Review: Delivery Man

by Trevor Kirkendall

★½

It’s no surprise that Hollywood studios seem to have a shortage of original ideas lately. They continue to remake successful movies from previous decades and give sequels to films that don’t deserve it. And would you believe that they’re running out of movies to remake? When the remake pool starts to dry, they look to foreign language films that the American public hasn’t seen and doesn’t know about. One such remake is “Starbuck”, an award winning film from Canada that has been remade (by its original director) into “Delivery Man”, a starring vehicle for Vince Vaughn. Despite the source material being from a different country, the results are still the same.

David Wozniak (Vince Vaughn) is a self described incompetent delivery truck driver. He works with his father Mikolaj (Andrzej Blumenfeld) and his brothers Victor (Simon Delaney) and Aleksy (Bobby Moynihan) at a family run meat shop in New York City. He’s in a massive amount of debt to the mob or something (it’s never really fully explained; they just pop up whenever the plot needs them to cause a disturbance). He’s in a relationship with a police officer, Emma (Cobie Sumlders), that doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Then she springs the news on him that she’s pregnant. Emma will allow David to be the baby’s father if he straightens up his act.

David thinks he’s ready to be a dad, but he’s not sure. Suddenly he’s blindsided with a visit by an attorney for a fertility clinic where he donated sperm around 20 years ago. He donated almost 700 times in a four year time span. The clinic mistakenly gave his specimens to everyone who passed through. Therefore, he’s the biological father of 533 kids, 142 of whom are suing the clinic to find out his identity. He donated anonymously under the name Starbuck, so these kids don’t know who he is. The clinic’s attorney leaves him a sealed envelope containing profiles of all 142 kids.

David’s best friend, and non-practicing attorney, Brett (Chris Pratt) advises him to fight this so that he can remain anonymous. Brett also tells David not to look inside the envelope. David does anyway and starts tracking these kids down. One is a barista aspiring to be an actor (Jack Reynor), one is a street musician (Dave Patten) and one is heroin addict trying to turn her life around (Britt Robertson). Then there’s Viggo (Adam Chanler-Berat) who sees David hanging around all these kids and figures out who he is.

“Delivery Man” is 103 minutes of one awkward situation after another and none of it is satisfying, enjoyable or humorous. In fact, many moments are downright painful. You know those awkward moments I’m talking about; the ones that form the basic plot structure of just about every sitcom on television. You have a guy standing there in the middle of the room surrounded by people he’s been lying to for the entire episode. Now he has to talk his way out of the lies he’s told to them, but everything he says contradicts something he said earlier. The people press him for more information and he becomes visibly distraught until he buckles under pressure. Sure, you laugh because it’s awkward, not because it’s funny. You’re left with that knot in your stomach because you’ve been in a similar situation, just not as embellished. But the episode is only 20 minutes and easily forgettable. But “Delivery Man” leaves you with that awkward situation for almost the entire duration. That’s five sitcoms back-to-back.

To be fair, the screenplay does offer up a few moments of relief that bring the film into a more dramatic tone. David does go through some soul searching and grows up in the process. His growth is forced and not genuine. A lot of it happens due to coincidence which is a cheap ploy to move the story along. At least he does change, which is what you want to see. Writer/director Ken Scott adapted this film from his original movie “Starbuck” which I never saw. But I have to assume it’s not filled with the typical Hollywood clichés that flood this version.  Take out all the generic things you’ve come to expect from a typical comedy and this might have been decent.

I’ll give some credit to Vince Vaughn. He plays this role a little differently than his typical comedic roles. He doesn’t act so neurotic and high strung at all times, and his dialogue is clear and slow rather than that high speed stutter he’s known for. Sure, he slides into it from time to time, but he doesn’t base his entire character on that. Had he played it like that, he would have come across as the typical “Swingers” Vince Vaughn which has already worn out its welcome. Here, he actually plays into the more complex subtexts and brings out a genuine character. He’s done a couple dramatic roles before (like his small role in Sean Penn’s masterful “Into the Wild”) so I know he’s capable of finding a character. It doesn’t surprise me he pulled this off.

Unfortunately, “Delivery Man” is a mess from beginning to end, littered with coincidence and clichés that destroy almost every movie that comes out of a Hollywood studio’s story department. The story here is good, but it just seems like it was dumbed  down for mainstream viewing. It seems like it was tailor made to fit Vaughn’s shtick, and then he didn’t even play it that way. I’d like to think the moviegoing public doesn’t need simplified plot lines to be understood or to be relatable. Apparently Hollywood disagrees with me since they keep releasing these cliché riddled movies week in and week out. 

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: Blue is the Warmest Color

by Trevor Kirkendall
★★★★

“Blue is the Warmest Color” is a bold film that explores the topic of blossoming love. It is delicately handled, beautifully shot, masterfully performed and extraordinarily engaging. To call the film a masterpiece would be selling it short. It’s a film of near perfection and difficult to believe two young actresses could actually pull off something so complicated with such composure.

Adèle (Adèle Exarchopoulos) seems like a pretty typical high school student. She’s interested in literature, does well in her classes and has a good group of friends surrounding her. She has aspirations to become a teacher one day. It’s also about that time that she’s getting interested in boys. Or perhaps she feels like she’s at that time where she’s supposed to be interested. Her attention is drawn to a guy in her school, and he’s interested too. But something just doesn’t seem right when she’s with him.

By complete chance, she happens to pass by a mysterious and beautiful young woman with her hair dyed blue (Léa Seydoux). The two lock eyes with instant attraction and both linger inside each other’s gaze before continuing on their way. Adèle starts to question if she likes women rather than men. She’s not sure who this blue hair woman was or where to find her.

One night while accompanying a friend of hers to a local gay nightclub, she follows a group of women to a lesbian bar nearby. There she finds the girl with the blue hair who’s name is Emma. Adèle and Emma’s attraction to one another is instant, even if Adèle is a little reluctant to give into her desires. The two begin to spend time together before things begin to get a little more serious.

While “Blue is the Warmest Color” is about two women in a homosexual relationship, the characters themselves and the various aspects off a romantic relationship are all very relatable. The film follows our characters over the course of several years. Anyone who has ever been in a relationship of any kind with another person will be able to recognize the various stages Adèle and Emma’s relationship goes through. The ups and downs of being in love with another person are on full display here, and not once does it ever feel fabricated.

Director Abdellatif Kechiche has approached this story perfectly. It’s hard enough to convincingly portray one basic human emotion in a film. Kechiche has more than succeeded here. His film is a triumph, filled to the brim with so many different emotions associated with life and love: happiness and sadness, hopefulness and loss, kindness and anger, joy and desolation.

“Blue is the Warmest Color” is more than just a film of scenes but a film of moments, much like life. This approach works because it keeps the film briskly paced. At 179 minutes, the film is by no means short, yet it rarely feels that long. One moment follows another with differing emotions and circumstances conflicting against one another. By juxtaposing these moments, we see how the love between these two can go from the highest of highs to the lowest of lows and back again. Every moment is loaded with plenty of subtext either through foreshadowing from a previous scene, or just the looks in each woman’s eyes.

Throughout the film, there are several moments that can be rather prolonged. Conversations between characters continue until there is nothing left to talk about. Sure, these scenes could have been trimmed to reduce the length of the film, but what purpose would that serve? Over the course of the entire movie, we find out so much about these two characters that it’s almost a shame the movie has to come to an end. I could have watched these two for another three hours.

While Kechiche’s direction deserves a lot of credit, it’s the two leading ladies that deserve the lion’s share. These characters are two of the most realistic and compassionate characters I’ve ever seen captured on film. Anyone can identify with aspects of this relationship, regardless of gender or sexual preference.  That’s not only a testament to Kechiche, but to Exarchopoulos and Seydoux too.

Seydoux plays the more dominate of the two characters. Being somewhat older than her costar, she’s portrays the role of the more experienced woman in the relationship perfectly and seems at great ease doing so. There’s less at risk for her in this relationship. She’s happy to have someone to be with, but at the same time has her own personal ambitions that are important above all else. Seydoux is very focused in this role.

On the other hand, Exarchopoulos is cautious and guarded. In public and around her friends, she’s happy, full of a lot of hope for the future. In private, she’s just another struggling teen, looking for an easy answer to the question of love. But her emotions run wild after meeting Emma. Exarchopoulos puts on one of the most fearless performances I’ve ever seen. She’s on camera for the entire duration of the film. She’s asked to strip down both emotionally and physically in ways that would make just about anyone think twice about taking this role. Not only is she successful in delivering such a raw performance, she adds so much realism that its hard to believe this person doesn’t exist. Every look in her eye, every nervous tick to straighten her hair, every tear running down her cheek contributes to the powerful performance. She draws us completely into this performance; we’re happy with her when she’s happy, and we feel the familiar pain of heartbreak with her too.

“Blue is the Warmest Color” isn’t only one of the best movies of the year, it’s one of the finest films I’ve seen. Never before have I seen a movie brave enough and ambitious enough to show the types of raw emotion that occurs within a relationship in this manner. A lot has been made about the explicit nature this film chooses to capture. While the scenes in question are extremely explicit and graphic, I think that they fit well within the framework of the film. For many, love doesn’t achieve a much higher level of intimacy and emotion than it does in those moments. While we’re allowed to watch Adèle and Emma in the most intimate and private of moments, it’s never perverse. It’s part of the natural progression a relationship takes and helps to solidify where their love is for one another. It’s balanced delicately against the rest of the film. This isn’t the centerpiece of the picture, but it is the emotional high. The film combines both the physical and emotional aspects of love, and it does so in such a way that you’re genuinely hoping for long lasting happiness between these two. It’s just too bad it’s only three hours long.

Review: Thor: The Dark World

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

There’s no denying Marvel is king right now. The gamble this studio made several years ago to solely finance and release their movies seems to have paid off. They’re now on track to release at least two or three movies every year through 2018. “Thor: The Dark World” is the second film from Marvel to come out this year (yes, I know “The Wolverine” is Marvel property, but that’s not released under the Disney/Marvel banner and does not factor in with the story arcs involving The Avengers). The first release this year – “Iron Man 3” – is already the year’s top grossing film and nothing will dethrone that. It’s also the second film of four planned films that will all culminate with the release of “The Avengers: Age of Ultron” in 2015. Yes, Marvel seems to have everything all planned out the way they want it. Now if only they could hire some better writers.

“Thor: The Dark World” takes place after the events in “The Avengers”, though I’m not sure how much later. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is being sentenced to a life in the Asgard dungeons by his father Oden (Anthony Hopkins) for his role in the New York City alien invasion from “The Avengers”. Meanwhile, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is fighting to keep peace on all the different realms in the universe. He still misses Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), his romantic interest in the first film. With the help of the gatekeeper Heimdall (Idris Elba), Thor has kept his eye on her from a distance.

Jane is living in London, continuing her research with Dr. Eric Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and her intern Darcy (Kat Dennings). Jane and Darcy aren’t able to locate Selvig as the movie opens; unbeknownst to them, he’s been arrested for running around Stonehenge butt naked babbling about the end of the world. But Jane and Darcy have bigger things to worry about right now. Their research shows readings that are similar to what they saw in the first film right before Thor appeared. Jane is excited since she thinks Thor is coming back for her. What she’s actually stumbled upon is a mysterious weapon hidden by the Asgardians called the Aether. Once she finds the Aether, it attaches itself to her.

The Aether’s sudden reappearance awakens Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), leader of the Dark Elves who wish to use the Aether to turn all the realms into dark worlds. Knowing that Jane is in danger, Thor returns to earth and takes her back to Asgard where he can protect her. The plan is futile, however, since Malekith’s first plan of attack is to hit Asgard. In order to keep Jane safe from Malekith, Thor must turn to his completely untrustworthy and deceitful brother Loki for help.

The original film “Thor” came to us in 2011 and served more as a set-up piece for “The Avengers”.  This was a necessary move for Marvel since the only people aware of the Thor character and the world around him were comic book fans. The film that director Kenneth Branagh gave us was about as good is it could have been given that its only purpose was to be a two-hour introduction piece for Thor and Loki. Now that the characters are established, it’s time for Marvel to really show us all the potential in these characters’ stories.

But “Thor: The Dark World” doesn’t capitalize on this as much as it probably could have. Now that everything has already established, Marvel seems to have dropped additional development of these characters to a secondary status. This film just seems to begin with no solid first act, forgetting the fact that it’s a standalone film. That’s always a major gripe I have with sequels: writers seem to forget the rules of screenwriting when drafting a sequel. Instead of building a completely separate story, they just write as if they were given free rein to extend the first film by another two hours. This is what makes Alvin Sargent’s screenplay for “Spider-Man 2” so good; not only is it a continuation of the character from the previous film two years early, but it’s also a completely different movie with a different set of conflicts and emotions. It stands alone by itself. For my money, that’s still the best superhero movie.

A lack of focus in the story is really what limits “Thor: The Dark World”. There are five credited writers on this film. Don Payne - who was the first writer to work on this film – and Robert Rodat (who wrote “Saving Private Ryan”) receive story credits, while Christopher Yost along with Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely provided the script. Yost has worked with Marvel for quite some time, and Markus and McFeeley are a collaborative team responsible for writing “Captain America: The First Avenger” and its forthcoming sequel. It’s even been said that Joss Whedon had to come in for rewrites and reshoots. With so many people working on the same thing, it’s easy to understand why the film lacks vision.

Problems with the script could have doomed this film for failure, but “Thor: The Dark World” is rescued from certain disaster by two people: Alan Taylor and Tom Hiddleston. Taylor is the film’s director who took a disconnected script and found enough drama, humor, action and emotion to make this a tolerable and fun film to watch. This could have easily gone the other way, but Taylor made sure that his film would not be an utter bore. His work composing shots, especially ones filmed entirely against green screens, is the work of a seasoned professional. Taylor is known for his work on the HBO television series “Game of Thrones” which shares similarities to the mythological subject matter of “Thor”, but he’s not really known for his film work. He’s come through here, adding his own touch to the fantasy worlds already established in the earlier film. The visuals are striking despite an overload of CGI to make it possible. Action scenes are limited to only a handful, but they are very well executed and choreographed making them a lot of fun to experience.

Hiddleston is the saving grace on the acting side. While Hemsworth is excellent as Thor, he brings nothing new to this film that we haven’t already seen. Portman’s role is reduced to that of damsel in persistent distress, which is such a poor use of a talented Oscar winning actress such as herself. Hiddleston, however, continues to surprise us as Loki. This is also the third time we’ve seen him in this role, but he gets better at it every time. He has a great grasp on this character, much more than any of his costars. Yet they do work very well as an ensemble which also helps cover up the story flaws.

I’m not saying “Thor: The Dark World” is a bad film. It has is disappointing downfalls, but it is enormously enjoyable from start to finish.  It’s a fun and exciting fantasy adventure. But I can’t ignore the problems with the writing. That’s the most basic and most important component to every film regardless of the target demographic. A good story isn’t something that’s reserved for low budget indie features; every film needs to excel at this. I did enjoy the film and I’m sure most everyone who watches it will too, but I have to call out what is a glaring flaw affecting far too many movies today. Marvel is on top of the world right now and they’re not going to be unseated anytime soon. But if they continue to release films with mediocre stories and scripts, the box office receipts will drop off, especially from the diehard fan base of these comics. 

Review: The Counselor

by. Joe Moss
★★½

The latest Ridley Scott venture, "The Counsleor," is a sexy, thrill ride of drugs, debauchery, double-crosses and death all rolled into an all-star ensemble cast. While there is a little lag time throughout the film, there is plenty of high octane (or rather high testosterone/estrogen) to quickly get a rise out of the viewer almost instantly after the lulls.

Michael Fassbender (The Counselor) is a generic lawyer who mixes with some seedy, wanton, yet EXTREMELY high priced clientele. With these various connections, he finds himself at the crux of a 'deal he cannot refuse' to make mucho dinero mas rapido--a deal centered on international cocaine smuggling. A deal he takes with minimal thought to continue to support his lavish lifestyle inclusive of the mountain-top views of New Mexico, the Bentley convertibles, and the 8 carat diamond ring for his finance, Laura (Penelope Cruz). But...as all of these schemes do, this deal goes south quickly due to a few errors that seem just TOO coincidental. Killed runners and missing trucks all linking back to Fassbender's character do not ingraicate him to the finaciers. Excuses and crying abounds, yet the drug barons could care less, they simply want their money and they want it immediately--or else. For all of the plotting and running, Laura pays the ultimate price even though she was the clueless by-stander in all things.

Fassbender's chief connection to the crime world, Reiner (Javier Bardem), seems to float through life without a care. While he helps set the deal, he offers absolutely no insight whatsoever into how to actually handle the stress when things go wrong. He and his sexy girlfriend, Malkina (Cameron Diaz), run a bar, raise cheetahs, and throw wild parties with seemingly endless supplies of cash, drugs, and liquor. Westray (Brad Pitt), Fassbender's seecond contact, supplies the common sense and guidance; but even he doesn't listen to his own advice in the end. Once the events of the double-cross are set into motion, nobody is safe from the vengeance to come.

Cormac McCarthy's (No Country for Old Men) story-line is mesmerizing and true-to-life in the twists and turns, yet the movie falls just a little flat and almost one dimensional. There were many cliches embedded throughout the film that showed an extreme lack of vision. With the all-star cast assembled, there should have been a little more use of Penelope Cruz's character than the (maybe) 10 minutes of screen time allotted. I would liked to have seen a little more back-story on Fassbender's character to show how he really became associated with this underworld. And the use of Rosie Perez in the film should have had more than 4 minutes, considering how her role becomes integral in the downfall of all things Fassbender. However, that said, the screen time for Cameron Diaz was nothing short of amazing.

Cameron Diaz epitomized the sexy, temptress double-crossing femme fatale in this role. She OWNED the entire cast from the get-go. Her character Malkina, intertwined herself into every wrinkle, and fold of the goings-on and did it with such aplomb and wiliness that not once was she suspected of her deception. People treated her like a backdrop to the setting, and she used this to her advantage. I feel that Cameron Diaz is OSCAR-WORTHY for this role and would feel it an extreme injustice if she is not mentioned repeatedly in the coming months. The movie truly starred and showcased her acting ability. Cameron absolutely stole the entire movie!!

Final recommendation--Go see this if you desire a movie that is about the pitfalls of the drug-trade mixed with an almost X-rating AND if you really want to see that Cameron Diaz can act.

Review: Ender's Game

Review: Ender's Game

★★★½
by William Hill

Hugo and Nebula winner Orson Scott Card made a name for himself in sci-fi with Ender's Game when it released in 1985. The hit novel spawned a series of sequels and spin-offs that Card has held close to himself since, allowing very few people access to the universe that put him in the spotlight. The fact that Ender's Game has been adapted for screen is a surprise. It is the latest product of the Actual Ender's Game label, which has seen his stories adapted to comic books from Marvel. However, it also comes when Card himself has been the target of controversy in regards to his opinion of the LGBT community. If you're reading this review, and have taken offense to his personal politics, I'll open with two statements; Ender's Game doesn't make any statements about the LGBT community. Two, here's Harrison Ford on the subject:

"I am aware of his statements admitting that the question of gay marriage is a battle that he lost and he admits that he lost it. I think we all know that we’ve all won. That humanity has won. And I think that’s the end of the story."

Also, Orson Scott Card is well documented as being a prolific asshole, beyond his personal politics. Let's gauge our opinion of his work on his story, rather than his character. That's what we're here to do, right?

Fifty years after Earth is invaded by an alien species called the Formics, mankind is preparing to fight with the buggers once again. Note, that the film doesn't often refer to them as buggers, like the book. but they are giant ant creatures. Okay, I promise that's the (next to) last time I'll nitpick about changes from the book.

Ender (Asa Butterfield) is one of many children being brought to the battle school to learn to fight the Formics. He is the third child of his family, a special privilege that few families are allowed in a time of limited breeding on Earth. He is brought to the school by Colonel Graff, played by an even grumpier Harrison Ford than I recall seeing any other recent films. Here, Graff manipulates the school's social setting to breed Ender into the perfect military strategist, and have him lead humanity to victory against the alien threat.

Before I continue, I will warn everyone that I read the book. Some of my comments will be based on comparisons from the source material. Again, I promise not to nitpick, because I have to commend Gavin Hood for his adaptation. The changes from the book are few, and the tone is kept intact.

Bringing Ender's conflict to film is difficult. Much of the novel is an internal struggle regarding Ender's social standing in the Battle School, and his relation to being a killer, rather than the empathetic person that he would like to be. We see one scene with his brother, Peter, to depict the brutal heart within the older child, and the rest of the film relies on this scene to show what he doesn't wish to become. Thankfully, the emphasis of his relationship with his sister, Valentine, remains intact, and the film depicts who he'd like to be. Graff knowing that a balance between these two characteristics would make him a great leader drives his control over Ender. This, paired with a stunning performance by Butterfield, is what keeps the story honest. This isn't the adventure film that the trailers are trying to paint. Ender's Game is more of a psychological study. Its commentaries are diverse, and while the film waters them down to some degree, the content is there to be discussed. However, with the film having a two hour run time, it doesn't get the time to say everything that the book says. For example, a great deal of the book discusses Earth politics, which inform the rest of the story. That is completely absent. Much of the ending is cut, and that content is what drives the original series of books. I understand that they can't include everything, but a scene with Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley) at the end of the second act sets up for a scene that is completely left out of the finale. With an otherwise tight screenplay, this rings odd to me. People who see the film without having read the book will have no issue with this oddity, but the fans might groan about it with me. Regardless of that fact, the finale rings true to the book, even if it feels like it cuts the film off a little too soon.

Gavin Hood has redeemed himself for X-Men Origins with Ender's Game. The camera never interferes with the story, and every scene carefully collects the right information, and gives the right sensation of living on a space station. The set design is militant, with little color, and only depicts a few touches of generic sci-fi, like LED strip lighting and striped colors to direct staff and soldiers alike to their destinations. Most impressively, the Battle Room seems pulled directly from the pages of the book. The final stretch of the film is the most beautifully imagined, and contains some of the best space combat I've seen since the Star Wars prequels. However, given the nature of the film, these scenes aren't designed for intense stimulation. Again, the tone of the book is here. I'm going to leave it at that... The score is definitely a weak spot in the mix. While laser fire and mechanical hum are impressive, and fill the soundscape, the music is reminiscent of generic bassy bombast and thinned strings. It's not anthemic, it's completely unmemorable, and is ultimately absent. It didn't need to be triumphant, or filled with overt dirges, but it could have filled the air with something, rather than being there for the sake of booking the prerequisite orchestra. Most impressive of all is the cast. Asa Butterfield reminds us that child actors can impress, and still make us believe that they will have a career when they grow up. I'm thrilled to see Harrison Ford back in space, and he walks a fine line as Graff, remaining sympathetic while performing as the inhumane military leader. Ben Kingsley isn't in the film long enough to stand out as Rackham, but as you'd expect from Kingsley, he does well enough when he needs to. Sadly, that's only two or three scenes from the mid-point to the finale. Most of the teens that were cast in the film perform well, but Bonzo (Moises Arias)is a bit weaselly for my tastes.

I'm not sure if Ender's Game is destined to become the next sci-fi blockbuster franchise on everyone's mind, but it certainly is an impressive adaptation of one the genre's finest works. The fact that it's source material is more about a child's psychology than an adventurous romp through space with Han Solo is likely to throw some viewers off. It's not a film that is designed for fun. There are questions being asked by the narrative, and while they aren't given a lot of room in the context of the coming-of-age/action film, they are there for discussion. I'm also not sure how well Hollywood will handle the sequels. The 1986 sequel, Speaker for the Dead, is so far removed from Ender's Game that it would be a nightmare to pitch as a sequel. Also, Card doesn't want to see it made into a film, claiming that it is "unfilmable". I guess that we should at least appreciate that he doesn't want to cash in on everything he's made.

Even if he is a prick.

Oscarology: Vol. 2, pt. 1 - Best Actor nominees

Welcome to Oscarology, the study of the Hollywood awards season culminating with the presentation of the Academy Awards in March 2014. I am Trevor Kirkendall, your resident Oscarologist. I’ve been studying the tendencies of the Oscars since 1993 and have since earned my PhD in this study. The following series of articles will cover the landscape of the upcoming awards season from now until the nominations are announced on January 16, 2014.

Much like the best picture nominees this year, the leading role acting categories are also very crowded. There will be many snubs and people will wonder why that happened. I hope the shed some light on that with this new volume of Oscarology. Listed in this volume will be ten actors and ten actresses who I believe have the best chances of securing an Oscar nomination this year. I’ve ranked them one through 10 on confidence. One through five are the people who I believe will be the nominees while six through 10 have the next best chance. Let’s first look at Best Actor in a Leading Role.

Best Actor frontrunner Chiwetel Ejifor as Solomon Northup
in 12 YEARS A SLAVE

1. Chiwetel Ejifor – 12 Years a Slave
As it is with my current pick for Best Picture, Chiwetel Ejifor will remain my pick as the person to beat for Best Actor in a Leading Role for his role in “12 Years a Slave” until further notice. Again, I have not seen this film; it just opened in limited release so it’ll be a while before the majority of moviegoers have a chance to see it. Based only on the buzz being generated from the film’s screening at the Toronto International Film Festival and the subject matter of the film, Ejifor seems to be the man who will walk away with the Oscar in March. This isn’t much of a surprise to anyone familiar with Ejifor’s performances. I remember his roles in “Children of Men” and “American Gangster”. I also remember one of his early leading role in Stephen Frears’ “Dirty Pretty Things” in which he delivered a very powerful performance. The only surprise should be that it took Ejifor to find a role that would earn him this kind of well deserved recognition.

Matthew McConaughey as Ron Woodroof in DALLAS
BUYERS CLUB

2. Matthew McConaughey – Dallas Buyers Club

The Academy has a tendency to be one of the most predictable organizations when it comes to performances they like. If you’re an actor who really wants to win an Oscar, there are three things you need to look for when selecting roles: the character must be real, the character must be seen as out-of-the-ordinary (through some kind of disability, illness or alternative lifestyle - which I hope is a very P.C. expression) and finally you must go through some kind of overwhelming physical transformation (either though literally changing one's physical appearance or utilizing makeup effects). Find these three things, play the roll well and you will almost certainly earn a nomination. Matthew McConaughey in “Dallas Buyers Club” hits all these items. He plays Ron Woodroof, a real person, who was infected with HIV in the mid-1980s. He smuggled AIDS drugs into the US from Mexico that weren’t approved by the FDA and sold them to other AIDS patients. McConaughey also went through a dramatic physical transformation, trading in his traditional good looks for a gaunt and sickly appearance, shedding 38 pounds for the role. McConaughey proved earlier this year with “Mud” that he can do more than flash his million dollar smile and take his shirt off in every role; he absolutely has the talent to pull a role like this off. He will at least earn a nomination this year, and could very well take the award home.

3. Bruce Dern – Nebraska

Cannes' Best Actor winner Bruce Dern in NEBRASKA

Bruce Dern has been around for many years in film and television. He’s been nominated before, for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar in the 1978 film “Coming Home”. He’s always reliable in his roles, but his role as an aging man in “Nebraska” might be his best chance to win the award. He’s already won one award for this role, Best Actor at the Cannes Film Festival. Director Alexander Payne is always good for at least one acting nomination from his films too. George Clooney earned one for “The Descendants”, Thomas Hayden Church and Virginia Madsen were up in “Sidways”, and Jack Nicholson and Kathy Bates were nominated for “About Schmidt”. Payne knows how to get great performances out of his actors, and he’s an Academy favorite. Sometimes, the director plays an important part in who earns a nod. Also, seasoned veterans who have never won also get a little bit of a sympathy vote too. I think all these factors all but guarantee a nomination for Dern.

4. Tom Hanks – Captain Phillips

Tom Hanks as Richard Phillips in CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

No actor is more loved amongst the Academy than Tom Hanks. When he appears in great films and puts on a decent performance, he scores Oscar nominations. I didn’t find his performance in “Saving Private Ryan” to be all that mesmerizing. Was he good? Absolutely he was. Was he Oscar worthy? Not in my opinion. He’s been nominated five times, winning two in consecutive years. I’m sure he’ll be up for many more nominations in his career. “Captain Phillips” is a great movie and his performance is one of the best he’s ever given. Since he’s Tom Hanks and he’s giving a great performance, that’s enough for me to assume that he’ll earn his sixth Best Actor nomination this year.

5. Robert Redford – All is Lost

Robert Redford going solo in ALL IS LOST

Robert Redford is an Oscar winning producer and director, but he’s never been nominated for an acting Oscar. Redford has done so much for the film industry and he might earn a sentimental vote from Academy members this year. Let’s also go back to Tom Hanks for a moment. His fifth nomination came from “Cast Away”, a film he largely did on his own. “All is Lost” is similar for Redford since he is the only actor in the film. Sandra Bullock will no doubt earn a nomination for “Gravity” for this same reason, but more on that later. I don’t think Redford will in an Oscar for “All is Lost” but I’d be surprised if he wasn’t nominated.

Michael B. Jordan as Oscar Grant in FRUITVALE STATION

6. Michael B. Jordan – Fruitvale Station

Michael B. Jordan is not a name many people know. “Fruitvale Station” might not have been a movie many people saw. But those who did are very well aware of Jordan now. Jordan puts on a harrowing performance of a young man on his fateful last day of life. The role is tragic and his performance is captivating. I could easily see him walking away with a nomination, but I think he might barely miss the cut in such a crowded field this year.

7. Hugh Jackman – Prisoners

Hugh Jackman in the thrilling film PRISONERS

I was surprised by the ferocity that Hugh Jackman brought to the surprisingly well done “Prisoners”. As surprising as it sounds, Jackman has only been nominated one other time (last year for “Les Misérables”). He’s a well respected member of the Hollywood elite and has already hosted the Academy Awards before. Everyone loves him. Why wouldn’t they want to honor him for a role that’s such a departure for him? I think he’s passed over, but his performance in this film is spectacular. He should be nominated, but he’ll probably just miss the cut.

Forest Whitaker in LEE DANIELS' THE BUTLER

8. Forest Whitaker – Lee Daniels’ The Butler

With as much attention of “Lee Daniels’ The Butler” has received from the media and being such a huge box office draw, it wouldn’t surprise me to see it receive numerous “just because” nominations. I still have not seen this one, so my opinion of Forest Whitaker receiving a nomination is based purely on speculation. His character isn’t a real person, though he’s based on someone real. He’s one of the only consistent faces in an ensemble picture, which helps his chances. Having not seen the film, I can’t say much about his performance. I think “The Butler” will be one of the most nominated movies of the year, and it makes sense that the film’s star would be one of the nominees. The crowded field this year could make it difficult though.

Leonardo DiCaprio as Jordan Belfort in THE WOLF OF
WALL STREET

9. Leonardo DiCaprio – The Wolf of Wall Street

Leonardo DiCaprio is becoming the butt of Oscar jokes much like his favorite director Martin Scorsese once was. Scorsese earned six Oscar nominations from 1981 to 2004 before finally winning one in 2006 for “The Departed”, which still seemed like a sympathy award. DiCaprio has only been nominated for three Oscars, which might come as a surprise to some. But he does seem to choose roles that might earn Oscar nominations. He wasn’t nominated for “J. Edgar”, but doesn’t that just seem like a role Oscar voters would love? In that case, they didn’t. “The Wolf of Wall Street” seems like a more modern role for DiCaprio, despite it taking place in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This doesn’t seem like a typical Oscar role for him, even though Jordan Belfort is a real person. I’m not certain that DiCaprio will see his fourth nomination for this film, but he’s worth keeping an eye on since it’s a Scorsese picture.

10. Christian Bale – American Hustle

Christian Bale (right) in AMERICAN HUSTLE

There are many different names that have occupied this final spot, but I’ve settled on Christian Bale for his role in “American Hustle”. Bale is already an Oscar winner for his supporting role in “The Fighter” which was directed by “American Hustle” filmmaker David O. Russell. Russell also directed Bradley Cooper to a nomination in last year’s “Silver Linings Playbook” and directed Jennifer Lawrence to a win in the same film. Russell knows how to get phenomenal performances out of his actors. “American Hustle” is a huge ensemble film and I could see multiple nominations for many different people. No one has seen this film yet, so that’s why I’m a little apprehensive to list anyone else as a possible nominee, or putting Christian Bale higher than this. We’ll see what the next couple months bring.

For the 2013 Best Actress contenders, check out PART TWO HERE