Review: Maps to the Stars

by Trevor Kirkendall

★½

I was reading some comments on a celebrity’s photo on Instagram recently. The picture depicted said celebrity at an exotic location relaxing on a beach. The comments came from many different people wishing this person a happy vacation and others saying how jealous they were. (By using a strange shorthand version of the world that I would normally associate with condiment best paired with peanut butter, but I digress.) We are much closer than ever to celebrities, thanks to social media and TMZ’s ever-watchful eye. We vicariously follow their journey through riches and glamour of a Hollywood lifestyle online, and we think we know them like they’re friends of ours. But there’s a dark side to Hollywood that we all know is there, but choose not to think about it.

Director David Cronenberg pulls aside the veil of Hollywood in his latest feature “Maps to the Stars.” Hollywood famously loves movies about themselves, as evident with “Birdman” winning Best Picture a few weeks ago. But the side depicted in “Maps to the Stars” is the side they don’t want you to know about; a dark and disturbed city full of substance abuse, sex abuse, and prima donnas who kick and scream when things don’t go their way. And people just act like it doesn’t matter and that’s just the way the world works.

That’s the setting. As for the plot, screenwriter Bruce Wagner ("A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors") doesn’t give us a whole lot to work with. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. The film is pretty easy to follow, but it makes for a difficult time when trying to describe what it’s about. We start with Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), a mysterious girl arriving in Hollywood from Florida. Her intentions here aren’t yet known except for the fact that she’s here to meet her new online friend Carrie Fisher. (Yes, that Carrie Fisher) She’s driven from the bus station by Jerome (Robert Pattinson), an aspiring actor and screenwriter. Elsewhere, we meet teen star Benjie (Evan Bird) who is the face of a popular movie franchise getting set to shoot a sequel. At 13, he’s already had one stint in a drug rehab clinic. His father is Stafford (John Cusack), a new age type of doctor who treats stars such as the legendary Havana Segrand (Julianne Moore). Havana is attempting to star in the remake of a film her mother starred in before her untimely death. And yes, all these people will come together somehow.

I should just go ahead and spoil everything so you don’t have to satisfy your curiosity and actually watch this. It’s not that it’s trash; it’s so wildly erratic and unsettling that it’s best left untouched. If that’s something you’re into, then have at it. Given that Cronenberg directs the film, I should have known what I was getting into. It certainly has his signature on it. Judging from his more recent work, one would have thought he was leaving his weirder side back in the 80s and 90s. Apparently not.

“Maps to the Stars” almost seems like Cronenberg is trying to out-Lynch David Lynch. At times, I was reminded of “Mulholland Drive” thanks to the music and, of course, the setting. Lynch’s “Mulholland Drive” is a mind trip, and that’s simply put. Neither film is really about movies in general, more about the city and the wealthy people who inhabit it. Other than a few Lynchian moments early on, the comparisons between the two films begin and end with the setting of Los Angeles. “Maps to the Stars” is nowhere near the caliber film as Lynch’s masterpiece.

The biggest issue here is the film is barely watchable. There’s no primary protagonist or antagonist. I’m sure a case could be made for any of these characters to be either the good guy or the bad guy, but I don’t want to spend too much more time dwelling on this film. I’ve already crossed the 600-word mark by this point, which means I’ll soon never have to think about it again. I don’t hate this film, and there are a few redeeming qualities. The fact remains that there’s no one to root for and there’s no one to like. You can probably make a movie featuring a cast of unlikeable characters, but you can’t have them discussing incestual relationships every other scene. Yes, this is a huge part of the plot and it’s disturbing to hear every time.

The performances from Moore and Wasikowska are the only redeeming factors I can identify. They share several scenes together and showcase their ranges very well. In real life, Moore is a seasoned Oscar-winning veteran in Hollywood while Wasikowska is still trying to make a name for herself. Everything I see her in, she’s fantastic. She’s no different here. I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to look at her the same way again, especially after this film’s shocking and truly alarming climax. Moore is excellent, as usual. I can’t recall her ever playing a character this deranged and troubled. She’s had better roles before in her career, but never this psychotic.

“Maps to the Stars” should be avoided and forgotten. I expected more from the veteran Cronenberg this late in his career. Fans of Moore may be interested in seeing her in such a dynamic performance, but other than that there’s nothing else to see. It’s far from the worst movie I’ve ever watched, but it’s also far from enjoyable. It’s best that we maybe not see or think about this side of Hollywood if we still want to enjoy our movies. It’s fun to want to peak behind the curtain sometimes, but not like this. Let’s just keep looking at the glimpses of celebrities’ lives they offer to us via social media. But we can stop being jealous of them, especially if “Maps to the Stars” is an indication of what they deal with on a day-to-day basis.

Joe's Top Ten Films of 2014

by Joe Moss

First, let me begin with a sincere apology to those who frequent this site expecting to see reviews for many more movies than we posted this year. I was not able to uphold my responsibility to website this past fall due to many other obligations that appeared on my plate from beyond my control. I promise that I will be more visible this year (2015) and that Trevor will not be the only person submitting reviews for half of the year.

The films that ended this year made it really difficult to develop a top ten. I believe both Trevor and I easily compiled our TOP FIVE list, but the bottom five have been tossed about, edited and argued over for at least a month -- probably longer.  I feel that the Hollywood studios need to stand up and take notice of the smaller independent filmmakers...this needs to the be the FUTURE of Hollywood. STOP THE REBOOTS!!  Please. Much of the fodder out of Hollywood this last year was not worth mentioning in reviews of any substance. However, the box office redeemed itself by October. My picks are all based around movies that struck a personal chord in my life. So without further adieu, here are my Top Ten favorite movies of the year in descending order.


10. The LEGO Movie

Emmet, Unikitty and Wyldstyle discuss plans to save the world.

This movie was all about absurd fun. Original, yes. This was an adult humor filled film masquerading as a children's movie! The amount of potty humor was outstanding, yet tempered just enough that it went over the heads of many. I truly enjoyed the ability of directors Christopher Miller and Phil Lord to make a positive lesson out of what seemed to begin much like a pothead dream. Overall, the message was simple -- enjoy the simple everyday things out of life: play a little, and don't take every act so seriously. If you do this, then "EVERYTHING IS AWESOME!!!!!"


9. Ida

Ida and Wanda learn what really happened to Ida's family.

Pawel Pawlikowski made an absolutely stunning movie that reminded me of Hollywood films of era gone-by. The long camera stills, the perfect shading, the old style black and white. Gorgeous. The story was just as intriguing: a young, orphaned postulate nun about to take her vows, is suddenly thrust onto an aunt (her only surviving relative) to learn about her family, her past and her parents.The only problem is, as we find in the course of the movie, her aunt needs her more than the other way around. This is a dynamic coming-of-age film set in rural Poland. Awkward at times, yet stunningly beautiful in it's real-world storyline about the tribulations of Polish Jews. Sure to be a front-runner for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.


8. Wish I Was Here

Adam, Grace and Tucker finally get to the pool to learn to swim.

As I stated earlier in the year, Sundance did not disappoint when it announced how the audience so favorably responded to this film. I am still over the moon about Zach Braff's sophomore release that I cannot express enough how quickly everyone should go to see it. If you are in the mood for a heart wrenching, true-to-life drama that transcends to address many of the social issues of today, look no further. In what feels like a short while (only 106 minutes) you will be hit head-first with the stark clarity in dealing with family-ties, religion, death and simple pains of growing up 'a little bit different' than the norm of society.


7. Starred-Up

Eric Is taken to his cell and watched by all as fresh-meat.

Raw. Powerful. Emotional. This movie reminded me about why the TV series "Oz" on HBO was such a success during its first two seasons. David Mackenzie's film follows a young man as he enters into the English prison system. We never truly find out what he did -- left to speculation from conversation and flashbacks -- but it begs us to ask ourselves are prisons there to help people find salvation, or to perpetuate all of the problems in certain segments of society. Eric (Jack O'Connell) is plagued by the few memories of his father -- also a prisoner (Ben Mendelsohn) -- and how his life may have turned out. But, as it happens, many people do not like his attitude toward other prisoners and the guards. He acts as though he's already in charged, or starred-up. Even more problematic is that the resident social worker Oliver (Rupert Friend) thinks that he is a salvageable young man with potential in society. If you can stomach the emotional turmoil of a harsh look into prison systems, look no further.

6. Wild

Cheryl sets camp for the evening and ponders a suddenly fresh future.

Reese Witherspoon is at her best in this film about Cheryl Strayed, a young women who 'strayed.' She strayed from the plans of childhood dreams to become an author. She strayed from her husband. She strayed from taking care of her brother. And most of all, she strayed from who she really was. Why? What caused such a catastrophic meltdown into sex, drugs, and debauchery? The death of someone she held on a pedestal. The film picks up as Cheryl attempts to get her life back on track by hiking through the wilderness (a beautiful metaphor for her life) until she is able to reach nirvana. In the process, she rediscovers a strength she didn't realized she had left. Cliche? Not hardly. This film was beautifully adapted from Strayed's memoirs about her hike to salvation along the Pacific Coast Trail. As well, this movie truly showcases why Witherspoon has a phenomenal screen presence and why she truly deserves another Academy Award for this poignant portrayal of a young woman on the edge, who finds redemption in the most unlikely place -- within herself.


5. Boyhood

Mason and his father discuss the loss of the muscle car he was promised.

I love Richard Linklater. He appears on my movie lists time and time again. He is such a ground-breaking, no nonsense, innovative film maker. How could he not be? Last year, with "Before Midnight," he wowed us with the third installment of a series following two strangers who fell in love and married. Now, with "Boyhood," Linklater follows a family through 12 years of life. That is correct: a movie shot over 12 years in real time! The audience literally watches as the actors grow up on film. To tell the truth, I am not even sure how he was able to edit the film footage down to a 165 minute run time. Mason (Ellar Coltrane) and his family are your typical dysfunctional modern family. He lives with his mother (Patricia Arquette) and sees his father (Ethan Hawke) sporadically over the years when he drifts into town as needed. The film is not for everyone as it is truly a voyeuristic look at the growing pains of a young man's life. His relationships with family, love, self-discovery, peer pressure and finally understanding who he, himself, really truly is. I must admit when leaving the theater, I was not as enamored by the film as Trevor and Sara, but after months of contemplation, and watching the film again, I understand why.  I related too much to the film's narrative story and I felt as though my own personal life was invaded for privacy and placed raw onto film. A true tearjerker for any mother to see, and a must see for everyone.


4. Nightcrawler

Lou and Rick film a triple wreck.

Have you ever wondered how the news agencies get the random snippets of blood and guts footage for the late night prime time slot? You know, the 'if it bleeds, it leads' type of footage? Well, you can look no further because this film will give you a raw, take-no-prisoners look into the behind-the-scenes arena of freelance videography. Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a down on his luck, goofball looking for the next quick score on getting rich quickly. He has already made the rounds as a petty thief from construction sites salvaging metals; as well, the local pawn shops are shutting down his racket of pedaling small goods, when he blindly stumbles onto a small two-man crew filming a wreck. Bulbs flash and he decides he too can do this. I know this sounds horribly kitschy, but the movie is absolutely fantastic, dramatic, thrilling and is highly entertaining.


3. Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Riggan and Mike in one of numerous heated arguments about acting virtue.

What does an old action-movie hero do when he retires from playing the part that made him world-famous? He decides to adapt his favorite author into a stage play and takes on the leading role of the adaptation. This is precisely the premise of Alejandro Iñárritu's hilarious comedy of errors, "Birdman." Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) was Birdman, the superhero who saved the world in countess worldwide box-office successes. But at his age, he's tired of being the superhero. He feels it's time to play something of substance. He's already lost his wife, and is in the process of trying to salvage a relationship with his estranged daughter, Sam (Emma Stone).  Why not tackle an off-Broadway production as well? What ensues on screen is a complete farce showing what probably occurs more often than not behind the scenes of major theatrical productions. Melodrama at every turn as each actor attempts to out maneuver the other. Mike Shiner (Edward Norton) plays the perfect antagonist against Riggan. In fact, the over-the-top interactions between them make the movie perfection. It is because of this interchange that Michael Keaton will most likely earn his Academy Award this year. Number three is a low placing for this movie, and I truly struggled with my top three. But here is it's final resting place in my Top Ten.


2. Whiplash

The final scene where Andrew OWNS the stage and Fletcher.

Perhaps the most heavily anticipated movie of the year for me -- AND IT DID NOT DISAPPOINT!! I had wanted to see this film since the early buzz at Sundance in January 2013 when it was simply a short film by a new director, Damien Chazelle. His feature length film released this year is a showstopper that had one helluva beat! Andrew (Miles Teller) is a young man trying to become the next 'great' jazz drummer of our time. He is pushed into unimaginable acts of self torture by an instructor (J.K. Simmons) who is considered to be the best teacher at the elite music school in which Andrew is enrolled. Bullying never looked so refined, and never had such a poignant lesson to be learned about the depths of depravity the human soul can endure if they are chasing what they consider to be their ultimate dream. I loved this film from the first beat in the prelude, to the grand finale at the end. It was truly a struggle to not make this my number one film, and it sat there for a few weeks. Wes Anderson's masterpiece won out in the end.


1. The Grand Budapest Hotel

The Entire Cast of "The Grand Budapest Hotel."

I used to say that "The Royal Tenenbaums" was Wes Anderson's best movie ever, but that was surpassed this year. The eclectic mix of characters and the constantly twisting story line about the goings-on at an old rundown hotel far from it's heyday made for the most unforgettable and utterly entertaining movie of the year. Ralph Fiennes (and the entire cast) were superb.  Of course it doesn't hurt that Edward Norton makes another appearance in my Top Ten List (even with his small two-part cameo, he is unforgettable). The oft tongue-in-cheek humor that is commonplace with all Wes Anderson movies was at its finest in this screenplay. Each of the three times that I have seen this movie, I notice a little trinket of information missed the previous time. Slow paced, yet quick witted, this movie is great fun for an audience of all ages. All I really need to say is, "Bravo, Sir!! Bravo!"


____________________________________________________________________________

My Individual Awards are as follows: (not Academy Award Predictions, but my personal choices)

Best Picture of the Year - The Grand Budapest Hotel
Best Director - Alejandro Iñárritu (Birdman)
Best Actress in a Leading Role - Reese Witherspoon (Wild)
Best Actor in a Leading Role - Ralph Fiennes (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Best Actress in a Supporting Role - Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
Best Actor in a Supporting Role - J.K. Simmons (Whiplash)
Best Original Screenplay - The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson)
Best Adapted Screenplay - Whiplash (Damien Chazelle)

Honorable Mention: (the film that I struggled to include on my list that "almost" made it):

11. The Guardians of the Galaxy
Hey, what can I say. I loved this movie and have watched it as many times as "The Grand Budapest Hotel" and "The LEGO Movie." But was it Top Ten material? For a movie snob like myself, I don't think so. but I am human! If you haven't seen this movie, get it now!

The Guardians break out of prison in style!!

Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part I

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★ 

For a big budget and over-produced film with “Hollywood” written all over it, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part I” is a well put together film, rarely lacking in dull moments. I say “rarely” because there are a few yawn-inducing moments here or there that probably could have been easily left out. But overall, there’s a bit more genuine emotion coming through here than you normally would see from they typical crap the studios have been producing lately, which is nice.

“Mockingjay – Part I” picks up almost immediately where “Catching Fire” left off. District 12 is gone. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is now hiding out in District 13 with former game designer Plutarch Heavesbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), former Hunger Games victor Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin), romantic interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and her former sponsor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson). Her mom and sister are also there. But not Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). He’s being held captive in the Capitol.

The story revolves around Katniss becoming the Mockingjay, a poster child for the uprising among the various districts. The plan is put in motion by District 13 President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore). She sends Katniss out into the bombed out Districts with a propaganda filmmaker from the Capitol, Cressida (Natalie Dormer) to get some footage of her that can be used to rally the other Districts into fighting for the rebellion. But Katniss is cautious of her actions because she knows the evil President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has Peeta in a jail cell somewhere and torturing him. She doesn’t want him to die.

The biggest problem I have with this movie can be summed up with the title: “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part I.” We can’t just get an adaption from a book anymore; it has to be a series, or at the very least, it needs to have “series potential.” So all those good books you read that begin and end between the hardcover, forget ever seeing those on film. Unless some poor screenwriter can somehow concoct a sequel. That’s really the only reason Hollywood screenwriters exist anymore. What a pity.

So we have a series of books: The Hunger Games Trilogy. The trilogy has two great novels, and one crappy novel. “Mockingjay” is the crappy one. I’m sorry if you liked it, but I had to force myself to finish it. We’ve already seen the first two films made from the first two books, which were both pretty good movies. But now we get two movies out of this one crappy book. And for what reason? Because they know you’re going to pay double to see it.

After watching this film and investing two hours into the story, we will now have to wait another 12 months before we get to see the cinematic version of the second half of the series’ worst installment. I mean, if they really wanted to split a book into two parts and make four movies, “Catching Fire” would have been the appropriate candidate. But instead, we get this one, the book with one of the most wretched conclusions of any book I’ve ever read.

But it’s unfair of me to judge the film itself on the greedy aspirations of the executives at Lionsgate. Despite having three separate writers credited here (Peter Craig and Danny Strong on the screenplay and author Suzanne Collins credited with “adaptation” whatever that means – I’ve never seen anyone credited like that), the story is balanced out pretty well. Aside from the aforementioned yawn-inducing moments, the script never feels overinflated. It never feels like filler was jammed in just so that the story could be stretched out into two full-length movies. It actually works well, and yes, I am quite surprised by that, given the source material.

Julianne Moore is a nice addition to the cast this time around, even though her role is reduced to just a woman sitting there during some scenes and delivering morale-boosting speeches to her followers in others. I pictured President Coin with a little more drive behind her. Apparently that’s now how director Francis Lawrence saw the character. Oh well. Moore is always so solid and it’s nice to see her getting a chance to showcase her talents for what will no doubt be a large audience. But of course, the star of the film is none other than Jennifer Lawrence. This is the role that made her a mega-Hollywood superstar, after all.

The story this time around focuses more on her struggles of leading an entire nation in revolution rather than just hanging out in the forest or on a beach trying to avoid death. Here, we finally get to see a little bit more about what kind of a person Katniss Everdeen really is. I always felt that the love triangle between her, Peeta and Gale was a bit ridiculous and was designed to be overly complex just for complexity’s sake. But a lot more goes into her and her feelings toward her two suitors this time around. And Lawrence absolutely nails it.

She runs through the emotional gauntlet as well as she’s ever done. For my money, she’s never been better than her breakout role in 2010’s “Winter’s Bone.” Even her Oscar winning performance can’t touch that one. After watching “Mockingjay – Part I,” I still think my assessment is true, but who could have predicted a performance this good from a movie like such as this? Not me.

I had already written this film off when I went into it, but I must admit to being impressed. But the unfortunate thing is, I don’t feel like I watched a whole movie. A story is a beginning, middle and end. This is just a middle – a two hour second act. The third act is still a year away. I can’t support the studio executives in their blatant cash grab attempts but putting unnecessary yearlong breaks between movies like this. And it’s not going to stop anytime soon either. But, I guess I can’t really complain too much if the movies are good, especially from the studios. “Mockingjay – Part I” isn’t bad. It just shouldn’t be two parts. And while there might be a little bit more action in “Part II,” I just can’t get psyched up for it. At least not right now. I guess I’ll conclude my “Mockingjay” review next November. Tune in then.

Review: Carrie

by Trevor Kirkendall

★½

One day, moviegoers are going to realize that remakes really are a gigantic waste of time. Not only a waste of the moviegoer’s time, but a waste of the studios’, the directors’, the producers’ and the talents’ time. Yet, people still pay money to watch the same movie that they probably already own in their DVD collections. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Now, we have a remake of the classic 1976 horror film “Carrie”. The studio even knows it’s doomed because they’ve advertised it as a “reimagining” of the original novel rather than a remake. Their slick advertising techique is quite transparent, and its pretty evident from the beginning that this is nothing more than a simple remake.

Carrie White (Chloë Grace Moretz) is a shy, quiet and troubled teen in high school. Most of the other students don’t really care for her. Carrie’s mother Margaret (Julianne Moore) is a very strict and religious woman, and she doesn’t even want Carrie attending the public schools. One day after gym class, the other girls in the locker room ridicule and embarrass Carrie.

The bullying is lead by one of the popular girls, Chris Hargensen (Portia Doubleday). Her friend Sue Snell (Gabriella Wilde) also participates, but quickly realizes how wrong this is and stops. Gym teacher Ms. Desjardin (Judy Greer) breaks up the commotion and sides with Carrie.

Chris is banned from the upcoming prom for her stunt. Sue, feeling sorry for Carrie, asks her boyfriend Tommy Ross (Ansel Elgort) to take Carrie to prom instead. Carrie reluctantly agrees despite her mother’s insistence that she doesn’t go. Chris plans for vengeance against Carrie with her boyfriend Billy Nolan (Alex Russell). What her classmates don’t know is that Carrie has a special ability where she can move things with her mind. And what would any sane person with this ability do when someone gets on his or her bad side? I think most people know what happens next.

Nothing new is brought to the table in this version of “Carrie”. I wish I could say this wasn’t a remake of the 1976 film since the source material is based on a Stephen King novel, but it’s hard to see it that way. The book has been readapted, but it’s far from a reimagining. It’s not a shot-for-shot remake but it might as well have been. More inspiration seems to have been drawn from the 1976 film than the novel.

It’s disappointing to see someone as talented as Moretz participate in a remake and bring nothing new to the role. Remakes probably wouldn’t be so awful if they find some way to make it different and unique. Moretz as Carrie White is no different than Sissy Spacek in the same role. Spacek’s portrayal is one of the classic performances in the history of horror films.

Too watch Moretz copy Spacek’s performance is egregious. She’s talented beyond her years and is one of the most gifted teen actresses working in Hollywood today. She wastes her time with “Carrie” and utilizes none of her talent in bringing this role to life. To say her presence here is a disappointment is an understatement.

Moore is the only bright spot. She does portray the role a little differently than Piper Laurie. Moore is always solid in everything she does; not surprisingly she shines here. She’s evil, but doesn’t believe what she’s doing and how she’s raising her daughter is wrong. It’s difficult for someone to successfully pull off an evil role like this, but Moore is such a great and rare talent. She has no issues here.

Director Kimberly Peirce (“Boys Don’t Cry”, “Stop-Loss”) is just as guilty of copying from the original as Moretz. Brian De Palma helmed the original and really brought the horrific imagery of the original King novel to life. He deserves all the credit for the famous scene everyone knows from the original. Peirce tries to make that one famous scene her own. While the effects might be a little sharper (thanks to 2013 CGI), it’s not as effective. Outside of that, everything else feels bland and very similar to the original.

As a reimagining, “Carrie” fails. As a remake, it still fails. There’s nothing new that we haven’t seen before. I don’t understand why there’s a market for remakes these days. It seems that if Hollywood isn’t making a sequel to something, they’re remaking old properties. Was this remake really that necessary? Most aren’t but this one certainly wasn’t. It’s a lazy attempt at remaking yet another horror film. What’s really disappointing is waiting the entire film until the prom expecting something massive and getting nothing different.

To me, remakes are for people who want to see the same story they’ve already seen before, and for studios too cheap to buy new ideas from writers. If that’s the case, studios need to find property that’s good but not well known. At least then we’d be treated to something different. It’s hard to remake something everyone has seen. And if moviegoers really want to see the same story they’ve already seen before, why not just watch the original? In this case, that might be a wise decision.