TheDRauch

Though it amounts to little more than an amalgamation of sequences involving the power of music overcoming the degenerative effects of senility, these scenes do have an undeniably uplifting, human quality to them. Witnessing actual people, once nothing more than a dormant husk of their once vibrant selves, burst into moments of stunning clarity is truly heartwarming. Alive Inside fails to truly delve into the sciences of neural decay and how music plays a direct role in mending these gaps. It only provides a surface-level examination into the actual reason WHY this method of auditory stimulation seems to cause such an abrupt mental awakening. It is also regrettably brief, clocking in at less than 80-minutes, hindering the film's scope and making it's subject feel less urgent than it actually is. However, I would still say that Alive Inside makes a good name for it's cause and, at the very least, informs and educates about an issue that is tragically left neglected in most public arenas. Along with other 2014 Alzheimer's related dramas (Such as Still Alice, Wrinkles, among others) Alive Inside makes the case that a human being, regardless of how withered their mental capacity, still exists behind the veneer of a horrible disease that is out of their control. The proof lies in these few, bittersweet moments on display, and, I must say, I can't deny that their joy of cognitive recovery touched me deeply.

Another success in the recent surge of critically acclaimed Australian genre films (The Babadook, Tracks, to name a few), Predestination combines the narrative ball-of-yarn complexity of Looper and The Terminator with the race/gender transgressing themes of Cloud Atlas to make for a fairly distinctive, if a bit slight and thematically-absent time-travel film. In execution, Predestination has many of the qualities of the films of Christopher Nolan, both good and bad. On one hand, it is stylishly presented and sets its sights, at least somewhat, on the human element behind sci-fi genre-films. On the other hand, it can also feel needlessly complex, silly, and self important (at times). If you are like me, someone who takes time-travel films as an intricate puzzle meant to be dissected from the first frame that hits the screen, Predestination will unravel, sadly, much sooner than you may hope, considering all the good will and attention to detail paid to making sure the paradoxes don't collide. Spoilers for this next section. Where Predestination engages you most is in the portion of the story devoted to John/Jane making sure that John/Jane 'exists', simultaneously becoming his own mother, father, daughter, and son, as well as teacher, guardian, and saboteur. The concept checks out upon retrospection in a 'The Terminator" style paradox and is decently surprising, though I saw all of this coming fairly early on. One of the errs that ails Predestination from the very start is how the expositional dialogue and often blunt explanation of events doesn't make us work hard enough to make completing 'the puzzle' much more than satisfyingly engaging, when it could have been head-scratchingly abstract and required more retrospection, or even repeated viewings, which I don't feel the desire to make. Predestination's use of transgender dysphoria melodrama as the pivotal driving narrative involves a plotline that is fairly cliched and contians no new insight into what it means to be someone of intersex orientation, though it does provide the quality that currently sets it apart from other time-travel yarns. Where I take up issue with Predestination is how little the mind-boggling story really touches on any important undercurrent of emotion that other sci-fi head-strainers like Looper manage to without losing narrative propulsion. John's mission is to stop disasters from occurring through the use of time travel. However, the primary job at hand (preventing a massive detonation in New York, killing 10,000+ civilians) is the only one that Predestination sets its sights on. We have no background as to his past accomplishments as a temporal agent, making his character's importance unnecessarily limited in scope, even though we are convinced that he is this savior of mankind. Plus, in a final minute (supposed) mindfuq, John is forced to play the role of both hero and villain, an ambition intended to fry the brain and maybe distort the audience's sense of sympathy, but instead leaves a feeling of indifference, as it comes across solely as a final act of needless complication, an aspect the filmmakers may feel obligatory for time-travel films at this point in the genre. The more complex, the better right? Yes, but only when it coheres on, not only a plot-driven, but also a character-motivation, level. John's final justification for the bombing could be explained due to the debilitating effects of time-travel on the brain, but is executed in a way that feels cursory at best (and frustratingly brief at worst). Until that unsatisfying denouement, however, the character's motivations feel realistic enough and the narrative is, though a bit obvious at times, quite engaging. Also, something I haven't touched on at all up until this point (but demands to be lauded) is Sarah Snook's fantastic gender-transgressing performance as the young Jane/John. Her display of both male and female characteristics is in equal measure quite remarkable. Though her voice doesn't quite register as completely masculine, there is a scene where she acknowledges that she never quite learned how to speak like a man, an element of self-awareness that recognizes that the only aspects limiting her from portraying a man more realistically are simply because she is, well, a woman. On the whole, I have gone more in depth for this review than I intended and, without overwhelming with any further text, Predestination is a solid time travel film and makes an even more enticing case for the continued production of movies in Australia.

No stranger to crafting animated works of devastating emotional power, Isao Takahata''s latest masterpiece, and I don't throw that term around lightly in any capacity, is a beautiful impressionistic fantasy with a towering quality of timelessness and emotional realism. Watching The Tale of the Princess Kaguya is the equivalent of having one of your childhood fairy tales fleshed out in a universe that feels more tangible than anything you've ever experienced in animation. I cannot stress the overwhelming beauty of the art style featured throughout Kaguya. I was blown away. The hand-drawn sequences stun with simultaneous clarity and formlessness, reflecting the duality of the perception of reality. I was emotionally floored when the climax came to pass. It is an ending that makes me consider my past failures in life and all the wasted time and emotions I've spent on not living to the utmost that will truly hit me hardest upon the forever leaving of a person from my life, maybe even my own passing. To love people as deeply as we do, and then to spend our time avoiding emotional intimacy or dismissing the great love for others that lie untapped in our beings, is truly heartbreaking. I cried at the finale, but the deep reservoirs of heartache that The Tale of the Princess Kaguya caused me is something I that I'm still reeling from almost a week after seeing it. The overall joyous euphoria I experienced leading up to Kaguya's departure wasn't underscored by the romantic dread that this feeling is only fleeting, allowing you to truly forget entirely about real-life eventuality and become absolutely lost in the primal happiness found in the recesses of childhood memories, only to find out moments later that this feeling will not last, just like youth itself. Do not squander your time. Find love and cling to it, in it's many forms and accompanying heartaches, for if you do not, your life will pass you by and you will not be able to remember what it truly means to be human, the greatest tragedy of all, which truly makes The Tale of the Princess Kaguya a must-see, once in a lifetime, impossible accomplishment.

A crock of cliched tropes that generalizes, rather than fleshes out the 'teenage' experience and the evolution of the term. The films sews together a narrative consisting of archival footage as well as dramatic recreations, all set to a driving dub of narration from 'teenage voices' (Most notably among the mix are Jena Malone and Ben Whishaw, two actors well past this period of youth themselves). The most interesting aspect of 'Teenage' is that the recreations are aesthetically feasible and blend fairly seamlessly into the mix of actual grainy black and white footage. The execution of 'Teenage' gives it a distinctive documentary feel, though it doesn't seem to do much at all with it. We gain no new insight to the experience of being a teenager, just a caricature of how the feelings of the children of the era were exacerbated by the conflicts of the times, forcing them to acquire a voice. The plot becomes repetitive once we adjust to the format. The narration begins to grow irritating. As a failed experiment, the one thing that is a shame above all in 'Teenage' is how strikingly dull and devoid of personality it really is when the veneer of subversive execution is pulled back.

Goodbye to Language is a bizarre trip, unlike anything I've ever seen. It reminds me of the film briefly previewed in the documentary 'Exit Through the Gift Shop' called 'Life Remote Control'. It is a series of dichotomous imagery and non-sequitor narrations that in absolutely no way cohede into something comprehensive on a logical, sensical, or realistic level. There is a goldmine of ambiguity and symbolism here. However, this is so dense, dense as a brick, that I find it will require MULTIPLE viewings to truly mesh into a thematic whole, and then even MORE viewings after that to finally come to a resolute storyline. I do have interest to see it again, but I don't know if it would be a fruitful usage of my time. Definitely a standout work of the art-house output in 2014. You guys want a challenging flick? Check this out. I'm still baffled.

Low-budget, yet simultaneously ambitious in conception, "The One I Love" reminds me of another **** of equally low budget, "Coherence". In both films, the premise is undeniably clever and engages us throughout, while also bringing up a number of big questions and themes relating to loyalty, identity, and reality. "The One I Love" makes much fuller use of it's premise than "Coherence" and is the better film of the two. There is a much bigger focus on character here; whereas "Coherence" sold it's heady premise as a challenging, yet entertaining brain-puzzle, "The One I Love" takes it further by adding a more honed focus on the central relationship of the couple. The performances of The One I Love are multi-faceted and subtle, our loyalties shifting from one version of a character to the other. Duplass and Moss deliver charming charism and obligatory depth. Their performances are what keeps the film engaging on a character level. The premise gets the better of the movie, unfortunately. That is to say that the film doesn't know how to resolve itself in a simultaneously thematically pleasing and conceptually rewarding manner. The ending is a bit too cynical to feel like a fitting send-off to these characters and it's too predictable and ordinary to have worked out the plot conflicts established early on in a realistic way. There are places I wish The One I Love had gone; other aspects of the premise I wish it had made use of or explored. However, this movie still has more ingenuity that most out there and it's an undeniably entertaining flick, one that stands as one of 2014s better works.

One of the more underrated wide release films of 2014, The Good Lie retains some of the power that lies in the true story upon which it is based, in spite of the sometimes glossy Hollywood approach through which it is framed. The use of real actors that were once child soldiers of Sudan themselves adds an undeniable authenticity to the performances of the four central characters. While far from a starkly realistic portrait of the enduring atrocities that I'm sure still plague Sudan, The Good Lie is still competently made and gets it's point across quite well. The inclusion of noteworthy actors, like Reese Witherspoon and Corey Stoll, while each delivering fine performances, creates an initially jarring effect and distracts until we become used to the characters later on in the picture. Some of the conflicts during the mid-section of the film can seem more slight than others when contrasted with The Good Lie's engaging first act. The bickering between Paul and Mamere is one of the lesser aspects that the film devotes it's time to. There is also an overall feel throughout that we aren't getting a view of the whole, horrific picture. To account for this could be the accommodating tone that often usurps The Good Lie's possible heft. One of the positive aspects that arises from this light touch is how surprisingly funny the film can be. Not every gag works, but the 'Coming to America' style of culture-clash humor feels natural and prevents The Good Lie from being overbearingly solemn. One sizable flaw I had was that the final solution to the brothers' problem, from which The Good Lie derives it's title, doesn't feel manipulative, but distractingly unfeasible, or, if this was the real conclusion to the true-to-life story, framed in a rush that undercuts it's dramatic and socio-political potential. All-in-all, The Good Lie makes for some surprisingly effective Hollywood drama, featuring some relative unknowns giving impressively authentic performances. It reminds me faintly of the 2011 drama "A Better Life", a film that also left an impact and showed depths of human emotion in spite of the sometimes treacly approach to the story.

Shallow, but effervescent and tirelessly optimistic. The sheer number of celebrity appearances in this film is unprecedented. Gordon seams to weave in and out of the life of nearly every famous artist relating to film, music, cuisine, you name it. It paints a community of people who most of us are associated with through their fame all centering around someone who, up till now, has been to the majority of anyone out of this circle, an unknown. He makes for an interesting subject, and if Myers has anything going for him in 'Supermensch', it is that. I'm glad for Mike, to be able to come out with a quality film after nearly four years of public silence. His return seems more personal than any of his works as an actor before. Gaining some perspective, all this really is is a victory lap for someone incredibly wealthy and successful. It can be overindulgent at times and Myers' over-the-top lens through which he projected his early comedy films can seep into the narrative and produce some overbearing results at times, though 'Supermensch' feels like a work of minimalist restraint compared to films like 'Wayne's World' and 'Austin Powers'. The tone is lighthearted and fun, which makes the ride a pleasant one, but also leaves you feeling kind of devoid of emotional impact. All-in-all, 'Supermensch' isn't really a warts-and-all, profound expose of a prominent figure in Hollywood, more an surface-level conversation with someone who has some really good stories.

Cinema blasé at its most cliched and heavy handed in its absurdism. It's entertaining in spite of itself, though. The black and white cinematography sets the mood early on for a dreary, colorless story about caricatures of people going through their daily lives doing their thing, a trope of minimalist cinema we've already seen done much more subtle and effective. The main character is about the closest thing to a snot-nosed movie-equivalent Camus I can think of. He's a protagonist that is so lacking in personality that he actually compliments the tone of the film by being just as unaffected and aloof as the plot is. He goes about his day and nothing is urgent or striking, in spite of the fact that he seems to be at a crossroads of sorts. He shows little concern over his father cutting him off. Soon he'll have to get a job. He doesn't sweat it, not even a bit. This attitude of 'meh' leads to every encounter, regardless of how potentially engaging, resulting in little more than a vignette. This slack dramatic gravitas doesn't hold our attention. More so, it allows our minds to wander in and out of the picture, which isn't a terrible quality; certain audiences are known to relish this disaffected approach. There are moments of smirk-worthy humor and there aren't any overt errors, but it's just so unambitious that A Coffee in Berlin fails to leave a substantial emotional impact of any kind. Not a bad Sunday morning when you're lounging in your PJ's sipping Earl Gray and watching the rain fall outside. In fact, that sounds quite nice.

A testament to the power of art, as well as it's variable interpretability, the labor and vision required to achieve it, it's necessity, as well as it's sometimes lack of practicality, as well as a boatload of other themes that could be dreamed up by any given viewer's perceptions (much like the exhibit itself), the documentary Levitated Mass is, simply put, staggering. It functions not only as a celebration of the capacity of mankind's achievement, but as a personal examination of an artist's esoteric, yet-mind-bogglingly immense, body of work. Simply basking in the sheer monolithic enormity of the rock in public locales provides a juxtaposition that is funny, profound, humbling, and, essentially, human. I do wish that we were given a deeper insight into the mind of Heizer, or at least a more in-depth examination of him as a person. I understand that he is kind of myth to the public and acquiring information about him may be difficult, but it just seems like an aspect of Levitated Mass that is undernourished. His appearance at the end could have been more climactic and surprising if he had been portrayed more as a recluse, but he seems very personable and not at all camera-shy. Other than that minor gripe, this is a spellbinding watch from start to finish. You never once stop pondering the potential meaning of it all, or the multiple meanings, for that matter. If you value art as an abstraction, or are even remotely interested in the amazing story of how they moved this obelisk 105 miles and built an interactive exhibit for it, I'd check out Levitated Mass.

It's an emotionally complex and mature film, that's for certain. The film juggles thorny themes relating to death, guilt, responsibility, and desperation all while presenting it's characters, particularly the mother, as multi-dimensional people, at times behaving exceptionally selfish or cowardly in lieu of imposing moral circumstances that demand, rather, sacrifice and humility. These aren't necessarily bad people, though. They are exceptionally damaged individuals, mostly because of their relationships with each other. They behave in ways that are self-serving. The mother smothers her son and overlooks what is right in order to keep him in her life at any cost. The son behaves callously toward her attempts at connection and fails to confront his guilt or even acknowledge it, in spite of the horrid repercussions his behavior has on everyone involved. The climax is particularly emotionally scathing. The mother ceases to be a cold, in-control figure and completely disintegrates into desperation, a scene that reveals an unexpected vulnerability to her that is surprising when juxtaposed with the confidence she displays throughout the majority of the first hour. Child's Pose takes scenes of moral conflict like these and milks every bit of misanthropic commentary it can indirectly from the behavior of these characters, who are far from handling their situation gracefully. There is a revelation unearthed by the father of the dead child near the end of the film that strikes a deep chord. He acknowledges that it is both his fault as well as the man-child who killed his son and he is willing to rot in prison for his life in order to achieve 'a kind of justice'. Sobering stuff. From everyone involved, great performances grace the screen, particularly the mother, as we can all agree. Sometimes the abrasive, uncomfortable tone can be a bit overbearing, creating a dislikability that overwhelms the attempt at empathy Child's Pose strives for simultaneously. The emotional climax is undermined a bit, though the performances run full-steam-ahead sob-territory, because of the fact that we aren't necessarily in the corner of the mother and her son; in spite of the fact that we understand their motivations, we can't quite warm up to either due to some blatantly protruding character flaws. But when this film works in spite of it's heavier than necessary tone and likability issue, it is a rousing experience, and it stands as one of the most morally challenging films to come out this year.

This is a bizarre one, guys. It reminds me of another abstract work that tested my patience this year - Visitors. The movie is essentially an assortment of vignettes-of-sorts built around a central plot of an artist couple deciding to move from their home of many years. What ensues is social minimalism to its core, though delivered in a package of sparse abstraction whose meaning may lack absolute clarity, if any whatsoever. One thing I can't praise enough is how unflattering and natural this movie presents it's characters, particularly the lead actress. There are times when this movie is so intimate and personal, it's unsettling, almost in a carnal sense. Each frame is composed delicately. Many long takes are filmed with the camera aimed directly at a window, giving a reflected view of the inside of the home the characters inhabit, as well as the streets and buildings outside. Often, these two settings are captured in a shimmering blend. Perhaps this is metaphorical imagery set on making the point of how intimate the storyline is; all barriers that may seclude the characters' lives are broken down and nothing is private. Everything is on 'EXHIBITION' here. But that's just my interpretation. If the approach Joanna used here was a bit more direct without sacrificing the subtlety she so expertly captures, this could've been more impactful, but as it is the film is so mystic and vague at points that it may lose most viewers. In fact, I can't lie here, I was almost bored to tears at some sections it was enamored with it's own artsy-fartsy subversiveness. However, I really do appreciate and respect Joanna's distinct approach to filmmaking and think that this picture shows great promise for her future as a filmmaker. I won't say that I necessarily 'like' or 'enjoyed' Exhibition, but I was certainly struck by it in a way that left a definite mark that won't soon fade from memory.

A remarkable charmer, one that is much more entertaining and potent than it had any right to be. Sure, the trope of a romance that develops into full-on-love in a single night is groan-inducing, in theory and practice in practically any film (save the Before series, though those movies still have their moments of plot implausibility). There are moments when Copenhagen is far too cutesy and formulaic. But, in spite of its contrivances, there is also a consistency in the way it surprises you with the subtle courting of the central couple. If this film had been promoted better, it could've become a decently successful, if a bit shameless, rom-com. Gethin Anthony of Game of Thrones makes for a surprisingly strong male lead, offering bits of scathing **** to offset an absolute likability, instead opting for surprising depth of character (at least by rom-com standards, anyway). The young actress in this film, Frederikke Dahl Hansen, is quite magnetic. She reminds me of the sensuality of Maria Schneider in Last Tango in Paris, but in a hushed sense. There are characters in Copenhagen that feel undernourished, most egregiously is Gethin's best friend, who weaves in and out of the plot and exits the film in an unsatisfying manner. The same could be said of the conclusion of the central, driving, plot behind the romance, wherein our hero finally tracks down his grandfather. I feel that this is where some punches are pulled that really could've fleshed out the main character, but the final conversation between the two is brief and almost un-confrontational, leaving our romantic lead's relationships with fathers a bit more cliched and nondescript than I'd prefer. On the whole though, Copenhagen surprised me immensely, especially as a debut picture. I hope that Gethin is able to find more roles like this, post his GOT character's death. He is incredibly charming and dimensional, and the same could be said of the lead actress. One of the most underrated, verging-on-mainstream films of the year.

. . . I . . . I'm speechless . . . OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOO

The Almost Man has a few decent, if excessively juvenile and idiotic, gags, as well as one notably shocking scene in a car. Henrik's complete lack of self-consciousness and willingness to put himself in particularly un-flattering situations is admirable. The film suffers from a repetitiveness of the ongoing argument that takes place between Henrik and Tone that begins after the first act and lasts until the last stretch of the film. Yes, Henrik does need to make some changes in his life to appropriately adjust to his new life, but the frustration he feels is quite one-dimensional and it takes away from much of the film's comedic potential. The character arc Henrik goes through is so mundane and predictable. The commentary The Almost Man attempts at relating to adulthood is so well-worn and tried-and-tested that the only thing that could make it feel fresh is the execution, which only turns out solid results intermittently. We do get an excellent comedic lead performance here, one that makes me think of what being would come into existence if Liam Neeson, Chris O' Dowd, and Jason Segel had an illegitimate, imbecilic offspring. The film also has a mercifully swift run time of 73-minutes. Not outstanding, but passable and occasionally laugh-inducing.

OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH It's over at last! holy moly this is a languid slow-burning art house movie! I called it, mid-film that Philip Glass was the composer. The score is so minimal it hurts, it feels claustrophobic, which I don't think was intended. The imagery is both beautiful to behold and stiflingly monochromatic. I was transfixed at some stretches, and bored to death at others. The attempt to tie an encompassing theme into this about how technology fixates us is so heavy-handed, yet also SO ambiguous. Nothing really comes together into a wholesome product. These images and their sometimes lack of cohesive details ultimately lead to more of an alienating effect than an arresting one. It's gosh-darn silly at points. I don't really know what to think. This movie was and wasn't a waste of my time. Does that make sense?

Eh, kinda slight for such a prominent and horrific figure of the holocaust. The film covers one of the least interesting chapters of his exile and delves neither into the psychology, nor the gripping details of his atrocious acts. For most of the film, Mengele remains to the audience as he does to the little girl he experiments on - a mystery. There are some side plots involving the girl's first experiences at school and a doll-factory venture that ultimately supply no thematic weight to the picture, only serving as filler for when Mengele (the truly magnetic subject here) is not onscreen. Something worth mentioning is that The German Doctor portrays him as both a sadistic villain and a human being (of sorts), which is somewhat true to the testimony of other holocaust accounts. He could be simultaneously caring and warm to the children that became his victims, while also holding no qualms over sending them to the gas chambers and making them suffer through his horrid experimentations. The performances are all-around decent, if somewhat plain. Even the lead performance of Mengele himself comes across as slight, though this may be because the screenplays commitment to historical accuracy over dramatic heft leaves very little room to breathe for all involved. A biopic more encompassing in scope and daring in its presentation could have been quite more effective, but, for what it is, The German Doctor still gets by (barely) through sheer watchability.

Emotionally manipulative, heavy-handed, pro-American war propaganda that gets by solely on the visceral impact of the war scenes. The attempt to shoe-horn in how this is a story about a father and son attempting to 'bond' is an absolute failure; we don't get a genuine focus on these two men when they are shooting footage side-by-side and the son leaves mid-picture. The narrative becomes disjointed, if it already wasn't fairly incoherent. This is not Restrepo, not even Korengal. I feel for our soldiers fighting overseas, but this doc doesn't serve them the way they deserve. Also, the score is so over-the-top, laughably bombastic, almost, that it underplays the real tension that unfolds onscreen. The troops deserve better, and so do audiences for that matter.

A wrenching Palestinian drama worthy of that Oscar nomination it was lauded this January. The titular character of Omar is treated in such a tragic way, I dare viewers not to sympathize with him throughout. The film revolves around a trio of friends who stage an assassination of a soldier. An ensuing fallout results in one of them, Omar, getting captured and tortured, forced to work with the government. Already the stage is set for morally grey exploration of terrorist brotherhoods. The characters are treated so humanely that it is easy to overlook their violent acts through a lens of absolute empathy. Eventually, Omar is left to make several hard decisions in order to keep his life from spiraling out of control. The events escalate to a situation-lockout that leaves you with a feeling of utter hopelessness. This plotting is complex, yet it's design and moral conflict is inherently quite simple. Each betrayal or plot twist is underscored with an understanding of the motivation behind each character, leaving no one an outright villain and the hero ultimately a martyr. The performances from everyone involved are decent, but the lead, Adam-I-forget-his-last-name-at-the-moment, deserves particular praise for creating a balance of stoicism and cool reserve. There are a few moments of humor as well to prevent the drama from reaching flat-out bleak territory, even though most of the attempts are just that. The elements with Omar and his girlfriend become repetitive early on and I cared least about her storyline, though it is vital to the story. Aside from an ending that feels bizarrely jarring and unsatisfying, literally only in the final seconds, the whole ride propels forward at a steady pace and never loses track of the human element at hand. Probably the most tragic lead character of the year, I almost cried I felt so bad for him.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that Watermark has some of the most staggering imagery I've seen in film all year. A film about a topic as vast as water is bound to have it's reach exceed it's grasp. The attempt at unifying these gorgeous visual vignettes into an all-consuming theme is not so much a failure as it is incredibly vague. This movie is less a work of Terrence Malick (sans the poetic narration and disjointed narrative) than it is one of those 'OFF THE AIR' segments that plays on Adult Swim at four in the morning but stretched out to a feature-length runtime, which I see no real problem in. There are some slight gripes to be had. Each 'storyline' is so disparate from the next that a jarring effect is created. Maybe this is to make commentary on how universal and diverse the application of water around the world is, but, if so, the immense imagery we have on display here is wasted on such a tame thesis. I would have preferred the film simply overwhelmed me with sheer color and visual scope (which it has in abundance, believe me) than attempt to label some sort of 'meaning' to it. The human aspect of Watermark is severely lacking, is what I mean to say. In spite of most of the astounding shots of dams and farms having elements of humanity, when an interview is conducted or the focus of the film steers clear of it's cinematography, my interest seems to drift. But when it's all said and done, once Watermark hits a stride of optic grandeur, it certainly leaves it's MARK. LEEL LEEL LEEL. Seriously, though, check this out. If anything, convert some still shots from the movie to a slideshow background on your iMac. You won't be disappointed.

One of the most surprisingly effective docs of the year, by a wide margin. One of the greatest accomplishments of As the Palaces Burn is the way that it simultaneously introduces the band to those (like myself) unaware of their existence, while integrating the intricate, fascinating, and emotionally gripping legal battle that takes place for the majority of the second and third acts, all without leaving one aspect feeling lackluster or unnecessary in comparison to each other. Randy Blythe is slowly revealed to be a courageous man, one whose exoneration feels hard won and triumphant after an exceptionally well-staged build of tension. I'm actually glad I was in the dark going in. It left the entire experience, from start to finish, very engaging. There isn't a particular achilles-heel to As the Palaces Burn. What faults there are are slight. The finale feels like it's searching for a way to conclude with the court case in a way that ties everything together full circle, only finding a somewhat wholesome ending. There are times that, while still engaging, the plot can feel a tad redundant, but the film still clocks in at a sharp 90-minutes. Definitely check this one out. It's a blend of Anvil! The Story of Anvil! and Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory.

Bethlehem joins a recent string of Israeli films (such as Footnote and Ajami, to name a few) to leave a significant mark in the United States. While the deeper themes relating to terrorism and the fight against it remain a mere plot device, Bethlehem's focus on loyalty, brotherhood, and betrayal reap some interesting, if somewhat slight, results. The plot is too complex for it's own good, at least in the first third. After things settle down, we begin to truly grasp the motivation of each character. I find it interesting how the film manages to humanize the terrorist brotherhood without demonizing them, yet simultaneously portraying them as the antagonists who are committing horrible acts and should meet justice. While the finale is satisfying in a sense, I feel as though numerous elements of the plot are unresolved. It could have gone on for a decent half-an-hour and seen out the repercussions of the final act of violence that concludes Bethlehem and more properly concluded the narratives of a couple other side-characters, particularly Badawi. No matter, though. Flawed as it is, Bethlehem still resembles some of the finest filmmaking Israel has to offer.

Whitewash plays out like a film conceived after a drunken screening of two completely disparate movies - Cast Away and Fargo. The musical score, seedy tone, and tundra-based setting take heavy cues from the classic Coen work. The elements of isolation and one-man-showmanship derived from Zemeckis' stranded island movie compose the rest of the movie. If these ingredients may seem to mesh well on paper, the reason for Whitewash's bitter taste lies in the execution of the conflicted material. Whitewash suffers from a plethora of ailments. The dialogue is piss-poor. The plot is needlessly complex, as well as implausible. On a psychological level, Whitewash shows more promise, but it is still immensely oversimplified. Any moment that generates anything close to genuine engagement are birthed purely from Thomas Haden Church immense laboring past strange, tinny dialogue and the scenery at hand, sometimes one losing out to the other, sad to say. The focus on the relationship between Bruce and Paul that is revealed through flashbacks is horrid and rings false and awkward throughout. The ending is so thematically oblique, almost nihilistically so, that I fail to see any thematic resonance once the conclusion comes about, if it may be considered a finale of any sort. A mixed-bag, to say the least. Church tries, but . . .

The premise of Lucky Them could have been used to mine revelations about the mythos of fallen or simply mystical musical icons in general, but instead opts to be a pleasant, albeit slight, road trip dramedy. The underground music scene only serves as a backdrop of sorts. The main focus is on Colette, who manages to sustain a likability to her character without sacrificing a healthy dose of multi-dimensional-ism. The plot is absurd and the side plot featuring her relationship with an up-and-coming musician feels undernourished. There is a criminal under-usage of Platt and what laughs there are to be had aren't more than chuckle-inducing, but no matter. Lucky Them doesn't pose as a more ambitious film than it is and it succeeds on the terms it establishes early on: to be light, endearing, intelligent, and, at the very least, diverting. The finale inserts an unexpected depth (and an unexpected cameo) into this story that raise it from the depths of mediocrity, but just barely. Worth checking out for Colette and, I forgot to mention, Church's scene-stealing rich-boy antics.

Featuring a trio of fantastic performances from Michael C. Hall, Sam Shepherd, and a rejuvenated Don Johnson, sporting an off-kilter 80s-esque electro score, and an engaging plot ripe with welcomely subverting turns in direction, Cold in July will probably go down (unfortunately) as one of the most underrated films of the year. True, the film adds little new context to the repercussions of violence and the expectations of masculinity that impose upon simple men. There is also a kind of corn-brained logic to some of the plot twists, but it never comes across as ridiculous, more campy and fun. If I had to compare this film tonally to something else from this year, Blue Ruin comes to mind, as well as the Nicolas Cage vehicle, Joe. While not nearly as seamless in presenting it's thrills as Blue Ruin or emotionally resonant as Joe, Cold in July still earns merit for being a competently made thriller that has characters more rich than we've come to expect from the genre, as well as an unbridled momentum that builds to a (albeit, predictable) satisfying finale. Worth recommending.

The niche that A Birder's Guide to Everything seems to strive for is a blend of coming-of-age film and a celebration of birder culture. Sadly, the movie focuses less on the latter, the more esoteric and interesting area of focus, and hones it's attention on adolescent angst, as well as the grief of losing a loved one. While Meyer's work here is admirably quite a calm and, I guess, contemplative (?) exploration of youth, it is in equal measure, and maybe because of it's reserve, practically devoid of personality. Ben Kingsley adds some much needed dynamic qualities to a character that is hardly in the film more than 10 minutes. Aside from his grace-notes, each actor does their best with the sub-par material, straining to give life to what are essentially caricatures. Another film similar in subject is a documentary that aired on HBO last year called Birders: The Central Park Effect. It clocks in at about half the time and goes extensively into the more interesting subject from which A Birder's Guide to Everything derives it's title, but nothing in the area of passion or insight. There was an element involving the young female lead that I initially hoped was going to unfold without dipping into the cliched trope of having her serve as the male lead's romantic interest and nothing more, but I was wrong. It is pleasant and scenic enough, and the movie doesn't make any egregious errors that derail the entire picture, but neither does it take risks or attempt to distinguish itself from a crowd of better coming-of-age movies (and birding films, too, for that matter).

If you have heard of Dan Harmon and are a fan of Community, this doc will prove more tolerable for you than the average viewer. I would be hard pressed to find anything artistically groundbreaking or thematically substantial in this. As a huge fan of Community, I took great delight in just watching Dan Harmon do his thing. However, this bias cannot be disregarded as anything but bias. Out of the mindset of a Harmonian convert, Harmontown is nothing more than a fan-service indulgence doubling as a tour documentary. We have this shoe-horned message about unifying outcasts and 'nerds' by inducting them into this kind of . . . well . . . COMMUNITY, but it all feels forced and is really heavy handed. We already know that Harmontown is a strong and loving group of fanboys and gals, we have evidence of that in the way the audience interacts with Dan during his shows. By just witnessing his podcasts (easily the most engaging portions of the film) this comes across, but the film indulges so much more than is necessary in pushing this theme of the unity of strangers over one man's work that it can be a bit gag-inducing at times. There isn't much insight gained on Dan Harmon the man or the artist that we already didn't know. For someone who doesn't know who Dan is, this isn't the best introduction to his work. All-said, this is fairly entertaining and there are some legitimate moments of hilarity that ensue during the podcasts, from drunk-off-moonshine rants to some gleefully geeky rounds of Dungeons & Dragons, but there isn't much more than that to check out here.

My expectations started fairly lukewarm. I saw good reviews from critics, which was reassuring, but the premise seemed too trashy to be anything more than shock value meaningless entertainment. I was partly right. Cheap Thrills is trashy and shocking. But what I was wrong about was just how trashy and shocking it was going to get. This, weirdly enough, most reminds me of Big Bad Wolves, an Iranian film that was equally graphic and arresting, though, I'm gonna be honest, I think that, while Cheap Thrills is less artistically worthwhile, it is the better film. This movie is so entertaining and FUNNY, I found myself quite pleasantly (and unpleasantly) surprised. The entire concept is ridiculous and some of the extremes are a bit too absurd to be feasible, but the film isn't asking to be taken seriously, which makes it simultaneously succeed, yet also not amount to much more than a genre picture (but what a picture it is). Pat Healy is fantastic and remarkably expressive compared to the other roles I'd seen him in, like The Innkeepers (also starring Sara Paxton) and Compliance. Ethan Embry's character isn't handled with quite as much grace, but he certainly manages. MOST IMPORTANTLY, David Koechner is absolutely riveting here. He adds a strange level of depth to a character that would, on paper, simply come across as a one-note sadist. He truly delivers his finest performance of his career in this movie. I'm being straight up. Check out Cheap Thrills. I recommend it entirely, especially for fans of the low-budget showmanship of Joe Swanberg, Ti West, and Adam Wingard.

An esoteric and informative doc, plays out like an unfolding mystery. The filmmaker's ambivalence in regards to showing Maier's very personal and purposefully shielded work makes for interesting discussion, though this topic isn't delved into as deeply or passionately as we'd like. The focus of the film is more on the life and work of Vivian Maier, who proves to be an interesting enough subject to keep our attention for an agreeably brief running time. Worth a watch, maybe once.

Little replay value here, but, upon first viewing, Manakamana makes for a trance-inducing, indescribably moving and undeniably human documentary. I don't want to spoil the premise, but lets just say that a vast majority of people will hate this film and probably dip out 5-10 minutes in. I don't blame them. It is not for everyone. Patient viewers will find themselves in rapture for what is easily my favorite documentary of 2014 so far. This film pushes the boundaries of what we can consider a 'narrative'. The movie preys on our socially analytical nature as observers, voyeurs more like it. I dare you to sit through the whole film. Don't see it with friends or other people. You may be influenced to make distracting conversation. Engage this in your own quiet way and test yourself to see how far you can go without a break. My eyes were glued to the screen. I didn't look away once.

Fort Bliss can't help but feel like another domestic-set military drama in an unfortunately lesser vein of 2009's fantastic The Messenger. The film's focus on PTSD and it's impact on someone's loved ones certainly does not pave new cinematic ground. Where the film does succeed is in it's subversive casting of the beautiful Michelle Monaghan in the role of a shell-shocked, yet successful medic coming back to her estranged son. It's a new point of view, that of a FEMALE soldier returning home to find her old life alienating. The film fails to bring forth any new point of view relating to the tortured duality of a soldier's life returning home with the desire to be back in the field (and vice-versa) that The Hurt Locker didn't depict so emphatically. There are some plot-lines of the film that are lackluster, others are more engaging. The story that gives the film is most potent emotional heft is the focus on Monaghan's relationship with her son. It is at times crushingly sad, while not being cloying. It is this direct **** emotionalism that gives Fort Bliss it's backbone. The performances are consistent enough, particularly Monaghan, as I stated earlier, as well as Manolo Cardona as her spanish love interest and an understated Ron Livingston in the role of her ex-husband. Dash Mihok's turn is somewhat melodramatic and his storyline proves to be the least interesting as well as the least authentic. For those who haven't yet seen other (and better) Iraq-war set household dramas will find this film inadvertently a little slight in comparison, to no fault of it's own. I am glad that more filmmakers are willing to touch on this important subject and big-name actors are willing to lend their talents to bring some attention to this often forgotten and important subject that hits closer to home than we may think.

I hate to state the (very) obvious, but 'Django Unchained' is just what you would expect from a film by Quentin Tarantino. Granted, 'Django' isn't his greatest film where emotional depth and resonance is concerned, but it certainly is the most entertaining. I had a blast. It is probably the single film this year that I had particularly high hopes for that were met to the exact level of my expectations. It follows the same type of mold of any Tarantino film. There are many drawn out scenes of interesting dialogue that typically conclude with sudden bursts of super-violence which are meant to be jarring (and are). There are multiple cameos from established actors (trust me, there are a lot of them) and there is usually one standout off-the-wall character that parades around like a controlled, unsettling lunatic. Those shoes, last filled by Christoph Waltz in 'Inglourious Basterds', are now worn by Leonardo DiCaprio as the racist and refined francophile brat, Calvin Candie. He is truly a great villain here, delivering one of the best character interpretations of his career. All of the other performances are great too, though. Waltz proves his worth as a full-on Tarantino convert as the morally good Dr. Schultz, demonstrating the control he had in 'Inglourious Basterds', but with the traces of humanity that didn't exist in Hans Landa. Samuel L. Jackson, a standard in Tarantino movies, gives a thoroughly maddening performance as the book-keeping slave (the name escapes me now), whose motives and actions are consistently intriguing. And who could forget Foxx, displaying a cool, hardened, revenge-driven character so filled with spite for the evil around him that it nearly jeopardizes his plans to save his wife at every turn. I am also happy that, when writing the script, the word n****r wasn't taken out, not shying away for the times of today out of reverence for historical accuracy. There are plenty scenes worth noting for their brutal violence and often gut-busting hilarity, but I shouldn't spoil the film. You should go see it. It's really awesome.

Tom Hooper's adaptation of the long running musical based on the novel by Victor Hugo has its fair share of problems. I found most of them to lie in the choices that Hooper made as director and by how frenetic and dizzying that damn camera is. At times (particularly during the revolutionary scenes), I had to take a moment to rub my eyes and look away so as to not induce vomiting. I was so nauseated for the majority of the movie. Hooper also never lets the story take a breath and slow down, which might leave some viewers exhausted on par with the frenetic cinematography. This is a blunt, head-bashing, brash musical that is anything from subtle. It makes films like 'Chicago' and 'Moulin Rouge' look like highly philosophical works of art. All of my complaining aside though, this is a good movie. The production design and staging is quite impeccable and the story manages to remain comprehensible even across a near three hour running time. But if I am to say that anything redeems 'Les Miserables' it has to be the work from its dedicated cast. Everyone in the film gives great performances (even those who don't quite have the greatest singing chops). Many of the supporting turns, given by such new talent as Eddie Redmayne and Samantha Barks, threaten to brew into deservedly lucrative acting careers in the future. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter (both in that classic, twisted musical from 2007, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street), provide much needed comic relief to the movie. Hugh Jackman, I dare say, is a pitch perfect choice for the part of Jean Valjean. He has great vocals and that pained, burdened kind of look needed for the role. Now to the final bit of business. To describe Anne Hathaway's performance as Fantine as a show-stopper, is just completely unfitting. She makes this movie. If any reason at all, see this film for her legendary performance of 'I Dreamed a Dream'. I expected that it would be the highlight of the film and I was right. She completely steals the show. This movie should grant her the first Oscar of her career and it would be more than well-deserved. So, to sum up 'Les Miserables', the movie is problematic and flat-footed, but I dare you not to leave the theater unaffected because, as obvious as it is, the movie works because of the acting on display.

'The Kid with a Bike' is the first film from the Dardenne brothers which I have been lucky enough to come across. What I can say about it is that I was amazed by how emotionally impacting the story was, which played out as simple as its straightforward title may suggest. These directors have a way of making the mundane seem grand and the everyday feel cinematic. The film has the sense that it was directed with the greatest of ease, as if these were the actions of real people being filmed as they went about their everyday lives. Realism this deep and authentic is often incredibly hard to capture and these Dardennes, well, they make it seem like second nature to them. Many themes are explored in the film (all wrung out with the greatest of subtlety) such as redemption, cruelty, and kindness, never leaving the feeling that the easy solution was presented to the situation at hand. We are blessed with two wonderful performances that are great in their own respects. The first comes from Thomas Doret who plays Cyril, a young boy whose father has abandoned him, with the kind of gravity that professional adult actors can barely manage to flesh out themselves. The second great performance comes from Cecile de France, playing the caring hairdresser Samantha, who takes over the role as Cyril's legal guardian. I feel that the critic that described her performance as a credible portrait of goodness was spot on. I am not saying that her character is saintly, but she represents the undying qualities of care and forgiveness that seem to exist in everyone. I would recommend this to anyone yearning to experience a genuinely uplifting tale about humanity. You will leave rocked to your core.

This is, for me, one of the biggest disappointments of the year. Don't get me wrong - it is the farthest thing from a bad movie. If other viewers manage to take away more from 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' than I did, more power to them. I, however, felt that it was a disrespect to Tolkien, as it was stuffed full with unnecessary scenes, sometimes 15 minutes in length, that weren't even included in the novel. I only read three chapters of The Hobbit before going to see it. I couldn't wait and decided that I could hold off finishing the book, since the film was to be delivered in three different courses. I was surprised to discover that the actual film didn't really 'start' until about 20 minutes in. In short I shall say this: what scenes were true to the novel were enjoyable (especially the battle of riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum which was absolutely masterful) and what scenes were not from the original novel felt dull, childish, awkward, and (once again) unnecessary. I understand that The Hobbit is more leisurely paced than the LOTR trilogy and I am not complaining that the film wasn't as action packed as that series. My complaints reside in the fact that Peter Jackson took a book that was rich enough to begin with and watered it down. I can't even begin to expect what the next few films will look like, since this one ran about two-and-a-half hours long and I barely experienced anything of true emotional resonance or wonder. Once again, if true Tolkien converts can give love for this film, I have no problem with that. I can't honestly recommend this though.

A riveting portrait of the last few days of the late president, 'Lincoln' is a highly-tuned piece of historical drama that works almost the same way as a blockbuster thriller, mostly thanks to Daniel Day-Lewis (who presents us with a typically masterful performance), Tony Kushners dense, historically accurate script, and Spielberg's willingness to hold off of sentiment and keep it realistic. In fact, this movie barely feels at all like a work from Steven Spielberg. It feels more like a Sidney Lumet courtroom drama, with occasional blips of Spielberg's touch feeding through. I would have to say that, thanks to this display of restraint, 'Lincoln' marks his best film since 1998's war masterpiece 'Saving Private Ryan'. The entire cast is put to great use, even those actors who might not seem like the right choice for a role that may demand a southern accent and donning a wig (James Spader I'm looking at you). While Daniel Day-Lewis captures with absolute clarity Lincoln's steady mannerisms and droll sense of humor, Tommy Lee Jones provides an antithesis as the spitfire, strongly-voiced abolitionist Stevens. Sally Field also makes a strong return to the screen as Mary Todd Lincoln, perfectly capturing the frantic melodramatic fits that the role requires, while also not submitting to a shallow interpretation of her vibrant character. The rest of the cast shines as well, giving the look of the film the sense of being thoroughly lived-in. While we may never be able to get a 100% valid look into the life of the great man, 'Lincoln' represents the most accurate and engaging exploration of his life ever transmitted to the silver screen and it stands as a hard-won tribute to his accomplishments as well.

A fantastical, magic revelation of film that demands to be seen. This movie can't be classified beneath any mere genre, for it transcends them all and can only be described as a breathtaking work of art. I have seen it three times now (admittedly, it did not 'click' cohesively upon the first viewing) and I can proudly say that it is one of the best films of the year, if not one of the best of all time. The movie really captured me in the way it balanced realistic drama with fantasy elements, as if it were seen through the eyes of a child. The set design (apparently constructed by members of the cast and crew) appears thoroughly lived in and the visuals, while not dominating the narrative, are beautiful and seamless considering the budget constraints of independent features. The actors (all untrained and cast locally) capture a sense of community in this world known as 'The Bathtub' which takes the abstract elements of the movie and make them feel real. This film also marks the arrival of some very promising new talent. Never in my memory has the debut of any director been so ambitious, and equal parts fulfillled, as 'Beasts of the Southern Wild', crafted out of love by director Benh Zeitlin. His voice is a secular one, distinctive, yet clear in delivery and always well-intentioned. He wants nothing else than to envelop us in the medium of film as far as we can go and move us. And I can't leave out the fiery performance by young Quvenzhane Wallis. She is the burning life of this movie, portrayed so realistically that it is damn near unbelievable. I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that she was only six years old upon filming. Wow. To describe it in comparison to other films, it is like a blend of Terrence Malick's 'The Tree of Life' and Hayao Miyazaki's 'Ponyo', with trace elements of 'Winter's Bone' and 'Precious' (both past Grand Jury Prize winners). Well, I can't really describe it any further without becoming redundant so I'll leave it at this: 'Beasts of the Southern Wild' is a magical, funny, and at times deeply moving experience that should be given the chance to challenge and inspire you.

A look into the sex lives of the elderly that is worth a glance due to some fine work from Tommy Lee Jones, Steve Carell, and Meryl Streep. The film isn't nearly as revelatory as it may think it is relating to the topic of sex, but it is defiantly non-commercial in the sense that it is frank and honest about sex and the movie treats its audience with respect - a rarity for a film aimed at mainstream audiences. The most interesting scenes involve the three leads talking during therapy and the revelations that come from their discussions. The movie tends to lag whenever we spend time away from the doctor's office and the plot treads familiar water right up to the finale scene. For the most part, though, 'Hope Springs' is some refreshing hollywood fare and stands as David Frankel's finest film to date.

A much better entry into the franchise than Men in Black II. In fact, it's just entertaining enough to justify the move to make another film. Most of it feels rushed, conveniently plotted and, while it resonates a little more than the last entry, the touching twist at the end comes about with awkward footing. Granted, the rip on the sixties isn't nearly as clever as the jokes lead you to believe, but the plot is more engaging than most summer releases (maybe I'm just a fan of time-travel films) and the effects pop, while also providing for most of the humor that works. A big flaw is that the relationship between J and K, while it is explored more than the past films, feels fake to me. The chemistry between Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith seems to be lacking and I think it is how out of touch the actors have been with these characters over time. However, we are graced with a great, original performance from Michael Stuhlbarg and Josh Brolin's Agent K impersonation is really spot-on.

If 'Moonrise Kingdom' falls short of being a masterpiece, it isn't by much. It is a quirky, idiosyncratic work from one of the best directors working today, Wes Anderson, whom I believe should never stop making movies. Striking to look at and meticulously crafted, Anderson also gets points for capturing young love with a sense of innocence and intimacy that I haven't seen in any other film before. Not to mention that it happens to be one of the funniest films to come out this year. Amazing performances are abound, but the most affecting one comes from Bruce Willis in an against type, more subdued role that was intriguing to watch him dig into. There is a warmth and sacrifice to this man, a grace in his outlook on life, that makes him quite the unexpected hero (not in the action-movie sense that one would assume coming from Willis). And if only one thing could be said, 'Moonrise Kingdom' is hugely entertaining. It's a real crowd-pleaser when you get down to it, especially for those who are unassociated with most of Anderson's work before this. I would even say that it is THE Anderson movie, both for fans of him and those who are looking to get into his style. One of the best films of 2012, and is the most heartwarming and funny by a mile.

Sure, 'Brave' has stunning animation. What else? By that I mean: What else is there that we haven't seen before, but have come to expect from Pixar? Exactly. This is a mild animation entry that certainly is worth your money, but maybe not your time. It's great to look at. Your kids will love it. But the majority of moviegoers have lived long enough to be able to demand more from a feature than something neatly packaged, while remaining hollow deep down. Admittedly, there are glimpses into the movie that could of been, or was at least imagined to be, but 'Brave' isn't it. In fact, while nowhere near as horrible as 'Cars 2', it stands as one of Pixar's laziest efforts.

Soderbergh has crafted what I consider to be a possible future classic with

An impeccably written character study from Israel that is at times exhilarating, angry, passionate, funny, provocative, and is never less than absolutely absorbing. The writing, first of all, is due the most praise. It is so focused and attuned to the tone of the story that I instantly knew these two men. I was never left scratching my head at any point, lost in all of the talk of Talmud scholarship. The acting is amazingly restrained. The two actors who play father and son, competing in the same, very small field, are astounding. I feel as though they have lived these lives and completely understand the relationship they have and only through their eyes. I would only dismiss

While certainly not the only film to touch base on the horrors of the holocaust,

A hokey blend of stock rom-com clichés and pop culture references that panders to both parents and those who are anticipating children themselves, making it a useless pile-up of smiling celebrities to anyone else. The biggest complement I can give it is that it isn't the worst star-studded rom-com to come out in recent years (what I mean is that if Gary Marshall had directed this, it would be his best movie). The cutesy factor here is maddening; the movie is packed with so much sugar and attractive people that at one point one wonders if they should take an insulin shot. Not one actor is given room for creative insertion or improvisation and most are enclosed in lifeless storylines that play out with little original commentary on pregnancy. The only actor not left gasping for air the entire film seems to be Chris Rock, who seems comfortable enough running of scripted one liners with vigor. I couldn

Certainly the most energetic entry in the Madagascar series (so much so that it bears little resemblance to the earlier films), 'Europe's Most Wanted' delivers fairly well with crisp visuals and infectious fun. There isn't much to chew on for more serious moviegoers and the whole ordeal is rather predictable and ridiculous, but there are so many vigorous burst of color and frenetic action sequences that it's hard to have a bad time. The laws of physics, reason, and overall common-sense are thrown out the window in the gags that work best. The bits that don't work are really crude and ill formed (they're mostly directed at the kids). One major complaint I had (aside from the constant, irritating repetition of 'Afro Circus') is that the writers completely threw out any reference to Alex's parents. This is probably because of the death of Bernie Mac, who voiced his dad, but they could have at least done him justice and said something about the father character. Instead, the four animals departed from Africa without any good-byes, which left a bad taste of neglect in my mouth. There is also one key moment of irony in the film where Vitaly says that 'families aren't having fun because we're going through the motions'. At times, that can apply to the movie, too, but it's for the kids more than anything.

Certainly the most beautiful film of 2012 while not sacrificing emotional propulsion and riveting storytelling, 'Life of Pi' marks a successful voyage into 3D for director Ang Lee that is filled with awe and wonder. It faintly reminds me of another highly-visceral, faith-based movie from 2011, 'The Tree of Life' and I'm glad to say that 'Pi' is the more accessible and enjoyable film. The colors pop, the tale is emotive and equal parts entertaining, the effects are seamless, and it features a roaring tiger by the name of Richard Parker. So, basically, it should please all audiences. I will admit, the film is stunted slightly by bits of occassional flimsy dialogue and an attention placed more on effect than religious contemplation. Otherwise, 'Life of Pi' is a jaw-dropping, life-affriming moviegoing experience that stands as one of the best films of the year, hands down.

I found 'Safe' to be a competently made action thriller that fully lives up to it's name; the film plays it way too safe. Sure, Jason Statham delivers a surplus of ass-kickings and there is plenty of violent invention on display (I found a scene involving the use of a bottle as a silencer quite original) and I'll admit that I enjoy watching a bad-guy have his trachea broken. But violence can only go so far in entertainment and at some point a storyline and characters surface that can't match the focus placed on the action scenes. I would say that 'Safe' is a perfect cookie cutter example of such problematic action films. What I really was interested in was watching the relationship between Statham and Chan unfold, which it never did, and I couldn't help feeling bad for James Hong, who seemed horribly miscast as a chinese gangster. Give 'Safe' a chance if you're into mindless action devoid of any meaning. I however, have interests that lie elsewhere.

Certainly one of the most charming and affecting films of the year, 'Your Sister's Sister' finds Lynn Shelton exploring the three-character dynamic with grace and heart. All of the performances are spot on and feel consistently intimate and engaging. The script is funny, while also touching the heart (in fact, it edges right up next to it and never leaves throughout the duration of the film) and the careful observations of dialogue and character are very insightful. It is quite subtle in the way that the film is scripted feels. It is as though, within the three leads, there is always an ongoing conversation between two of them, which is disrupted by the third in some way, leading to moments of awkwardness and revelation. Each character fills the role of the odd-man-out at one point, as they are flawed, realistic people that come off as such, probably due to the graceful direction and keen improvisational skills from the actors. By the way, I find it so cool that Lynn Shelton, realizing the surplus of improvisation used by her performers, decided to credit them, not only as part of the cast, but as 'creative collaborators'. My only major criticism is that the plot lags a little bit near the end, but the course that these three people are led on is fun to watch unfold, even when it stumbles. All-in-all, it's a very enjoyable, character-driven film that is equal parts funny and warm, resonating well enough after viewing.

While nowhere near exhibiting the same level of maturity and insight displayed in her directorial debut, Sarah Polley's 'Take This Waltz' solidifies her position as a great up-and-coming director and benefits from subtle character observations and affecting performances by Michelle Williams, Seth Rogen, Sarah Silverman (the latter two departing from their comedic origins to grace us with observed dramatic turns). Though in hindsight her character comes off as a bit irritating and moody, only Williams could bring her out with such a likeable mopiness. Without her bravura performance, the film would've collapsed upon itself. As a character study, solid observations are made, but the overall statements made feel slight and muted. At times the dialogue shifts from deeply thought-provoking to amateurish and the eventual climax loses some steam. Still, the heated, sensual tone is quite potent and the acting is grade A.