Top Five Favorite Films of 2013

Picking favorite films of the past year can be a challenge, especially if you’ve seen many of them.  It can be exceptionally difficult this year because this is, by far, one of the busiest seasons of Oscar-contending films in quite a while, with many films standing out, despite being in a crowded field.

It seems as though there was an abundance of quality in both mainstream and indie films this year.  The mainstream bunch included the dark and unnerving thriller “Prisoners” and the majestic space adventure “Gravity.”  For the indies, there was the emotionally brutal “12 Years a Slave” and Woody Allen’s dramatic, yet funny, “Blue Jasmine.”

There are many films that deserve to be on this list because what the film industry has given us this year is an abundance of quality stories.  Unfortunately, only five films can make this list.  Before I get to the top five, I will give honorable mention to a few others: “The Wolf of Wall Street,” “Nebraska,” “Captain Phillips,” “Rush” and “Fruitvale Station.”

1) Prisoners: This is the type of thriller that Hollywood should release much more often.  With its hugely talented cast, labyrinthine story, dreary setting, ominous cinematography and Denis Villeneuve’s assured direction, everything in the movie is in sync.  The story concerns the kidnapping of two young suburban girls and the lengths that their families go through to seek justice.  It’s a film that encourages the viewers to consider their own morals and what they would do in a situation that a parent should never have to experience.  The film is anchored by Hugh Jackman’s ferocious performance, as well as a terrific performance by Jake Gyllenhaal, which is easily his best since “Brokeback Mountain.”  “Prisoners” is a film that should be given repeat viewings, not just for the sake of picking up clues, but also because it’s what a truly great film deserves.

2) 12 Years a Slave: Director Steve McQueen has brought us a searing view on one of the most  horrific eras of American history.  Based on the true story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who is deceived by two traveling circus men and sold into slavery.  The film has some scenes that can be difficult to watch, but this is an important film to experience.  Ejiofor is masterful and heartbreaking in his handling of Northup’s character, and will surely become much more prominent as an actor because of this film.  Michael Fassbender is outstanding, yet horrific, as a cruel plantation owner, and newcomer Lupita Nyong’o is devastating as one of his physically and sexually abused slaves.  Also, the ending is one of the most potent mixtures of happiness and sadness in recent cinema.  This film is much, much more than a history lesson.

3) American Hustle: Director David O. Russell seems to get better with each film he makes, leaving “American Hustle” to be his best one yet.  As Russell has shown Hollywood over the past few years, he’s a director who really knows how to utilize a full and talented cast, similar to what he has done with “Silver Linings Playbook” and “The Fighter.”  The film, which is loosely based on the ABSCAM FBI operation that occurred in the late ‘70s, follows a pair of con artists (Christian Bale and Amy Adams) as they assist an FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) in exposing the corrupt political work of Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), the then-mayor of Camden, New Jersey.  The film is one of the most wildly entertaining of 2013, not only for its cast and screenplay, but for its extensive details to the ‘70s era, such as the attractive costuming and the remarkable soundtrack.  In short, I’m already waiting for Russell’s next project.    

4) Before Midnight: Director Richard Linklater completes his “Before” trilogy with this deeply romantic third chapter.  Nine years after the events of “Before Sunset” and 18 years after “Before Sunrise,” Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) are vacationing with friends in Greece, and the two now have a family. The film itself hinges on three big scenes.  The first has the two discussing what their lives are like at the current moment.  The second has them and their friends around a dining table discussing love.  The third is an argument between Jesse and Celine as they debate about what their relationship holds for their future, an argument that seems to tell the audience that this is what the trilogy has been building towards.  Having theses films be released so many years apart from each other perfectly sets up what their lives have been like and what they have experienced, adding a degree of realism to the proceedings.  It is, without question, one of the most truthful depictions of a relationship that has ever been put to film.

5) Blue Jasmine: Woody Allen’s latest is a riches-to-rags tale with many references to Tennessee Williams’ classic American play, “A Streetcar Named Desire.”  Cate Blanchett plays Jasmine, a NYC socialite who loses everything when her husband, Hal (Alec Baldwin), is arrested for business fraud.  She then moves to San Francisco to live with her sister, Ginger (Sally Hawkins), where she can’t seem to get the hang of living a non-affluent lifestyle.  Picking out the “Streetcar” allusions is a joy itself, but with the film’s interesting and flawed characters, as well as the interplay of comedic and dramatic elements, “Blue Jasmine” becomes another stellar entry into Woody Allen’s ever-growing filmography.

Watch for my Oscar predictions, coming in February.

Debauchery and Tomfoolery Are What's Hot on Wall Street

One of the main things about Martin Scorsese that I admire is his ability to make the audience become attracted to characters who might not be your typical “good guys,” like gangster Henry Hill in “Goodfellas,” aspiring comedian Rupert Pupkin in “The King of Comedy” and Travis Bickle in “Taxi Driver.”  These are some characters who have major flaws, yet, we find ourselves rooting for them.  

Now, Scorsese brings us what is probably his most unconventional protagonist with Wall Street legend Jordan Belfort.  In his new dark comedy, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” which is based on Belfort’s memoir of the same name, Scorsese recounts the events of Belfort’s life as he goes from an eager rookie to an empirical leader in the financial world.  It’s not only another achievement in Scorsese’s reliably masterful filmmaking, but an invitation to see what’s it’s like to party with the big leagues for a little while, albeit the occasional excessiveness.

In 1987, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) becomes a stockbroker on Wall Street, and is soon drawn into its world with all of its perks.  When the firm he works for goes under after Black Monday, Belfort is desperate to continue working.  He then begins a job selling penny stocks, and his talent for selling earns him praise.  

He soon meets Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), a salesman who is looking for something different.  The two pair up, hire other potential workers, and start their own firm, Stratton Oakmont.  As their firm becomes bigger, so do the rewards.  Belfort starts to sink deeper into a world of sex, money and illegal financial activity.  With these many vices surrounding him and the feds beginning to catch onto his game, Belfort’s life is at risk of unraveling around him.

Leonardo DiCaprio, as the morally bankrupt antihero, plays his wildest role to date as the wolf who gnashes his teeth in pursuit of his greed.  It's really something to watch his character go from an amateur stockbroker to the leader of his own firm rather quickly, and his portrayal of the character through these phases in his life shows why he's one of the most gifted actors working today.  DiCaprio presents someone who quickly arrives from humble beginnings to behavior that is off-the-charts crazy, behavior that weirdly draws the audience to him, but has it worry for him at the same time.  

This is DiCaprio’s fifth collaboration with Scorsese, and it’s absolutely stunning how much power the director can get out of the actor’s performances, and that power is used to make this DiCaprio’s movie.  He is unhinged and unapologetic in his actions because he’s a man who has it all and takes what he can get, and the speeches he makes to his firm, especially, make for a grand performance.  Whenever he was onscreen, I was thinking to myself, “Oscar, Oscar, Oscar.”

Scorsese has also managed to submerge certain actors in a more seriously light.  In this case, he does it with Jonah Hill and Matthew McConaughey.  McConaughey only shows up for one big scene in the film's first 15 minutes, but still manages to make his character interesting.  As Belfort’s fast-talking boss who takes him under his tutelage, he doesn't seem to be quite all there in the head, but seduces Belfort, as well as the audience, into the financial world, like a devil with dollar signs in his eyes and drugs in his veins.  With the year McConaughey has had with this film, “Dallas Buyers Club” and “Mud,” his rom-com leading-man typecasting has shattered.  

Jonah Hill, as a sleazy salesman who is also new to the Wall Street scene, is as funny as he usually is, and he’s able to make his humor work, even while in a more serious atmosphere, as he exemplified in “Moneyball.”

The screenplay by Terence Winter carries the weight of a protracted narrative, and although certain scenes seem redundant or longer than they should be, most of the length can be beneficial in order to flesh out the extent and damage of Belfort's financial crimes.  After some time on American soil, the film opens another interesting side in international finance as Belfort begins to create off-shore accounts, and this helps to strengthen the financial aspects of the story.

Being a character study on Belfort and the many connections he has to less-than-reputable people, the film is heavily reliant on dialogue.  In a lunch scene between DiCaprio and McConaughey, the screenplay reminded me of something Aaron Sorkin would write because of how meaty the discussions are and how easy it was to give myself over to the characters’ conversation.

Similar to other screenplays that Scorsese directs, the story has some parts narrated by the main character, just like the damaged characters of Henry Hill and Travis Bickle.  The fact that we’re getting into the heads of these not-quite-right individuals allows us to gain a fascinating insight into people who don’t have much regard for what is right and what is wrong.

The sex and drugs do become a bit unrestrained at times.  I get that it's a film about American excessiveness in the lives of Wall Street gurus, but a few scenes regarding these vices could have been cut short, and some smaller scenes could have been cut altogether without damaging the impact of the story’s theme.  The depiction of drug use could almost have this movie compete with that of “Requiem for a Dream.” 

Although Scorsese is in his seventies, he directs this film with the energy of a frat boy who wants to have the biggest bash on campus, or in movie theaters, in this case.  Scorsese’s fast-paced direction makes the hours fly by, and he has the ability to draw audiences into realistic worlds that would normally be undesirable to visit.

Other than DiCaprio, this is Scorsese’s first time collaborating with many of the actors in the film’s cast, and you can just about imagine them working with him again because of how well they fit with his direction.  Years ago, I would never have expected actors like McConaughey and Hill to work with Scorsese, but they show that they belong in the vision of a daring and imaginative filmmaker.  

“The Wolf of Wall Street” lets audiences know that Scorsese is still on the money with what he can contribute to cinema.

Final grade: B+

A Father and Son's Odyssey Through the Heartland

At this point in Alexander Payne’s career, he can be considered as a family man when it comes to his storytelling.  Lately with his films, he seems to be interested in exploring family dynamics.  In his 2011 film, The Descendants, he dealt with family troubles in the paradisiacal backdrop of Hawaii. 

In Payne’s latest family portrait, Nebraska, he focuses on a family in America’s heartland.  What’s similar to both films, however, is that he deals with issues such as what it means to be a family and the challenges that bring families closer and create new memories.    

Woody Grant (Bruce Dern) is an elderly resident of Montana who believes he has won a million-dollar sweepstakes.  His wife, Kate (June Squibb), and son, David (Will Forte), see it as a ruse.  Nevertheless, Woody is determined to journey to Lincoln, Nebraska to collect his supposed fortune, and David reluctantly volunteers to accompany him.  While on the road, Woody and David run into some trouble as they encounter friends and family to whom Woody might owe money.

Bruce Dern’s performance paints his character as someone who is hopelessly and heartbreakingly optimistic.  There is one scene where we have a point-of-view shot from David’s perspective as he wakes up with his father hovering over him, asking with a childlike excited if they are going to collect the money that day.  He is a man of a few words, but that doesn’t mean we don’t know what’s going on in his head.  His expressions of contemplation and determination in regards to his goal say it all.

If Bruce Dern's character is a man of a few words, June Squibb's is a woman of many.  She doesn't have a filter, saying whatever is on her mind, whether it be in the film’s highly comical cemetery scene or the climactic family argument.  Every time she wasn’t on screen, I wished for her to return with her abundance of unapologetic sass.  You simply can’t get enough of her.  She will say anything without any fear of consequence.  

Will Forte does remarkably well in a dramatic performance that’s refreshingly out of the norm from his comedic acting that I was used to seeing back in his time on Saturday Night Live.  Being the usually witty actor he is, Forte doesn’t feel out of place at all because of how well he connects with Dern.  His role as a dutiful son is significantly likable because of how selfless he is with doing what he can to make his father happy.  

The father-son dynamic portrayed by Dern and Forte is the film’s most relatable aspect, with certain moments that have the potential to resonate, including that of sitting in a bar and sharing a few beers together.    

Aside from the film using some well-known performers, most the cast is made up of little-known actors.  This allows the audience to view everyone as being a part of a real, American family, rather than giving us the feeling of watching a collection of actors we’re already familiar with acting as a family.

Phedon Papamichael makes a beautiful use out of black-and-white cinematography to heighten the sense of the small-town feel of the heartland.  It provides a feeling of going to places that are stuck in time with the simplicity of the lifestyles and the friendliness of the towns’ inhabitants.

A few of the more memorable shots of the film are long takes that focus on members of the family sitting on a couch attempting to make innocent, yet painfully awkward, small talk.  At times, you won’t be able to help but shift uncomfortably in your seat.  These scenes feel almost improvised because of how you can sense that the family is trying to think of other topics to discuss, almost desperately grabbing at anything, providing some genuine family discomfort.

The film’s photography also employs impressive landscape shots of the seemingly endless fields throughout the states that the family travels through.  The view of the empty fields can be seen as a symbol for the emptiness that David feels in his relationship with his father, but a better way to look at it is that they can be seen as blank canvas on which to create new memories.   

The screenplay by Bob Nelson embraces the old, yet true, cliche that as long as you have family, you can consider yourself rich, and that theme becomes more evident as the film goes on, especially in the last half hour.  The narrative is simple in its telling, but complex in its views of the family at the center.  Nelson’s story captures a family from a different part of the country, and gives a taste of what life is like out there.  

Similar to The Descendants, director Alexander Payne incorporates a mixture of offbeat humor and bittersweetness, the kind that can be seen in a Jason Reitman film.  The movie also carries the bleakness of chasing the dream of an impossible fortune, similar to what can be found in German director Werner Herzog’s 1977 film, Stroszek.

Payne knows how to make the audience laugh at the perfect moments, and reflect during others, encouraging the viewer to think about his/her own family.  Nebraska is a realistic, familial experience, with all of the interactions being authentic enough to make it seem like the audience is peering through a living-room window, or sitting right there at the dinner table.  Payne might as well be saying, “Welcome to the family.”  

Final grade: A  

Just When She Thinks She's Out, They Pull Her Back In

Over the past few years, Hollywood has been searching the book shelves to find the next big young-adult series to adapt for the screen.  Some have found success, such as The Twilight Saga (somehow) and the Harry Potter series, and others have stumbled, like The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, The Host and Beautiful Creatures.  

When The Hunger Games was released last year, the success came from an anchoring performance from Jennifer Lawrence, an impressive supporting cast and a darkly intriguing storyline with political themes and satirical jabs at reality television.  While it was an admirable book-to-film translation, it had its share of flaws, such as too much handheld-camera movements and questionable special effects.

With the much-anticipated second installment, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, director Francis Lawrence (no relationship to Jennifer) is working with a more generous budget and the widening scope of Suzanne Collins’ dystopian trilogy.  Everything about the movie is bigger, including the story, special effects and the hugely entertaining supporting cast.  It’s a rare thing that a sequel is better than its original, and considering how we’re dealing with a young-adult series, a sub-genre that can be hit-or-miss for the big screen, this is a considerable achievement for Catching Fire.

After winning the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are dealing with their new status as celebrities.  While traveling through Panem’s 12 districts and Capitol for their victory tour, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) forces Katniss to convince the public that her and Peeta’s love for each other is real, even though Katniss knows that it was all an act to win the games.  After signs of rebellion are spotted amongst the districts, Snow conspires with the new head gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), to figure out a way to stop the rebellion from spreading.    

It just so happens that this is the year of the third Quarter Quell, a special edition of the Hunger Games that is held every 25 years.  This year, the tributes will be selected from past victors to compete, and Katniss and Peeta are sent back to the Captiol to train for the games.  While there, the two will need to distinguish their allies from their enemies if they are to survive the heightened dangers of the arena.

Jennifer Lawrence is a bright example of an actress who has the versatility to perform exceedingly well in both blockbusters and smaller fare, such as last year’s indie film, Silver Linings Playbook.  She’s the sort of talented actress that many film adaptations of young-adult novels wish they had.  Lawrence gets it all right, from Katniss’ moments of calmness to despair to uncertainty to frustration.  Her character is put through the emotional mill, and Lawrence successfully conveys everything that Katniss is feeling.

The film’s final shot focuses on Katniss, right after she receives some troubling news that acts as a cliffhanger for the next film.  The camera is on her as she experiences confusion, sadness and fury, an emotional buildup that will drive Katniss to further action as she prepares to take on the Capitol.  

Josh Hutcherson's character is given  a little more depth in this film than in the previous one.  He has more time with Katniss, allowing him to express the caring side of his character.  There is more interaction between the two that shows their protectiveness of each other, compared to the first film where Peeta was separated from Katniss for certain chunks of the story.

Another factor that elevates this film beyond previous young-adult adaptations is the stellar supporting cast, and much of which returns from the first film.  Most notable are Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, the colorful (in both senses of the word) Capitol interviewer; Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket, Katniss and Peeta’s bubbly escort to the Capitol, and Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, the alcoholic, yet knowledgeable, mentor to the two tributes.

Donald Sutherland is positively menacing as President Snow, and becomes a much bigger character in this second installment.  His scene with Katniss in the beginning gives him more screen time than he had with all of his scenes combined in the first film.  His stern glare and deep, sinister voice make him a dark joy to watch.

The new cast members validate that they all fit their parts, especially in their introductory scenes.  There is Sam Claflin as the smooth-talking, trident-wielding Finnick; Jena Malone as the brass, ax-swinging Johanna, and Jeffrey Wright as the cunning scientist-type, Beetee.  Philip Seymour Hoffman is terrifically sly as the new gamemaker, and the scenes with him and Snow conversing are highlights.  Even Patrick St. Esprit makes an impression in his one big scene as the cruel Commander Thread. 

The screenplay by the talented team of Simon Beaufoy and Michael DeBruyn (a pseudonym for Michael Arndt) is divided up into an even, three-act structure, going from the victory tour to the pre-game events to the actual games, with neither segment feeling rushed.  Each act of the film is well-paced and carefully builds on what's to come in the following act and gets a chance to bask in the bigger scope.  Although the film follows similar plot points to the original (i.e. the tribute parade, training, the interviews and the games), it still works because of the film’s bigger-and-better feel.

The story’s love triangle gets bothersome when it comes up, particularly because it sometimes makes Katniss unlikeable for using Peeta for her own gain.  Seeing as how Gale (Liam Hemsworth) is more prominent in this installment, the triangle is featured more, feeling rather out of place with the more serious issues that are happening.  Despite Lawrence’s typically strong performance, the way Katniss leads them both on can cause some disliking of her character.  The love triangle is a weak link in an otherwise interesting story.

Director Francis Lawrence, having helmed I Am Legend, again shows that he can still pull off big special-effects sequences.  One interesting difference between Catching Fire and I Am Legend is that for the latter, he was working with a cast of one for most of the movie; whereas for Catching Fire, he is working with big special effects again, but with a cast that’s significantly bigger than that of I Am Legend, and he manages to let everyone have their moments. 

One of the main improvements for this installment is the camerawork.  Lawrence uses cinematography by Jo Willems to employ a much steadier camera than what Tom Stern used in the previous installment.  This allows the viewer to become more absorbed in the action more easily, rather than having to dart their eyes across the screen in trying to keep up with what’s happening.

This is Lawrence’s first big-budget film in six years since he made I Am Legend, and he has a handle on both visuals and characterization.  It's because of this that Catching Fire almost makes you forget about the first Hunger Games film, and has it appear amateurish by comparison.

Lawrence will return to direct the adaptation of the third book in the trilogy, Mockingjay, which will be made into two movies.  Part 1 will be released in November 2014 and Part 2 will arrive November 2015.  Although it’s the least exciting book of the series, in my opinion, his handle on the source material for Catching Fire gives me hope that he can end the series on a strong note.  

There were some pacing issues with Catching Fire (the novel), as it had some segments that tended to drag, however, the pairing of Lawrence’s vision and Beaufoy and DeBruyn’s screenplay fix the book’s narrative lulls.  As a result, each of the three acts has an acceptable length, and each one still captures plenty of details in the process.

With the first two installments behind us, the brutal games are now over, and we're ready to storm the Capitol.

Final grade: B+