The Top 10 Films of 2014

January 3, 2015 by Keith Garlington

Wow! It’s hard to believe it is time to do this again. The 2014 movie year has come and gone and now it’s time to look back on the year that was. To be more specific it’s time to look at the best films of the year. Personally I love doing these lists and comparing them to those of critics and fellow bloggers. It’s a chance to reflect back on 2014 and champion the movies that meant the most to me. Now doing a list like this is tough and it means leaving out some movies that deserve attention. To remedy that I’ll start by simply listing my #11-20 picks.

(Click on the movie title to read my full review of it)

#20 – “Edge of Tomorrow“
#19 – “Nightcrawler“
#18 – “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“
#17 – “Snowpiercer“
#16 – “The Railway Man”
#15 – “Godzilla“
#14 – “Magic in the Moonlight“
#13 – “The Grand Budapest Hotel“
#12 – “The Immigrant“
#11 – “The Lego Movie“

Now let me share my Top 10 movies of 2014:

#10 – “The Monuments Men“ – I’m sure I will be the only person in the world with “The Monuments Men” on their Top 10 list. So be it. I had such a good time with this film and it held up nicely after a second viewing. Interestingly enough, I don’t recall hearing a single person talk about what I love most about the film – its sense of nostalgia. In several ways this film is a throwback to the buddy war movies of the 1960s and early 70s right through the closing credits. I loved that. It’s also based on a remarkable true story and it features a fabulous ensemble cast. Could it have utilized these things better? I’m sure it could, but I never got hung up on these things. Instead I sat back and watched this transporting bit of nostalgia and was thoroughly entertained from the start.

#9 – “Big Eyes“ – It has been enjoyed yet dismissed by many critics, but “Big Eyes” is a film that has really stuck with me. It’s a surprising and refreshing step outside of the box for Tim Burton, a director known for his dark, macabre style. The film is based on the true story of the popular artist Margaret Keane and her husband Walter yet it rarely feels like a biographical piece. It’s such a strange story and Burton tells it by sitting back and allowing his two top level performers to fully form these characters. Christoph Waltz and Amy Adams are tremendous. They give two very different performances, but each are perfectly in tune with who these characters are. It’s such a good movie filled with heart, heartbreak, self-discovery, courage, and of course art.

#8 – “The Lunchbox“ – One of my favorite finds of 2014 was the Indian romantic drama “The Lunchbox”. The movie was made in 2012, released in India in 2013, and finally hit American theaters in 2014. The romance genre has been plagued by dopey, schmaltzy junk without an ounce of smarts or heart. “The Lunchbox” has a lot of both and all of it from first time feature film director Ritesh Batra. There are several things I love about the film. Batra gives us real people, not caricatures. He also steps back and gives his actors room to work. And I do love the performances from his two leads Irrfan Khan and Nimrat Kaur. Both are incredibly grounded and genuine. I also loved the deliberate pacing, the subtle humor, and the firm focus of the story. This is a real treat of 2014.

#7 – “Ida“ – One of the most penetrating films of 2014 came in a small 80 minute package from director Pawel Pawlikowski. “Ida” has the strength of being both painfully grim and stunningly beautiful. It is a story of self-discovery for a young lady who knows practically nothing about her past. It’s shot in glorious black and white and Pawlikowski tells us so much through his camera. He captures so much emotion from his characters and there are also a number of shots that are simply stunning to look at. Young actress Agata Trzebuchowska is wonderful and perfect for the lead role and she conveys so much through her expressive eyes. Agata Kulesza deserves Oscar consideration for her supporting work. “Ida” was one of 2014’s big surprises. It’s also one of year’s best films.

#6 – “Blue Ruin“ – I love it when a smaller unknown movie comes out of the blue and blows me away. Last year it was “Upstream Color”. This year it is “Blue Ruin”. Writer and director Jeremy Saulnier took a small cast and a minimal budget and crafted one of the most unpredictable and edge-of-your-seat thrillers of the year. It’s a fairly simple story about an act of revenge and the violent domino effect that follows. Saulnier tells as much of his story through his camera as he does through dialogue and you never know where things are heading. It’s smart and strikingly unconventional. The film is also helped by a brilliant and understated performance from Macon Blair. There were several films in 2014 that deserved a bigger audience, none more than the wonderful “Blue Ruin”.

#5 – “Only Lovers Left Alive“ – At the start of the year if you would have told me that a vampire movie would make my Top 10 list I would have called you insane. Well, that is exactly what happened thanks to independent filmmaker Jim Jarmusch. But as I stated in my review, simplifying this as just a ‘vampire movie’ would be doing it a tremendous disservice. There is so much more to “Only Lovers Left Alive”. Jarmusch uses his vampires to reflect on a number of society’s ills from humanity’s destruction of ourselves and our world to the demise of art and creativity. But this is also a mood piece centered around two fascinating characters played by the great Tom Hiddleston and Tilda Swinton. I loved spending time with these two. It’s cool, romantic, poetic, and hypnotic.

#4 – “The Rover“ – David Michôd earned a lot of attention in 2010 with his dark crime drama “Animal Kingdom”. In 2014 he brought us a very different but equally striking film “The Rover”. This dystopian survival drama takes place in the rugged Australian outback after a world economic collapse. But Michôd doesn’t spend time talking about how things came to be the way they are. Instead he places us with two different but equally fascinating characters, Eric (Guy Pearce) and Reynolds (Robert Pattinson). Pearce is mesmerizing, violent, and tortured. Pattinson is simple, dependent, and sympathetic. The visual style of storytelling, the gritting cinematography, and two fabulous lead performances drive this bleak but thoroughly compelling piece of cinema.

#3 – “Captain America: The Winter Soldier“ – 2014 proved to be a very good year for the big tent pole blockbuster. Several big budget movies delivered spectacle and quality to the masses. For me the very best of the lot was “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”. Through the 2014 movie year I heard several people talk about superhero fatigue. That’s not a problem for me as long as we get films of this quality. This film gets back to the basics of action movies. Yes it has its signature special effects driven finale, but so much of the film relies on traditional stunt work and hand-to-hand combat. There is also the cool spy element to the story and one of my favorite villains of the year. Add all of these things together and you have a blockbuster that really works.

#2 – “Boyhood“ – Richard Linklater’s crazy idea of filming a movie over a 12 year period using the exact same cast was an ambitious undertaking. It could have been a disaster, but it turned out to be a film that has ended up on many ‘Best of 2014’ lists. But there is a good reason for that. “Boyhood” is a coming-of-age story unlike any I have ever seen. It’s a film not focused on the big moments in life but the small ones that over time define who we are. The film is all about the characters particularly a boy named Mason. We literally grow up with him (and actor Ellar Coltrane) on screen. We also grow with his family and in a sense we feel like family. Most importantly I left feeling the importance of being a dad – of being there for my kids because as Linklater shows us, time goes by fast and we never get those moments back.

#1 – “Interstellar“ – I don’t know if any other movie from 2014 was talked about as much as Christopher Nolan’s epic space opera “Interstellar”. There was more discussion and debate over everything from the film’s meaning to the film’s quality. For me “Interstellar” transcended simple cinematic entertainment. It was an experience. It left me deeply touched and I was thinking about it for days. It’s certainly a movie thick with plot and ideas, but these things never tripped me up or hampered my experience. Instead I was caught up in the story, the deeper themes, and the pure emotional pull of a father’s love for his children. I loved “Interstellar”. I loved its ambition, its cast, its visuals, its heart, and its willingness to follow its own rules. In a year filled with good movies, “Interstellar” has been the film that most reminds me of why I love movies.

REVIEW: “The Lunchbox”

January 1, 2015 by Keith Garlington

“The Lunchbox” is a breath of fresh air – a smart and thoughtful romantic drama made for adults who are tired of the flimsy, schmaltzy genre norm. Much like the horror and comedy genres of late, romance films have been significantly shortchanged particularly from Hollywood. Lazy writing and poor concepts plague the majority of these movies which have the intelligence and romantic energy of a rock. That’s why I love it when a filmmaker comes in and reminds us of how good these movies can be when done right.

In this case it’s Indian writer and director Ritesh Batra. Several of his short films have hit the festival circuits but “The Lunchbox” is his feature film debut and it’s a good one. This isn’t a standard Hollywood production although it does occasionally dance close to cliche. But Batra always reigns in the material and never crosses the line into contrived and overwrought sentimentality. He handles his story with a delicate and deliberate touch, building up his two central characters and drawing his audience to them.

The film takes place in Mumbai and our two main characters are introduced to each other through the city’s renowned dabbawalahs. It’s a complex lunch delivery system where women cook lunches then have them picked up and delivered to workers around the city. Bicycles, scooters, and trains are all used to transport the lunch boxes throughout Mumbai. Ila (Nimrat Kaur) is a wife, a mother, and an excellent cook. She begins sending out a lunch box thinking it will go to her husband. Instead it’s inadvertently delivered to Saajan (Irrfan Khan), a government office worker.

The delivery mistake leads to a back-and-forth correspondence between Saajan and Ila via small notes left in the lunch box. Both are hurting souls who find a type of release through their written conversations. Saajan has been rudderless since his wife died. He’s simply going through life’s motions without anything ahead of him other than his early retirement. Ila is a lovely woman with an adorable daughter, but her husband’s hurtful negligence leaves her feeling alone and depressed. They both are people with significant voids in their lives.

This could have easily turned into a sappy run-of-the-mill story, but that never happens. Ritesh Batra is very interested in his characters and they never drown in mushy maudlinness. Instead Ila and Saajan are living, breathing people and their lives and emotions never feel scripted. Some of that is due to the heart and authenticity we see in the two lead performances. Irrfan Khan and Nimrat Kaur are superb. But it’s also due to Batra’s commitment to his vision for the film. He is very calculated in his structure and pacing. It’s a slow-building story. The humor is strategic and subtle. The emotions are earned.

In the end “The Lunch Box” encourages us to love and to allow ourselves to be loved. To not be swallowed up by the emptiness of our circumstances, but to open ourselves up to the possibilities still in front of us. These concepts are told to us through a sweet, delicate, and earnest movie from a truly promising first time feature filmmaker. This is a delightful film filled with thoughtfulness and genuine feeling. I knew nothing about “The Lunchbox”. It turned out to be one of my favorite discoveries of 2014.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Big Eyes”

December 30, 2014 by Keith Garlington

At one time director Tim Burton was on top of the world and his ghoulishly gothic style seemed fresh and unique. But recently his career has been marred by several flops and people seem to be growing tired of his darker approach and constant Johnny Depp collaborations. Personally I had been off the Burton bandwagon for a while, but his 2012 animated gem “Frankenweenie” won me back a bit. His latest film is “Big Eyes” and Burton is one step closer to having me back in his corner.

“Big Eyes” is a biographical drama that tells the story of American artist Margaret Keane and her husband Walter. Margaret (played by Amy Adams) was a talented sketcher and painter whose work came to prominence during the 1950s through the 1960s. It was a time when little thought or consideration was given to “lady art” (as her husband so insensitively puts it in one scene). Her art style was uniquely her own and featured children with big, wide eyes.

The film begins with Margaret leaving her first husband and moving to San Francisco with her young daughter Jane. We see Margaret as timid and unsure of herself. She finds her one true emotional release in her art. Enter Walter played by the always fascinating Christoph Waltz. He too is an artist and he woos Margaret with his charisma and exotic tales of his time spent in Paris. The vulnerable Margaret, needing a whole filled in her life, marries Walter.

At first their life together is fun and free, but we see the first ripple when Walter sells one of Margaret’s paintings as his own work. What followed was a 10 year ruse that saw Walter taking the credit for the paintings while a guilt-ridden Margaret did all of the work behind closed doors. Her naïve and timid personality was no match for Walter’s manipulative and shameless character. In essence he was a snake oil salesman both as an art dealer and a husband. The popularity of the art grew and grew, but behind the scenes a much more personal struggle was taking place.

This is truly a strange and compelling story and I love the way Burton and screenwriters Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski tell it. It’s written in a way that allows its two top-tier stars to form these characters through their performances. Interestingly enough Adams and Waltz have two very different approaches. Adams is quiet, serious, and reserved. Waltz is big, energetic, and hyper-charismatic. It may sound like the performances clash, but that’s not the case because they are perfectly in tune with the characters. Margaret is subdued and unassuming. Walter is a showman and a salesman.

And I tip my hat to Tim Burton for stepping outside of his routine and showing nuance in his filmmaking. A sensibility and thoughtfulness takes the place of his normal macabre style. It’s a much lighter touch yet there are still a number of subtle Burton signatures. Quirky bits a humor shake the tone up a bit and Burton does several things with his camera that hearkens back to some of his earlier films. But overall it’s a refreshing turn from a filmmaker who a short time ago had found himself in a rut.

I can see people having problems with “Big Eyes”. I can see people bothered by the shifts in tone and what they perceive as clashes between the two lead performances. Not me. I was locked into the story from the start, I appreciated the visual representation of the 1950s and 1960s, and I loved the performances. Reese Witherspoon and Ryan Reynolds were first attached to the film, but it’s hard to imagine anyone doing better than Adams and Waltz. Add in a much different Tim Burton approach and you have a very entertaining film that tells a truly surreal story.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Magic in the Moonlight”

December 29, 2014 by Keith Garlington

There is no doubt that Woody Allen falls into the ‘hit or miss’ category. The 79-year old Allen is still writing and directing his films and we get a new movie every year. This self-imposed annualized system of his had led to several fairly rotten films. On the other hand, when Woody Allen is on his game, he can deliver some of the sharpest and wittiest character-driven movies you’ll find. His latest picture is “Magic in the Moonlight” and the big question was which Woody Allen were we going to get?

I have to admit my expectations for this film were pretty tempered. Critics seem to be split down the middle on it and even the positive reviews rarely featured high praise. So I sat down to watch the film preparing to be disappointed to some degree. But an interesting thing happened. The film hooked me after its first few scenes. As it went on I found myself more interested in its characters, more taken by its charms, more amused by its humor, and more satisfied with its simplicity. As it turns out I really liked this movie.

As with many of Allen’s films, “Magic in the Moonlight” follows a very eccentric lead character. Colin Firth plays Stanley, a famous traveling illusionist in late 1920s Europe. He is a smug, snarky fellow who we quickly learn to dislike. His arrogance really shows itself in his obsession with mortality, specifically debunking any notion of mysticism or an afterlife. When describing himself and his perspective on the subject Stanley states “I’m a rational man who believes in a rational world. Any other way lies madness.” His close-minded cynicism and innate stubbornness won’t allow him to entertain the possibilities of there being more beyond what we see.

One of Stanley’s side pleasures is exposing psychics as frauds. He is recruited by a childhood friend (Simon McBurney) to travel with him to the French Riviera where a young American clairvoyant named Sophie Baker (Emma Stone) has wooed a very wealthy family. No one has been able to disprove Sophie’s “mental vibrations”, but that doesn’t deter the overly confident Stanley. After arriving at the Côte d’Azur, insulting most of the people he meets, and sitting in on a séance, Stanley finds himself baffled at Sophie’s abilities. Complicating matters even more, he soon finds himself smitten with her.

When Allen’s material is clicking he can give us some truly fascinating characters. Stanley is a pompous and pretentious jerk. He’s insulting and confrontational, but there is another layer to the character. He’s also a miserable man whose facade of self-assuredness can’t hide his neurotic insecurities. The wily Colin Firth is fabulous and he handles Allen’s dialogue like a fine sculptor with clay. He delivers a character that is detestable, sympathetic, and sometimes laugh-out-loud funny. Much of it is due to the signature sharp writing, but a big part is all because of Firth. The man is incapable of a bad performance.

But it’s Eileen Atkins who almost steals the entire show. She plays Stanley’s wise and straight-shooting Aunt Vanessa. She practically raised him since birth and knows him better than anyone else. She’s a subtle firecracker and her frank but loving dealings with Stanley offer up some of the film’s best lines. I was a little less enthusiastic about Emma Stone. She certainly isn’t bad by any means, but in some scenes she just doesn’t quite feel right for the part. It may be that she clashes with portions of Allen’s writing style. I can’t quite put my finger on it.

One of the true stars of the film is cinematographer Darius Khondji. This is the fourth film he has shot for Woody Allen and his work is fabulous. More and more locations are becoming bigger characters in Allen’s films. Here the gorgeous French Riviera setting is vividly captured. Sometimes it playfully lingers as a backdrop. Other times Khondji seems to be framing a beautiful postcard right up until someone enters the frame. And then there is the percolating 1920s setting. I loved the conscientious attention given to the many period details.

I can see where “Magic in the Moonlight” would be too lightweight for some people. For some it may not be funny enough. For others it may not be romantic enough. Overall it has underwhelmed a lot of people. I found myself happily wrapped up in its setting, its humor, and its simplicity. Now don’t misunderstand me. This doesn’t have the magic of “Midnight in Paris”. But it is a film I enjoyed getting lost in, and when the final credits rolled I had a big smile on my face.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “Nightcrawler”

December 28, 2014 by Keith Garlington

“Nightcrawler” is the directorial debut for Dan Gilroy and I have to say it’s a very compelling one. But it’s not like Gilroy is a stranger to the business. He has a handful of co-writing credits on his resume. His brother Tony has been writing screenplays since 1992 and his directorial debut was the Oscar nominated “Michael Clayton”. Also Dan has been married to actress (and one of the stars of this film) Rene Russo for 22 years. So Dan Gilroy has been around the movie business for a while.

“Nightcrawler” is all his. In addition to directing the picture he also wrote the story which takes a look at the sleazy underbelly of freelance crime scene videographers. Jake Gyllenhaal stars in the film and he continues to impress me. It has taken me a while to come around to him as an actor, but a string of really strong performances has convinced me of his talents. “Nightcrawler” may give us the best Gyllenhaal performance to date.

Gyllenhaal dropped thirty pounds for the part of the unassuming Lou Bloom, an out of work eccentric living in Los Angeles. The very first scene is telling and gives us a good introduction to this character. A security guard catches Lou stealing metal from a construction yard. Lou jumps him, steals his watch, and escapes. He sells the stolen metal to a scrap yard and asks for a job. The manager pointedly tells him “I’m not hiring a thief”. Within these first few minutes Gilroy gives us several nuggets of information about Lou to process.

After coming up on a car crash Lou is inspired by videographer (Bill Paxton) who shoots footage of accident and crime scenes and then sells it to the highest paying news outlet. Lou steals a bicycle and pawns it for a cheap camcorder and a police scanner. After some rough early experiences, Lou captures some footage of a carjacking. He approaches Nina Romina (Russo), the news director of a struggling morning show, and she eagerly buys the footage. She encourages Lou to bring anything newsworthy to her first.

As Lou’s ‘business’ picks up he gets a new car, new equipment, and a new assistant named Rick (Riz Ahmed). He also becomes egotistic, more ambitious, and addicted to his new-found success. He begins tampering with crime scenes in hopes of getting more dramatic footage and bigger paydays. But Lou ultimately lusts recognition. As the film progresses we see more unhinged and sociopathic behavior from him and we begin to wonder how far he will go down this dark and twisted path.

Gilroy gives us a veritable smorgasbord of dark humor, biting satire, and neo-noir perspectives. There are so many clever machinations that keep things fairly unpredictable and uncomfortable (and I mean that in a good way). Initially it is the subtlety of the evil that is unsettling. Sometimes it is camouflaged within Lou’s quirky and seemingly mild-mannered behavior. Later his actions cross a number of disturbing lines and we see in him a cold indifference to what he is doing.

Gilroy develops such a dark and twisted tone in large part thanks to Robert Elswit’s atmospheric cinematography and the moody score from James Newton Howard. But the brightest spotlight shines on Gyllenhaal and his sensational performance. He is truly terrifying but in an unorthodox sense. It’s Gyllenhaal’s appearance, his expressions, his postures. But it’s also his inconspicuousness. His character is someone that could gel into society without anyone noticing his existence. Russo is also very good and she gives us an entirely different form of evil. Television ratings at all costs, morals and ethics out the window. But I do think her character is a tad too broad and at times absurdly unethical.

“Nightcrawler” has been getting a lot of praise and I can see why. It’s such a creepy, tense, and efficient crime/psychological thriller. I certainly don’t think it’s the modern day “Taxi Driver” as some critics are calling it and it doesn’t strike all of the chords it wants to. For example its sleepy little jabs at the all-American way and the entrepreneurial spirit come off as a tad weak. But it is definitely effective in far more areas than not and it doesn’t follow any routine conventional path. Add a phenomenal Jake Gyllenhaal performance to that and it’s easy to see why this film works so well.