The 10 Best Movies of 2014

Another year come and gone, boy it passed by so quickly. As working in the film industry is about noticing trends in financial success, one think I took notice, and if you did as well, this was a good year for indie fare. Such movies, like “Dear White People,” (which did come to Seattle…to one theater…for three days…and has yet to be on the rental shelves around here…), “Snowpeircer,” “Last Lovers Left Alive,” “The Congress” (which is probably the closest any of us will get to a Ralph Bakshi movie, so get on it surrealists), “Obvious Child,” “Boyhood,” “Whiplash,” “Selma;” it was the year for the small production and, considering the nominated films for the Golden Globes are small indie films, it’s a good year for those small people that we ignore so often to get their name out into the lime-light. But there were just as much that made it’s way into the major screens that got their just deserves, thankfully that this year wasn’t like last year when 20+ big budget movies financially failed domestically.
Why is that? 
Because there were actual movies that were worth seeing this year.
Not all, but some that got people to get out of their homes and gravitate to the theater to see them.

But of course, you don’t care to read me ramble on about the financial ramifications of the film industry, you just wanna see what I picked out for my annual year-end Best and Worst list. Well, as an added bonus, I’m also adding a “Meh” list. A list of movies that, whether people loved them or hated them, only made me shrug and say “meh, it was all right.” This list will no doubt get the most hate, so I’ll save it for last.

But I should start out in saying that some films I really wanted to see this year, such as “The Imitation Game,” “Selma,” “The Zero Therom,” “Inherent Vice,” “American Sniper” and “A Most Violent Year,” weren’t here yet at the time I began writing this and other indie films I wanted to check out, never came to DVD over here (especially “Dear White People,” where the hell is it?) so please excuse me if you don’t see these on this list. 
But instead of pandering to the demands and the opinions of everyone else just to keep some “critic cred,” I’m going to list off the films that left the most impression on me all year, an impression that still stuck with me even through all the other countless flicks that I saw.

The Good:

10. Chef
Starting out this list is a movie that will no doubt make nobody’s list.
To describe this movie would be describing it as such to why it made the impression it did.
Imagine hearing that this cook who use to work at this extravagant restaurant everyone heard and left and went to work for this small, yet quaint cafe. So you seek out this cook and ask him to make you something. He sits you down and he bakes you an apple pie in a rather unique pie dish; it’s a familiar and traditional recipe that looks and smells appetizing despite hoping for something new to try from the cook. Regardless, you take some bites and find that, indeed, it tastes like a traditional apple pie, but it has flavor to it, so you keep eating until you get half-way through the pie where you can see what’s inside: thick and lush apple slices, brown sugar, the whip cream on the top oozing into the pie slices.
There’s nothing to hide, it is an apple pie and you know there are no surprises, but dang it, you keep eating, still hungry though you’ve more than had your fill. By the time you’ve already finished the pie, you pay the cook his tip and leave the quaint cafe, you quell on the flavor; yes it tasted like apple pie, but the aftertaste is still on your tongue, even by the time you get home, you find yourself wanting to make a pie of your own.
A strange allegory for this movie, but it’s the best I could think of it. Indeed, it’s familiar narrative and characters are what keep it from going any higher on this list, but what puts it on this list is it’s likable cast that play off each other, the glorious detail put into filming all the amazing dishes, all supervised and created by Kogi Korean BBQ restaurateur Roy Choi, and a pleasing soundtrack make this meal more mouth-watering for a return trip to that cafe than most feel-good comedies in recent memory.

9. The Fault in Our Stars
You know what “Divergent”  and “The Hunger Games” have in common? They all exploit the lowest common denominator by offering the illusion of integrity and deep thought, but are all fluff and flutter that showcase attractive young men who are there to bring in the young female demographic who wouldn’t care to come otherwise and a “strong” female protagonist who has everyone roll over for her to get what she wants all while taking the credit for doing it.
So how is it this movie is treated like one of those?
Well okay, it hits the typical romantic drama cliches you’d expect to see as well as pulling the drag-shoot out on moments you think it’s gonna play out as usual but throws a curveball in certain places you least expect it to, but for a teenage drama, it has one defining feature that makes it stand out above the more recent popular teen romances:
John Green, YouTube star and the author of the book, does not think his audience is stupid.
And thanks to a grounded, yet stunningly natural performance from Shailene Woodley, giving perhaps the best performance I’ve seen this year, one so good I’ve been seeing petitions being set up to get the 23 year-old actress an Oscar nomination (I’d hate to be the one to break it to them but that ain’t gonna happen), it’s charming wit and presentation of young people in a way that, well, feels identifiable without having to stoop so low to please everyone.
Of course, it’s not without it’s problems, but these problems rate rather low compared to the snore-fest that was “Mockingjay Part 1” and the dullness that was “Divergent,” this is a Young Adult story that breathes some life to the genre. Here’s hoping it takes the genre somewhere different that treats the viewers like how teens should be treated; not as gullible sheep but intelligent minds that have as much potential if you give them a shot.
And no, I didn't cry, what do you take me for?
Also, if any movie needed "All the Young Dudes," it should have been this one. 

8. Edge of Tomorrow
There’s this quote I read from TIME magazine critic Richard Corliss where he asked “Is John Green a bigger star than Tom Cruise?” With an opening weekend of $48 million compared to “Edge of Tomorrow’s” $20 million opening weekend, one could see why that thought would come about. But not even John Green and weepy cancer patients couldn’t kick as much ass as this smart science-fiction action movie.
The premise you ask? Aliens have invaded and there is a planned battalion assault on the beaches of France in advanced battle suits to fight them back. Tom Cruise plays a public affairs officer with no combat experience forced into combat under the claim he is a deserter, where he dies on the beach from the failed beach invasion after taking out one of the larger aliens. But instead of dying, he wakes up the day before the invasion where everyone seems to have been re-set and yet only he is aware of the looping. Taking advantage of this with the only other person who will believe him, Cruise uses the re-loops to train harder and better to find a way to end this war.
I’ve heard people use the phrase “a video game movie” to describe this film, while I can see why they would use that description, when I describe this movie to people who haven’t seen it, my description is “It’s “Starship Troopers” meets “Groundhog Day” except Tom Cruise gets beat up a lot.” And I do mean A LOT, to a point that when he is killed, it’s comical. He gets hit by a truck, he gets shot at, he rolls under a truck and is crushed by the tires, a ship lands on him, something explodes in his face, all that’s missing is a falling anvil gag.
But dark humor and creative narrative aside, this is a satisfying action movie that managed to slip by the general summer movie line-up based on a lead who is more than willing to break his smug, tough-guy persona to play a weasly wimp. So please, if there’s a sequel, can we at least have ONE scene where an anvil falls on Tom Cruise’s head? 
Please?
Pretty please?

7. Jodorowsky’s Dune
It’s common to see documentaries that come out about the making of a big movie that changed the film industry, they’re everywhere. There exist documentaries on “Jaws,” “Star Wars,” and “Psycho” to name a few. But this documentary is different, detailing the incredible scale and imagination of one man for what would potentially out-do “2001: A Space Odyssey” in terms of Science-Fiction and special effects. 
This was the ambition of film-maker Alejandro Jodorowsky and his goal to make a film adaptation of Frank Herbert’s “Dune.” Pre-production began in 1975 with Alejandro pulling together names that would be immortalized in the future. H.R. Giger designed the sets, Chris Foss designed the space-ships and Jean Giraud drew storyboards and concept art for the characters. The music was created by prog rock groups Pink Floyd and Magma and the cast starred the likes of Salvador Dali, Mick Jagger, David Carradine, Gloria Swanson and Orson Welles as Baron Harkonnen (under the promise of being fed by the chef of this restaurant he loved going to of course.)
And now you’re wondering “holy crap! This movie sounds amazing! Why haven’t I heard of it?!” 
You haven’t heard of it because this movie was never made.
Sad to say, but this is a documentary about the greatest movie that never saw the light of day or even went into production.
By 1976, Alejandro had already burned through $5 million of the $15 million budget and considering the 800 pages that composed the screenplay (which would have resulted in a movie over 14 hours), the studio pulled it’s money back and everyone working on the film couldn’t go any further, moving on to other things.
But what I take from this documentary that left such an impact was Alejandro’s passion. Even years later, when being asked about this movie that never happened, he has this big smile on his face as he recalls the ideas he had for this movie, the lengths he went to get the actors he wanted and how thrilled he was to see the visuals created by the creative team for the effects. He is so passionate about this movie, you feel for his pain when he had to shut it all down.
Thankfully for him and us, we can see what this mad genius had in mind 40 years ago.

6. Locke
I didn’t even know about this movie from trailers or any of that sort like most movies. I saw this movie sitting on the DVD rental shelf for the past three months whenever I would pass by it to go to the employees break room. There was the image of a man, looking determined and pissed off, what was this? So naturally, I finally caved into my curiosity and rented it and gave it a watch.
Not only did I not expect what I saw, but what I did genuinely left a great impression on me.
The reason why? 
Simplicity.
This is a movie where Tom Hardy is driving to a hospital and he juggles phone call after phone call from his boss, his wife, his sons and the woman giving birth to his son from an one night stand he had months before. There are no flashbacks, no cut-aways to other locations, it’s all Tom Hardy, sitting in a car, trying to keep it together while trying to be there for this woman he had sex with once.
From that description, it sounds boring, but actually, it’s surprisingly not. What could have been a dull pretentious endeavor, becomes an exercise in delivering a brutal performance with only a guy in a car, the voices who calls him and the emotion he displays during his drive; frustration while he tries to coach a co-worker for an important construction project, turmoil from having to explain to his wife about the affair, his sons begging him to come home and the conversations he imagines having with the father who abandoned him years ago. All of it is help with a fantastic performance by Tom Hardy, finally his chance to stand in the spot light after years of standing on the sideline. While Reese Witherspoon gave a fantastic turn in “Wild,” the brutal one-man-show simplicity of Tom Hardy sitting in his car, voicing his sorrows and frustrations, it’s the one time I have to joint he critics in saying, it’s one hell of a tour-de-force performance.
And to think, all done with a few camera angles in a car. Reminds me of my own student film where I made a comedy with just me playing two characters in one car, which is probably why I enjoyed this film greatly. 
Goes to show what happens when a DVD sitting on a rental shelf for months catches your eye.
For me, it brought back some happy memories of editing together that student film that got so many chuckles from the lines “You’re not making any sense.” “That’s a band from Korea.”
I even remember showing that student film to a house guest once and they asked me if I was going to do an entire movie like that. I laughed and said “it’s just not possible.”
Thank you for proving me wrong Steven Knight.

5. Nightcrawler
As someone who has done intern work for television production before for a reality show (ask yourself why a couple trying to sell a house would need to be coached on what to say if they’re supposed to be “real people?”), the concept of fabricating reality for ratings, this hits close to home in some respects for me.
Jake Gyllenhaal plays an amateur videographer who begins to record car crashes, police chases and crime scenes to sell them off to a local news station that perverts the facts to make a good story to put on the evening news.
Gyllenhaal’s character is truly despicable; the definition of entertainment in the medium, especially in this day in age where the question of integrity demands to be brought to light. Gyllenhaal’s performance channels, in some weird ways, the fixation of Travis Bickle and the crazed maniacal nature of Rupert Pupkin; a maniac willing to shove anyone aside, even use the death of his colleagues for a news story. 
This is a performance most leading men in Hollywood would kill for, a chance to play a sociopath where he indulges in a career where he doesn’t care about police procedure, he doesn’t care about witness protection, he doesn’t care about your rights. He’s even willing to move the bodies of victims, enter the house of a murdered couple and withhold police evidence to get footage of the police chase after he locates them. He is purely unethical and sadly, in the industry of news media, where ethics are called into question, it’s the unethical ones that get far.
It’s perhaps one of the most polarizing portrayals of news media, elevated by a superb performance by Jake Gyllenhaal, fantastic editing that made me jealous and a tight script with enough technical jargon to bring me back to standing behind the editors and watching them work with the footage I was involved in. 
Whether you’re a professional news cameraman filming an arrest and putting it out onto the news or some schmuck with a cell phone that records the same arrest and call it police brutality and puts it on Tumblr, this movie’s message is clear:
Leave your morals at the door. Ethics are a joke.
Now that's scary.

4. Noah
This year gave us an eclectic variety of Christian-related movies.
“Son of God,” “God’s Not Dead,” “Heaven is For Real,” “Exodus: Gods and Kings”
and you know what they all had in common?
Audiences didn't gravitate to these films and critics were exceptionally harsh, calling them dull and boring (this is true in the case of "Son of God," snore*)
But then Darren Aronofsky pulls a fast one and gives us a movie that changes up the original story to present a genuine surprising yet audacious film adaptation of a story that was only, ooh, 4 pages in the bible?
But what does Aronofsky do differently with this story?
He made Noah flawed.
And that is why this movie has received so much controversy.
There has always been violence in the bible, there has always been sexual misconduct in the bible and there has always been a presentation of good vs evil in the bible, but what it lacks inside it’s pages that has to be left up to the readers (a demand that has, in worst cases, caused people to misinterpret what it says and pervert the message of love for hate) is humanity's ability to error.
And yet, Aronofsky seems to be well aware of this and he manages to respectfully and creatively blend together both the religious text but also give a rather fresh spin on the tale that never feels insulting to religion (despite what some religious groups say, I never had a problem with it). Heck, it had possibly the most outstanding presentation of the creation story that blends in evolution in a time lapse. It’s a visually stunning sequence that shows both respect for the material and ambition to take the story and give it a visual update.

Acting is great with special praise going to Russell Crowe is good as the stoic Noah, but he excels when he begins to go crazy near the end, making him more human and identifiable as a human being rather than a name on text. 
And out of all the religious films from this year, Darren Aronofsky was the only one who had the balls to change it up and add a sense of error where most religious films try to make their protagonists as perfect as possible.
And for any of you atheist readers out there, I actually recommended this film to the pastor from my church and he came back saying he enjoyed the movie. 

3. Birdman
I’m genuinely trying to imagine how the process for producing this film went…
Regency Producers: “All right, Mr. Iñárritu, what have you brought to us today?”
Alejandro González Iñárritu: “Well, I have this story about an alcoholic trying to recapture some former glory from his early days.”
Regency Producers: “Well that’s interesting Mr. Iñárritu, but it just doesn’t sound profitable to us.”
Alejandro González Iñárritu: “Dang it!”
-months later-
Regency Producers: “All right, what have you got for us this time?”
Alejandro González Iñárritu: “Okay, so I want to make a movie about a failed actor of a big franchise trying to recapture his glory in one constant tracking shot, I call it “The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance.”
Regency Producers: “Well that’s very fascinating, but it still doesn’t grab us, but better luck next time.”
Alejandro González Iñárritu: “Fudge-nuggets!”
-more months later-
Regency Producers: “Sigh* what have you got for us this time dude?”
Alejandro González Iñárritu: “It’s a movie with a superhero-“
Regency Producers: “Here’s $18 million, have it ready to show it at Venice and then for a wide release by October.”
Alejandro González Iñárritu: “Sweet!”

Well, a guy can dream right? It’s still here, but only in theaters well out of my range and in cities I have no business going to, but in that short time, I’m glad I go the chance to see this creative film. As impressive as it is to create a film that gives the feel of a continuous tracking shot, the film is made all the more impressive by the best acting ensemble gathered together for a movie this year. Michael Keaton’s performance is both funny but soul-crushingly sympathetic, one has to wonder how much of this performance he was pulling from his own frustrations with people to see him as anyone outside the Batman role, Edward Norton is fantastic as a tough to work with actor (ring any bells?), Emma Stone delivers possibly the best role of her career (washing out the bad taste of “Amazing Spider-Man 2” thankfully) and even Zach Galifinakis, an actor I’ve typically detested, genuinely surprised me with this movie. Hell, all the actors in this movie surprised me with what they were able to bring to a movie that takes a rather meta-approach to the superhero genre by playing with the real world and the hope to be recognized beyond what people remember you for. 
In either way, I’d be one to place my bets on Michael Keaton getting an Oscar this year.

Before I go any further, I want to reiterate that my last two choices for best movie of the year were perhaps the HARDEST choices to make. Not because I wasn’t sure what to put on for the last two spots, I knew what my two films of the year would make my list even before I began writing. The trouble was trying to decide between the two which deserved my #1 spot. Sometimes I would go back and forth between the two. One would take the top spot, then the other would take the top spot, then I would rematch both movies and remember why I ranked them so high, but no matter what, the decision whether to choose between picking one for #1 or the other, it was a real struggle.
Even now as I write out my last choices for Best of the Year, I still feel, from the bottom of my heart, that no matter how I rank these two, they will always be my #1 pick for the best film I saw this year, a major contrast from last year where I didn’t have a “Best Of” list because I had become so cynical, which is what makes the choices that more personal to me to actually FIND not one, but TWO movies that I felt were well and deserving to be called Best of 2014.
But I’ve delayed this long enough, unless you’ve already skipped ahead or you know me and you figured it out already, let’s proceed with…

2. Guardians of the Galaxy
Are you even surprised? Admit it, you were expecting this movie to be on here. And why not? This movie was awesome.
In a summer full of by-the-numbers summer movies with big special effects and cartoony characters but little emotional resonance for any of them, writer and director James Gunn and co-writer Nicole Perlman decided to cut the crap and outright make a movie that had one thing that “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes,” “Transformers 4,” “Captain America: Winter Soldier,” “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” and “Godzilla” lacked: fun.
Pure, unbridled, no bars and nothing to hold it back fun.
And that fun came from the fact that the movie had nothing to hide.
It had cliches that have been done a million times, it had big explosions, it had big action, but it also had the brainpower for the main characters to even acknowledge it’s own ridiculousness and cliches. Examples?
“So this orb’s got a real shiny blue suitcase, Ark of the Covenant, Maltese Falcon sorta vibe. What is it?”
“Well now I’m standing. Happy? We’re all standing now. Buncha jackasses, standing in a circle.”
“We’re just like Kevin Bacon.”
Or, to but it more simply in the words of Time Magazine, “it’s a movie that pokes fun at itself Han Solo-Style and it invites the audience in on the fun.”
And hot damn is it fun!

The cast is fantastic, Chris Pratt excelling as the likable thief with a heart of gold, Bradley Cooper bringing life, and huge laughs, as Rocket Raccoon, Vin Diesel, with only 3-4 lines of dialogue, manages to make a CGI tree creature the most likable and quotable character of 2014, Dave Bausita finally gets his chance to step into the limelight of stardom and show off his comic timing as a character who takes metaphors and jokes literally and Zoe Saldana fits in like puzzle piece to play the straight woman among the likable cast of obscure comic characters.
For a large expansive alien world, a soundtrack comprised of pop hits from the 1970’s kept us from feeling too far away from home with the tunes of Blue Swede, 10cc, The Jackson 5, Redbone and Marvin Gaye & Tammi Terrell to help us feel welcome in the alien worlds of this space opera. Said soundtrack, by the way, hit #1 on the Billboard 200 charts in the summer of 2014 and stayed there for nearly 11 consecutive weeks, keeping modern pop stars like Rihanna, Drake, Taylor Swift and Nicki Minaj off the top spot. Heck, check Billboard’s Year End lists, “Awesome Mix Vol. 1” ranks #19 on the Top Billboard 200 Albums and #7 on Top Digital Albums and was certified Gold eight weeks after it’s release, eventually finding a release on vinyl and a limited release on cassette tape. As of December 2014, it has sold 890,000 copies, making it the second best-selling soundtrack album behind "Frozen."
Now that’s amazing.
So amazing it inspired me to spend the rest of the year creating my own mix tapes (well more like playlists and Compilation CDs for family) as well as inspired to compile a list of my own choices for songs for the sequel and send it to James Gunn’s twitter (he responded, by the way, by saying “he’ll think about it.” My chances look really slim…)

So… why is it #2?
Well, truth be told, as much as I love this movie, it’s staying power seems to diminish slightly with each repeat viewing. While I still love the movie every time I watch it, the enthusiasm I had when I saw this film back in the theaters dies down with each viewing as I know every joke, every visual cue and every easter egg to look out for. It’s still a fantastic movie that felt like a refreshing breath of fresh air to see it after a summer of uninspired and receptive summer fare, but rewatchabilty seems to lessen it’s impact.
And the funny thing, I was going to put it on my #1 spot, until another rematch on Christmas Eve with this movie and a rewatch of my #1 choice made me switch these two up with the official choice.

Ladies and Gentlemen…my #1 best movie of the year?

1. The Grand Budapest Hotel
I remember back in 2012, I had heard about this movie called “Moonrise Kingdom.” It had an impressive cast, but I didn’t care to see it because I was less than impressed with the director’s previous effort “Fantastic Mr. Fox” (but then again, I saw it in an airplane, not the best movie-watching experience to say the least). So I begrudgingly saw the movie in a packed theater with an overweight man taking up two seats on my right and a guy on my right with a bag of his own home-made popcorn that he brought from home with so much greasy butter that it’s stench was burning my nostrils with it’s awful smell.
And yet, despite these conditions, “Moonrise Kingdom” genuinely surprised me. It was the movie I didn’t expect to love as much as I did. A movie so good, I made the bold choice to place it at #1 for my choice for best movie of 2012.
So when the news came out for this new film, I knew I wasn’t going to waste this chance and saw it once I found out where it was playing (not too far off this time) and in a quiet theater with only a few people, I sat there, a wide smile on my face in gleeful expectation for more witty humor, distinctive visual flair and a cast of actors who look like they’re having the time of their lives.
Once again, Mr. Anderson, you’ve deeply impressed me.
Lavish visuals that somehow manage to use every warm color imaginable, music that is lovingly whimsical and eccentric and a cast so large, every time I’ve watched this with my father (who received the movie in his Christmas stocking, can’t imagine who got him that) who has continued to come under the assumption Joe Don Baker is in this film yet IMDB says otherwise. Special praise goes to Ralph Fiennes for taking a change of pace to play a more eccentric and flamboyant character rather than his typical stern roles. If there was anyone who could give some competition for Best Actor against Michael Keaton this year, my bet would most certainly go to Ralph Fiennes.
The choice of sets is stunningly gorgeous and Anderson’s attention to detail continues to impress me yet again on this larger scale with so many actors that you’d think it would be overwhelming, and yet, they all play off one another wonderfully.
This is a movie I could watch again and again and always pick up something new that I failed to notice last time and darling, that’s the best kind of movie.
The kind of movie where you notice details that you didn’t the last time, the kind of movie where you can appreciate every single performance from every big name actor that Anderson pulled together to be in this beautiful movie. 
Every.
Lovely.
Detail.
It’s like the greatest cake ever made and Anderson is giving you a box of spoons, telling you to “dig in.” 
And if you were the unlucky ones, you said “no thanks” and just walked away from the best cake you’ll ever eat.
No doubt people will disagree with me, but for me, every time I’ve stay down to rewatch this film, I’ve never felt bored, I’ve never felt disengaged, I’ve never wanted to stop watching and watch something else. It’s a stunning piece of art from a man with a unique, albeit strange vision.
Congratulations Mr. Wes Anderson, you’ve made my #1 spot for Best Movie of the Year yet again.

Into the Woods

Released in 2014 under the direction of Rob Marshall (“Chicago,” “Nine”) on a budget of $50 million with distribution through Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; “Into the Woods” is the film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim’s 1987 Tony-Winning Broadway musical of the same name. Production for the movie adaptation had been in development hell for fifteen years until director Rob Marshall, suggested by Sondheim himself, approached Disney in 2012 to adapt the musical for the big screen. With Sondheim and James Lapine, the writer for the original musical’s book, behind the project, Disney gave it the green-light, pulled together big name actors and actresses and gave it a Christmas Day release. But how does the transition from the stage to the screen fare?

Once Upon a Time, in a land surrounded by a thick forest, there lived a scullery maid named Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), who wished to go to the King’s Festival. There also lived a young lad named Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) forced to sell his cow to the market by his mother (Tracey Ullman). Also going through the woods is young Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), delivering bread to her sick grandmother until a wolf (Johnny Depp) sways her off the path. The main plot tying all the stories together tells of a baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) who wished for a child, only to be told by their witch neighbor (Meryl Streep) that she placed a curse of infertility on his household and took his baby sister, Rapunzel (MacKenzie Mauzy), as payment for his father’s thievery from her garden. However, the Witch is willing to lift the curse if the baker can gather together four items to create a potion  in three days time; a cow as white as milk, a cape as red as blood, hair as yellow as corn and a slipper as pure as gold. 
Of course, everyone gets what they want and they live happily ever after…right?

I should first say at the time of writing this review that I haven’t seen the musical. But from I have been reading up on, it sounds like I would love it. The movie adaptation, on the other hand left me with the feeling that something felt missing from the plot, further research put into perspective why. While much from the original Broadway show has been preserved by it’s James Lapine acting as screenwriter, quite a lot was also omitted from the translation to the big screen. Certain characters are either moved around or removed entirely, subplots with adult themes downplayed and two characters in particular walk off the movie without any answer to their fate.
But for all the things that bug me, there is enough here that kept me satisfied. Casting is fantastic, the music is catchy and the sets are appropriately fantastical. It genuinely makes me want to check out the original to see it in it's entirety rather than whittled down to appeal to the Disney demographic.

Final Rating: 3/5

Don Giovanni - Seattle Opera 2014 Production

Maybe it's high time I break the mold of reviewing movies with a form of entertainment that seems to get less and less respect in this modern age of mass communication. A form of entertainment that, whenever I bring it up in conversations, I'm usually laughed at for it, even when I was younger, I usually was made fun of for saying I enjoyed it.

I'm not sure what else to say but this:

I love opera.

Ever since I saw "The Marriage of Figaro," I've always adored Opera. It's a form of entertainment and music that just doesn't get the same level of respect Broadway musicals do now. The amount of hard work performers put themselves through to project their voices to sing all the words in a language that is not natively spoken (unless you live in Italy and then it's about annunciating the words you sing.) But whether the performer is a tenor, a soprano, a mezzo soprano or even a baritone singer, it takes intense hard work to put that much emotion into your voice as you perform on stage for millions. Just look at the video above of the late Luciana Pavarotti performing the famed Vesti La Giubba from Ruggero Leoncavallo's "Pagliacci," a scene in where the main character must put on his clown costume despite having the knowledge his wife is cheating on him. Just the emotion Pavarotti brings to this is heart-breaking, even if you can't understand what he's saying.

So, as someone who enjoys opera, it's probably why I'm no stranger to the Marion Oliver McCaw Hall's Seattle Opera House and have been going there for opera performances since 2007 where I have seen some of the greatest operas there; "The Barber of Seville," "Carmen," "La Bohéme," "Porgy and Bess," "Madame Butterfly," and my absolute favorite opera of all time, "The Magic Flute" with plans in progress to see "Tosca" this coming January.

But lately, I've been skipping shows for financial reasons, but also, the Seattle Opera House went under new direction and lately, their shows have been trying to blend these old operas with contemporary images, making them lack-luster and unimaginable in contrast to the shows I've seen years before. Unfortunately, this meant I sadly missed out on seeing "Rigoletto" this year. The only show this season had that had my attention was an opera my mom and I had wanted to see for years because of the movie "Amadeus."

That opera?

"Don Giovanni."

Premiered in 1787 and composed by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, "Don Giovanni" is widely regarded as Mozart's darkest opera for it's subject matter on rape, adultery, rampant sin and condemnation.

And yet I'm sorry to say with this production I saw, I have not been as disappointed in the Seattle Opera House' since their last production of Beethoven's "Fidelio."

The story follows playboy debutant Don Giovanni (performed by Nicolas Cavallier) who is in the midst of attempting to seduce Donna Anna (performed by Erin Wall making her Seattle Opera debut) while Giovanni's faithful yet abused servant Leporello (performed by Erik Anstine) stands guard. Donna Anna rebuffs Giovanni's advances, forcing him to flee into her father, the Commendatore (performed by Jordan Bisch), who fights Giovanni only to be killed in the ensuing sword fight. Shocked by her father's death, she makes her fiance Don Ottavio (performed by Lawrence Browniee who also gave a splendid performance in 2011's production of "The Barber of Seville.") swear to find her father's killer and avenge him. As that goes on, Don Giovanni attempts to seduce a random woman when he realizes the woman is Donna Elvira (performed by Elizabeth Caballero, who was the lead in the 2013 performance of "La Bohéme"), hurt and vengeful after Don Giovanni wooed her over and promised to marry her before ditching her for another woman. Scornful of Don Giovanni's ways, she does everything in her power to get in between him and any other woman he sets his eyes on, especially Zerlina (performed by Cecelia Hall), who is recently married to the easily jealous Masetto (performed by Evan Boyer making his Seattle Opera debut). All of this culminating with Don Giovanni's final decision to repent his evil ways or pay the price for his ways.

Story-wise, it's straight-forward enough. It takes place in the course of 24 hours and, because of certain songs that seemed to drag the running time of the show. But those sort of criticisms are just nitpicks and for opera, songs like that are expectant, it'd be no different than if it were a musical sung in English. 

My my criticisms are not relegated to the music or the actors, for they all did fine jobs, especially one moment early in the show where Nicolas dropped his prop dagger when he's supposed to stab Jordan. He quickly put his hand around Jordan's neck to look like he was trying to choke him at the same time he picked up his dagger to put it back into place, which Jordan then reacted as though he had been stabbed again. A mistake quickly fixed through quick-thinking improvisation; in most shows, that would be the end of it since the illusion was ruined, but they kept the illusion going, bravo to them.

My problem, however, is the direction this production took. I had read the Seattle Opera House had taken on a new director, the website names Chris Alexander, whose previous credits included 2011 productions of "Porgy and Bess" and "The Magic Flute," again, both great shows that kept to their respective time periods, another note-worthy name worth mentioning is set designer Robert A. Dahlstrom, who made the admittedly impressive sets for the 2012 production of "Fidelio." I originally thought these two were at fault, but looking back on their track records, I was mistaken in assuming there was a single person responsible. 

Well, whoever was responsible, the staging for this show was a mess.

The stage's backdrop looked like something out of Terry Gilliam's "Brazil," the way doors would open just felt out of place in a story that takes place in the time period the opera was written. I would have been more willing to accept the change in time period if it made sense and, regrettably, these decisions here do NOT make any sense.

Why is there a motorcycle in the opening scene of the opera? Especially since this motorcycle is never seen again for the remainder of the opera. Why do some of the servants have candlesticks when we can see electric lights illuminating during scenes at Don Giovanni's party? Why does Don GIovanni have a remote control to a portrait that shows off paintings of women? And the big question, what time period is this? The costuming suggests a 1920s look yet the majority of the technology implemented during the show is completely anachronistic of it's time period, really taking me out of the story overall.
What comes to mind was this opera being marketed as "Mozart's bad boy." I hold issue with that concept as, typically with a character described as a "bad boy," there is still a layer of heart hiding within that gives them redeeming qualities. If you want examples, take James Dean from "Rebel Without a Cause," Harrison Ford's role as Han Solo or more obviously, Johnny Depp's role from "Cry-Baby."
The character of Don Giovanni has no heart. The character has no redeeming qualities, he's a jerk and he has no true purpose to be labeled "a bad boy" when he is a pure scumbag of a character. Probably why performing as the character is a reward for many performers; everyone wants to play the bad guy, it's why actors are treated with high regard to perform as Richard the III for the Shakespearean play of the same name. No one ever labeled him a "bad boy" and there is a good reason why.
So why Seattle Opera went out of their way to market and label him as such along with the set design, is truly baffling.

The best thing this backdrop did was break open and produce a heavy smoke effect during the famous climax with the ghost of the Commendatore, an outstanding climax that's elevated by the actors' performances, but made nearly under-whelming by the lack-luster set (the ending of the scene just have projector fire on the background and red lights. Even the 1990 TV Movie with Samuel Ramey, which was just a single performance at the Metropolitan Opera House had more imagination and creativity with it's production sets than this particular production did.

I hate harping on this production like it did something wrong, but when you have this fantastic cast of outstandingly talented performers with amazing music from a master; there is this expectation to give the story the respect it deserves to do it justice. The anachronistic decisions done for this production's sets and costumes are baffling to me and they constantly kept pulling me out of the opera, a problem i never have when an opera can keep me engaged in it's illusion.

This production, felt like it didn't want to hide the illusion.

Still, all things considered, it's still a great opera. The music is great and the Commendatore climax is both chilling and empowering, both of which are done great justice by it's great acting troupe, I just wish the people behind the scenes had that much passion going into opera's set design.

But if "Don Giovanni" happens to come around your town, I say check it out, expand your horizons a bit.

The Brothers Grimm

Released in 2005 under the direction of Terry Gilliam with distribution through Miramax Films and Dimension Films; "The Brothers Grimm" is a strange little fantasy movie coming from the surreal and strange mind of Terry Gilliam. To the animation crowd, he is best remembered for the animated segments for Monty Python's sketches, to the science-fiction crowd, Terry is the brilliant mind behind "Time Bandits," "Brazil" and "12 Monkeys," to the strange and artsy dramas of "The Fisher King," "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "Tideland." Since this is the month of October, I decided to go with the first Gilliam film I saw in theaters and hot damn did it scare the sh*t out of me back then.

Sometime set during the early 1800s, brothers Wilhelm and Jakob Grimm (Matt Damon and the late Heath Ledger respectively) are a pair of con "exorcists" that go town-to-town clearing out "ghosts" for money. Found out by Napoleonic General Delatombe (Jonathan Pryce), the duo are forced to solve a mystery of disappearing girls in a small village. Entering this village, the two assume the disappearances are part of an elaborate con, despite the insistence of the village huntress Angelika (Lena Headey) insisting it's the work of an evil Queen (Monica Belluchi) trying to regain her youth.
Well that's the basic gist of the story, sadly once the plot finally gets started, the movie trips and stumbles and gets a little bit lost on the way to it's climax. The characters go into the woods, the leave, they come back again, and leave again, go back to prison, then go back to the woods again and then come out again. If the basic plot structure is described like an upward line of rising action to meet the climax, then this movie is the equivalent of the DOW stock, it goes up and down until it finally reaches it's climax.
As for the characters, the nicest thing I can say about them, you remember the little things more than the major things and the little things about them showcase Terry's twisted sense of humor, such as Jonathan Pryce licking a drop of cat's blood of his cheek and Matt Damon licking a toad for directions (I'm not kidding, that happens). Though watching this with the knowledge of Heath Ledger's passing makes you really appreciate his quiet and sensitive performance and the potential Terry saw in this guy. It's a shame these characters don't have a better flowing narrative to work with but I would be more opt to blame the conflicts that occurred during production from the Weinstein Company and Terry Gilliam over who had final cut of the picture.

So what is good about this movie? Well, typical of Terry Gilliam, the dark twisted humor lightens the dark eerie mood now and then (a kitten being thrown into a giant mechanical blender with a spot of blood that lands on Jonathan Pryce's face who casually licks it off all to a bunch of violinists play Luigi Boccherini's "Minuet String Quintet in E Major," if this was anymore Terry Gilliam, that would be Eric Idle in the role or a CGI Graham Chapman would step in and say "Right, stop that, that's silly and a bit suspect I think."), the sets and locations are wonderfully surreal and dream-like, creating that fairy tale atmosphere of fantasy, the costumes are fantastic, strange, sure, but it's Terry Gilliam, would you expect less than normal? The CGI is…pretty laughable compared to today, but not so much that it's too distracting.



But now you're asking me, what was it about this movie that freaked me out when I first saw it?
It's this one scene where a girl, disguised as a boy, goes out to get water from a well and a crow falls in. She pulls up the dead crow until it begins to flap it's wings and throw mud all over her face. The crow flies off, the girl wipes the mud from her face to reveal her eyes, nose and mouth are gone as a mud creature slowly forms with her eyes, nose and mouth as the poor girl blindly wanders terrified as the mud creature follows close behind. That and the girl that gets swallowed by a horse: 
Thanks Terry, glad to know you're always there in the nightmares of a 12 year old.

Is it a perfect movie? Heavens no, it's not even Terry Gilliam's best fantasy film. You want his best, just watch "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" or "Time Bandits" for his best fantasy work. To me, this is passable, in the hands of a less qualified craftsman, I wouldn't give it a second glance, but the magical thing about Gilliam is a second look always makes you notice something you failed to see the last time.

Final Rating: 2/5

Guardians of the Galaxy

Released in 2014 under the direction of James Gunn ("Tromeo and Juliet," "Slither") on a budget of $170 million with distribution through Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures; "Guardians of the Galaxy" is the recent superhero action movie based on a lesser-known superhero group of the same name. But with the enormous success of Marvel's more well-known comic adaptations such as "Iron Man" and "The Avengers," it would make some sense to branch into unfamiliar territory for the summer season. Although this was quite a risky gamble for Marvel, it would seem Marvel tossed it's dice right, earning them a record-breaking opening weekend of $94 million with rave reviews from critics. Is this the summer blockbuster we've been waiting for or is this lost floating in space?

Abducted in 1988 and living in space for 30 years, Peter Quill (Chris Pratt) recovers a mysterious orb containing an "Ark of the Covenant, Maltese Falcon sort-of vibe" that is pursued by Gamora (Zoe Saladana), a highly-trained assassin defecting against Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace), bounty hunters gun-toting Rocket Raccoon (v. Bradley Cooper) and simple-minded Groot (v. Vin Diesel). The confrontation causes the four to be arrested and sent to the Klyn prison planet where they meet Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista) who swears a blood vengeance against Ronan for the deaths of his family. With his assistance, they escape with the orb in hand and Ronan's other assassin Nebula (Karen Gillan) and the blue-skinned Ravager leader Yondu Udonta (Michael Rooker) chasing after them. If that sounds confusing, don't worry, it's not that hard to follow.

Let me say how much of a relief it is to finally watch a summer movie that knows how to have FUN for a change. This is a movie that does not take itself seriously first and foremost and it greatly benefits for doing this as it allows for the movie to give some of the funniest moments in any comic book movie we've seen in recent years. From references to 80's culture, witty banter between the characters and a mixture with 70's pop hits that saves the universe. 

The title characters are perhaps the most likable jerks ever written for a movie since Steve Martin. There was never one character I preferred over the other, every one of them had fantastic chemistry, smart-ass dialogue and all got their respective chance to kick some ass. 

The story is nothing too original but that is also it's greatest strength. It's a movie that serves to be a love letter to 70's space operas and the movie revels in recapturing this feel with it's choice of 70's pop hits from the Jackson 5 to Redbone to Marvin Gaye peppered across the soundtrack. The only issue I had with the movie are it's stock villains, but with these unheroic characters, I figure a stock villain balances out the smart-ass characters.

I cannot praise this movie enough, if you haven't seen this movie by the time I've posted this review, then why are you still reading?

Final Rating: 4.5/5

- -

Burning Through Celluloid logo - http://jarvisrama99.deviantart.com/  

Lucy

Released in 2014 under the direction of Luc Besson ("Leon the Professional," "The Fifth Element," "Taken") on a budget of $40 million with distribution through Universal Pictures; "Lucy" is Besson's recent sci-fi action thriller that dares to blend fast-paced action and the metaphysical aspect of evolving to the next stage of human evolution: godhood…only minus the Star Child.

Living abroad in Taiwan, Lucy (Scarlett Johansson) is pressured by her boyfriend Richard (Pilou Asbaek) to deliver a suitcase full of synthetic drugs to a drug cartel run by Kang (Choi Min-sik). To deliver the drug, a bag is placed inside her lower stomach and sewn up to transport, but she is intercepted and held prisoner by a rival gang, causing the bag to rupture and leak inside her body, boosting her cerebral capacity past the fictional 10% and allowing her to realize the wonders of the universe around her and allowing her to read minds, move things, collect data at an incredible rate. To help comprehend her growing condition, she calls upon the aid of Professor Samuel Norman (Morgan Freeman) and to help in recovering the other drugs being transported, she acquires the aid of French police officer Pierre Del Rio (Amr Waked).

So…um…this movie has had quite a lot of high expectation lately. From all the twerps on Tumblr calling this movie "the only action movie with a woman without a love interest" to even the middle-age women on my Facebook contacts, this seemed to be one of the most anticipated movies of the summer…
Boy does it break my heart to say it's a let-down.
Not to say that it completely falls together, but it is a movie that will leave you feeling either disappointed, unsatisfied or angered by it's ending.

The cast is decent, though their characters range from one-dimensional to half-hearted performances. The action scenes grab your interest and when Lucy demonstrates her evolving powers, they are genuinely fascinating to watch. Such as locking onto cell phone signals from a car, hacking a television, radio, cell phone and computer to flash her image to talk to Morgan Freeman and calling someone over the phone and sending them pictures of drug mules without a computer is cool.

But the character arcs are unfulfilling, the story takes a downward spiral to pretension-ville by the end and it's explanation of science is pure nonsense. This movie expects you to believe that humans use 10% of their brain's capacity and by achieving 100%, we become omnipotent like God. Thing is, we DO use 100% of our brain, 55% is what we use to process thoughts and ideas, 45% of your brian controls the parts of your body you don't consciously think about, such as your heartbeat, digestive system, hair growth or breathing.

With that information, one has to wonder how much of Luc Besson's brain capacity went into writing this deeply flawed screenplay. The action scenes were impressive and so were Lucy's powers, but nothing else really warrants running out to see this brainfart.

Final Rating: 2/5

- -

Burning Through Celluloid logo - http://jarvisrama99.deviantart.com/

Chef review

Released in 2014 under the direction of Jon Faverau ("Swingers," "Iron Man") with distribution through Open Road Films; "Chef" is Faverau's return to small budget movies after the string of big budget action movies. But after all the flying suits and aliens, can Faverau return to the basics and create a satisfying entree or is this an appetizer full of twinkle filling?

Chef Carl Casper (Jon Faverau) is an unhappy chef in a respected LA restaurant, dealing with estranged ex-wife Inez (Sofia Vergara) and son Percy (Emjay Anthony). When renowned food critic Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt) comes to eat, Casper is denied his chance to shine and display his creative cooking, earning the restaurant a poor review. Angry, Carl calls Ramsey out on Twitter and verbally assaults him, resulting in negative publicity that causes Carl to get fired. With no one else willing to hire him, Carl accepts the help of Inez's possibly insane ex-husband (Robert Downey Jr.) and receives a food truck that he restores and, teamed up with Percy and his sous chef friend Martin (John Leguizamo), they begin a cross-country journey from Miami to Los Angeles serving Cubanos to long lines, earning his reputation back as well as fulfilling his culinary passion.

I'm not gonna lie, this movie is schmaltzy and predictable. The narrative exists to get the protagonist where he needs to be for him to overcome his obstacles, the minor characters are only there to push the protagonist towards achieving his goal and everything ends on a happy note. In terms of story-telling, it's so basic that it's like olive oil in your pan and pulling out a pre-made tortilla shell to make a burrito.

But where the movie's true flavor comes from it's likable cast and subject matter: Culinary arts.

Every major film critic who reviewed this movie stated that this was a movie you do not enter on a light stomach. I saw this movie at Cinebarre where they serve you food and even though I already had my fill from their menu, all the food seen in this movie made me even hungrier. The detail Faverau shows for how he prepares these meals, under the guidance of gourmet chef Roy Choi, made me wish to try them out for myself (which is what I did afterwards with a stir-fry pan and some chicken). As for the cast, they did what was asked of them and I cannot muster one criticism against them as they played off one another swimmingly.

At the end of the day though, "Chef" is a movie worth seeing for a matinee price. It's cast is likable enough and the food is mouth-watering to look at as it sizzles in close-ups. While it has a few too many schmaltzy scenes that are hard to swallow, it's a meal I was very pleased to sink my teeth into. Mr Faverau, I don't know if you happen across this review, but know that you have my regards to the cook.

Final Rating: 3/5

- -

Burning Through Celluloid Logo (C) Kane Fletcher - http://jarvisrama99.deviantart.com/