jacobcornblatt

I try not to get my hopes up too much for certain movies, and "Black Mass" (which I got very excited about) just reminds me why.

Oh, Scott Cooper... how did you manage to make one of the most twisted, unusual, and mysterious gangster stories into an emotionless web of a film? From acting to editing, there was so much wrong that it's almost surprising.

My main issue was the nonexistence of a certain necessity: stakes. In all great mafia flicks, stakes are essential. Would "Goodfellas" have been as remarkable if it didn't feel like any wrong move would set off a universe-ending set of events? Would the "Godfather" have been considered the greatest film of all time if a war wasn't seconds away from breaking out? "Black Mass" managed to keep a story that easily could've had those steaks from having any at all. This was, of course, caused by the emotionless acting, but more on that in a second. But this film really made me not care if the protagonist (whether you consider that to be Bulger or Connolly) lives or dies; and in a mob movie, that is a worse crime than anything committed on screen.

So the acting I blame entirely on Cooper. Every single actor did a great job with what they were given, but the problem is that they were given the wrong thing. For example, Depp was probably told to play a silent yet psychotic, friendly yet intimidating crime lord. Did he do that well? Absolutely. Is that who the character was written as? Not at all. Same goes for Joel Edgerton's - who I thought did the best job out of all of the actors - character, Jesse Plemons' character, and even smaller characters like Adam Scott's. All those actors did well, but not in the right parts.

The list goes on with issues, so let's talk about why the movie got 2 stars rather than zero (therefore, let's talk about the positives). I've heard some critics discuss the overuse of violence in the film. Though there is quite a bit of violence, I thought it was used very tastefully. No blood was used where it didn't seem necessary, and personally, I think that the violence becomes numbing, which takes us even further into the mob guys' mentality on murder. Also, I thought the shooting locations were very well chosen, as they really captured the narrow-mindedness of the lead characters' lives.

So should you see this movie? -If you love mafia movies of any shape or size, then go see it. -If you love Johnny Depp, wait until it comes out on demand. -If you don't love mafia movies, haven't seen many mafia movies, or just have none of the listed qualities above, then don't see this film.

It's rare that a film about the human condition (in terms of decision making) has as many sides to it as "Two Days, One Night" does.

In philosophical pictures such as this one, there is usually a very objective view to a very subjective issue; but this 2014 movie does the exact opposite: it creates 17 different opinions on the same issue, all of which opinions have a distorted view between right and wrong.

Another brilliant aspect of the film is the detail-oriented direction. With a story such as this, the way each differing opinion is shot can be essential to the story. Directors Jean-Pierre Dardenne and Luc Dardenne crafted the coloring and framing of the background in a way that represents a person's viewpoints on the subject of the film in a perfectly symbolic way. For example, one of the characters knows with her heart what she should do, but her husband is telling her otherwise. so what we see on the screen is a profile of two people, both on opposite sides of the corner of a brick wall. Though the color is the same on both sides, the physical side they are is opposing. Very few directors/DPs have the creative ability to do that in this day in age.

With such strong acting, writing, and directing, this film is perfect front to back.

P.T. Anderson's brilliant adaption of the classic novel "Oil!" by Upton Sinclair is, without a doubt, one of the best American films ever made. Stories of greed, religion, and family have been done countless times, but never has one felt so epic. With acting for the ages and stakes that few others can pull off, "There Will be Blood" is a phenomenal movie front to back.

Daniel Day Lewis, a method actor like no other, not only paints the perfect picture of a troubled, unstable man, but also manages to portray his mindset so sophisticated and subtly. Paul Dano is fantastic, as well (even though he is a bit outdone by Lewis).

The highlight of this picture, however, is the stunning cinematography. Robert Elswit captures the landscapes perfectly, but shines during the crux of the film: the explosion of the oil rig. Elswit manages to present a devastating event -- i.e. the fire -- as something that is merely a stumbling block for Lewis' character, while still making it as powerful as it truly is.

The final item to discuss is the sheer brilliance of the editing and directing. In almost every transition, there is some sort of juxtaposition, may it be in the color, light, or sound. The story this film discusses has many sides, and the juxtaposition is the perfect way of acknowledging these sides.

Once again, Paul Thomas Anderson proves how great of a filmmaker he is with "There Will be Blood."

I'm a big Noah Baumbach fan. He is completely able to come up with clever, simple, original ideas and make a usually great movie out of them; but to my dismay, Baumbach's "Mistress America" is a bit of a miss.

The story was very nice, but the writing's cheap/obvious execution ruins it. There is a famous saying that originates from Anton Chekhov that is commonly used in film schools: "show don't tell." This picture breaks that simple saying in almost all of its lines, as characters will just randomly blurt out how they feel - all while keeping a neutral look on their face.

Baumbach has also made a living out of his quick wit and intellectual humor, but unfortunately in "Mistress America," he decided to throw intellect out the window.

There are a few redeeming factors: its Woody Allen-esque use of camera-work, fitting choice of music, and easy to like characters.

Though it doesn't live up to his previous films, "Mistress America" should be watched by Baumbach fans. If you don't like him, you won't like this; and if you haven't seen his other work, I recommend you watch that instead.

Up until its final moments, "The Gift" keeps you thinking. Actually, let me rephrase that: "The Gift" keeps you thinking until weeks after you've seen it.

Its acting, cinematography, directing, sound, and pacing are some of the best in recent history. The film's ability to build - and hold - tension is astounding, as well.

Joel Edgerton has made quite the name for himself with his debut, and I am looking forward to his future films.

By the way, I am very picky about giving out a ten on IMDb. The fact that I gave "The Gift" a ten means that by my standards, this was a perfect film.

The subjectiveness of all mediums of human analysis could easily cause a film like Love & Mercy to become not only preachy, but also downright tricky. Lucky for us, director Bill Pohlad's sophomore picture avoids those consequences and excels in sharing Brian Willson's astonishing story.

The movie takes place during two key time periods in Wilson's life: the "Pet Sounds" era and the pre-"SMiLE" era. Little Miss Sunshine's Paul Dano subtly plays the earlier period (in which Wilson begins hearing the voices of his father); and John Cusack boldly portrays the latter (in which Wilson conquers his demons, both real and imaginary). All the supporting cast's performances are great, but the beauty lies with Dano and Cusack. The two of them — who apparently were not allowed to meet during filming — captured the inversely changing emotional states of Wilson borderline perfectly.

However, there is fault in the film, and it lies mostly within the "Pet Sounds" scenes. The story's structure, along with Wilson's mind, becomes fragmented as time goes on, but it causes the audience to get bored, as it becomes hard to connect to the protagonist. The "SMiLE" story is beyond intriguing, so when the focus switches to the past, an unavoidable feeling of disappointment builds in the crowd.

Other than that, there is not much to complain about. Oscar nominated DP Robert Yeoman beautifully illustrates the psychosomatic issues of Brian Wilson (especially during the studio scenes) and Atticus Ross' Beatles-inspired soundtrack fits perfectly with the Sound Department's patronizing mixing.

Love & Mercy is an overall success.

"Mr. Turner", the newest of Mike Leigh's stunning films, is a brilliant adaption of the life and times of one of the most modern and unappreciated artists of the mid 1800s; and with every scene crafted as a J.M.W. Turner painting, the movie was stunning to watch, whether you are a film buff or a casual moviegoer.

However, "Turner" is an extraordinarily character-driven piece, which, these days, is not very common. Almost all recent character studies (such as the highly acclaimed "District 9") tend to have some sort of excitement outside of the dialog, no matter how good the actor delivering it is. This movie, to some's dismay, did not. There were some very high energy scenes, but none like that of a blockbuster. For a two-and-a-half hour movie, many viewers will get restless.

The entire cast was great, but the movie wouldn't have been nearly what it was without Timothy Spall as Turner. Whether you know him from "Secrets and Lies" or "Harry Potter," you will be amazed by Spall's ability to morph into the shoes of his subject. His constant groans and blabbers stick with you, making the viewer really realize the internal torture J.M.W. went through; something most actors wouldn't have been able to achieve. Remarkable.

The cinematography, done by the somewhat known Dick Pope, is definitely the highlight of the film. Making a movie about a man who obsesses over light and landscape is the dream of most Directors of Photography, and boy did Pope pull it off. The quick zooms and use of depth is riveting to watch and keeps the movie alive (even in its most dull of parts).

Overall, "Mr. Turner" is a cinematic beauty and should be seen by anyone with a passion for film, but the general movie-going public may find it to be drawn-out and dreary. No matter what you think, however, it is almost impossible deny the effect that the camera work has on the viewer.