Oscar Predictions: Who Should Win/Who Will Win

A lot of people like to rag on the Oscars. They talk about how pointlessly flashy they are, how they are harmful to the "art" world, and how they don't matter at all. Some of those are valid complaints. Yet, I think the Oscars are very important to the film industry. For example, I think studios would be a lot shakier to
invest in movies like Her if there weren't the Oscars to guarantee them some extra viewers. Do you honestly think producers would invest in more independent projects like Dallas Buyers Club and 12 Years a Slave if they didn't have the Academy Awards as an impetus? No! The Oscars are great in that way. For me at least, the Oscars re-inspire this love of the movies that I feel we often forget about. I love the Oscars. They're fun and entertaining to say the least. I still feel that it's messed up to rank movies like the Oscars do though. Is The Wolf of Wall Street better than 12 Years a Slave? Maybe, but they are two completely different films. If they broke up the awards into genres, that would probably be better. But alas, that will never happen. I'm also mad some films like Prisoners and Inside Llewyn Davis were completely snubbed for the major categories. But why complain? Let's just embrace it all and enjoy the Academy Awards! So below are my choices of who should and who will win. Also keep in mind that I'm only covering the categories in which I know what I'm talking about. That's why I have no thoughts on Best Foreign Film or Best Documentary short film.
Enjoy.
P.S. Let's all hope Her wins everything.

Best Picture
Will Win: Gravity
Should Win: Her
12 Years a Slave seems like the obvious winner. Yet, I think Gravity may be a surprise here. I would actually be okay with this. It's an amazing technical achievement and reminded everyone why exactly we go to the movies. To be swept up and amazed in the wonderful, and sometimes scary, dream world that is the movies. Her should win though. No movie blew me away emotionally like Her did. It was so incredibly written and acted, and its narrative structure is amazing. I put it at my #1 spot of the year, and I stand by that. No movie deserves Best Picture quite like Her. It won't win, but I'd love it if it did.

Best Leading Actor
Will Win: Leonardo DiCaprio-The Wolf of Wall Street
Should Win: Leonardo DiCaprio-The Wolf of Wall Street

Very tough category. It's been a fantastic year for movies, no doubt. Arguably, a better year for acting. There were some notable snubs here like Joaquin Phoenix for Her and Tom Hanks for Captain Philips. I really think everyone nominated deserved it though. You may think I'm crazy for picking Leo over McConaughey. I think they were both fantastic and deserving of the nomination. But this is DiCaprio's year. I can feel it in my bones. He's been ignored for too long. I think he has a solid chance and really deserves it. He also won at the Golden Globes. I may end up being wrong, but I'm sticking with my gut this year.
Best Leading Actress
Will Win: Cate Blanchett-Blue Jasmine
Should Win: Amy Adams-American Hustle
It's really a shoe in for Cate Blanchett this year. She won at the Golden Globes and numerous other awards shows. Everyone knows she will win. Blanchett was very good but personally, I think Amy Adams should walk away with the award. She gave a fantastic performance in American Hustle. I actually think she was better in Her, but she deserves it for this as well.
Best Supporting Actor
Will Win: Jared Leto-Dallas Buyers Club
Should Win: Jared Leto-Dallas Buyers Club
I kind of want to give this one to Jonah Hill, but Leto really did give an astounding performance here. Not only did he lose massive amounts of weight, but his performance was just amazing. Dallas Buyers Club had a lackluster script, but Leto and McConaughey carried it. Jared Leto definitely deserves this win.

Best Supporting Actress
Will Win: Lupita Nyong'o-12 Years a Slave
Should Win: June Squibb-Nebraska
Even though Jennifer Lawrence won the Golden Globe and was very good in her role, I don't think she'll win. She already got an award last year and it seems like the favor is starting to shift towards Lupita. Personally, I'd like to see June Squibb win for her hilariously good performance in Nebraska. Squibb made me laugh, but she also gave her character a dearth of emotion and depth. I think she should win, but she definitely won't.
Best Director
Will Win: Alfonso Cuaron-Gravity
Should Win: Alfonso Cuaron-Gravity
Part of me wants Scorsese to win, but what Cuaron did with Gravity was much too awe inspiring to ignore. Gravity is the best "space" movie I've seen since 2001: A Space Odyssey. Many people have complained about Gravity's narrative and screenplay. Both of those are actually great, but it's direction is astounding. I was literally on the edge of my seat for all of Gravity. Alfonso Cuaron massively succeeded with what he set out to do here. Gravity is not my favorite movie of the year. But it is the best directed movie. I honestly cannot comprehend the amount of time, talent, and painstaking work it took to make a movie like Gravity. Therefore, Cuaron should, and will, win.
Best Original Screenplay
Will Win: Her
Should Win: Her
I'm not even going to talk about this. Her is the best film out of all the nominees and the undisputed best film of the year. I loved it. I saw it twice in theaters. Spike Jonze deserves it 100%. The screenplay is beautiful and original. Enough said.
Best Adapted Screenplay
Will Win: 12 Years a Slave
Should Win: The Wolf of Wall Street
Besides being a very good and harrowing portrayal of life in slavery, 12 Years a Slave is a great movie. But The Wolf of Wall Street has a much better script. 12 Years was good mainly because of the direction and acting. The Wolf of Wall Street was good because of all those things, and the fact that it had a fast paced and terrific screenplay. The dialogue was absolutely great and Terence Winter really improved on the book. I sure hope it wins, although I do doubt it will. The Academy will want to give 12 Years a prize if it doesn't get Best Picture and it seems that it's been picking this up at the other awards shows this year.
Best Animated Film
Will Win: Frozen
Should Win: The Wind Rises
So, I haven't seen any of the animated film nominees besides The Wind Rises. Yet, The Wind Rises was so good that I feel no other film in this category will surpass it. I've heard other people say the same. The Wind Rises had a beautiful and touching story that I think is very pertinent to the movie industry. It's a shame it won't win. This is mostly because it's not as popular as movies like Frozen.
Best Cinematography
Will Win: Gravity
Should Win: Prisoners
Although Gravity's cinematography was really damn good, Roger Deakins' work on Prisoners was incredible. That man should shoot everything. He gave the film a tone that fit with the story perfectly, capitalizing on the depressing and rainy atmosphere of Prisoners. Deakins is one of the best cinematographers working today and he's yet to win an Oscar (although he has 10 nominations). I hope this is his year, but it's very likely Emmanuel Lubezki will scoop this one up for Gravity.
Best Editing 
Will Win: Gravity
Should Win: Captain Philips
Gravity was a technical masterpiece, but Captain Philips was really well edited and deserves at least one prize considering how it was snubbed in other categories. I think it really deserves it though. Philips was fast paced and riveting. Mainly because of the editing. I think Gravity will win this, but I'd like to see Captain Philips win for sure.
Best Original Score
Will Win: Her
Should Win: Her
It was a great film alone, but Her also had a very beautiful score. Go listen to it and you'll see. That's all.
Best Original Song
Will Win: Frozen-"Let It Go"
Should Win: Her-"The Moon Song"
It's a crying shame that Inside Llewyn Davis' "Please Mr. Kennedy" isn't nominated here, and if it was I'd want it to win. But I think "The Moon Song" is a soft and wonderful song that completely deserves the award. Unfortunately, it will not win. Frozen's song is just more popular and crowd pleasing.

Best Documentary
Will Win: The Act of Killing
Should Win: The Act of Killing
The only nominated documentary I saw this year (Blackfish was snubbed!) was the first half of The Act of Killing. Weak, I know. Yet, what I saw was horrifying and very well done. It got it's point across. I've heard about the rest of the film and there is no doubt in my mind that it should win. I plan on finishing it soon to get the full picture. I did see Blackfish however, and it was a great and absorbing documentary that should have gotten a nomination at least. I really do believe The Act of Killing will win. As it should. It's only real opponent is 20 Feet From Stardom but I think The Act of Killing will pull through.

That's all I have for you guys. This is my final list. I hope you find it enjoyable and informative. Above all, I hope you enjoy tonight's awards, regardless of the winners. Happy Viewing folks.
While you're here you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies! Thanks!

  

You're Next review

I'm next, she's next, you're next.... Who's keeping track anyway?
Horror movies seem to have been steadily going downhill for a while now. There's been a few good hits here and there, but there's been a lot of garbage in the genre recently (the entire Paranormal Activity series and Final Destination 5 to name a few). The trailer for You're Next was basically a generic horror movie preview but with Lou Reed's Perfect Day put over it. While the ironic use of the music intrigued me, I wasn't intrigued enough to buy a ticket and see the thing. Maybe I should have. You're Next starts out as a very predictable horror flick. Starts out showing a bit of violence, then establishing the "normal" world and environment. Setting up all the conditions of the situation and surrounding, and of course taking a little time to develop character and add a bit of suspense. Then, for lack of a better word, shit goes down. The movie completely spins everything on it's head and creates one of the more jaw dropping, well made, and surprisingly funny horror films I've seen in quite some time. Not to mention it has one of the best uses of practical effects I've seen since maybe the original Evil Dead movie. First off let me state, the movie isn't perfect. It occasionally ventures too far into the homage territory and starts becoming more of a bloody rip off. Then it quickly bounces back and surprises you while at the same time even making you chuckle. I've never seen anything else Adam Wingard has done, but he defintiely shows promise. He not only directed You're Next, but edited it too. I know editing is a frustrating and hard thing to do. Wingard does it wonderfully. He makes it all pair so well with the plot and his direction. He cuts between the horrific murder scenes and the regular scenes with such skill it seems almost seamless. And his ironic use of music really adds to the sort of awesome black comedy vibe it has. Let's just say it, the guy did a terrific job. He's not the only one. The acting is alright here, nothing too special. You can't expect flawless acting in a low budget horror flick most times. Although sort of newcomer (she's only had bit parts until now) Sharni Vinson did a bang up acting job here. She plays this sweet Australian girl who goes through a bit of change and becomes quite awesome. I won't spoil it but her character and her acting become very cool as the movie progresses. Most of the rest of the cast is just alright. They scream and cry and laugh when they have to but not much else. Then again, the acting doesn't really matter here. The other two actors who shined here were Joe Swanberg and A.J. Bowen. Swanberg plays this douche bag big brother of A.J. Bowen's character and he plays him so well that you actually hate him for a while. His character has his moments though and is the subject of much of the aforementioned dark humor. A.J. Bowen doesn't do much until later in the film, where he gives a sort of speech that I found funny and very well delivered. Speaking of which, the writing here, while not Oscar worthy, was still very good. The story and all the twists were fresh and original and some of the dialogue and situations were very comical in the best way. I feel like if the Coen Brothers wrote a gruesome home invasion movie, it'd somewhat resemble this. The gore and blood here is a tad excessive at times, although not to the extent that some scary movies have gone to. What also helps is the wonderful use of practical effects that Wingard uses here. It all looks real, but if you really pay attention to the little details, you can see, say, that the blood is a bit too sticky and looks a lot like corn syrup. Yet, Adam Wingard uses it all so well! In a cinema world so polluted by CGI, special effects, and editing tricks it is rare to see stuff done this realistically and raw. It's actually damn refreshing to see this. I've mentioned the twists and turns this movie has. It has a very healthy amount of them. Not too much where it gets gratuitous, but enough where it keeps you excited and guessing. They're not the obvious twists either. I give much credit to the writer for this, and for the director for carrying it out so well. You're Next is one of the most coherent, well thought out, and entertaining horror films I've seen in a long time. Yes, it's better then the original Paranormal Activity. Which on a side note I find to be an overrated and mediocre found footage movie that isn't as revolutionary as people say it is. But more on that another time. If I had seen this before I made my Favorite Films of 2013 list it would've probably gotten the #15 spot, or at least honorable mention. I recommend you see it, even if you're not a horror buff. You do need to be able to have a moderately strong stomach though. It gets bloody. As always, Happy Viewing everybody. You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies to keep up with my movie related thoughts and escapades.

Philomena review

I would make a joke about the name Philomena, but I don't have the most run-of-the-mill name either so.... I'll just keep my mouth shut.
Philomena is about this old lady named Philomena Lee (played by Judi Dench). When Philomena was a mere teenager, she has sex with a boy and becomes pregnant. This is bad, although most people can deal with it some way or another. The problem with Philomena is that she lives in a nunnery-type place and gets her child taken away from her by the nuns to be adopted to an American family. This understandably hurts Philomena very much. You'd think at that point you'd try your hardest to get your baby back or at least try and go see him, right? Well Philomena has been brainwashed into thinking what she did was an unforgivable sin. So, she never tries to find her child at all. She thinks that she's paying for what she's done everyday. After 50 years of this, she finally tells her daughter. At a dinner party, the daughter confronts recently laid-off journalist Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) about her mother's story. Sixsmith is reluctant, but he does take up the story and helps Philomena find her long lost son. On hearing about this movie, I really wasn't interested in it at all. It sounded like an emotionally manipulative and sappy piece of Oscar bait that I just wouldn't be able to stand. Well, it went and got nominated for four Oscars (including Best Picture). While I do think we often put too much attention and weight on the Academy Awards, I still like to be up to date with them. Plus, a movie has to be pretty damn good to be nominated for four major Oscars right? RIGHT? Maybe. Philomena is a pretty decent film. I didn't hate it, and I really liked certain aspects of it. Yet, in no way is it deserving of Best Picture, or really any of the Oscars it was nominated for. It was better then I expected but worse then many critics made it seem. Philomena has a very interesting and incredible story. That's not because of the writers or director though. That is just because this actually happened. The film is just showcasing the story. I feel like the story could have been showcased in a better and less manipulative way. The story is just sort of thrown up there for you to see. It uses big swells of music and the acting of Judi Dench as a crutch for the sometimes weak direction and script that didn't have a lot to say. What the music and acting doesn't hide is how very cheesy this movie feels at times. The aforementioned swells of music paired alongside especially emotional moments feels incredibly cheesy and worst of all it feels like the director is shoving emotions in you face. It's like he's practically shouting at you "Feel sad!" "Feel happy! This is heartwarming so you should feel happy!". While a little little bit of that when used the right way (like The Shawshank Redemption) can work wonders, a large heaping amount of it used the wrong way can make something like Philomena feel all wrong. Now don't get me wrong, this movie isn't all bad. Philomena's screenplay can be weak at times, but at other times it's quite funny and filled with wonderful British wit. Also, the acting is pretty great. Dame Judi Dench is terrific here as Philomena. She displays equal parts naive innocence and a determined demeanor that works great here. Her acting nomination is the only one I think is even halfway deserved. After seeing her play M in the James Bond flicks the past few years, it's nice to see her show what other ability she has. Steve Coogan, while not fantastic, does a solid job playing the sarcastic and skeptical journalist. Coogan has proved he can be funnier and better, but he understands this is Dench's film. He let's her take the helm while simultaneously providing support and funny lines along the way. This movie is a nice story filled with emotion that the whole family can enjoy. Yet, it's not all that great. And it could've been done a lot better in my opinion. Philomena has different parts that are great, but as a whole I felt it faltered a bit. It's not bad, but it sure as hell isn't Best Picture worthy. I give Philomena 3.4 out of 5 stars. Remember you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Happy Viewing!        

Lone Survivor review

SPOILER: Only one of them survives.

Lone Survivor is the true story of the botched Navy SEAL operation that left all but one dead. So first off lest me say that I feel very conflicted about this movie. On one hand, it's a very well-shot, fairly inspirational, decently directed, and well acted true war film that can be quite gripping. On the other hand, it really isn't sure on what it wants to say, the dialog is really not very good at all, and it doesn't seem to really have an underlying message. While part of me liked the film, another part of me really didn't. I feel very torn. Lone Survivor is directed by Peter Berg. He's the "acclaimed" director of such "classics" like Battleship. I'm using parentheses because Battleship really sucked. Regardless of Lone Survivor's faults, it's still a huge step up from Battleship. While Battleship was a stupid, pointless, vapid, and loud movie, Lone Survivor is much better made and is at least trying to be a good movie. Granted, it's still not great. At first, the film seems like it wants to be an uber patriotic movie filled with lots of Proud-To-Be-American kind of moments that almost border on propaganda. While this could get irritating, it's not the worst thing a film could do. Then the tone switches to what seems to be a very anti-war film. Showing the gritty, gruesome, and downright horrifying aspects of war. You see Americans getting shot with blood spurting everywhere and bones sticking out. People are dying and it's pretty sad and pretty scary. It only shows the American point of view though. The Afghan troops are nothing more then nameless enemies that need to be shot down. While I completely understand that the Taliban are horrible, horrible war criminals, I still think they should have at least tried to show things from there point of view. Or maybe just show where these people's hatred is coming from. Instead it focuses solely on the Americans. I get that this is about the American soldiers but I feel like they could have approached the Afghans differently then they did. If the film had taken a single stance and stuck with it, that would be okay with me. If it was a very patriotic war movie focusing on the sheer heroism and honor of the soldiers, that'd be fine. If it had been an adamant anti-war movie like Platoon, that'd be just as fine. But instead it's stuck in the middle. Often times, Lone Survivor seems to be trying to say something meaningful. Yet, it gets lost in translation. I know it sounds like I'm really hating on the movie, I suppose I am, but that doesn't mean I hated it. While it had numerous problems, it still did a lot of things fairly well. For one, it was really intense and absorbing. Ridley Scott made a similar war film a few years ago (coincidentally also co-starring Eric Bana) called Black Hawk Down. I hated it. It focused 100% on these loud violent battle scenes and nothing else.  I can appreciate a well done fight sequence and there have been some great ones (think Saving Private Ryan), but Scott really overdid it. The whole movie was one overlong mess of a battle scene. It got really boring. Lone Survivor could have easily fallen into being a movie like that. Besides a few scenes in the beginning and end, the film is pretty much one long battle. Yet, Peter Berg manages to make this whole exciting and gritty battle also tense and emotional with at least a little focus on character. Well actually he only really focuses on Mark Wahlberg's character (the aforementioned 'Lone Survivor'). The rest of the cast isn't developed much and isn't given all that much time to shine. Their deaths are the only time they get some real focus. It's not a huge deal and doesn't really hamper the film too much, but it is a bit annoying. The film is definitely helped by some great performances by Wahlberg, Ben Foster, Taylor Kitsch, and Emile Hirsch. While there's little focus on the other characters besides Mark Wahlberg, they all still do a bang up job. I was actually pretty surprised. It also helps how beautiful this all looks. There are some breathtaking shots of this sweeping Afghan landscape and the movie as a whole looks very polished and good. Even though some of the choices Pete Berg made here really ticked me off, I was still wowed by how damn beautiful everything looked. Regardless of everything, the film was incredibly well shot. Yet, none of those wonderful shots were really used to say something. At least the movie could have tried a little harder for an anti-war message. I felt like Berg was trying to say some things here, but just didn't follow through. One thing the movie did succeed in doing, was telling an inspirational true story that is pretty damn amazing. It wasn't told in the best way, but it was fairly gripping at times and it was very well shot. And it certainly did benefit from Wahlberg's performance. I didn't hate it, I just felt it could've been done a lot better. Maybe if it was made by a Born on the Fourth of July-era Oliver Stone with access to today's technology. Now THAT would be a movie right there. It's inspirational and gripping, but not that great in other ways. I give Lone Survivor 3.2 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing y'all. If you haven't already, you should definitely follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Thanks for reading.            

Dallas Buyers Club review

This movie is about people slowly dying from the horrible disease of AIDS. And I thought my cold was bad!

Dallas Buyers Club is the story of a homophobic electrician from Texas, Ron Woodroof (Matthew McConaughey), who gets diagnosed with HIV. He starts selling medicine to make some extra cash, but soon he starts doing it just to help people. At first glance this seems like a guilt trip of a film designed to get showered with awards and make you feel all sorts of emotions. It looks formulaic and cheesy. Heck even it's tagline, "Dare to Live", sounds corny as hell. And while Dallas Buyers Club does occasionally do some of the things mentioned, in the end it is a solid and very well acted flick that I can certainly recommend. The film is based on a true story, but it still has room to add a little extra drama and conflict. And at times it does get overly dramatic. With other actors, this could turn into a sob-fest worthy of a Lifetime TV movie. Yet, with McConaughey and  (surprisingly)  Jared Leto, Dallas Buyers Club becomes really good. Matthew McConaughey's transformation into an emaciated AIDS patient is nothing compared to his transformation as an actor. From annoying rom-com dude to serious and respectable Golden Globe winner, I don't think any of us saw this coming. I've said it before, as has everyone else, and I'll say it again. Just a few short years ago McConaughey was starring in such "movies" as Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, Failure to Launch, and Fool's Gold. Now he's in stuff like Mud, True Detective, and The Wolf of Wall Street. And you can add this to his list of good films with good performances. The guy kills it here. Not only did he lose a massive amount of weight for the role, but he really shows the pain,hate, and emotion in his character quite well. And although he carries most of the film on his shoulders, he isn't alone. Musician and occasional actor Jared Leto is in this movie. And he is really, really good in it. I don't know where his talent came from but damn is he fantastic in his role as a transsexual woman named Rayon. It's no wonder they both won acting awards at Sundays Globes. I'm not sure if McConaughey has secured an Oscar win yet, but I wouldn't be surprised if Leto has. Even if you're skeptical about the film as I once was, see it at least for the performances.  Don't get me wrong though, the acting isn't the only strong point here. The other parts of the film aren't all bad. While I did find the script a tad cliche at times, the direction and overall feel of the movie was really good. I haven't heard of the director of this before, but he did a pretty good job here. The film has this feel of being slightly old, fitting of it's time period, yet it doesn't overdo it as to distract us. The close ups and quiet, prolonged shots of the characters in pain help really highlight the superb acting here and put us in the character's shoes. Even if it is only for 117 minutes. While the script is sometimes mediocre, it still manages to capture the raw emotion and courage of this true story. You feel the pain of these poor, sick people. When a character dies, you can't help but get teary eyed. The catharsis here here is astounding. Aw damn, now I'm starting to sound corny. Dallas Buyers Club is quite good, mostly because of it's top notch performances, but it's still good. Had I seen this earlier it certainly would have made my Top 15 of 2013 list. While it's sometimes overly dramatic, Dallas Buyers Club is mostly very good and especially well acted. I just hope McConaughey keeps up this streak of being awesome in awesome movies. I give Dallas Buyers Club 4.2 out of 5 stars! Happy Viewing y'all! Remember to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.   

Nebraska review

Good thing this movie isn't actually about the state of Nebraska. No offense to the state of Nebraska, but I think that would make for one really boring film.
Alexander Payne is known for his funny, and occasionally sad, films that seem to almost make fun of their characters. My favorite of his is Election, although I thought The Descendants was alright too. His newest movie, Nebraska, is about a reluctant son, named David Grant (played by Will Forte), who takes his aging drunk of a father, Woody (Bruce Dern), on a road trip to Lincoln, Nebraska. Why? To claim the million dollars Woody "won" in a bogus sweepstakes scam in the mail. David knows he hasn't really won, but he takes him because he wants to spend time with his father, and make him happy. Nebraska is filmed all in black and white. There seems to be more films in black and white recently, like Frances Ha and Computer Chess. Sometimes black and white can make a film feel retro, and possibly make it fit the time period. Other times, as in the cases of Nebraska, it sets the mood for the film, giving it a certain feel. Nebraska feels kind of tired and old, but not in a bad way. The movie's style and feel are reflective of it's main characters, mainly Woody. Woody Grant is quite old, obviously affected from his heavy drinking, and tired. Tired of his life. That's the reason he's going to Nebraska, to try and find something to live for. He says he wants to buy new truck if he gets his million, but he can't drive. He just wants the truck to feel like he has something. Woody isn't the only one who's old and tired. On the way to Nebraska, David and Woody stop in Woody's hometown of Hawthorne, Nebraska. Everyone in Hawthorne is old and worn out, some are still hanging on to old debts and grudges form years ago. Alexander Payne does a great job of showing the whole thing. Payne is good at directing actors, showing their emotions and such. But what he is really good at, is using his films' setting to reflect or affect his characters. He did it here, and he certainly did it in The Descendants. he's also pretty good at choosing acting talent, because the actors here are top notch. Bruce Dern is great here as Woody. Dern doesn't seem to ever get a big part. He always gets supporting roles or cameos. Well even if the guy is 77, he's certainly found his perfect role in Nebraska. He's already gotten a Golden Globe nomination for it, and he will definitely get an Oscar nod. It is well deserved. Dern plays his confused yet determined character quite well, putting so much emotion and sadness into a very stoic and generally emotionless character. The rest of the cast is fairly terrific too, namely June Squibb. Squibb plays David's mom and Woody's wife. She's angry, full of gossip, and downright hilarious. While this film could be considered a comedy, it's very serious a lot of the time. She provides a hefty amount of laughter to the movie, that is with the help of this films' wonderful screenplay. Her character uses her acid tongue to berate Woody every chance she gets. Eventually you see she obviously loves him very much, and there's one scene towards the end where she expresses it, and it's really beautiful. Will Forte is decent in this too. It's good to see him acting out of his usual comedy comfort zone, but he's not much compared to some of the others in the cast. He's still pretty good though. I won't ruin it for you, but I will say that I really liked the ending of Nebraska. It's slightly subdued, but it was almost poetic in a way. And it didn't go on too long, which was good. The film occasionally drags a bit and I felt some parts could have been done a bit better, but otherwise it was pretty good. I give Nebraska 4.3 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing. Remember you can always follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.      

Her review

Spike Jonze is awesome.
The guy has done some great stuff. Being John Malkovich is genius and one of my favorite movies. Adaptation was really good also. Where the Wild Things Are, while not as good as his past directorial efforts, was beautiful and pretty good. None of them compare to Her. I have to admit, as good as it looked originally, I was quite skeptical. All the critics were praising it so much and it was winning so many awards. This made me skeptical because I thought that the amount it was being hyped, the film could never live up to. I was dead wrong. It lived up to it, and then some. Her is about Theodore Twombly. (Joaquin Phoenix) He's going through a tough divorce. Theodore is lonely, so he buys an artificially intelligent operating system (with the voice of Scarlett Johansson) named Samantha. Slowly, Theodore falls in love with Samantha, and Samantha falls in love with Theodore. Thus begins the beautifully strange movie that is Her. Honestly, if you haven't seen the movie yet, just stop reading and go see it now. I wouldn't want to ruin anything. Her is great for a number of reasons. It shows the relationship between Theodore and Samantha, not as this strange weird thing, but as an understandable and real relationship. You almost begin to understand why this is happening. The whole human/operating system relationship is surprisingly easily to understand and relate to. Spike Jonze did a fantastic job with that. And Scarlett Johansson did a great job too. I can imagine it's hard to communicate all the emotion and feeling she did with just her voice. That worked really well. The whole new take on the modern relationship was very clever and well done, but it's not the only thing that makes this film so great. Spike Jonze does a great job of seeing where we might be in only a few years. Sure some of the technology is more advanced, but it's not too far away from where we are now. It's kind of awesome and kind of scary that stuff like this could happen in our lifetime. Jonze makes this near-future seem real and comparable to our society now. At one point, Theodore is sitting on the steps leading up from the subway. This is one of the first times in the film when he isn't completely absorbed by Samantha and his phone or computer. He watches as people come up the steps. Every person is talking to their operating system or looking at their phone. It's a sad moment, but if you think about it, it's just a reflection of today. Spike Jonze covers that beautifully, without hitting you over the head with it. He also manages to cover and explain all the questions problems with artificial intelligence. Jonze brings up a lot of other points about consciousnesses and being. Some great films before it like Moon and Blade Runner have dealt with similar issues, but not to the extent the Her has. It's astounding the level of creativity and emotion Spike Jonze put into this film. As cheesy as it sounds, Her made me laugh, cry, smile, and question life. It's some movie. Her is about the relationship between a man and his operating system, but it's also about so much more. I'm having trouble putting my feelings and what I think about this movie into words because the movie is just so good. Her is, without a doubt, the best film of the year. The writing and directing is fantastic, the themes are so well dealt with, and the acting is great. Joaquin Phoenix is obviously a great actor. He's been terrific in stuff like The Master and Gladiator. Her is one of his better performances. He portrays Theodore perfectly, not making him a sad-sack loser, but still showing that he is a lonely and hurt man. Phoenix carries a decent chunk of the film on his back, but he does it expertly. Amy Adams is great too, as Theodore's friend Amy. Amy Adams is having a great year. First she was in the big budget Man of Steel. Then gave a great performance in American Hustle. Now she shows off her talent again in Her. She's getting a lot of recognition for American Hustle, but I'm surprised she got none for Her. I don't know what else to say, just go see the film and you'll understand what makes Her such a masterpiece. I hope Spike Jonze does more solo stuff because this was brilliant. I give Her 5 out of 5. It is truly the best film of the year. Happy Viewing and Happy New Year! You can always stay up to date by following me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and liking me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.      

The Wolf of Wall Street review

Gordon Gekko's got nothing on Jordan Belfort. Nothing.
Jordan Belfort is a multi-millionaire stock broker and founder of Stratton Oakmont, a brokerage firm on Wall Street. He has a huge mansion gloriously furnished on the most expensive property there is. He often will have events at his firm that involve throwing a dwarf at a target, and bringing a marching band accompanied by strippers into the office. He has a trophy wife, and still enjoys the company of prostitutes many days of the week. Belfort takes a cornucopia of  drugs everyday to keep him going, including morphine, because, as he says "Morphine is awesome!". He is the subject of Martin Scorsese's newest film, The Wolf of Wall Street. The film opens with Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) explaining who he is over voice over while, as I mentioned earlier, he is throwing a very small man at a Velcro target. Thus begins the extremely entertaining and often ridiculous tale of Mr. Jordan Belfort. This is one case where you can say truth is stranger than fiction. The film documents Belfort's rise from ambitious kid to multi-million dollar entity. And it also document his fall. First off, this film was incredibly entertaining. It may be Scorsese's best film since The Departed, maybe even since Casino, but it isn't Scorsese's best movie. What I can say is that it is Martin Scorsese's most entertaining, insane, and funny film yet. Truly, it is awesome to have a 71 year old man make a film so vibrant, crazy, and entertaining as this. The Wolf of Wall Street runs at about three hours. I was completely absorbed the whole time. Some critically acclaimed movies like Lincoln and Blue Jasmine were well done in many ways, but failed to keep my attention and entertain. Scorsese (with the help of screenwriter Terence Winter) manages to craft a wonderfully enjoyable film, that is also a truly good film. He's not sacrificing content and message for flashy-ness and beautifully filmed scenes (like movies such as Spring Breakers kind of did). Point is I really enjoyed The Wolf of Wall Street, and it was really good. For many, many reasons other than just being incredibly entertaining. The acting was quite good, for one. Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the most committed and talented actors working today. He is occasionally talked up for more then he is, but overall I think the guy is really good. He's proved he can act in movies like The Aviator, Django Unchained, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape. I can honestly say The Wolf of Wall Street showcases Leonardo DiCaprio's best performance yet. Him and Scorsese are a fantastic actor/director team that I hope keep on working together for many movies to come. I really hope Leo wins an Oscar for this. He not only personifies the money and drug addled craziness of Jordan Belfort, but takes the role to many different levels. Jonah Hill also gives a more than decent performance as Belfort's close associate and partner in crime, Donnie Azoff. Hill is definitely a capable actor as he's shown before, he only solidifies that now. The rest of the supporting cast is really good too. Matthew McConaughey shows up for a very funny cameo. McConaughey is an actor who I used to hate, and now really appreciate and love. His role here may be small, but it's still pretty damn good. Many of you may know that Martin Scorsese is my all-time favorite director. I have a lot of favorite directors like Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson among others, but Scorsese is the only one who never disappoints and always continues to wow me. I can't think of a bad movie the guy has made! His work here is a fantastic return to the insane form that inhabited some of his stuff like GoodFellas, Casino, and After Hours. The Wolf of Wall Street is insane and excessive and over-the-top, but Martin Scorsese does it all so, so well. He uses old devices like voice over and constantly moving camera to really tell this story. You could easily fail at doing the story of Jordan Belfort. You could make it too gratuitous without really giving meaning to the story and exploring the themes. Luckily Terence Winter and Martin Scorsese know what they're doing. The Wolf of Wall Street is about not only the excessive greed and malpractice of Wall Street, but it's about learning from your mistakes and the misinterpretation of the American Dream. What frightens me is that people will miss the meaning of the story and use it as an excuse and guide for trying to live like Jordan Belfort. Many people completely missed the meaning of Scarface, how excessive greed and power will eventually bring you down, and took it as a handbook on how to be a "cool" gangster. Similar to that, many people were "disgusted" at the film because of it's many scenes involving drugs, sex, more drugs, and other devious acts of debauchery. What these critic don't understand is that these acts are necessary to the themes and message of the movie! The Wolf of Wall Street is a cautionary tale. I just hope people realize that. I've heard a lot of talk recently about how 2013 is one of the best years for movies in a long time. With stuff like this coming out, I can't help but agree. We are in a golden age of cinema. Martin Scorsese is just one fine example of that. Scorsese is focusing on Wall St. for this movie. He is known for his mafia films like The Departed and GoodFellas. I think they're very similar. Scorsese paints a picture of excessive and crazy Wall Street life in the 80's and 90's, that isn't all that different from the mafia life he told us about in some of his other films. Making movies like this seems to be what the guy was born to do. If you haven't noticed by now, I really liked this film. Call me crazy, but it may be the best of the year (so far). And yes, I would watch it again in a heartbeat. I give The Wolf of Wall Street 5 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing everybody. If you want to keep up to date with my reviews and other things, you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.              

Inside Llewyn Davis review

Movies like Inside Llewyn Davis are hard to write about.

Like many Coen Brothers films they're simple. Yet also complex on other levels. They definitely have a lot more to them than immediately meets the eye, but I can't figure it out exactly yet. And they're really good. It can be hard to express how you feel about a movie a lot of times without sounding cliche. I'm trying to find what to say about this movie, but to be honest it's pretty hard for me. But I'll try. First off let me tell you what this here film is about. It takes place in 1960's New York. It's centered around a cynical young folk singer named Llewyn Davis (played by Oscar Isaac). Llewyn is what you'd call down on his luck. He doesn't have an actual address. He can't afford an address. He hops from couch to couch, sleeping at one friend's house at one night and another's the next. He lives off of the minimal money he makes off his musical gigs. Mostly playing at The Gaslight Cafe in Greenwich Village. Llewyn's life seems to be an endless cycle of disappointments and obstacles, each seemingly worse than the next. His partner jumps off the George Washington Bridge. Gets his married friend pregnant. Accidentally lost his other friend's cat. Gets stranded on the highway on the way to Chicago. It seems like Llewyn Davis never catches a break. His whole existence is a pointless Odyssey. A Frodo without a mount Doom. A hero with no destination and no epic battle. Embarking on a journey to nowhere. An exasperated adventurer who just wants to sell his record. Davis isn't your classic hero. To put it in the words of Carey Mulligan's character, Jean, he's an asshole. Although you definitely feel for him most of the time, Llewyn Davis is the kind of guy you want to punch sometimes. Llewyn is a jerk, but his crappy circumstances are partially to blame. He reminds me a little of Larry Gopnik, the protagonist in the very underrated Coen Bros. movie, A Serious Man. They both have a lot of problems that seem to be unceremoniously dumped on their laps that they have to try and deal with. Their endings may not be happy, but they're story is certainly one worth telling. The Coen's are master filmmakers and I absolutely love them. The Big Lebowski, Fargo, Burn After Reading, A Serious Man, No Country for Old Men, True Grit, Raising Arizona. The Coen Brothers are cinematic geniuses who have birthed an array of awesome films. Inside Llewyn Davis isn't their best, but it's still really good. Even if you had problems with the characters and the story (which I did not), you still can at least appreciate their darkly funny and sometimes somber dialog and their fantastic use of camera and editing. Many directors are great at say, directing actors, but they struggle in many other areas. Joel and Ethan Coen are pretty versatile in their skills. They direct the actors in such a way that they really get the most out of them, but they also create such a vivid world in which their movie takes place. For No Country they made this whole dangerous, dusty western atmosphere that fit the movie just fine. For Inside Llewyn Davis they have captured the whole 60's NYC folk scene perfectly. Not only that, but every emotion and aspect of Llewyn's life seems to be reflected into the film's setting. It all works really well. Granted, it's not a perfect film. It drags in certain spots and there are a few parts that are longer than they should be. Overall though, it was really quite well done. The acting was really terrific too. Oscar Isaac was fantastic as the title character. I remember seeing that guy in some really small roles but all I can say is, where has he been all this time. I suppose it takes the Coen's to really bring the potential out in an actor. Carey Mulligan is superb too as Llewyn's sometimes friend. Justin Timberlake was alright as Carey Mulligan's character's boyfriend, but he' yet to show he can really act. John Goodman shows up for a bit as a washed out jazz musician. He brings some laughs. Although then again, when doesn't John Goodman make you laugh? All that stuff is great, but I have to mention the soundtrack. Inside Llewyn Davis may not be the best movie ever, or even the best of the year. But it certainly has the best soundtrack in any movie I can remember. There are a lot of fantastic folk songs here. The movie is worth seeing for the music alone. Yeah, it's that good. Anyway, Inside Llewyn Davis isn't The Coen Brother's best, but it's still really terrific. I can't help but recommend it. I give Inside Llewyn Davis 4.6 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing. Remember you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and make sure to like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies! 

By the way, I'm going to stop doing #tbt reviews so I can have more freedom to review more movies and not worry about what day to review them on. I'm also getting increasingly annoyed with the hashtag so that's a reason too. Anyway, Happy Viewing1 (Happy Holidays too!)  

Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa review

Just because this movie is about a grandpa, doesn't mean you should take your's. I take it grandma and grandpa wouldn't find this movie so...tasteful.
Going into Bad Grandpa, I did not expect high brow and subtle comedy that you'd find in a good Sofia Coppola movie. What I expected was a lot of hidden camera gags and fart jokes and stuff of that nature. What I got was a lot of hidden camera gags and fart jokes and stuff of that nature. You get what you pay for. Although in this case that's not all that bad. Surprisingly, this film actually has a plot. A pretty flimsy plot at that, but it does have one. Irving Zisman's (Johnny Knoxville) wife dies. His grandson Billy (Jackson Nicoll), needs to be driven down to North Carolina to his burn out father. As it turns out, Irving has to do it. Lots of pranks, drunkenness, and genital jokes ensue. Jackass' Bad Grandpa would've worked a lot better as a TV show, as Jackass originally was. The whole movie is filled with some pretty crazy scenes, and a few hilariously dirty jokes, but the whole story and emotional aspect of it feels a bit forced and more than a few of the jokes don't carry. But when the jokes do carry, they really carry. At certain points in the film I was doubled over with laughter. One scene in particular made me crack up so hard my ribs hurt afterward. Bad Grandpa is the kind of movie you see on a lazy Saturday afternoon to kill some time. It's funny and enjoyable, and it's a general good time. Yet, it's not much more than an entertaining time waster. It's slightly better than some of the other Jackass films, but it's still nothing special. In the end, it's just Johnny Knoxville doing embarrassing things to unsuspecting civilians. It's not that that's a bad thing, it's really just nothing new. We've seen that in the other Jackass films and in stuff like Punk'd. Despite all that, I still had a good time at Bad Grandpa. Sure it's great to have some quirky indie films like Frances Ha or a harsh and emotional drama like 12 Years a Slave (both of which are terrific, by the way), but we still need movies like Bad Grandpa to keep things light and make sure we still can laugh a little. Most critics it seem like to seem like stiff and proper film scholars who don't have time for peasant trash like Jackass' Bad Grandpa. The truth is, we all need a little Bad Grandpa to tickle our funny bones every once in a while. I didn't think every joke was great and I felt certain elements of the movie were unnecessary, but Bad Grandpa isn't bad at all. So in conclusion, I say this movie is not a comedy classic, but an enjoyable little film that certainly helps the time pass. Yeah it doesn't have the story of The Big Lebowski or the poignant characters and dialog of Shaun of the Dead but not all comedies have to. I'd see Bad Grandpa, but I'd keep an open mind and really try and just enjoy it. If you do that, it's a pretty fun movie to watch. I give Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa 3.5 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing! Remember (even though I put this in every review), you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.           

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire review

This movie ain't too bad despite the fact that the whole series is a ripoff of an awesome Japanese movie. Battle Royale came first people!
A soldier and it's fellow comrades stalk through a steamy foreign jungle. Bugs buzz around them, biting them. Their weapons are drawn. They just want to stay alive. This is war. What I am describing is the new Hunger Games movie, Catching Fire. At the same time, I'm also describing the Vietnam War. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), is the heroine of the Hunger Games films. She was the victor of the last games and is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder. She goes hunting and lives with her family, trying to make things normal. But she is plagued to flashbacks and dreams and horrific images that all remind her of the awful experience that was the last Hunger Games. People applaud her and shower her with the attention that celebrities of today all get. She wants no part of it. It all seems so fake compared to her actual reality. All the excessive and ridiculousness of the Capitol (the central city of the dystopian world) seems unnecessary and almost cruel. She goes cross country on a Victory Tour. It's supposed to be a fun affair. But it is all a masquerade. She had become a Mockingjay to the people, a symbol of hope for the rebellion against the totalitarian government. Again, she really wants no part of this. To make matters worse she's shipped off to the Hunger Games again as part of President Snow's (Donald Sutherland) and Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) plan to destroy the image of Katniss as a beacon of hope for the downtrodden peoples. Yeah, things aren't looking to bright for Katniss Everdeen. So before I was making a comparison between Catching Fire and the Vietnam War. You see, I think these movies are pretty great and want to be serious deep films. Yet, they get caught up in pleasing the (mostly) teenage female audience and have to put in these cheesy forced "love" subplots. There's nothing wrong with a little romance here and there, but this movie doesn't need it. It's really about a girls struggle to stay sane in the face of war, similar to movies like Platoon and Apocalypse Now. It isn't really about the love triangle between Katniss, Peeta, and Gale. That stuff is in there for more for the entertainment and appeal of the Twilight audience. Honestly, this movie would be a lot better if it didn't shoehorn in stupid subplots like that. Besides those few issues, Catching Fire is an intense and fairly entertaining entree into the Hunger Games series. I think it's a decent entree into the dystopian sci-fi genre itself. Director Francis Lawrence certainly knows how to handle that stuff after his 2007 film, I Am Legend. Jennifer Lawrence (no relation to the director) gives a very nice performance here. She is already has an  Oscar and another nomination to go along with it. Lawrence does the whole wounded veteran thing as nicely as one can do the wounded veteran thing. I can't say the same for the rest of the cast. Woody Harrelson and Josh Hutcherson both do their roles fine, nothing special though, but Liam Hemsworth plays his character as if it were a block of wood with hair. Unlike his much more talented brother, Chris, Liam Hemsworth has yet to show he has any acting ability at all. Jena Malone (who I last saw in Donnie Darko, where's she been?) does a nice job as the very angry Joanna Mason. One of the best parts of the film in my opinion, was the effects and set pieces. There's one particular sweeping shot of the very realistic rain forest that was reminiscent of movies like Blood Diamond. It's really pretty cool how damn far we've come special effects wise. A lot of people have been saying how Catching Fire can't be that good because it's the middle of the series. Wrong, I say! Catching Fire is actually a lot better in my opinion than the first flick. And I actually really liked the first. This one is actually trying to be a deeper, more psychological movie. It doesn't always succeed, but it's quite good when it does. Despite it's pratfalls, I'd say it's a nicely done film. Looks like Catching Fire didn't burn out! (wink, wink). I give The Hunger Games: Catching Fire 3.6 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing everyone. Remember, you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.  

The Counselor review

Cormac McCarthy is one messed-up dude. Seriously.
I first saw the trailer for The Counselor at screening a few months ago. It seemed like the perfect film. A seemingly exciting thriller about drugs, girls, guns, and intrigue. With a terrific cast of such greats as Brad Pitt, Micheal Fassbender, and Javier Bardem. Written by Cormac McCarthy! Writer of No Country for Old Men (the book)! And best of all, directed by Ridley Scott. THE Ridley Scott. Director of Blade Runner and Gladiator. I honestly thought this was going to be one of the better films of the year. Then, when I saw some of the early reviews for The Counselor coming out. I was kind of bummed. The reviews were increasingly negative. With all the talent involved, how could this possibly be bad? Well for one, I don't think it is really bad. It's not overwhelmingly good, but it has some nice things about it and I think it's been generally misunderstood. First off, the plot. A successful lawyer known only as The Counselor (Micheal Fassbender), seems to have it all. An attractive wife, Laura (Penelope Cruz). Money. Nice cars. But things start to go south for him when he gets involved with a drug deal that goes very, very bad. So, I went in to The Counselor with generally low expectations because of what I'd seen in reviews. Yet, my love for Ridley Scott and Cormac McCarthy brought me to the theater to see the film. I was scared that the movie would be a black hole in movie history. An abundance of talent that collapsed under its own weight. Luckily for me, there was a light at the end of the tunnel. Maybe it was because I thought it was going to be so bad, but I kind of liked The Counselor. The reason I believe it seems to be almost universally hated is because everyone had such high expectations for it. Sure, Ridley Scott could have done better, but he's not always great. I think this was better than Black Hawk Down. Cormac McCarthy I think did a damn good job with the screenplay. I know a lot of people think differently, but it wasn't bad. His dialogue is very symbolic and poetic. It seems strange coming out of actual people. I think it would be better suited to a novel, but it kind of works here. The reason is because the world that Cormac created isn't a normal world. People talk differently. People act differently. Rules that apply in our world don't apply in his world. The world of The Counselor is this gritty and strange reality where everyone has a secret and no one can be trusted. It's truly pretty interested. Then again, I'm not saying The Counselor is so great. But I am saying it's very underrated. What I think people were expecting is a fast-paced bulletfest comparable to a more violent James Bond flick. What they got was a much more slower paced and dialogue driven thriller. I liked The Counselor more than I expected to. The performances were decent. Micheal Fassbender is constantly proving himself to be a capable and great actor. He just came off a great role in 12 Years a Slave, and now he was damn good in this. The rest of the cast is just alright. Good, but nothing special. Cameron Diaz plays this evil woman who seems to control everything. She's certainly trying, but I don't think she was all that good to begin with. Yet, Fassbender's performance is enough. Ridley Scott's direction is kind of weirdly slow and focuses more on the characters than usual. It's not his best job but it's more than just alright. The best part of the movie are the interesting neo-noir story that Cormac can do so well. Overall I was impressed compared to all the negative buzz that surrounded it. Some reviewers called it "a boring mess" and "an empty, nasty piece of work". I don't think it's deserving of all the hate. It could be better, but I was pleasantly surprised. I think it's safe to say I liked The Counselor. I didn't love it, but I did like it. This just goes to show you can't always listen to the critics. For example, last year's Lincoln got bombarded with praise and award nominations. Yet, I found it to be an incredibly boring film that boarded on painfully slow. Most critics seemed to hate this movie and yet I found it to be fairly well done. It's not for everyone, but I'd say it's worth a watch. I give The Counselor 3.4 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing. You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.        

12 Years a Slave review

This film is directed by Steve McQueen. The art house director, not "The King of Cool". Just wanted to clear that up.

I've heard a lot of people call 12 Years a Slave 'the best movie they never want to see again'. I couldn't disagree more. While 12 Years a Slave is a damn good film, I would love to see it again. Many people are saying how gruesome and visceral it is. It was hard to watch at parts, sure. Yet, I feel like multiple viewings would be helpful in getting a truly full experience from the movie. All the terrific performances and techniques the movie has are just too good not to see again. Some movies, like Lincoln for example, were very well done, yet so incredibly boring that I wouldn't want to sit through it again. 12 Years a Slave isn't boring. I know the reason people wouldn't want to see it again is because of how sad and violent it is. Even so, I'd still want to recreate the incredible experience it was to see this film again. The movie is really gritty and bloody. but that's how it should be. A movie about the horror's of slavery shouldn't be sugar coated and censored. Therefore the sheer bloodiness of the film is unfortunately necessary. I hope the academy doesn't snub McQueen with a Best Director nod like they did with Kathryn Bigelow and Quentin Tarantino last year for the subject matter of their movies. 12 Years a Slave is well acted, directed, and shows an unbelievable true story for what it is: a tale of survival and horror. It's not Hollywood-ized or made into some heroic adventure tale. Yeah, it's heartbreaking and sometimes very painful to watch, but it works. I think it's safe to say 12 Years a Slave is one of the better films of the year. Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) is a well-to-do free black man with a nice family living in Saratoga, New York. One day, he is kidnapped and sold into slavery. His past life is stripped away and everything that once mattered to him is seemingly forgotten. Even his name is changed. He is first a slave under the kind Master Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch). Unfortunately, Ford's second in charge, named Tibeats (Paul Dano), is quite cruel and hates Solomon right away. A series of brutal events leads Solomon to serve under the crueler and angrier Master Edwin Epps (Micheal Fassbender). There, he is worked hard and beaten. Northup's will is put to the test. At Epps' plantation is where he spends most of his time in the film. Solomon's fantastic skill of playing the violin is of some help, but he is still targeted by Epps and his wife. Some of the most depressing and harsh moments take place in this point of the movie. As harsh as they were, they were necessary in making the movie as realistic and gritty as it is. I can't stress that enough. As I said before, the performances are terrific. The best being form Chiwetel Ejiofor and Micheal Fassbender. I feel like Benedict Cumberbatch and Brad Pitt could have given some truly memorable portrayals here, but they are only given a very small amount of screen time. I have no doubt whatsoever that Ejiofor will get a Best Actor nomination and I hope Fassbender will get a Supporting nod. The acting, while good, isn't the only good part of the film. McQueen does a great directing job here. Regretfully, I haven't seen Shame or Hunger (yet!) but I already know he will go on to be one of the great directors of our time. 12 Years a Slave is filmed with a certain character-based realism that almost made me believe I was there. At the end there's a close up shot of Ejiofor's face with the background blurred out. The rack-focus close up technique ,especially used with Chiwetel Ejiofor, just shows how worn out and weary the once free man was. It's powerful stuff. I was expecting 12 Years a Slave to be a pretentious over-hyped bore. It wasn't any of that. As much as I loved Prisoners, I think '12 Years' tops it as Best Movie of the Year So Far. Believe the hype. 12 Years a Slave is damn good. I give 12 Years a Slave 5 out of 5 stars. You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.  

Escape Plan review

Aren't these guys a little old to be doing any of this? I'm surprised none of them stopped the movie to pop an arthritis pill.
Mikael Hafstrom has never made a good movie in his entire career. His newest film, Escape Plan, isn't good. But it's not bad either. Ray Breslin (Sylvester Stallone) breaks out of prisons to see if they're 100% secure for a living. His newest assignment is an off-the-grid "unbreakable" prison code named, The Tomb. He's beaten, kidnapped, and thrown on a plane to this infamous super jail. It's obvious he was set up. So he quickly forms a friendship with Emil Rottmayer, (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and hatches an escape plan. Hence, the title of the movie.
When going to see Escape Plan, do not expect it to be a well written Oscar contender. Escape Plan isn't hiding what it really is. It's a no-holds-barred testosterone-fueled action flick. I mean any movie that boasts both Ahnuld and Rocky nowadays is probably going to be something like The Expendables 2. Even though I think Escape Plan is better than The Expendables 2, it's still incredibly dumb. Yet, it's also full of some really fun action. Then again, it's still a ridiculous movie. Nothing about this film makes a lot of sense, but the movie is honest about that. It's not hiding the fact that it's a brainless action blockbuster. It embraces the fact. Unlike say, Now You See Me which was trying to trick you into thinking it was a smart thriller when really it was a crappy action movie. That's the beauty of Escape Plan. Both you and the guys who made the movie know it's a "bad" movie, and that's what make sit so damn fun. Not everything is fun though. Sylvester Stallone is a very talented person. He wrote and starred in Rocky, and got two Oscar nods for that. Many people forget that he used to be a "good" actor. Hell, I thought his performance in First Blood was pretty good too. His performance (if that's what you want to call it) in Escape Plan is the equivalent of an emotionless boulder that punches people. Although I can't say I expected much considering what Stallone has been doing recently. Arnold on the other hand, completely hams it up here. Schwarzenegger is absolutely hilarious here. Yeah he kicks a lot of ass, but he also made me crack up. He was certainly the best part of the movie. At one point in the film Arnold Schwarzenegger has to smile. It is the single funniest facial expression I've ever seen. That smile made my day. I can't say the same for Stallone, unfortunately. The Italian Stallion's face is about as lively as a plank of wood the entire movie. Jim Caviezel has a role here as The Tomb's warden. He isn't great, but he plays it with a certain delicious villainy that's worthy of a Die Hard criminal. No acting awards here, but still not too bad. Escape Plan may be a mostly forgettable actioner. But it has a certain delightfulness and complication that makes this bullet-ridden movie so fun. I was actually thinking about seeing the Carrie remake instead if this. I'm glad I didn't. I figure I'd rather have fun at an exciting but stupid action movie than be pissed off at how the remake completely ruined the original. There are much better movies in theaters now that you should see before this like Prisoners and Captain Phillips, but if you wanna have fun killing two hours: Escape Plan is the movie to see. Just don't expect anything too philosophical and thought provoking. I give Escape Plan 3.4 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing! You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.          

Gravity review

Even in a while plummeting through space in the face of almost certain death while wearing a clunky astronaut suit, George Clooney still manages to be incredibly suave and confident.
So about a year ago I stumbled across this sci-fi film called Gravity in the 'Upcoming Releases' part of a movie website. It sounded very cool, yet there was little information about it. No posters or pictures , or even a synopsis. The release date was November 2012. I was very excited to see it. Come November, Gravity doesn't actually come out. It seems to have vanished from existence. I was quite confused, but I just got on with my life. Flash forward to May 2013. I'm at a showing of The Great Gatsby and there's a trailer shown for some cool space movie called, you guessed it, Gravity. My heart soars. The audience applauds. Tears are shed. Fade to black. Okay, it wasn't that dramatic, but you get the point. Anyway, I became very, very excited for the film. Around late August, reviews for Gravity started coming in. They were very good reviews. My excitement was solidified. Well, Gravity finally came out last week. I didn't get a chance to see it then. I got back from seeing it in 3D, and damn those reviews were right. Gravity is about two astronauts; Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) and Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) who get "lost in space" when satellite debris take out their entire control center. They then have to maneuver to the nearest space station and stay alive. There's been a lot of hype around Gravity. It seems like everyone on the internet is talking about it.  It has a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes! The Godfather Part II and Raging Bull have a 98%! (Coincidentally, both those movies are starring Robert De Niro.) I was actually worried about it. I thought my expectations would be too high. Could it live up to the hype? Yes and no. Gravity is the most beautiful and visually striking movie I've seen all year. The movie starts out with one unbroken shot, a strange reminiscent  of Martin Scorsese and Stanley Kubrick. That one shot was what sucked me in. I was hooked. Alfonso Cuaron is the director here. If he doesn't get an Oscar for this I don't know what the world will have come to. The direction here is like fluid, flowing across the vast and wonderful vacuum that it is outer space. Shot after shot, my breath was being taken away. Everything looks so real here. I could have sworn I was right up with Sandra Bullock, flying through space with her. This movie is so great because of the visuals. Cuaron directed the third Harry Potter flick and the apocalyptic P.D. James adaptation, Children of Men. Those were all good. Gravity though, may be his masterpiece. It's not a perfect film though. The characters are a bit flimsy and it sometimes feels off. But I forgive all of its minor issues for the sheer astounding beauty and awesomeness of it all. The acting is alright here. George Clooney is his usual cool self, nothing wrong with that. Nothing really special either. Sandra Bullock is decent. In the majority of the movie she's going through space screaming and being scared. But towards the end, she gets her chance to shine. I don't consider Bullock to be a fantastic actress. She isn't mind blowing here, but she's not bad either. Yet, the best part of Gravity is the fantastic visuals and direction. And yes, I would watch it again. I was wrestling with myself on what rating to give this. Then I thought, it kept my attention the whole time and truly blew me away. It was the maybe the best experience I've ever had at the movies! So in conclusion, I give Gravity 4.5 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing guys! Remember, you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies!