cool and the action is fast-paced—and sometimes even funny.  

Still, in the end those triumphs wind up buried beneath that misguided script and lackluster direction from Marc Webb.  I may do a full review on why “ASM2” doesn’t work.  But for now, we’ll stick with “this movie sucks” and move on.

 

“Guardians of the Galaxy”

I am Groot.

            I am Groot.  I am Groot.  I am Groot, I am Groot, I am Groot.  I am Groot. I am Groot.  I am

Groot?  I am Groot!  I am Groot.

            I am Groot.  I am Groot.

 

“The Grand Budapest Hotel”

It’s been said that Wes Anderson gets more Wes Anderson-y with every passing feature.  In truth, I thought he’d peaked with “Moonrise Kingdom,” but it turns out that he had not yet reached mass-Andersoniosity.  And that’s where “The Grand Budapest Hotel” comes in.

            “Grand Budapest” is a movie made of contradictions—a film that blends whimsical comedy, melancholic nostalgia, and the occasional kick of brutal violence.  And yet it all works, held together by Mr. Anderson’s stylized cinematography and the double-act of Ralph Fiennes and Tony Revolori.  It’s funny, it’s tragic, it’s bizarre, it’s heartfelt, and it may just be my favorite movie of 2014.

 

So that’s my list.  Honestly, I thought 2014 was a pretty strong year for movies.  Here’s to a good year and looking forward to what comes to us in 2015, when we see the Avengers reunite, get a tour of the human mind, and return to a galaxy far, far away.

Movie Review: "Into the Woods" (Rob Marshall, 2014)

ONE REVIEWER’S JOURNEY INTOT THE WOODS by Maxwell Meyers

Above: Johnny Depp asthe (mustachioed) Wolf and Lilla Crawford as Red Riding Hood in Mr. Marshall's film

 

I love “Into the Woods.”  Although I must reiterate—what I love is the play by Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine.  It’s truly spectacular and I assume that in adapting it for the screen, director Rob Marshall (“Chicago”) hoped that he could somehow improve upon the original.  I can safely say that at times, his movie does just that (or at least hits the bar).  But sadly, "Into the Woods" the motion picture also loses the emotional magic and mystery created by the play.

The film begins with some very familiar characters—Cinderella, Red Riding Hood, Jack of Beanstalk fame, and the childless baker and his wife—all venturing into the woods (hence the film’s title) for myriad purposes.  It’s a journey enlivened by an all-star cast that includes James Corden, Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, and Johnny Depp, along with Meryl Streep and Emily Blunt (who both snagged Golden Globe nominations for their portrayals of, respectively, the Wicked Witch and the baker’s wife).

            All of these actors are impressive here—they all bring their best performances and do a fantastic job with the screenplay by Mr. Lapine at hand.  Yet their performances are also a little more subdued than the ones in play.  That’s understandable because in film, you don't have to emote in a manner that reads all the way to the balcony of a theater.  Still, the more grounded acting takes away from the fairy-tale polish that makes this story so compelling.  After all in the play, elevated, almost silly acting throughout the first act served an important purpose—it beautifully allowed the emotions to come down a few levels in the second act when things got serious. 

            I know; I’m making it sound like this movie doesn’t live up to the play.  But I will say that Mr. Marshall has improved some aspects of the story.  He shouldn’t have allowed Rapunzel to live (on stage, her death motivated the Wicked Witch’s actions in the final act), but his version of the duet between Cinderella's prince and Rapunzel’s prince is a terrific success.  In its original form, the number (“Agony”) wasn’t very entertaining.  Yet Mr. Marshall makes it one of the best scenes in the entire film by turning it into a pissing contest between the two princes about who has it harder in the love department.  

            There are other moments sprinkled throughout the movie that made me very happy, even excited that they adapted this wonderful play into a motion picture.  And in purely technical terms, the film is impressive—the detailing of the costumes (which I’m sure will be rewarded with an Oscar nod) is spectacular; the lighting is wonderfully done; and with the magic of a frozen moment in time, Cinderella’s song "On the Steps of the Palace" manages to make that scene and song fresh all over again.

            But do these successes make “Into the Woods” work as a movie?  Not entirely, I’m sorry to say.  For all the grandeur of the film’s visuals, it simply isn’t as moving as its theatrical predecessor.  The film does offer some emotional impact, but I still think it could have offered even more if Mr. Marshall had stayed truer to Mr. Sondheim’s stage version.  As it is, too many of the play’s powerfully somber moments and witty lines are lost in the film—solely because of delivery.

            Ultimately, if you have never seen the original play with the incomparable Bernadette Peters as the Wicked Witch, you could very well enjoy this movie a heap; it is a genuine crowd pleaser that’s primed to appeal to families (despite some questionable areas).  And while you’ll certainly be let down if you are a huge fan of the play, I doubt that the movie will send into a fuming, murderous rage. 

All in all, I would give “Into the Woods” a solid C+.  I don't believe it will go down in history of musical cinema as one of the genre’s finest offerings, but I do think that despite its shortcomings, it will definitely be a highlight.

Movie Review: "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" (Peter Jackson, 2014)

BATTLE FATIGUE by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

 Above: Evangeline Lilly plays Tauriel in the conclusion of Mr. Jackson's "Hobbit" trilogy

 

In “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” there are multitudes of exotic, computer-generated effects—snarling, screaming giants; hordes of gold-armored warriors; and, briefly, an animated dragon imbued with smarmy nastiness by Benedict Cumberbatch.  Yet none of these digital marvels can compare with the sight of Evangeline Lilly as the elf warrior Tauriel.  Outfitted in a dark green robe and a gloriously long auburn wig, she gracefully leaps into the multi-army fray of title, her eyes as taut as bowstrings.  She looks powerful, confident, and deadly.  She looks hot.

            Forgive my lapse in professionalism.  I know it is not customary for reviewers to lapse into romantic reveries, but quite frankly, “The Battle of the Five Armies” is so atrociously awful that it left me little choice.  I’ll grant you that it’s the work of a serious filmmaker (Peter Jackson, the architect behind the previous “Hobbit” films).  But the story he tells here is so thin, soulless, and arbitrary that there’s little worth admiring besides the beauty of his well-coiffed cast (which also includes Cate Blanchett and Ian McKellen).

            What else can I mention?  There is that dragon, who tears through the movie’s opening scene by lying the village of Lake Town to fiery waste.  In Mr. Jackson’s previous “Hobbit” film (last year’s “The Desolation of Smaug”), he cut to the credits before we got a chance to see the noble Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and his dwarf companions (led by Richard Armitage’s Thorin Oakenshield) witness the last gasp of the dastardly beast and its plastic-hued hide.  This time, though, the fearsome creature is felled by a “black arrow,” allowing the dwarves to finally reclaim their mountain homeland, Erebor.

            The political conflict within and around Erebor provides “The Battle of the Five Armies” with what little potency it posses.  Left homeless by the dragon’s assault, the residents of Lake Town hike to Erebor’s craggy gates and beg Thorin to give them shelter.  But will he?  Not easily.  He and his fellow dwarves have long been homeless themselves and for them, the thought of sharing their beloved (and treasure-filled) stronghold with a pack of desperate refugees is not an enticing one.

            In the prickly, growling debates between the dwarves and the villagers, you can sniff out hints of real world strife (is it too much to suggest that the movie proposes a fantasy film metaphor for the conflicts that plague actual nations in the aftermath of violence?).  Yet watching the dwarves and the villagers natter about broken promises and reclaimed land, I found myself squirming anxiously, impatient for another bout of the franchise’s magical-medieval fighting to begin.

And yet when it does, the movie, unbelievably, becomes even more boring.  So weak has the character development been throughout the “Hobbit” trilogy that it’s painfully hard to care whether Thorin, Bilbo, or any of their comrades survive the digital mayhem of swords clashing and war beasts yowling.  And while I’ll grant you that the film’s bloated spectacle of a battle has its magnificent moments, even they rely on the embarrassingly unreal—gravity-defying, video game-style theatrics that are at once sublimely cool and laughably inane (like Orlando Bloom’s Leogolas leaping across a crumbling stone staircase in slow motion).

            Perhaps beholding this bloodless bloodbath will be heaven for “Hobbit” devotees; having never been a fan of the series (which occupies the same mythological universe as Mr. Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy), I cannot say for sure.  I also can’t say what author J.R.R. Tolkein would have made of Mr. Jackson turning his short children’s novel into a brutish trilogy, though I suspect he would have asked the obvious—with so much screen time, would it have been too much to squeeze in some meaningful emotions?

2015 Movie Preview

THE NEW YEAR AWAKENS by Bennett Campbell Ferguson

Above: Christian Bale and Natalie Portman star in Terrence Malick's "Knight of Cups"

 

I can still remember it—the intake of gleeful hope as I, a teenager just getting serious about movies, salivated over the prospect of a brand new year in film.  Since then, I’ve grown snarkier and more philosophical in my movie-going habits.  But honestly, I haven’t become that jaded.  I still love looking to the future, imagining what it’ll look like, as seen through the lenses of art houses and multiplexes.

            With that, I give you my most anticipated films of 2015.

“Eye in the Sky” (Gavin Hood)

“The Fantastic Four” (Josh Trank)

“Fifty Shades of Grey” (Sam Taylor-Johnson)

“Inside Out” (Pete Docter)

“Io E Te” (Bernardo Bertolucci)

“Joy” (David O. Russell)

“Knight of Cups” (Terrence Malick)

“The Lost City of Z” (James Gray)

“Star Wars: Episode VII—The Force Awakens” (J.J. Abrams)

“Tomorrowland” (Brad Bird)

PS—Happy New Year, everybody!

~Ben J