“Black Mass” Review

Black Mass follows the exploits of infamous gangster James “Whitey” Bulger (Johnny Depp). A small-timer in South Boston, Bulger makes a deal with FBI agent John Connolly (Joel Edgerton) to inform on the local Italian mafia. This makes Bulger virtually untouchable, and he sets out to dominate South Boston’s underworld, killing anyone who gets in his way.

I’ve had very high hopes for Black Mass ever since its first trailer hit. Johnny Depp, who’s been in the midst of a cold-streak, desperately needed a comeback, and the true story of one of the most fascinating gangsters of the 20th century looked just like the fix. I’m also a sucker for gangster and true crime movies. Give me a decent one and I’ll probably eat it up. Luckily, Black Mass is beyond adequate – in fact, it might resurrect Johnny Depp’s career as a serious actor.

I love Johnny Depp, but lately he’s gone all in on overly silly characters. Jack Sparrow and Willy Wonka worked out great for him; Mad Hatter and Barnabas Collins, not so much. I longed for the days when Depp could do movies like Ed Wood or Donnie Brasco and everyone would look at him come Oscar season. Well, if Depp plays his cards right those days might be back in full force. He’s a revelation as Whitey Bulger, a tour de force that you take seriously every moment he’s onscreen. He makes Bulger a psychopath who will kill anyone or any slight, but who loves his family and commands the respect of everyone around him. I love when villains aren’t cardboard cut-outs, when they can have virtues along with deep flaws, and we got that from Whitey. Johnny, please do more movies like this. They really work for you.

The rest of the cast more than holds their own against Depp. Joel Edgerton is fantastic as Connolly, so driven and sleazy that even ridiculous makeup can’t ruin the effect. We also get Benedict Cumberbatch as Whitey’s brother Billy, an ambitious politician who constantly has to fend off his brother’s reputation. It almost doesn’t matter who it is; whether it’s Kevin Bacon, David Harbour, Rory Cochrane, or even bit players like Jesse Plemons and Dakota Johnson, the performances leave an impact. Scott Cooper, who directed Jeff Bridges to an Oscar win with Crazy Heart, sure knows how to bring the best out of his actors.

Another thing Cooper has a knack for is tone. Like most gangster movies, Black Mass is a dark film. All of Bulger’s killings are played seriously, and they’re always brutal and never feel sensationalistic. However, there are some moments of black comedy that are completely disarming yet work so well, mostly coming from Bulger making people uncomfortable. In addition, the atmosphere of 70s and 80s Boston is recreated to perfection, being gritty and mysterious, but also, weirdly enough, a great looking place that I’d love to visit. Funny how the movies that make a city looks so terrible will make me want to go there as soon as possible.

Unfortunately, Black Mass has one major hurtle that prevents it from being a truly great movie; its lack of focus. The film jumps around from time period to time period, and event to event, leaving the overall story arc feeling a bit disjointed. Each individual piece was great, but as an overall narrative it left something to be desired. Now, this is a common danger with biopics. There are some, like Goodfellas that can have a lot going on and still feel tightly focused. But most should The Beautiful Mind route and focus on a few commons threads. Black Mass, while quite entertaining, should have narrowed its focus and expanded on a few key elements.

Still, Black Mass is a very good movie that fans of biopics, gangster films, and great actors doing there thing are sure to love. It’s an engaging look at a horrible, fascinating man in a dangerous time and place, not to mention a damn good drama in its own right. Except to see Depp on an Oscar short list in a few months.

Score: 7.5/10

Rated R for brutal violence, language throughout, some sexual references and brief drug use; 122 minutes

My Reaction to the Oscar Nominees

The Oscars are always one of my favorite events of year. Even when I don’t agree with some of the nominees and winners, it’s still a fun show and I love having a celebration of the year in film. Well, the nominees for the 87th Academy Awards were announced a few days ago, and I’ve finally gotten all my thoughts on them straight.

DISCLAIMER: All film is subjective, so just like my reviews this list will be completely opinion-based.

BEST PICTURE

American Sniper: This should definitely not be on here. Great lead performance, bad movie.

Birdman: Terrific. This belongs here, and is probably gonna be the winner.

Boyhood: This is my pick for most overrated movie of the year. It wasn’t bad, but I wasn’t enthralled by it like most people.

The Grand Budapest Hotel: Sure, why not?

The Imitation Game: My favorite movie on this list, but it doesn’t have a strong chance of winning.

Selma: CONTROVERSY: It was just okay. Not worth a nomination in my opinion.

The Theory of Everything: Very nice to see this nominated.

Whiplash: Even nicer to see this nominated. One of the best movies of the year, and it gets better every time I see it. If I haven’t seen it I won’t comment.

Will win: Either Birdman or Boyhood

Should win: The Imitation Game

BEST ACTOR

Steve Carrell, Foxcatcher

Bradley Cooper, American Sniper: In a weaker year, I would’ve put him on here. But this was a stacked year, and I would rather have seen David Oyelowo or Jake Gyllenhaal in his spot.

Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game: He belongs here for sure.

Michael Keaton, Birdman: So does he. One of Keaton’s best performances.

Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything: Yet another extremely strong contender. This is Redmayne’s best performance to date.

Will and should win: Michael Keaton, Birdman

BEST ACTRESS

Marion Cotillard, Two Days, One Night

Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything: I loved her performance. She belongs her for sure.

Julianne Moore, Still Alice

Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl: YES YES YES!! I would’ve freaked out if she wasn’t nominated.

Reese Witherspoon, Wild

Will win: Julianne Moore, Still Alice

Should win: Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Robert Duvall, The Judge: He’s got no chance, but he was the best part of that movie and deserves a nomination.

Ethan Hawke, Boyhood: He should be on here. The parents in Boyhood were much more compelling than Mason.

Edward Norton, Birdman: Another great performance in a movie filled with them.

Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher

J.K. Simmons, Whiplash: This is a very strong category, but I don’t see how he doesn’t win.

Will and should win: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Patricia Arquette, Boyhood: She and Ethan Hawke made the movie watchable for me. That enough is worth win.

Laura Dern, Wild

Keira Knightley, The Imitation Game: Knightley has come a long way in the last few years, and this is a vindication of all her efforts.

Emma Stone, Birdman: She was terrific.

Meryl Streep, Into the Woods: I didn’t like the movie. It was about an hour too long. But Streep was great, same as always.

Will and should win: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM: I don’t like this category. It exists only to give the Academy an excuse not to nominate animated films for Best Picture. BUT HOW THE HELL DOES THE LEGO MOVIE NOT GET NOMINATED? I don’t use the term snub lightly, but this is a snub.

Big Hero 6: I loved it. Lots of fun, and yet another credit to Disney.

The Boxtrolls: I enjoyed it, and it’s nice to see it get nominated.

How to Train Your Dragon 2: Without The Lego Movie in competition, this is my clear favorite.

Song of the Sea

The Tale of the Princess Kaguya

Will and should win: How to Train Your Dragon 2

BEST DIRECTOR

Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Birdman: This is the first time that I can honestly say he did a great job directing. He did a truly amazing job.

Richard Linklater, Boyhood: I wouldn’t put him on here. I don’t think he did a very good job creating a compelling story. But I appreciate his ambition.

Bennett Miller, Foxcatcher

Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel: A good one for Anderson to get nominated for.

Morten Tyldum, The Imitation Game: It wasn’t very showy direction, but Tyldum told this story very well and pulled good performances out of everyone.

Will and should win: Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Birdman

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Jason Hall, American Sniper: No thanks.

Graham Moore, The Imitation Game: I’m surprised this is Moore’s first screenplay. He did a fantastic job.

Paul Thomas Anderson, Inherent Vice: I love PTA, but this screenplay was not a strong one.

Anthony McCarten, The Theory of Everything: A great screenplay. He deserves the nomination.

Damien Chazelle, Whiplash: Yet another great screenplay.

Will win: Too close to call.

Should win: Graham Moore, The Imitation Game

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. and Armando Bo, Birdman: With a movie this good, how can the screenplay not be nominated?

Richard Linklater, Boyhood: I wouldn’t give it to him, but I understand why he’s nominated. I was an ambitious effort.

E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman, Foxcatcher

Wes Anderson and Hugo Guinness (story), The Grand Budapest Hotel: I’m kind of surprised to see this get so many nominations, but I can’t complain.

Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler: A better movie than any of these, and yet this is its only nomination. Glad to see it get something.

Will win: All those unpronounceable names, Birdman

Should win: Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler

So, there’s all the big ones. I might not agree with all the Academy’s decisions, but that doesn’t matter. Like all art forms, film is subjective, and it’s nice to see that people have varying opinions. I’m sure this year’s show will be a lot of fun, especially with all of the surprises. The Lego Movie not getting nominated is insane, though.

“The Imitation Game” Review

Biopics have got to be among the hardest films to make. Sure, they can turn out great, but more often than not they can turn into shameless promotion pieces for their subjects. You’ll also be raked over the coals by angry historians if you don’t get the most minute details exactly right. Fortunately, The Imitation Game has always shown a lot of potential. The story of Alan Turing’s breaking of the Enigma code is nothing short of fascinating, as are his personal struggles. The film has also garnered a solid cast led by the very talented Benedict Cumberbatch. When word got out that The Imitation Game could be an Oscar contender, my anticipation increased ever more. After seeing the film for myself, I can confidently say that it deserves all the praise it gets.

Premise: When World War II breaks out, Britain’s code-breakers are assembled to break Nazi intelligence codes. When new arrival Alan Turing (Cumberbatch) sees his coworkers’ lack of progress, he goes to work building a machine that could break the codes faster than any human ever could.

Pros: The Imitation Game wouldn’t have worked without a good leading performance, but Benedict Cumberbatch takes it even further and makes Alan Turing one of the most compelling characters of the year. The real-life Turing was a fascinating guy, and Cumberbatch (with the help of great direction) brings his personality and all of his subtle nuances to life. Even though he’s initially a cold and arrogant man, everything from his line delivery to his facial expressions to his body language is also very entertaining and endears you to him. It was an excellent performance that almost single-handedly made the movie work, and I’ll be shocked if Cumberbatch doesn’t get nominated for Best Actor come Oscar season.

This is clearly Cumberbatch’s show, but he’s not the only one who gets a chance to shine. Keira Knightley is great as Joan Clarke, the only woman on the team and the one who makes Turing come out of his shell. Charles Dance and Mark Strong don’t have a lot of screentime, but nonetheless give solid performances as the military higher-ups that Turing and his fellow code-breakers answer to. Even Matthew Goode, who I’ve never been particularly impressed with, gives what might be his best performance to date as cryptanalyst Hugh Alexander. All in all, everybody did nice work.

When you’ve got a true story this good, you’d better not screw it up. Well, director Morten Tyldum and writer Graham Moore have taken the life of Alan Turing and told a very interesting story. The main draw is probably going to be Turing’s work building his code-breaking machine, and that makes for great drama. But at its heart The Imitation Game is the story of a deeply complicated man and his personal life. He may be a hardass, but he also desperately wants to have friends. On another note, Turing must also conceal his SPOILER ALERT homosexuality, which was illegal in Britain until the 60s. All of this makes for a story that is both inspiring and heartbreaking.

Cons: There’s not a lot to dislike about The Imitation Game, but it does have a few minor issues. The film uses a framing device that allows it to jump back and forth between time periods, and it doesn’t always work. Certain scenes have awkward transitions to events that happened decades before or after, and sometimes the non-linearity of the story causes it to drag. I’m not going to say that going the non-linear route was the wrong choice, but the way the story was framed didn’t always work and there were times when the pacing suffered.

Verdict: Even though I had high expectations for The Imitation Game, I’m surprised at just how much I loved it. Folks, make sure not to miss this one. Even if you don’t know anything about Alan Turing (I didn’t before trailer inspired me to look into him), this is a fantastic movie with a lot of great performances and plenty of heart.

Score: 9/10 (going back to numerical scores)

“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” Review

Since before they were even released, the Hobbit films have come under harsh scrutiny. Whether it comes from comparing them, fairly or unfairly, to the incredible Lord of the Rings trilogy or chagrin at stretching a small book into three films, many people have been disappointed by them. I am not one of those people. While I acknowledge that they are definitely on a lower level compared to The Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King is my favorite movie of all time), I think they’ve been great, particularly The Desolation of Smaug. They’re big, they’re epic, and above all they’re entertaining. With all that in mind I’ve been very excited for The Battle of the Five Armies, and after the abysmal failure that was Exodus I was hoping for something, well, big and epic and not terrible. After seeing The Battle of the Five Armies, I can say that it’s probably the least good of Peter Jackson’s Tolkien films. However, that doesn’t mean it’s bad. In fact, it’s still really, really good.

Premise: Bilbo, Thorin and company have retaken Erebor, the old dwarven homeland. However, the Elves of Mirkwood, the citizens of Laketown, and Thorin’s own hubris threaten to destroy all that they’ve gained. At the same time, the dark lord Sauron is gathering an army of his own.

Pros: First, let’s start with the titular battle. It is huge! Not only is it huge, it’s breathtaking from start to finish. SPOILER ALERT They, try to fake you out by thinking the elves and men are gonna go toe-to-toe with the dwarves, but then the orcs come and they team up. As a piece of visual art it’s fantastic, with the action being wall-to-wall and always on the good side of insane. If there’s one thing you’ll learn from this movie, it’s that Legolas can do anything in combat (as if LOTR fans didn’t know that). But it’s also fun to see all these characters who are often diametrically opposed to one another team up to fight the forces of darkness.

Those characters are also really cool in their own right. Martin Freeman is once again the perfect Bilbo, but this isn’t his show. The true protagonist is Thorin, now King Under the Mountain and suffering from a severe case of gold fever. He’s become a deeply flawed person who alienates his closest friends, are far-cry from the loving leader of An Unexpected Journey. But he’s so interesting and actor Richard Armitage is so good that I couldn’t take my eyes off him. Luckily, the movie knows that it has other characters to focus on as well. Fan favorites Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom in seemingly the only role he can still pull off) are back and get to show off what they’re best at. The ever-underrated Luke Evans also shines as Bard the Bowman, as do the most prominent dwarves. Even a lot of the characters with glorified cameos are lots of fun. For example, the evil dragon Smaug isn’t in this one for very long, but in his short amount of screentime he leaves quite an impact.

Visually, The Battle of the Five Armies has all the typical Jackson splendor. Aside from some under-rendered crowd and creature shots, the cgi is great. All the costumes and props are also expertly crafted, so much so that I’m tempted to start collecting swords just from looking at how cool they were in this movie. But the real highlight is the set design. All of these locations, from Erebor to Laketown to that orc fortresses evoke a sense of awe and wonder. Props to Weta Workshop for once again being so brilliant.

The way the movie wrapped up was very nicely done. Not everything’s properly resolved (I’ll get to that in a moment), but the end of this journey is one that left me satisfied but at the same time wishing that this wasn’t the end of Middle Earth for the foreseeable future. LOTR veteran Billy Boyd’s “The Last Goodbye” playing over the credits just makes it all the more heartbreaking.

Cons: Some things were too cheesy for my liking. For example, Galadriel’s weird transformation where she deepens her voice to sound menacing is no cooler than it was in The Fellowship of the Ring. Thorin’s cousin Dain (played wonderfully by Billy Connolly) rides a pig into battle. That love triangle with Kili, Tauriel and Legolas, while not given as much emphasis this time around, still doesn’t work and is built on the assumption that Kili and Tauriel could fall in love after talking for five minutes. Finally, the scene where Thorin realizes what a selfish jerk he’s been has some bad special effects and occurs all too easily.

I’m fine when there’s some loose ends still not tied up, but things that probably needed explaining are left unresolved. We don’t find out what happens to the Arkenstone, Thorin’s family heirloom, after the battle. The fact that the gold is cursed is just kind of forgotten once Thorin gets over it. These aren’t enough to ruin the movie, but it would’ve helped if we were shown what happened to them.

Verdict: It’s not perfect by any means, but The Battle of the Five Armies is tons of fun and a fitting third act to this new mega-film. I have a feeling that not many people will be impacted by it the way I was, but as a genuine fan of The Hobbit films and pretty much all things Tolkien I ate it up. I’m sad to see Middle Earth go, but hopefully Warner Bros. can bring it back in several years, with Peter Jackson as producer and new blood in the director’s chair.

Score: B+

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Review

Premise: Continuing where the first film left off, Bilbo Baggins must help his Dwarf companions reclaim their ancestral homeland. Starring Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Aidan Turner, Stephen Fry, Benedict Cumberbatch, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, and not Andy Serkis. Directed, of course, by Peter Jackson.

Pros: As a lifelong Tolkien fan, I loved An Unexpected Journey. It never had to a chance of living up to The Lord of the Rings, but it was a damn fun film. This film continues that, with plenty of action and spectacle. Highlights include a barrel ride (best action sequence of the year) and an Elven action scene in Laketown. It also feels more urgent than the first, and has a slightly more moody tone that lends the film some gravity. It’s also fun to visit new worlds; even though the locations in the first film were great, many of them were still quite familiar, but now we get to see new worlds, like the dark forest of Mirkwood, the wretched hive that is Laketown, and Erebor in all its glory.

The big three of the first film one again shine. Martin Freeman is charming as ever, Ian McKellen is still that hardass with a soft center, and Richard Armitage as Thorin reveals some more unsavory characteristics without making him unsympathetic. But the rest of the cast more than equals them. Luke Evans, who I’ve always championed, completely sold me on Bard, Evangeline Lilly plays the movie-only Tauriel to perfection and manages to make her fit into the world, and Orlando Bloom returns to the only role he can play. But the standout is Smaug! Benedict Cumberbatch captures the coolness, menace, and pompous attitude of literature’s greatest dragon and delivers the best performance in the film.

The ending is fantastic. Most films, even those that I love, have trouble finishing up, but The Desolation of Smaug goes out with a bang!

Cons: There were two minor subplots that I didn’t care for much. I didn’t like the love triangle between Legolas, Tauriel, and Kili. It seemed like something out of a bad (well, let’s be honest, good) soap opera. The other was the political drama in Laketown. I liked the idea of this one, but it didn’t really pan out. Well, at least Stephen Fry provides some good English ham.

Verdict: I rarely try to get personal during these reviews, but now I’m dropping all pretenses. When I saw this film, I was having a ball. However, I feel like I’m almost alone as a genuine fan. All my friends just see the films as overlong messes that should’ve been an hour shorter. I could say the same thing about some of their favorite media. For me, it certainly felt an hour shorter. I know most of you will disagree, but I’m gonna give The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug a 9 out of 10.