Thrilling suspense in ‘Sicario’ captures the fierceness of the drug cartel trade

Do you know that feeling you get right before you see a car crash into another car? Or that feeling when you drop something fragile and there’s nothing you can do in that split second when time seems to stand still before it hits the floor? Now imagine having that feeling for nearly two hours straight. That’s “Sicario” in a nutshell.

Although there is nothing especially new or revolutionary about it, all the elements of “Sicario” add up to make something that is better than the sum of its parts. Sure, other movies have done some of the elements better.

Emily Blunt’s performance isn’t as good as Jessica Chastain’s in “Zero Dark Thirty,” the sound design and editing isn’t as good as “The Hurt Locker” or “Black Hawk Down” and Benicio del Toro’s performance isn’t as good as…well, Benicio del Toro in “Traffic.”

But in terms of 21st century military movies that mostly take place in deserts or a similar climate, this one is one of the better ones, mostly due to how unforgiving all the elements are. The production side of it makes you believe what’s happening, the technical side puts you right there experiencing it and the actors and screenplay connect you to it and make it personal.

The word sicario comes from ancient Jerusalem as the name of killers who hunted down Romans who invaded their homeland. In Mexico, sicario has a similar meaning: hitman.

After years of small jobs and rising through the ranks of her male-dominated occupation, young and principled FBI agent Kate Macer (played by Emily Blunt) receives a top assignment. Recruited by a mysterious government official (played by Josh Brolin), Kate joins a task force assigned to deal with the escalating war against drugs.

Under the unauthorized direction of the intense and shadowy Alejandro (played by Benicio del Toro), the team travels back-and-forth across the U.S.-Mexican border, taking on various missions to get to one cartel boss (played by Bernardo Saracino) and use him to flush out a bigger one (played by Julio Cesar Cedillo).

Although she doesn’t quite understand what is going on, nor given any information about what the team is doing next until they’re doing it, Kate soon learns the awful truths behind the drug trade between Mexico and the U.S. and the unprecedented violence that comes with it.

Regardless of what his character does or says, del Toro’s performance is captivating. He’s excelled in similar stories before, like the previously mentioned “Traffic” and the more recent “Savages,” but his character here has so much more depth. Until the very ending, Kate doesn’t know what his real intentions are, meaning the audience doesn’t know either. It’s safe to say he’s not an F.B.I. agent, but beyond that it’s anybody’s guess.

Del Toro shows us two sides of the same man, often in the same scene when you’d least expect it. He can be brash and unforgiving, and then suddenly suffering and on the verge of tears due to his troubled past.

When he’s awake he’s a shark with the one purpose of taking down the bad guys on either side of the fence, but when he’s asleep he shudders and shakes, obviously affected by whatever nightmare he’s having. The only question in, what nightmare is worse than the one he and Kate are living throughout the movie.

Director Denis Villeneuve is no stranger to high-tension dramas, first breaking out in the U.S. with “Prisoners” in 2013. Just like with “Prisoners,” the cinematography is one of the stars of this movie. The beautiful use of wide widescreen cameras captures the vast emptiness and peacefulness of the southern U.S. and Mexican desert.

But when up-close with specific characters, the slow and continuous shots enhance the tension and fear Kate often feels throughout. There is hardly any shaky cam and hardly an awkward angle. Everything we see is straight on with no tricks. It could be an expertly shot documentary, making it even more terrifying when the action gets real.

Part of the thrill, however, is just how unglorified and ugly the action sequences are. Now they are shot and executed brilliantly, but this isn’t a Quinten Tarantino or Brian de Palma picture. Movies by those men are violent, but Villeneuve’s movies are about violence and all the meanings behind it.

He shows in real time everything that leads up to the action sequences, has a quick 20- or 30-second action scene, and then shows how it affects the actors over the next few hours. For me, that is much more real and much more haunting, and I’d rather watch that than five minutes of unrealistic guns blazing and fireworks explosions.

Although it’s a non-stop tension builder highlighting violence and its effects, the heart of the movie is all about morality of relationships. Without giving too much away, the characters Kate interacts with all have faults in what they’re fighting for. And as she learns the truth behind their operation, her morality in what she is fighting for is tested quite brutally. Unfortunately, that’s the only place the movie tends to go wrong.

When deeper issues and character studies are brought into the mix, the movie can almost come to a complete halt. But as a thriller about the truths of the drug trade and the violence surrounding it Kate discovers in her 72 hours or so south of the border, it’s excellent.

Newsroom honesty in ‘Spotlight’ tells a brutal true story with respect and importance

The greatness in “Spotlight” comes from its simplicity. Nothing about it is flashy. There are no huge sets, no cast of thousands. Neither the music nor the cinematography is in your face. The costumes and post-production edits never draw attention to themselves.

By taking all the “movie” elements out of the focus, the actual spotlight of the film lands on the two most important components: the story and all the people in it.

With a subject as serious as sexual abuse in a religious setting, the filmmakers had to make sure this story was told right, told fair and told with purpose, just as the real journalists had to 15 years ago. The Academy Award-winning screenplay and the performances by the amazing actors proved that this is not only a perfectly made film, but an important one, too.

In 2001, the new editor of The Boston Globe, Marty Baron, assigns a team of journalists to investigate allegations against John Geoghan, an unfrocked priest accused of molesting more than 80 kids.

Led by Spotlight editor Walter “Robby” Robinson (played by Michael Keaton), reporters Mike Rezendes (played by Mark Ruffalo), Matt Carroll (played by Brian d’Arcy James) and Sacha Pfeiffer (played by Rachel McAdams) interview survivors and plead the courts the release of sensitive documents connected to the case.

After several months of interviews, the reporters discover an even bigger story surrounding more than 70 accused priests. They make it their mission to provide proof of a sex-abuse cover-up within the Catholic Church throughout the Boston archdiocese.

First and foremost, the actors deserve all the praise they’ve earned and more for their portrayals of all the real people in this movie. As much as new-editor Baron—portrayed by Liev Schreiber who plays Baron as a tough professional that knows the truth is what matters most—wants the Spotlight team to investigate the story, many of the reporters and their editor have reservations about doing the story.

Robby Robinson, a native Bostonian and long-time Boston journalist, is skeptical about the team tackling the story, unsure about their chances of winning over the Globe’s readers, most of whom are Irish-Catholic. He spends most of the two-hour runtime convincing his reporters to hold back what they have until every last angle of the story is covered right.

But the rest of the investigative team’s determination sells the story’s importance and timeliness. As Rezendes (Ruffalo’s character) says in the final act of the movie, “They knew and they let it happen… It could have been you, it could have been me, it could have been any of us.”

And that may be the scariest part. Every actor is portraying a real person, not only film’s stars, which include Stanley Tucci and John Slattery. Many of the real people knew about what happened and either didn’t or couldn’t say anything to the authorities. Handling these key scenes and doing with both victims’ and reporters’ feelings in mind was huge and right.

For a movie that takes place in Boston, the actors’ accents are jarring because they aren’t typical caricatured Boston accents. They’re actually much subtler and harder to pin down, which can be distracting. But after 20 minutes of movie, the story is so engaging that the way anyone sounds doesn’t even matter.

Even though the technical side of the film doesn’t draw attention to itself, the filmmaking is done smartly and effectively, and it will most likely go unnoticed unless looked for. In the first act, nearly every shot of a conversation is done from a distance and over the shoulder with someone’s head or shoulder out of focus in the foreground. By shooting this way, the viewer’s point of view is as an outsider who’s just observing.

But once the meat of the story is explored—and discussions and interviews become more personal—the camera is right in the action. Everyone is fully in frame together, and over-the-shoulder close-ups don’t show the other actors. Now the characters are talking directly with and to the audience.

In order to keep these key moments real, no music is played. The score is minimal throughout, always slower, steadier and quieter. When it does appear, it’s only for transitions when the story changes time and setting, eventually becoming the audience’s cue that the story is moving forward. But when something factual is happening in real-time, the silence is golden.

Although the story is about the church, many lawyers and editors tell the reporters to refer to it as the “Institution,” which is perfect for the film’s basic conflict: the Institution versus the Truth. When the church and lawyers become allies in trying to keep the scandal out of the public’s eyes, the two almost become inseparable, making it harder to take them down. In this way, it’s really an underdog story where the truth and truth tellers have an uphill struggle the whole way.

During almost every investigation or interview scene or sequence, there is a church in the background. Whether it’s talking to victims, lawyers and priests or just sitting outside the courthouse, there’s nearly always a church nearby. Because the church is synonymous with the institution, it’s as if Big Brother is always watching and the Spotlight team can’t escape its influence, making their struggle all the more difficult.

As a journalist, this is my kind of superhero movie. Just as with “All the President’s Men,” getting to the truth and telling the real story is what it’s all about. With something as important as this story, the men and women who brought it to light are heroes. And the men and women who brought it to the silver screen are heroes, too.

‘The Big Short’ has big laughs and bigger euphoria

In the hands of any other director and screenwriters, this could have been one of the most boring movies of 2015. A nearly month-by-month look at how the financial collapse of 2008 came to be with all the technical talks and explanations of Wall Street words included, you’d think it would be easier just to read the book that the film is based on.

But with filmmaker Adam McKay at the wheel—yes, that’s the Adam McKay of “Anchorman” and “Step Brothers” fame—it’s one of the most interesting, most well laid out and most entertaining history lessons in years.

The screenplay by McKay and Charles Randolph takes the book by Michael Lewis, gives it a modern Hollywood makeover and delivers a smart, funny and honest look at one of the biggest world screw-ups in the past 30 years.

And it’s all done with incredible performances and a style I can only describe as tongue-in-cheek, documentary-within-a-documentary brilliance that makes its case in the first five minutes and doesn’t let up for the next two hours.

When four Wall Street outsiders saw what the big banks and government refused to—the global collapse of the economy—they had an idea: The Big Short.

Michael Burry (played by Christian Bale) is an eccentric ex-physician who believes that the U.S. housing market is built on a bubble that will burst within the next few years. The banks believe that Burry is a crackpot and therefore are confident that it won’t, taking Burry’s offer to bet against the market with 10:1 odds.

Jared Vennett (played by Ryan Gosling) gets wind of Burry’s plan and believes he too can cash in on Burry’s beliefs. When an errant telephone call gets this information to Mark Baum (played by Steve Carell), an idealist fed up with the corrupt financial industry, Baum and his comrades decide to join forces with Vennett. They soon discover that most of the mortgages are overrated by the bond agencies, with the banks collating all the sub-prime mortgages under fraudulent packages.

Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley, minor players in a start-up garage company, accidentally get a hold of Vennett’s pamphlet on the deal. Wanting in on the action, but not having the official clout to play, they decide to call an old “friend,” a retired investment banker Ben Rickert (played by Brad Pitt), to help.

When all their investment against the American economy lead them into the dark truths of modern banking where they must question everyone and everything, Burry, Vennett, Baum and Rickert soon realize that if they’re correct, the entire world economic system will fail.

And guess what happened: they were right.

All four of the main stars are excellent and all their supporting characters are excellent, too. There’s no point going into much more on that except to say their performances are real, honest and extremely funny and heartbreaking at the same time.

Bale’s is probably the most critically impressive—he is the one getting all the acting nominations for this movie this season. However, it’s safe to say the entire cast delivers perfectly in every scene.

But what makes this movie even more impressive and memorable than just a regular fact-based bio-drama is the style and approach in which it was made. First, the cinematography and editing are done in a documentary style along the lines of “The Office” or “Parks and Recreation.”

Except it’s almost a documentary within a documentary because the actors regularly break the fourth wall and address the audience directly in order to comment on the scene they’re in.

There are times when they discuss financial stuff no regular person will understand. And so they have celebrities like Margot Robbie, Anthony Bourdain and Selena Gomez explain it in the simplest language that middle school students could understand. It’s all those tongue-in-cheek deliveries and mockumentary style approaches that make the film’s point in the perfect way.

If a bunch of entertainers and comedians can explain how the housing bubble burst and the banks failed in a funny way so any average joe can understand it…how did none of the Wall Street moguls and doctors of economics in the government see it coming?

In the end though, everyone loses, which was the sad reality of the situation. We root for these guys to show up the big banks and make their billions of dollars by proving them wrong, and they do. But the only way they do that is by the economy failing and thousands of people losing their jobs and homes. So does it make the heroes the bad guys?

The movie never tells us what to think or how to feel, leaving it up for each audience member to decide. It’s ambitious in its execution, and its fearlessness to expose the truth behind what really happened is refreshing. Although it’s lighthearted throughout, even though it is a drama, the feelings you do get at the end are not what you’d expect for the director/writer of “Anchorman” and “Step Brothers.”

There are no solutions, and there are no answers. In the end, you’ll feel empty, confused or full of rage. And at that moment, the film will have done its job.

‘The Revenant’ captures old America reality in all its horror and beauty

For a movie that went through production hell for over a decade, the final product is breathtaking. In fact, it’s not so much a movie as it is a film, as in the art of filmmaking. You could call it an event, or even an experience.

But this isn’t the type of movie experience or event along the lines of “Star Wars” in 1977 or “Titanic” in 1997. It’s more like “2001: A Space Odyssey,” where, after watching it, you have to just sit down and take a breather in order to collect your thoughts. It’s a perfect example of how visual storytelling celebrates movies as an art form.

“The Revenant,” a period drama directed by Oscar-winner Alejandro G. Iñárritu, is a partially true story that’s just as much about the unexplored wilderness of America and all the beauty it holds as the man the story follows.

While exploring the uncharted Missouri Territory wilderness—the Missouri River in modern day Montana and the Dakotas—in 1823, legendary frontiersman and fur trapper Hugh Glass (played Leonardo DiCaprio) sustains injuries from a brutal bear attack shortly after his team is ambushed by Native Americans.

When his hunting team leaves him for dead, Glass must utilize his survival skills to find a way back to civilization to avenge his family. Grief-stricken and fueled by vengeance, Glass treks through the wintry terrain to track down John Fitzgerald (played Tom Hardy), the former confidant who betrayed and abandoned him.

The phenomenal, hard-working and so-committed-it’s-scary cast and the unfiltered, unmatched and unbelievably huge environment are the components that rocket what could have been just another historical drama film into historical filmmaking itself.

First and foremost: Leonardo DiCaprio. This guy is one of the hardest working artists in Hollywood. Not only is he an actor who dives headfirst into every film, going above and beyond to deliver the best performance possible, but a dedicated activist for environmentalism, education, animal rights and child welfare organizations.

But the glamour of the mega star and influential philanthropist is nowhere here. For 90-percent of the 2 hour, 36 minute runtime, he’s dirty, grungy and gritty from head to toe. He dines on raw fish and bison, crawls on all fours and barely manages to utter a complete sentence.

DiCaprio’s performance is one of his best and one of the best of the year, not only because of the dedication and commitment for the role, but because everything the role entails.

If someone spent months in the wilderness, half dead with a sprained ankle, tore-up throat and infection coming at him from every angle, he’d deserve a lot more than an acting trophy. But to spend several months in the middle of nowhere and convincingly act as if you’re dying while riding down river rapids with brute force and chilling silence is certainly worth mentioning as one of the great performances of the decade so far.

The whole cast is amazing, though. Tom Hardy has had an incredible year with just the success of “Mad Max: Fury Road,” but his performance here is so diabolical and so unredeemable that it’s easily the actor’s best in years. In the context of the story, Hardy is obviously the villain because he’s the one who kept trying to kill DiCaprio and eventually left him for dead.

But in the wild with no law but nature’s, his character can be thought of as just looking out for his own survival. In an “it’s you or me” environment, Hardy’s character becomes even more complex. Of course, today we know he did the wrong thing, but as the character develops throughout the film, the audience understands why he became someone who is willing to leave someone behind in the middle of nowhere. He’s the villain, but he’s human. They’re always the best kind.

I don’t think I can get across in words how beautiful and well shot this film is, but I’m going to try my best using some random facts I learned about the production.

• The film was primarily shot in British Columbia with some scenes shot in the U.S. near the Canadian border and others shot in Argentina because the snow didn’t stick around long enough in Canada.
• The film went over budget by millions and overschedule by weeks because it was filmed with natural light. Yes, they could only see and shoot with the sun, moon or fire.
• Anytime the director wanted to shoot at a certain time of day they had about two hours to work with. If it didn’t work, they were done for the day and had to come back 22 hours later to try it again. For the nighttime scenes, they had torches, fire pits or the moon and stars. That’s it.
• Nearly every scene has a shot or two that lasts about a minute without cutting. The longest single shot takes place within the first 15 minutes and lasts about five minutes.
• About half of the transitional shots are landscape shots from a helicopter showing the American/Canadian wilderness for dozens of miles without panning or zooming. Just nature as seen by the naked eye.

It’s brutal, it’s unforgiving and it’s honest. It’s beautiful, it’s mesmerizing and it’s awesome. It’s a difficult watch that will leave you exhausted, but it’s worth every minute.

Lawrence shines in ‘Joy,’ but with little joy elsewhere

Pick a cliché that describes the ordinary. Humdrum. By-the-book. Run-of-the-mill. Garden variety. Any of one of these can perfectly describe the latest film by writer/director David O. Russell, and that’s a real shame.

Russell has a talent for taking perfectly ordinary stories and applying his unorthodox style to make them brilliantly in unordinary ways. His three best movies—“The Fighter” in 2010, “Silver Linings Playbook” in 2012 and “American Hustle” in 2013—thrive on the believable relationships between the dysfunctional family members.

Furthermore, the realistic dialogue and infusion of humor in the right doses at the right times made the characters even more relatable, making their stories even more engaging.

Unfortunately, there’s little of that here. Good thing Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress.

Loosely based on the life of Joy Mangano, “Joy” focuses on her pre-millionaire life when Joy struggled through debts, loans and bankruptcy. This story revolves around a partially fictionalized Joy (played by Jennifer Lawrence), a girl has to grow up too fast and must keep her family and its finances in order.

Through constant fighting and immaturity, the loss of innocence and the scars of love, Joy becomes a true boss of family and enterprise with the development of the Miracle Mop. As allies become adversaries, and adversaries become allies, both inside and outside the family, Joy’s morals, self-respect and fiery imagination carry her through the storm she faces to eventual acceptance in the business world.

First, the good things. Believe it or not, there are some good things in here.

Jennifer Lawrence is great. She’s always great, we all know this by now. Lawrence has a way of expressing vast amounts of emotion without needing the accompanying facial cues. Now, that’s not to say she couldn’t visually express her frustrations or delights a bit more, but the subtleties in her acting style make it work, especially for this role.

Joy is in control. She—for lack of a better term—wears the pants in the family, both figuratively and literally. If she loses her cool, they’re done for, which is why she always looks so calm and collected, even if her voice sounds furious. Lawrence delivers that kind of performance nearly flawlessly.

The music is great. As with “Silver Linings Playbook” and “American Hustle,” the soundtrack is a character in the story. Here, though, it’s all over the place. The unfocused bouncing around of music isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

Half the songs are The Rolling Stones, Cream and Randy Newman, the other half are Nat King Cole, Ella Fitzgerald and Frank Sinatra. That sounds great to me, especially since the movie takes place between the 1960s and ‘90s.

But when we’re just starting to get into a song, it cuts abruptly to a new scene with virtually no transition. Unfortunately, that happens about a dozen times throughout the film. There are constant beginnings and middles of scenes or ideas, but never enough development to reach an ending to a character arch or scene. And the music proves that audibly by reinforcing it visually.

We’re talking about the good things, though. Simple “Filmmaking 101” techniques that have been around since the beginning of art are used smartly throughout the film. Joy is always dressed in a white shirt. White symbolizes the good guy, the purity of the character and the cleanliness of Joy’s ideal world.

Joy always wears pants, except when others want her to be something she’s not and they have her wear a skirt, like her uniform at her dead-end job.

Her adversaries wear all black because they’re the bad guys. In the final act of the film, Joy has to start dealing with her enemies in person and getting her business in order through some shady means. Those 30 minutes are the only time she wears black, and after it’s all done she goes back to wearing white. All of that is basic, but because no attention is brought to it, it becomes all the more meaningful.

Word play and foreshadowing is everywhere. Her father has his own garage and repair shop business and everyone in the family wants to be involved in that. When Joy starts up the Miracle Mop business, everyone wants to get a piece of that. But while at home, everyone’s personal business becomes everyone else’s business, too.

Joy’s mom loves soap operas on TV because it’s an escape from the soap opera going on right in Joy’s home, mostly because of that everyone is in everyone’s business story arch.

Joy’s grandma tells her that she doesn’t need a prince because her own magic power can do everything she wants. When she grows up, she starts a corporate empire without a man. Those plot devices write themselves.

Unfortunately, that’s the biggest problem: a lot of this movie writes itself because it’s unoriginal and predictable. Joy Mangano sounds like an interesting person, and Jennifer Lawrence does an amazing job at giving the character life. But without that quirky, unorthodox bit of David O. Russell in the movie, there is nothing mesmerizing or even memorable about it.

This could have been a made-for-TV movie on Lifetime, and it would have been good. But as a feature film from one of the best writer/directors of the decade, it needs something more.

2015 Movies to see in 2016

The shopping is all done. The family get-togethers are all but over. It’s time to start the New Year.

But just because the old year is over doesn’t mean you can’t see anymore 2015 movies. In fact, some of the most acclaimed movies and awards season favorites never played around here.

So between the Golden Globe Awards on January 10 and the Oscars on February 28, these are five of the best from 2015 to search out in the New Year.

1: “Carol,” directed by Todd Haynes and starring Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara. This period-piece drama takes place in New York City, 1952, telling the story of a young aspiring photographer and her relationship with an older woman going through a difficult divorce. It is based on the novel “The Price of Salt” by Patricia Highsmith.

The movie has already received a Palme d’Or nomination at the 2015 Cannes Film Festival, been mentioned on over 100 top 10 lists and holds a 94-percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes. As I write this, it is leading the way for nominations at the 2016 Golden Globes with five, including Best Picture.

Even though “Carol” was released in North America on November 20, the closest it’s come to Salamanca is Buffalo where it’s played in only two theaters. It’s hard to say if it will be available to rent by the Oscars, so if you have the time and the opportunity, seek it out soon.

2: “The Big Short,” directed by Adam McKay and starring Steve Carell, Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt. This biographical comedy, based on the 2010 book by Michael Lewis, documents the financial crisis of 2007–2010 by the buildup of the housing and credit bubble and the four men who saw it coming.

With six Critic’s Choice Awards nominations and four Golden Globes nominations already under its belt, “The Big Short” is slowly but surely gaining a following. With an 81-percent on Rotten Tomatoes, the film is doing fairly well with critics, but the all-star cast is the biggest attraction for casual filmgoers.

Although the film was released on December 11, it’s not getting a wide released until January. Whether or not it will come to Cattaraugus County is still up in the air, but it is already in several theaters in Buffalo. With the great weather lately, it may be worth the drive.

3: “Room,” directed by Lenny Abrahamson and starring Brie Larson and Joan Allen. This drama-thriller tells of a woman (Larson) and her 5-year-old son who are held captive for several years. After finally gaining their freedom, the boy gets to experience the outside world for the first time.

Since its premiere at the Telluride Film Festival in September, “Room” has received widespread critical acclaim, earning many awards and nominations—especially for Larson’s performance—including Independent Spirit Awards, Golden Globe Awards, Critics’ Choice Awards, and Screen Actors Guild Awards nominations. Its 97-percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes is one of the highest of the year.

Even though it was released on October 16, “Room” has failed to make its way to the Southern Tier. It can be found in a couple theaters in Buffalo, but since “Room” been out for over two months, it’s doubtful it will come to a theater near us now. If neither “Carol” nor “The Big Short” sound that interesting, this may be the one to take a trip north for.

4: “Spotlight,” directed by Tom McCarthy and starring Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton and Rachel McAdams. This historical drama is about The Boston Globe’s “Spotlight Team,” the oldest continuously operating newspaper investigative unit in the United States. This film’s plot is based on a series of stories on the Catholic Church in Boston by the real Spotlight Team that earned The Globe the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service.

“Spotlight” has appeared on over 50 top ten lists, and it holds a 97-percent on Rotten Tomatoes. With over 100 nominations from various awards ceremonies so far, it is one of the most acclaimed films of the year with particular praise for the screenplay, directing and acting ensemble.

Although it debuted at the Venice International Film Festival on September 3 and received a limited release on November 6, “Spotlight” has still not gained a nationwide release two months later. As with every other movie on this list, it is playing in Buffalo.

5: “The Revenant,” directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu and starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Tom Hardy. This biographical thriller is inspired by the life of frontiersman Hugh Glass. While exploring the uncharted wilderness in the 1820s, Glass is brutally injured from a bear attack. When his hunting party leaves him for dead, Glass must utilize his survival skills to find a way back home to his beloved family.

Even though it hasn’t been out that long, “The Revenant” is already receiving widespread critical acclaim. Although it only has an 82-percent on Rotten Tomatoes, the film is being praised in every aspect of its production, particularly its direction by Iñárritu and DiCaprio’s performance.

Now, this one is sort of a copout. It didn’t premiere until December 16, and it wasn’t given a limited release until Christmas Day. However, it doesn’t look like it will be coming to Cattaraugus County anytime soon.

Although the blockbusters and family features come to every theater near you, the independent productions that tend to take home all the awards never make their way out of the big city, mostly because they aren’t big sellers.

Until this changes, a trip to Buffalo, Erie or even Rochester may be the only way to see these praised and important films.

In ‘The Force Awakens,’ Star Wars nostalgia rules the galaxy

Movie Review Wars: Episode VII – Return of the Nostalgia

It is a time of rejoicing for Star Wars fans everywhere. The newest installment of the film series that changed movie making forever has blasted its way from a galaxy far, far away and into a theater near you.

With fans of all ages together for the first time in a decade, a new hope has come to banish the dark days of George Lucas and his prequels to the farthest and most desolate reaches of the film history universe and restore peace and unity to the galaxy…

Those who grew up with Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia have been waiting to see what happened after the events of Return of the Jedi for over 32 years. Those of us who weren’t around then haven’t been waiting quite that long, but we still felt like the story could have continued once the Empire had fallen.

Unfortunately, 32 years is a long time. In trying to stick to the original trilogy as much as possible, there are a lot of characters, quotes, music, choreograph, camera shots and just about anything else you can think of from those first three movies. Luckily, it works. It’s actually surprising how well fueling almost the entire movie with nostalgia, throwbacks and Easter eggs worked in its favor.

With the Galactic Empire defeated thirty years ago, the galaxy now faces a new threat in a faction named the First Order. Their main mission is to rule the galaxy and destroy all who oppose them—just like the old Empire—under their commander, the ruthless, mysterious and powerful Kylo Ren.

Kylo and his followers are on the search for Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the last of the Jedi and the only one able to restore order to the Force. Luke’s unknown location is also a main concern for his sister, Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher), a general from the Resistance—a new faction of the rebellion also on the search for Luke.

In their search for Luke, Han Solo (Harrison Ford) and Chewbacca meet some new companions: Finn, a defective First Order Stormtrooper, and Rey, a scavenger from the desert planet Jakku who acquired Luke’s location through BB-8, a droid from the Resistance. This unexpected team is required to not only take on the First Order, but also to find Luke Skywalker before it’s too late.

The absolute best parts of this movie are the first 45 minutes, about 10 minutes in the middle and the 10 minutes in the very end. In that opening third, and the other few scenes in the middle and end, it is Star Wars. They have the exact same look and feel and give off the same impressions as the first film in 1977, and it’s all because there is so little dialogue.

This film is so good at showing instead of telling, the latter being what killed the prequels. In the first third, you understand these characters right away by seeing what they do, not hearing them say what they do.

In the other parts, the story is classic Star Wars in the best way. The dialogue is cheesy and hilarious in the best way. The emotions and expressive movements are powerful and effective in the best way. Those parts made the movie as amazing as it is.

On the other hand, about half of the other parts are good. Not bad, not great. Extremely well done, but just good. And that’s where the overly nostalgic throwbacks start to drive the movie. Now, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t.

The one element that worked the whole time was Harrison Ford as Han Solo. Even at 73, Ford is still an awesome hot shot. His one-liners are snarky, but charming. The way he talks himself out of trouble is adorable.

But Solo is also a changed man who has been through a lot. For once in a long time, it’s not Harrison Ford overcompensating and trying to act 30 again. It’s an older Solo who has lived every minute of the past 32 years, and it’s taken its toll on him.

Unfortunately, the basic rehash of the first film, the recycling of the same lines and phrases in every film and the in-jokes in the Millennium Falcon, the cantina and the base of the Resistance is a bit too much.

Yes, it’s all meant to tug on your childhood heartstrings, and it does successfully throw you back into the Star Wars universe without skipping a beat. More of the new and different ideas and plot points would have gone a lot farther than everything dragged over from the original trilogy.

However, this is still a great film. Fans, both old and new, will eat it up. There is enough intrigue, phenomenal filmmaking and overall world building that will keep casual moviegoers entertained. And it’s a great first chapter that brings everyone back to that galaxy far, far away with ease.

Remember, this is just another part one of three. Don’t expect it all to be here and now. Just enjoy this one for what it is: another Star Wars movie.

Tom Cruise proves that making great sequels aren’t ‘impossible missions’

Just when I thought the plague of sequels that are the fourth, fifth and even seventh installments of their film series shattered my hopes for innovations in action movies, Tom Cruise comes along and restores my faith in smart movie making.

Successfully mixing different sub genres of movies together is very difficult. When the movie is an espionage/spy thriller and a globetrotting action adventure with comedic elements sprinkled over every scene, it’s especially difficult.

Surprisingly, the fifth Mission: Impossible movie that still has spoilers in the opening credits, still does incredibly dangerous and over-the-top super spy action and still stars a Tom Cruise who looks exactly like he did in the first one is really great.

After another mission succeeds through luck instead of preparedness, the IMF is now disbanded and Ethan Hunt (played by Tom Cruise) is out in the cold. Over the past couple years, a new threat—called the Syndicate—soon emerges and throws Ethan for loop as they continue to stay one step ahead of America’s best secret agent.

The Syndicate is a network of highly skilled operatives who are dedicated to establishing a new world order through an escalating series of terrorist attacks. Faced with what may be the most impossible mission yet, Ethan gathers his team, comprised of Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg and Ving Rhames, for one final mission as the now unofficial IMF.

In the process of learning and attempting to stop Solomon Lane, leader of the Syndicate, Ethan joins forces with Ilsa Faust (played by Rebecca Ferguson), a disavowed British agent who may or may not be a member of this deadly rogue nation Ethan’s determined to take down.

Cruise has always been the star of the Mission: Impossible movies, not only in front of the camera but behind the scenes as well. As a producer since the first movie in the series—his first time producing instead of only acting—Cruise is in control of what happens as much as the director, which may be why he gets away with doing his own stunts. Seriously, how at the age of 53 does Cruise continue to jump from large heights, beat up younger and taller bad guys and even hang outside of an airplane as it takes off into the sky?

Although most of the cast is relatively new with only Cruise and Rhames appearing in every installment, the team members interact with each other as if they’ve been together since the beginning. Each one fills the role of cliché spy-movie character, but because each one is given believable details and, for lack of a better word, character as the story progresses, none of them seem like 2-dimensional cookie cutouts.

Simon Pegg reprises his role of Benji from the third and fourth movies, and he is just as fun and funny here as in the British spoof movie trilogy he wrote and starred in. As the tech wizard of the team, Benji doesn’t seem like a super spy who’s active in the field, which makes all his moments in the car chases and hyper-tense standoff scenes even more enjoyable and Pegg’s performance even better.

Jeremy Renner has repeatedly proven how versatile he can be, giving his all to every role. As the man in the Pentagon running IMF for Ethan Hunt, Renner’s character is complicated. He has to deal with those in charge of operations at the highest level while still staying loyal to Hunt. But he isn’t only a suit talking to senators and generals. When the mission calls for it, Renner takes the first plane to Morocco and is there to help Hunt however he can.

The real surprising star of the movie, however, is Rebecca Ferguson as British agent Ilsa. Unfortunately, action movies aren’t known for making awesome female leads who can hold their own against the guys. But here she takes on Ethan Hunt twice and comes out on top. And when they must join forces to stop Solomon Lane and the Syndicate, Hunt doesn’t hold her hand the whole time. In fact, ageless wonder Tom Cruise has a difficult time keeping up with her, and she doesn’t rub it in. There is a mutual respect between them and it’s refreshing to see.

The Mission: Impossible movies have never been about the emotion and the drama of the characters, though it is there in small doses. Instead, the action and story carry the characters all over the world and drops them in the most interesting scenarios to get out of alive. With the same old formula here again, you’d think the fifth installment would be the sad slow death to an old dried-out series.

Instead, “Mission: Impossible – Rouge Nation” is one of the best in the series and the best action/adventure movie of the year. It knows exactly what it is and does that the very best it can. It’s smart, fun, thrilling, tense and hilarious throughout. See it soon before Ethan Hunt swoops in and takes it away.

‘The Hunger Games’ series finally wraps up with ‘Mockingjay – Part 2’

This movie was made for two reasons and two reasons only. More than anything, it was made so the studios could suck just a few million dollars more out of audiences by making them sit through two two-hour movies instead of just one three-hour movie.

Second, it’s so every teenage girl who had her “life changed forever” by the books can see the characters she loves up on screen one more time. It’s the same reason why “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” by J.K. Rowling and “Breaking Dawn” by Stephanie Myers were split into two movies for their final installments.

Now “The Deathly Hallows” is 759 pages and “Breaking Dawn” is 756, so as unfortunate as it was, I’d glad they were two two-hour thirty-minute movies rather than one five-hour movie for either of those. The problem is “Mockingjay” is 392 pages—not nearly long enough to warrant a two-part film adaptation.

Right out of the gate, this movie fails for reasons that are not even its or the filmmakers own faults. It’s the studio trying to get as many teenage girls in the seats as possible. And darn it all, it worked perfectly.

Picking up in literally in the next scene after the last shot of “Mockingjay – Part 1,” the war over the dystopian Panem rages on with the rebels pushing ever closer towards taking the Capitol down. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) has had enough of being the Mockingjay—the inspirational symbol of the rebellion—and wants nothing more than to personally get rid of Panem’s dictator, President Snow (Donald Sutherland), and end the war for good.

As a special team designed to be the face of the rebellion rather than actually fight for Panem, Katniss teams up with her closest friends, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and Gale (Liam Hemsworth), and others she’s met in District 13 as they head into the Capitol.

Waiting for them are some of the sneakiest, deadliest and biggest traps they’ve ever seen. But the truths they learn about themselves and the leaders they thought they knew may lead to the worst fight of all, ultimately deciding the fates of tens of millions Katniss swore to avenge.

Jennifer Lawrence’s acting is the only reason I ever rooted for Katniss throughout this whole series. Lawrence is one of the best actors of the decade—by far one of the best who’s only 25 years old. With three Oscar nominations including a win already on her resume and the record-breaking Hunger Games series making her a household name overnight back in 2012.

But besides her credentials, Lawrence is sincere, honest, and human. I care about Katniss because Lawrence makes me care about her. However, there were a few times when Katniss looked so tired of dealing with the rebellion that it looked more as if Lawrence was just sick of filming this series.

No matter what, she succeeds in making the character go through some serious stuff, and the way Katniss develops makes us root for her every time is due to Lawrence’s acting.

The real heroes of this cast, however, are the older actors who are real thespians. I’m talking about Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Jeffrey Wright, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Donald Sutherland, the final two being the best of the bunch, truly elevating the series to tragic drama that could rival Shakespeare.

Never does any one of those names disappoint for you one second. Every time any of them are on screen interacting with one another, they’re the most believable moments of the movies. It’s perfect.

I wish I could say that for everyone younger than 35 years old, because I honestly don’t care about anyone other than Katniss and Finnick—another one of her friends and fellow rebels. The whole love triangle with Peeta and Gale that they’ve been building up from the beginning is so forced and so clichéd at this point that no matter what happens to either of them I don’t care.

Without giving away spoilers, the ending isn’t the worst by any means, but even after everything all of these younger characters have been through, I don’t care about their fates because the movie hasn’t made me care. And that’s the studio’s fault for making this movie into two parts and ruining the flow.

The pacing throughout this whole second part is awkward and nothing like the rest of the movies, which is a shame because “Mockingjay – Part 1” had excellent pacing. Here, there are a few good well-paced sections of action, but they are few and far between with most of the rest of it slow. Not that slow can’t be good, but most of the time I can’t wait for the next scene to get going.

“The Hunger Games” had a great run and was one of the best young-adult book adaptations we’ve had. “Catching Fire” and “Mockingjay – Part 1” were remarkable, but the final act couldn’t live up to the expectations its predecessors hinted at.

“Mockingjay – Part 2” should have never existed, which is its biggest fault and sadly isn’t even its own doing. But for the actors, the characters and the finale to a worldwide phenomenon, it’s definitely worth it.

 

One last mission for Daniel Craig as 007 in ‘Spectre’

If nothing else, most of the James Bond films are some of the best-looking movies out there, and the ones starring Daniel Craig are no different. Director Sam Mendes knows how to shoot a film well—just watch “American Beauty” or “Road to Perdition.” The marriage of Mendes’ style and Ian Fleming’s suave secret agent made a lot of noise in 2012 with “Skyfall,” the Bond film many consider one of the best five.

This time around, Mendes makes sure “Spectre” does exactly what the follow-up to “Skyfall” should do, and that is not outdo “Skyfall.” With a new and more subdued story to tell, Mendes and his team make not only one of the best looking Bond films, but also one of the most chill and easy-paced action films in quite a while.

Sometimes that’s a good thing. Sometimes that’s a bad thing. Either way, Daniel Craig makes it worth every minute of the ride.

The story kicks off with 007 “on a holiday” in Mexico for Day of the Dead where he learns through a cryptic message that an old and mysterious enemy is still at large. But after the events of Skyfall, the death of the previous M and MI6 crumbling under the watchful eye of a new privately owned tech company, Bond is at the end of his rope and has just about had it with being a spy.

When Bond and his colleagues Q (played by Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (played by Naomie Harris) discover the enemy group, Spectre, has been cause of terrorist attacks across the globe, Bond travels to Rome and infiltrates a secret Spectre meeting.

He soon realizes he must seek the help of Dr. Madeleine Swan (played by Léa Seydoux), the daughter of an old enemy, Mr. White, who may hold the key piece of knowledge that can untangle the web Spectre has created and save MI6 from the corporate overlord in the process.

With the help of the new M (played by Ralph Fiennes), Bond ventures towards the heart of Spectre, where he learns an unnerving connection between himself and its leader, Franz Oberhauser (played by Christoph Waltz), that will make Bond reevaluate his career as 007 forever.

The entire opening action sequence oozes everything great about a good Bond film. Amazing camerawork, beautiful women in beautiful costumes, a suave 007 taking on bad guys in a calm and collected manor and a shocking climax to a fight scene that takes place in an out-of-control helicopter. This is how you start a Bond movie right. Unfortunately, in never really gets that great again.

But that’s not to say there aren’t great aspects of the movie that deserve to be praised. Everyone at MI6, from M to Moneypenny, are great characters portrayed by great actors who know how to make us care about them. But no one comes close to Q, the Double-O program’s tech wizard.

Every time Bond and Q interact, they’re the most entertaining, the most comical and the most believable parts of the movie. Craig and Ben Whishaw have the best chemistry of anyone in the last few Bond movies, and it’s never a waste when they’re on screen here.

As easily the best Bond since Sean Connery in 1962, Daniel Craig never disappoints. Even when the story seems to slow down to a near halt, Craig radiates charm and class off the screen while remaining relatable and approachable as a human character.

After the events of “Skyfall,” Bond is an emotionally scarred man with the physical scars to prove it, and his character here expands on that. He’s more fed up, he’s not as quick and sharp as he used to be and he really just wants to be done with the whole secret agent thing. Of all the 007s over the years, Craig’s goes through the biggest growth with the most development, and no one other than Craig could have pulled that off.

But with every great hero should come an equally great villain. Unfortunately, this villain had all the potential in the world to be great, but he ends up being severely underused and a waste of time. The leader of Spectre, Franz Oberhauser, has been around since the early Bond days, in both the books and movies.

Casting the great Christoph Waltz should have been cinema gold. But when he’s on screen for a total of four scenes that add up to maybe 15 minutes of screen time in a two-hour, 30-minute film, that’s a big mistake and the story suffers for it.

This is a Bond film for the fans of Craig and the more subdued installments of the series. The cinematography is phenomenal and the action scenes are brilliantly shot, but for the regular moviegoer the fights are few and far between.

With a lot more quiet scenes of discussion and detective work, non-super fans won’t think of this as a great Bond film. Maybe it’s not, but it’s at least worth seeing in theaters and then owning six months from now.