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: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

By. Joe Moss
★★

Well, I can safely say that Peter Jackson's 2013 continuation of the beloved J.R.R. Tolkein classic "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is far and away better than the first part, "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" released last year. The pace of this movie is on par with the Fellowship trilogy; the graphics and cinematography are amazing (as is expected from Peter Jackson's Wingnut Films company). What is not amazing...the length of the film once again deters from the plot and the overall enjoy-ability.

The plot picks up where the "Unexpected Journey" left off; albeit, with a slight delay. There is a short flashback sequence in the first ten minutes of the film showing Gandolf (Ian McKellen) and Thorin (Richard Armitage) meeting in the Prancing Pony in Bree. This flashback serves to remind the moviegoers about the purpose of the story (#1 of the unnecessary scenes in the movie) to rightfully regain Thorin his place among the dwarf-lords as the King under the Mountian. After this dalliance, Jackson immediately switches back to Bilbo and the group being chased through the mountains by the Orcs and a large shape-shifting bear. A horrible transitional sequence if I say so myself.

The troop of thirteen finally reaches Mirkwood, and Gandolf deaprts to fulfill an obligation to the Elf Queen, Lady Galadriel (Kate Blanchett). Bilbo and the Dwarfin troop are told to take the Elvin Road through the forest and "do not stray" from the path. We are immersed into the memorable interplay of the Moria spiders who are invading Mirkwood and finally re-introduced to a character from the Fellowship series--Legolas (Orlando Bloom) as well as the captain of the guard, Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly). The elfin actors arrive into the plot with commanding presence, skillful swordplay and deftness of the foot. The travelers/trespassers are taken into custody and brought forth to the king. After a hilarious escape sequence--and the second bit of action (thankful to keeping the audience awake) involving Orcs, elves, and half-drowning dwarfs--we arrive at the boarders of Mirkwood. To cross the lake, the troop enlists the help of a man, Bard (Luke Evans) to smuggle them through Lake-town to be closer to the Lonely Mountian (Erebor).

To not give too much more away, the troop finally arrives at the mountain, Bilbo manages to get into the Hidden Door of Erebor to attempt to steal the Arkenstone for Thorin from the sleeping dragon usurper. Thus ensues a great interplay between the other character who upstages the hobbit and dwarf main characters, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch in one of his two roles in the film). Smaug (surely an allusion to Smug) is full of himself and his self-assuredness is to be his ultimate downfall.....but this all seems anti-climatic at beast since it took so long for us to reach the point of the entire Hobbit story--the showdown between Bilbo, Thorin, Bard and Smaug.

Peter Jackson has truly taken a well-known story and tried to fill 6+ hours of film in a story that should have taken 3 hours at maximum to do it justice--maybe 4 if he wanted to make two parts or an "extended edition" as was done with Fellowship. He was truly overzealous to the point of ridiculous with the long drawn out marching sequences that worked in Fellowship, yet seem contrite in "The Hobbit." What allowed him to make three movies for the Fellowship was that it was THREE BOOKS and people expected him to do it justice. The Hobbit is only 300 pages in total length. For Jackson to make so long a film sequence is maddening. He is fluffing  the entire script with information from The Silmarillion (Tolkein's book on Elfish history), back-stories from the Fellowship, as well as from the Tolkein Reader set of short stories AND adding characters into the Hobbit who are not supposed to be there--remember Legolas and Tauriel...they are not even in the story--just adding drama. The whole "crossed-lovers"  interplay between Tauriel and the Dwarf, Kili (Aiden Turner) does not occur either and just serves to add unnecessary drama and time to the script.

Again, I would like to state that the scenery and the cinematography is gorgeous, but the sequences suffer from poor editing. I almost feel as though Jackson did not allow the editors (lead by Jabez Olssen who worked on all of the Fellowship) to perform their job properly. You end up with many poor transitions throughout the film, namely every time that Gandolf reappears in the plot almost seems as a jolt to the system. There is not the smoothness that we expect from a Peter Jackson film. Some of the minor characters from the book--especially Beorn the shape-shifter and Bolg the Orc--are given too much individual screen time that adds absolutely nothing to the plot as a whole.

Did I like this movie better than the first part? YES. Do I love this movie, sadly NO.

Review: 12 Years a Slave

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★★★

“12 Years a Slave” is the true story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free man living in upstate New York in the years prior to the American Civil War. He has a wife and two children. He’s a talented violinist who is invited to travel with a couple of musicians down to Washington, DC. While in Washington, Solomon is kidnapped in his sleep and sold into slavery. No one wants to hear that he is a free man. He doesn’t have any papers on him to prove his citizenship. Even if he did, the men transporting him probably wouldn’t want to see it anyway.

When he arrives in the south, Solomon is renamed Platt by a slave auctioneer (Paul Giamatti). He’s sold to a man named Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) along with a woman named Eliza (Adepero Oduye). As Ford’s slave, he’s treated relatively fair both by Ford and by his wife (Liza J. Bennett). Ford’s field supervisor Tibeats (Paul Dano) has it in for Solomon and the two do not get along at all.

During these early scenes of the film, director Steve McQueen is really only settling in as his role as the filmmaker of what’s meant to be a powerful, profound and important film. He almost seems intimidated by the emotional power contained within John Ridley’s masterful screenplay. Ridley contains a lot of genuine suspense in his writing that helps to build up the fear Solomon experiences. He’s also achieved the impossible by making a slave owner – Ford – somewhat empathetic.

Cumberbatch doesn’t clock a lot of screen time, but he’s commanding when he does. The slave owner he plays is a bit more kindhearted, but is afraid to really show it. This is why he has to have someone else – Tibeats – minding he fields. Dano always seems to play characters that are very intense. They could be intense in their words and actions (“There Will Be Blood”) or intense in their silence (“Little Miss Sunshine” and this year’s “Prisoners”). His role is very challenging and once again he impresses. Had the movie only chronicled Solomon’s time at Ford’s plantation, Dano would have been the show stealer, but his role is small.

After Solomon disrespects his authority, Tibeats attempts to kill Solomon. Ford is able to save Solomon, but he doesn’t know for how long. He decides its best to transfer Solomon over to another plantation. This one is a cotton farm owned by Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender). He’s a ruthless man who likes to whip his slaves for not meeting a quota of cotton picked per day.

Epps’ prized slave is Patsey (Lupita Nyong’o) who can pick more cotton than any of the male slaves any day of the week. He also lusts after her, something Epps’ wife (Sarah Paulson) disgusts. Whenever possible, she exercises brief and sudden moments of violence against Patsey.

Solomon meanwhile is trying his hardest just to stay alive. He accepts his name is Platt and doesn’t let anyone know he can read and write. He doesn’t talk about his family back home in New York, and he doesn’t dare say anything about being a free man. He does try to use his educated mind in his favor, but that only goes so far. Eijofor plays this aspect of the character to perfection. You can see the longing for his wife and kids in his eyes. McQueen will leave the camera on his face for extended periods of time as countless emotions wash over him.

Eijofor puts on a fierce performance in this role. He’s a revelation to watch on screen. It’s a rare treat to see an actor play into every imaginable emotion with this much intensity. And the best part about his performance is he does it with very little dialogue. His performance is carried by his expressions, his mannerism and even something as simple as his posture.

Fassbender’s Epps is one of the greatest villains in the history of cinema. He’s a product of the environment in which he lives. Slavery was a way of life, and he’s just living with that assumption. He makes justifications of his brutal actions by quoting biblical scripture. He’s also insane, which makes him more dangerous. He walks through the room and there’s fear in everyone’s eyes. He knows his people fear him and he loves how powerful it makes him feel. A good movie villain is at his most evil when he feels he’s absolutely justified in his actions. Fassbender feels this way throughout the film. He personifies the evil found in the entire culture in his performance.

Nyong’o turns in yet another powerful performance in this film. The movie is certainly full of outstanding performances and she stands out more than anyone else. She embodies all the pain and suffering experienced by the slaves during this time in American history. McQueen really understands who this character is and uses the role and Nyong’o’s portrayal to deliver his most powerful emotional punches.

And when those powerful moments arrive, they are some of the most powerful and gut wrenching moments you’ll see in any film this year. McQueen is slow to get there, but once he does it is meaningful. “12 Years a Slave” is a deeply moving and harrowing look into these dark times in American history. And it’s a true story, written by the Solomon Northup himself. That makes it even more gripping. You cannot take your eyes off this film for a moment. If you do, its only because the visualization of slave abuse becomes a little too much. Its certainly not the because of the performances or how beautifully photographed it is. This is a great film that will be talked about for years to come.   

Review: Star Trek Into Darkness

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

“Star Trek Into Darkness” comes at us four years after J.J. Abrams rebooted the series with the simply titled “Star Trek.” That film reset the whole story line that everyone thought they knew from the television series and the six original movies. It was an action packed film that opened up the franchise to a whole new audience without alienating its dedicated fan base (no easy task given the dedication of the Trekkies). A sequel to such a big film needed to exceed the scale and excitement of its predecessor. Despite many flaws throughout, “Star Trek Into Darkness” does deliver enough to make this a really enjoyable experience.

The film opens with the crew of the Starship Enterprise on a distant planet attempting to save an entire civilization from a soon to erupt volcano. When the life of Spock (Zachary Quinto) becomes threatened, Captain James Kirk breaks protocol to save him. He finds himself in some hot water back at headquarters, especially in the eyes of his mentor Admiral Christopher Pike (Bruce Greenwood).

Meanwhile in London, a terrorist has attacked a Starfleet archives building which in turn leads to an attack on headquarters. The mastermind of this attack is a former Starfleet Commander named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbach). He’s tracked to a Klingon occupied planet, and Kirk seeks permission from Starfleet Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) to go after Harrison. Marcus arms Kirk with an arsenal of torpedoes and instructions to kill Harrison.

It’s easy to see why J.J. Abrams was selected to resurrect this franchise. No other filmmaker working within the Hollywood studio system has a better grasp on movies of this size and scale than him. The look and feel of this film alone is breathtaking. Abrams seamlessly blends the live action and the computer generated images into a unified life like amalgamation.

There are hundreds if not thousands of effects shot put together in this film, and none of them are overdone or overused. In order to boldly go where no one has gone before, massive amounts of effects are required, and Abrams is able to sell it with near perfection. If this is what his forthcoming “Star Wars: Episode VII” will look like in 2015, we are in for a treat, to say the least.

Abrams is so good that he’s only about two or three shows away from having a monopoly on network television. The reason for that is his ability to find and tell good stories that keep people wanting to come back each week. Unfortunately, a sound story is what “Star Trek Into Darkness” lacks. The script, from frequent Abrams collaborators Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, along with Damon Lindeolf (who worked with Abrams on “Lost”), starts out relatively strong but quickly unravels.

From the beginning, it seems that we are going to get a movie that won’t only excite us, but also tell up a little more about who these characters are. In the 2009 reboot, we were introduced to all the characters; for the younger generation, it was the first time they were introduced to the crew of the Enterprise. Here, we begin with such promise to learn more about the crew. Maybe we’ll see Kirk grow up a little, or maybe they can advance the relationship between Spock and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), which was first established in the reboot. Then there’s the rest of the crew: the comic relief of Scotty (Simon Pegg) or the serious Mr. Sulu (John Cho).

A few subplots are set up and explored in the beginning, particularly Spock and Uhura. Once the action begins, however, all advancement of character ceases to continue. No one grows. No one changes. That’s an important part of story, one that all three of these writers should know given their highly regarded track record.

There’s really no point in digging too much deeper into the film’s flaws. What more does anyone expect from this? It’s another installment into a hugely popular science fiction franchise. It’s about good guys going after bad guys, which ultimately features battles in outer space. If that’s all you expect from it, than consider your expectation more than met.

Fans of the “Star Trek” franchise will no doubt love it. The film continues on with a new story path established in the reboot. Some parts are pretty disconnected, but you shouldn’t even be paying attention to that too much when you sit back and look at the screen. It’s an engrossing experience that takes you to a different place. And isn’t that the goal of the movies anyway? To escape? Despite its flaws, this isn’t a throwaway film. It’s another addition to an already illustrious film franchise, and one that will end up being one of this summer’s most exciting movie going experiences.