Review: The Imitation Game

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

Tis the season for historical Oscar bait dramas. Not that that’s a bad thing. In my opinion, we have to sit through 11 months of mediocre movies before we get to this point of the year. Oscar voters have a very short memory apparently. The quality of films this time of year is rather high and when the Weinsteins release a movie this late in the year, you know it’s probably going to be good. “The Imitation Game” is the Weinstein Company’s horse in this year’s Oscar race. It arrives with high expectations and already many accolades from the film festivals. While it is a very good film, it comes up a little bit short.

“The Imitation Game” is a story about how Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch), a British mathematician, helped to crack the German Enigma code during the Second World War. The Nazi military sent out encrypted codes that were easily intercepted by the Allied forces, but no one had any idea what they said. No one had an opportunity to crack the code because the Nazis would change the settings on the Enigma machine each day, which would then scramble to codes differently.

The British Navy’s team of codebreakers at Bletchley Park, lead by Commander Denniston (Charles Dance), brings in a group of linguists and mathematicians including Turing and former world chess champion Hugh Alexander (Matthew Goode) to figure out how to break the code. Turing doesn’t work well with others at all, and strong-arms his way into leading the team. He brings in more competent personnel in order to help him including Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley). He sets out to build a massive machine that could search for the correct Enigma settings and crack the codes instantly everyday. This machine would later go by the name “Turing Machine” which we know commonly refer to today simply as a “computer.”

The movie tells three stories at once. Breaking Enigma is the largest portion, but we also see a police investigation into a robbery at Turing’s home in the early 1950s lead by Detective Nock (Rory Kinnear). We also see a young Turing (Alex Lawther) in primary school in the late 1920s along with his close friend Christopher Morcom (Jack Bannon). All these help to illustrate Turing’s homosexuality, something that was very illegal in Britain during this time. Turing’s sexual preference is examined heavily by the filmmakers in order to address a social topic that is looked at vastly differently today than it was during the time of this story’s occurrence.

“The Imitation Game” is a smart and compelling story. It’s a highly entertaining film thanks to Graham Moore’s sharp screenplay and Morten Tyldum’s precise direction. What the film lacks is that extra little bite and that sense of importance that accompanies so many historical dramas. Why do we enjoy hearing stories of the past? Most of the time, it’s because they usually carry some sort of significance along with it. The events depicted in “The Imitation Game” are largely important, but you don’t walk away from the film feeling that emotional punch like other historical dramas.

Moore’s script is exceptionally smart. Everything is briskly paced with absolutely no filler. A decade ago, a film coming out that had any semblance of meaning would have been two-and-a-half hours at least. I think those days are safely behind us now. Instead, we now have films that a concise and to the point, and they can now be shown in under two hours. The dialogue is keen and witty without being mistaken as comical. However, Moore doesn’t seem to know where to direct his screenplay’s focus. Should this be an informative historical drama, or a film to take stance on an important social topic?

This might not all fall on Moore, of course. Tyldum is the director, after all, and the emphasis falls on him. Don’t get me wrong, I have no issue with the social message that comes through. I’d rather see the film either address the topic completely, or not talk about it at all. As backstory is given, we can put all the pieces together and get a sense as to what message the movie is trying to convey. In the end, it hits you over the head with its message like a ton of bricks. I think this would have been a better film had they not been so cryptic about it up front. But this is a movie about solving cryptic messages, so the joke’s me I suppose.

Cumberbatch is a pretty popular movie star right now, but he's never really delivered a masterful performance yet. I still feel he has more to offer after his performance in “The Imitation Game.” While Cumberbatch does show a little more depth in this performance than in previous roles, it still doesn’t go over the top and become something that’s emotionally powerful. Not to mention, Turing is made to look like an antisocial jerk in this film so there isn’t much rooting interest in him. He’s also completely upstaged by Lawther, who plays the younger Turning. Even though they never share a scene together, Lawther is the top performer in this movie. Knightley also turns in an average performance, which is highly unusual for her. There are a few scenes in the film where she shines, but overall it’s not a memorable role for her.

Despite all my gripes and groans, “The Imitation Game” is not a bad film. It’s an important story to tell. I just wish Tyldum had done more to give the film a better sense of importance and be more impactful. It also carries an important social topic of discussion, even in this modern day. But will “The Imitation Game” be remembered for telling an important story, or for being a film that addresses society’s issues regarding homosexuality? The film never knows where to stand, which ends up being an unmistakable flaw. It’s not a bad film though. It simply might not be remembered years from now the way other important historical films are and the way other important social films are. When trying to be something special, pick one or the other. Not both. 

Review: Foxcatcher

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

Dark, brooding dramas about the characters’ relationship with one another are a rare breed of film these days. Those that do make it to the paying public usually fall flat. But not “Foxcatcher.” This is an atypical drama that manages to keep an audience’s interest alive thanks to the talent involved. It also manages to observe in a very delicate manner the dangers of an endless supply of wealth and the affect it has on everyone near it.

“Foxcatcher” is a true story and depicts events as they occurred in the mid-to-late 80s. Mark Shultz (Channing Tatum) and his brother David (Mark Ruffalo) are Olympic gold medalist. Mark, the younger, feels as though he lives in his brother’s shadow, despite winning a gold medal himself. One day, Mark receives and invitation to visit with John du Pont (Steve Carell) at his estate in the northeast. Du Pont would like Mark to come live on his estate and train at a new wrestling facility he’s opening there, despite knowing absolutely nothing about wrestling. Mark agrees, and soon finds himself becoming good friends with du Pont. At least, that how du Pont sees Mark.

Du Pont is a millionaire and is able to buy anything he wants in life, including his friends and his ability to be a “wrestling coach” with no previous coaching or wrestling experience. The first half of the film is dedicated to Mark and du Pont’s relationship, but the second half is all about du Pont and how he’s able to manipulate those around him with his wealth and influence. Once du Pont is finally able to have David join them at his estate, Mark feels like he’s been cast aside. Indeed he has, as du Pont only really saw Mark as a pet. Meanwhile, du Pont is also obsessed by his public persona and wears different faces in front of cameras and behind closed doors.

“Foxcatcher” is no sports film. Sure, there are sequences of wrestling, but it’s much more than just a wrestling movie. What we have here is well-constructed film about the darker sides of privileged life and wealth. The movie is meticulous in its examination of middle class Americans interacting with those in the upper class. It’s about what someone with money can do to the lives of those around him or her; how they can become involved in something despite having no experience in that field at all. The film is meticulous almost to a fault as the movie moves along at an overly patient pace. At 134-minutes in length, it feels every bit as long.

That shouldn’t take away from what director Bennett Miller (“Capote,”  “Moneyball”) has been able to achieve. Miller has delivered a smart feature with a very dark underlying theme. “Foxcatcher” is just as dark in tone and atmosphere as its subject matter. It might be a very difficult film for everyone to grasp. It’s not excessively pretentious; quite the contrary, in fact. Miller takes a more laissez faire approach. He lets the script propel the film. He lets the actors take center stage. He overloads the film with nothing special or spectacular, other than good old-fashioned directing.

The screenplay comes from E. Max Frye and from Dan Futterman, who wrote Miller’s “Captoe.” It is a solid and well-researched piece. It may take one or two creative liberties with the characters since most of the interactions in the film occur behind closed doors and away from public view. Du Pont was quite interested in having his life on public display, and he would be present and engaged whenever cameras were around. It wouldn’t be possible to build a story around du Pont by using only these images and have it be accurate.

The script tends to lack additional substance outside of the main story. Sure, there are some small subplots involving Dave and Mark’s relationship, along with du Pont’s interesting relationship with his mother (Vanessa Redgrave). Overall, some points in the story tend to be drawn out just a little more than necessary. Again, it’s over two hours long and definitely feels it.

“Foxcatcher’s” main attraction is the acting, which is beyond sensational. Tatum turns in his macho action film personality for something a little more subtle. We’ve seen him try this before in a few roles, but in “Foxcatcher” he really shows his versatility. He doesn’t have too many lines, and when he does speak he delivers them just barely over a whisper. He plays the part well, but he’s not the brightest star here. As Mark’s brother David, Ruffalo is nothing short of spectacular. He’s shown his range in films before, but nothing like he shows here. My only gripe is that he isn’t in the film more, but I can’t really hold that against him or anyone else.

As good as Ruffalo is, Carell is a revelation with this masterful performance he shares with us. Forget his usual comedic performances like “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone” or the “Anchorman” films. Forget his shtick on “The Daily Show” or his long running stand on “The Office.” This is a completely new direction for Carell. It’s a performance no one could have expected coming from him. He completely embodies du Pont and vanishes right into the character. My favorite part about his performance is the complete and utter lack of life and empathy behind his eyes in every scene. You know this man isn’t exactly sane and that there must be something running through his mind, but you can never tell what he’s thinking. It’s just an absolutely mesmerizing performance by Carell.

While the film is a bit too long and little drawn out in places, there is a lot to like about “Foxcatcher.” It’s a fascinating look at what might be going on in some of America’s most wealthiest of estates, and the interactions those people have with the members of the middle and lower classes. Combine that with some solid, traditional filmmaking and sensational acting and you’re left with an exceptionally well-crafted film.

Review: Wild

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★★

If you can’t handle powerful human dramas with strong performances designed to make you feel, then “Wild” won’t be for you. “Wild” is one of the most emotionally charged and powerful films I’ve seen in 2014, and certainly one of the best.

“Wild” starts Reese Witherspoon as Cheryl Strayed, a young woman setting out to hike almost every single mile of the Pacific Crest Trail despite have no prior backpacking experience. Why would she subject herself to such torture? Well, Strayed has fallen on really tough times in her life lately. Through flashbacks told along her journey, we see fragments of the events that lead her to making this decision.

We see the turbulent relationship with her ex-husband Paul (Thomas Sadoski), and the events that lead to their divorce. Her life was already in a downward spiral at that point, but the divorce sends her further into the ground. But every negative episode of Cheryl’s life is juxtaposed against happier memories, most of which include her loving mother Bobbi (Laura Dern). Outside of flashbacks, we see Cheryl struggle to complete her journey while questioning her sanity and her ability to finish.

“Wild” is a harrowing and powerful film. It’s a film that pulls a vast range of emotions from you, and it does so very fluidly. The movie goes through highs and lows, like the peaks and valleys of a wave. Cheryl’s backstory is provided entirely through flashbacks, and the events are recalled out of chronological order. Some things trigger happy memories while others recall more depressing episodes. Some of these sequences leave you laughing while others with move you in a much deeper way.

This is made possible thanks to another brilliant direction outing by Jean-Marc Vallée. Vallée directed last year’s sensational “Dallas Buyers Club” and he returns this year with another great story worthy of being told. With “Wild,” Vallée shows that he is truly a gifted filmmaker who knows how to draw just the right emotion out of his actors. When his actors are able to show those emotions so vividly, then you’ll be able to feel it in the exact same way. If they can’t showcase emotions perfectly, then how can we – the audience – be expected to believe it too.

Of course Vallée’s job is made that much easier thanks to yet another fantastic screenplay from the great Nick Hornby. The backstory is told in fragments so you never do have all the pieces of Strayed’s life at any given time. Some of the dialogue is delivered through voiceover, which I normally despise since it just comes across as lazy screenwriting. But here, Hornby has written it in such a way that it never feels like Strayed is narrating to you. And Vallée even presents the voiceover in a unique manner, so it never feels tried and overused. Hornby’s scenes and sequences are orchestrated with such care that it flows more like a good symphony than it does a typical three-act film. Every high moment is followed by a dark and low episode before swinging back up to happier scenes. This is an example of screenwriting at it’s finest. How is Hornby not being offered studio jobs?

Witherspoon is the anchor of this film. She delivers a triumphant performance that’s unlike anything she’s ever done in her career. She’s in every single scene of the film, which is no easy task for any actor to undertake. She received many accolades for her role as June Carter in “Walk the Line,” but her showing in “Wild” surpasses that miles and miles. Her performance is equal parts uplifting and devastatingly painful. Next to Witherspoon, Dern also delivers a career best performance worthy of recognition as Witherspoon’s adorable and loving mother. Their on-screen chemistry together is absolute perfection.

“Wild” is true story that’s too good not to tell. Director Vallée proves he’s a filmmaker who understands emotions, and he’s able to get the best performances from his acting ensemble each and every time. Witherspoon is also out to demonstrate that she’s not just an enormously talented actress, but also has a great eye for stories. This is the second film she’s produced this year – after “Gone Girl” – both of which feature strong female characters, something that is greatly lacking in films today. “Wild” is a profound tale of the human spirit, one filled with so many differing emotions that you’ll feel as though you walked alongside Strayed for each mile.

Review: Rosewater

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★

“Rosewater” comes to us from first time writer/director Jon Stewart. Yes, that Jon Stewart, host of the long running satirical news program on Comedy Central “The Daily Show.” I must admit, I didn’t think that Stewart had what it takes to tackle such a deep and important topic in his first film. But after watching “Rosewater,” I think I was right because it seems he may have been a little in over his head.

The film stars Gael García Bernal as Maziar Bahari, an Iranian born journalist living and working from England. While working for Newsweek, he’s sent to Tehran in June of 2009 to cover the presidential elections, but was ultimately detained and charged with being a spy. Stewart was drawn to this story because Bahari was actually interviewed on “The Daily Show” just a few days prior to being detained in Tehran. They used his appearance on his show against him during his interrogations not fully understanding that he was on a comedy show. I guess Stewart must have felt partly to blame for it, even though he wasn’t the one asking Bahari any question.

Nevertheless, Stewart has documented Bahari’s story on film and adapted Bahari’s own memoirs into the film’s screenplay. Having never wrote or directed a film before, “Rosewater” definitely feels like the work of a novice. Stewart’s artist choices to deliver exposition are a bit misguided. He’s also stretching for material for the subplots as well. Once Bahari is detained, the film hits the breaks and nearly comes to a complete stop. Stewart stretches the runtime out with a couple unneeded subplots that feature Bahari talking to his deceased father and sister in his cell.  An interesting choice, but one that never lives up to what it probably could have been.

And what could “Rosewater” have been? It probably could have been a very powerful commentary on the 2009 Iranian election protests. It could have been a good explanation to American – or any Western nation – audiences about the politics of the nation. The news broadcasts show the nation’s people excited about being involved in a free and open election, but their elections are just barely free. Why is that? Stewart had a platform to show us, but he never does.

Instead, we’re raced through the elections and through the protests to get Bahari into jail. But once he’s there, we’re just treated to one scene after another of interrogations with his captor Javadi (Kim Bodnia). Bahrain never knew his name, so we just goes by how the man always seems to smell: like fresh rosewater. They don’t want Bahari harmed because they need his face to be broadcast over Iranian television denouncing the West. Therefore, they can’t physically torture him, only talk to him. This is interesting for the first few scenes, but it’s certainly not enough to hold over an audience for the entire duration of a feature length film. The movie only runs a 103-minutes, but it feels so much longer than that.

It's certainly an interesting topic to tackle for a first feature, but there are many areas in which the film could have been improved. I hope that Stewart chooses to continue making movies rather than spend his entire career behind the Comedy Central news desk. He does show his talent from behind the camera, but the subject matter that makes up "Rosewater" is a bit tough for a first timer. But Stewart certainly showed he's not afraid to tackle such a serious subject despite spending the lion's share of his entire career as a comedian. If he doesn't continue to make films, I hope they do illustrate important issues such as this. He's ability to tell a story will improve over time. Not everyone can hit a home run on their first at-bat in the Majors. Stewart falls into this category, but he's not alone. 

Review: Whiplash

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★★

As a former high school band member – or “band dork” as we were so affectionately known as amongst the popular cliques – and as a one-semester music major in college, there are many elements about “Whiplash” to which I can relate. Musicians practice and practice and practice to be the best they can be on their instruments. And when they’ve finished practicing, they practice some more. It’s a ritual that will drive just about anyone insane. What’s worse is when you have an instructor or teacher who demands perfection at all times. You may think you’re giving it your all, but they’re telling you you’re not. Whether or not we can consider this to be bullying is a completely different question. Instead, “Whiplash” focuses on the emotional challenges of striving for perfection.

Andrew Neiman (Miles Teller) wants to be one of the great jazz drummers of all time, like Buddy Rich. He’s enrolled at the Shaffer Music Conservatory in New York because it’s the best music school in the country. There, he catches the eye of Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), the director of the school’s top jazz ensemble. He invites Andrew to try out for a new alternate drummer spot in the band. Andrew knows that studying with Fletcher and performing in his band is exactly where he needs to be.

But it’s not all that easy for Andrew. Fletcher is a cruel and unyielding teacher. He demands absolute perfection for all members of his ensemble, including Andrew on his first day. Not only is Fletcher demeaning to his students, he’s also physically abusive. He’s not afraid to slap Andrew right across the face when Andrew can’t tell him if he’s just slightly ahead or behind the tempo. He’s also not afraid to hurl chairs across the room at Andrew either. But Andrew knows he must play in this band. So he dumps his girlfriend (Melissa Benoist) and moves out of his dorm room and into a practice room. There, he practices every chance he gets – through blood, sweat and tears, literally – to become one of the greats, and to try and win over Fletcher.

“Whiplash” is one hell of a relentless movie going experience. It’s a ride unlike anything else you’ll see this year. I’m sure there’s some naysayer out there who will try and tell me that some big budget CGI infested sequel or franchise installment is a better experience, but that’s just not the case. This film comes from 29-year old writer/director Damien Chazelle. After one picture, I can already tell you he’s going to be someone you’ll want to pay attention to.

What Chazelle has delivered with “Whiplash” is something that’s so mature and so polished that it never comes across as a first feature. It’s so well refined that you could tell me Soderbergh directed it and I probably would have believed you. His script is razor sharp. Screenwriters are told to get in their stories late and get out early. They’re told to trim as much fat off the story as possible, and to tell the tale with the bare minimum. Most writers ignore these rules – see, or rather don’t see “Transformers” 2, 3 or 4 for this example – but Chazelle has followed these tips and it works extraordinarily well. The film begins and ends at just the right times. And everything in between is utterly necessary in order for Chazelle to get his story told correctly.

Teller only continues to impress with each performance. This will go down as the performance for which all future roles will be compared. It’s mind blowing how good he is in this film. Every time he steps behind the drum kit, he delivers such a powerful performance that leaves you breathless. He may not actually be playing these drum parts in real life – I’d be equally shocked and impressed to find out he did – but he sells it to you nonetheless.

While Teller’s character is the star of the story, Simmons is the star of “Whiplash” without question. Simmons has spent years on screen in minor roles in all kinds of films. The superhero fans will no doubt remember him from the Sam Raimi “Spider-Man” films J. Jonah Jameson. He also seems to appear in just about every recent film from the Coen Brothers and Jason Reitman too. He’s always memorable in all of his roles, but you’re never ever going to forget him after watching this triumphant performance in “Whiplash.” From the first frame he appears in till his last, Simmons commands every square inch of the silver screen in a way I haven’t seen any actor do in many, many years. He’s a textbook antagonist. In his mind only, nothing he does or says is wrong. And you hate him for all his actions. There are no likable qualities about this villain. He is mean and downright vile. Simmons doesn’t want you to like him either. In fact, he wants you to hate him with every ounce of energy you have. He makes it very easy to do this. This is a historic cinematic performance; one for the ages.

“Whiplash” is a transfixing cinematic experience. It’s a blistering film full of intense and emotionally bruising moments that will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. The most impressive attribute of this film is its ability to take your breath away at multiple times. This is most true during the film’s final 10-minute climax. Not only does it leave you breathless, but also leaves you sweating alongside our hero and begging for more once it’s over. It's not often that I’m rendered speechless after a film, but I don’t think I said more than four or five words after leaving the screening. “Whiplash” is absolutely entrancing and unlike anything else you’ll see this year.

Review: Birdman

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★★

“Birdman” is a true original. It’s a rambunctious dark comedy that plays more like the lucid dream of a schizophrenic rather than a straightforward story. And I loved everything about it.

Michael Keaton stars as Riggan Thompson, a washed up Hollywood movie star whose most famous days are behind him. He’s most famous for playing a superhero named Birdman in a highly successful franchise. He’s trying to reinvent his career by adapting, directing and starring in his own play on Broadway. As the story begins, Riggan is having difficulties with one of his supporting actors. An accident gives Riggan the chance to replace him. Thanks to help from his costar Lesley (Naomi Watts) and his agent/best friend Jake (Zach Galifianakis) Riggan is able to get Broadway superstar Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) in his play.

Shiner’s presence initially invigorates Riggan, but subsequently starts driving him insane. Shiner is here to steal the show away because he’s the top Broadway star and despises actors from Hollywood. Shiner also complicates matters when he shows an interest in Riggan’s daughter Sam (Emma Stone), who is trying to restart her own life following a bit of a rough patch. 

Talk about a film that just bursting with originality. "Birdman" is an exhilarating film to watch thanks to the wonderful and very original vision of filmmaker Alejandro González Iñárritu. Originality is nothing new for Iñárritu. He’s directed some films that were very innovative at the time of their release, such as the fantastic “Amores Perros” and the shuffled up narrative “21 Grams.” This is yet another masterpiece to be added to his very successful career. His script is brilliantly crafted alongside his recent writing partners Nicolás Giacobone and Armando Bo, and new writer Alexander Dinelaris. There isn’t one second of uninteresting dialogue or unnecessary filler.

The film is frantically paced and refuses to let up. It’s nearly two hours in length, but it never feels like it. The frantic pace is punctuated by a spastic jazz score from Antonio Sanchez, a Mexican jazz drummer who has never composed for film before. The music sets the tone for the film better than anything else I’ve seen this year. It’s as unyielding as the script.

One of the most original ideas about “Birdman” is the decision to make the film appear as though it’s been captured in one seamless take. Emmanuel Lubezki is the cinematographer tasked to make this happen, and he’s pulled it off beautifully. Lubezki is the cinematographer who captured all the breathtaking shots from last year’s “Gravity,” and I believe he has outdone himself here. Both are certainly challenging films to make, but “Birdman” doesn’t have the same reliance on CGI as “Gravity.” With the exception of a couple cuts right at the beginning and the end, the entire bulk of the narrative shows no visible cuts. The camera is in a constant state of motion.

The seamlessness of the film’s camera movements can also be attributed to film editors Douglas Crise and Stephen Mirrione, both who have worked with Iñárritu before, most notably on “Babel.” These editors have hidden all the cuts to make the film come across as one free flowing image. Sure, there are films that have been made where everything was captured in just one take, but this type of narrative wouldn’t have worked like that. “Birdman” is eye candy for anyone who loves a well-photographed film.

Keaton has never been better. He’s had some memorable roles throughout his career, but “Birdman” will go down as his greatest performance. He’s a tormented man who just wants to be remembered for something great. We can all relate to that, right? But I’m not sure from where Keaton was able to pull such a tortured performance. Maybe he really feels this way after playing such characters as Batman and Beetlejuice? It’s probably difficult for casting directors to look at him and think audiences won’t be able take him seriously. It’s not like Keaton is in multiple movies each year. It might be very difficult for him. If that’s where this darkness is coming from, then this is the perfect role for him to tackle. He’s mesmerizing to watch.

The rest of the cast turn in equally fantastic performances that help make this one of the best ensembles assembled this year. Stone turns in a career-best performance as Keaton’s equally tormented daughter. She’ll have a lot to live up to moving forward in her career. Norton is turns in a memorable performance for the first time in a long time. It’s hard to identify a primary antagonist in the story, but Norton makes a good case and he excels at it. The scenes with him and Keaton are among the film’s most memorable. Even Galifianakis leaves behind his usual comedic shtick and actually plays the role. While his appearance isn’t altered in any way, he’s unrecognizable in his role thanks to such a solid performance.

“Birdman” is such an exhilarating ride and one of the year’s best films. This film could have easily been made just as straightforward as any other film, but it's Iñárritu’s artistic vision that makes this film so much more enjoyable. There’s a distinct amount of electricity running through this movie that’s missing in so many others. Cinema is supposed to be an emotionally moving visual art form, and so many filmmakers have forgotten this. But not Iñárritu. He continues to outdo himself time and time again. “Birdman” is his best work. And it's Keaton's best work. And it's one of the best films of 2014.