Some of the best (and worst) films of 2014

A scene from "Ouija," which is not one of the top films of the year but is among the funniest. © 2014 Universal Studios. 

It's been a pretty good year for movies. This hasn't been a year with a plethora of standout films — certainly nothing as memorable as “No Country for Old Men” or “There Will Be Blood” — but 2014 had a number of well-above average films during both the blockbuster summer months and the prestige season, which is a rather rare feat.

As in years past, this list of top films only includes reviewed movies during the last 12 months. That knocks out a pretty terrific selection of films like “The Lego Movie” (my favorite from 2014), “Godzilla,” “Snowpiercer,” “Under the Skin,” “Big Hero 6,” “Blue Ruin” and “The Grand Budapest Hotel.”

So here are the top six movies I reviewed in 2014, along with the very worst film I had the pleasure of witnessing this year. 

No. 1: “Foxcatcher”

Channing Tatum as Mark Schultz and Mark Ruffalo as David Schultz in "Foxcatcher." Photo by Scott Garfield, courtesy Sony Pictures Classic.

The top spot goes to “Foxcatcher” due in large part to the terrific trio of lead performances by Channing Tatum, Steve Carrell and Mark Ruffalo. All three have received well-deserved accolades for their work, although the subtle wonder of Tatum's performance has gotten a little lost during the award season.

But “Foxcatcher” is much more than an actor showcase; it's a marvel of mood and tension by director Bennett Miller. There's nary a moment when the audience feels safe, as the undercurrent of dread and woe forges a constant chill and discomfort. I wish more films based on real events — “Foxcatcher” is a fictionalized retelling of wrestler David Schultz's death — could keep viewers guessing as well as this one does.

No. 2: “The Raid 2”

Iko Uwais as Rama and Cecep Arif Rahman as The Assassin in "The Raid 2."

Photo by Akhirwan Nurhaidir and Gumilar Triyoga, courtesy Sony Pictures Classic.

When I mentioned the minimal number of memorable films from 2014, this one is among the exceptions (along with “Under the Skin” and “Snowpiercer”). “The Raid 2” might be one of the greatest action films ever created, complete with a collection of unforgettable fight scenes immaculately staged. Just writing this brings back thoughts of the prison yard brawl, the toilet stall melee, the nightclub, the car chase and a particularly impressive final fight sequence.

What separates “Raid 2” from the average action flick is an operatic story that plays like a lesser “Godfather,” which I promise is not an insult. The film starts off with a bang, setting the stakes and showcasing the repercussions of the actions from the original film, and the scope just gets broader and broader from there.  

No. 3: “Captain America: The Winter Soldier”

 

Captain America/Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) in a scene from "Marvel's Captain America: The Winter Soldier." Photo by Zade Rosenthal. © 2014 Marvel

Admittedly I liked the No. 4 film more than this, but I flipped the spots because “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is, objectively, the better film. It's a 1970s thriller transplanted to the future present (present day but with future technology), which is kind of a risk given the relatively low box office tally from the first “Captain America” flick.

Fortunately, the filmmakers succeeded in creating a spot-on replication of films from that era like “All the President's Men,” and it's buoyed by lead performances by Chris Evans — he has the Captain America role down pat — and Scarlett Johansson. The two establish an excellent rapport, their initial mutual distrust evolving into a platonic friendship. Hopefully, Marvel will finally make a Black Widow film; Johansson proved her acting chops in 2014 in this, the No. 6 film, and her Academy Award worthy performance in “Under the Skin.”

No. 4: “Guardians of the Galaxy”

The very ripped Chris Pratt stars as Peter Quill/Star-Lord in "Guardians of the Galaxy." © Marvel 2014

I liked all of the films on this list, but the two movies I had the most fun watching were “The Lego Movie” (I seriously love that film) and “Guardians of the Galaxy.” It gets dinged a bit for being an origin film — like “Captain America,” the sequel should be much stronger — but the film has a strong blend of heart, melancholy and joy (the opening credit sequence featuring a dancing Chris Pratt sets the tone perfectly) and it doesn't skimp on the action sequences.

Marvel and Disney took an enormous risk — much larger than the one made for film three — making the unknown “Guardians of the Galaxy” a tentpole film starring the doofus from “Parks and Recreation” and directed by the man behind “Slither,” and the risk paid off in the top grossing domestic film of the year. 

No. 5: “The Signal”

Beau Knapp stars as Jonah Breck and Brenton Thwaites as Nic Eastman in "The Signal." Photo by Focus Features.

What a strange little film “The Signal” is. It has but one star (Laurence Fishburne) with a modicum of fame and a mishmash tone that bounces from found footage flick to CW drama to epic sci-fi action film, which, combined, leaves the audience a bit dizzy.

Aside from a dreadful final twist no filmmaker should ever try again, the film works. It's a shocking, disjointing film with a few visually stunning scenes courtesy director William Eubank and cinematographer David Lanzenberg — the most notable being a final, magnificent shot that drives home the film's themes of isolation. A weird film for sure, but a well executed one nonetheless. 

No. 6: “Lucy”

Scarlett Johansson in a scene from writer/director Luc Besson's "Lucy." © 2014 Universal Studios.

While “The Signal” is weird, “Lucy” is straight-up gonzo, vomiting up pseudoscience and some very strange action sequences to form a wonderful mess of a film. Writer/director Luc Besson lets his mighty imagination run wild and forms a singular action/sci-fi B-movie. I have a soft spot for films that just go for lunacy (I advocate for “Southland Tales” for that reason alone), as it takes more cajones to go big than to play it safe.

“Lucy” wouldn't succeed though without the yeoman work put in by Scarlett Johansson. She's the heart of the film, the one thing keeping Besson's insanity from going completely amok, and her dry, cool and focused performance adds a vital balance to the film's ridiculousness.

Last (and least): “The Bag Man”

We had a few contenders for this award, with “Dumb and Dumber To,” “Expendables 3,” “Purge: Anarchy,” “Endless Love” and “Ouija” all putting up a fight to be the worst. All five had major flaws, but they either least showcase a modicum of filmmaking competency (“Dumb and Dumber To,” “Purge: Anarchy” and “Expendables 3”) have one delightfully over-the-top performance (Bruce Greenwood in “Endless Love”) or are entertaining because of their awfulness (“Ouija”).

And then there's “The Bag Man,” a risible film that created far more questions than answers. What the hell are John Cusack and Robert De Niro doing in this thing? Who the hell is Rebecca Da Costa and why does she get second billing? Who gave writer/director David Grovic funding for this thing? Why did Grovic adapt a different screenplay to make this film? Seriously, who the hell is Rebecca Da Costa?

“Bag Man” is the rare film to fail on all fronts. The actors lack talent (Rebecca Da Costa), lack interest (Cusack, De Niro and Crispin Glover) and lack any motivation besides cashing that check (Cusack and De Niro). It's a poorly shot film with an illogical and ugly script with the vibrancy of a dead water buffalo, and there's nothing worse than a film that's bad and boring. If “Bag Man” contributes one thing to our society, it's the death of Grovic's and Rebecca Da Costa's filmmaking careers.

It reaches Sandlerian levels of vitriol.

The woods are a strange and wondrous place

Anna Kendrick in a scene from "Into the Woods." Photo by Peter Mountain, © 2013 Disney Enterprises, Inc.

The downside of a cinematic musical is a lost connection between the players on stage and the audience. There's a vitality the filmed equivalent just cannot capture, the digital perfection eradicating the sense of spontaneity bred by the theater. Anything, for better or for worse, can happen on a live stage; films are incapable of reproducing that sense of danger.

What a film adaptation of a musical must do then is justify the translation to screen. Filmmakers need to take advantage of what the new medium can bring to the script and see what they can do with better technology and the option to reshoot, which can forge a technically perfect musical performance.

I'm not sure that's the case with “Into the Woods,” which tries too hard to replicate a trip to the theatre to its detriment. Still, the film is carried by a pair of terrific performances by the two female leads, and the show itself is so much fun and just a hint wicked it makes for a rather good time … just not as good as it could be.

Like any good fairy tale, it's best to begin at the beginning of this adaptation of the Stephen Sondheim musical, one that opens with an introductory medley with the denizens of a small village. There’s Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) completing a series of disgusting tasks for her stepmother (Christine Baranski) and stepsisters (Lucy Punch and Tammy Blanchard); Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) picks up treats for her grandmother; and poverty-stricken Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) takes his beloved cow to a different village to sell her at his mother's (Tracey Ullman) urging. Joining the bedtime staples are a baker (incoming “Late Late Show” host James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt), who dream of having a child. Unfortunately, a neighboring witch (Meryl Streep) reveals she put a pox upon Corden's family after a bout of thievery by the baker's father that prevents anyone who lives under their roof from procreating.

As is the case with such situations, there is a way to reverse the curse, and it requires the baker and his wife to obtain the following items within a three-day span: a white cow, a red cowl, some yellow hair, and a golden slipper. It sounds better when recited in musical form, but you get the gist.

So into the woods do Corden and Blunt go on a quest to complete their family. They encounter the aforementioned characters, along with a pair of vain princes (Chris Pine and Billy Magnussen), Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy), a wolf (Johnny Depp), a giant, and a series of escalating shenanigans that could impede upon a happy ending.

Given how fairy tales original ended, this might be a blessing.

Any disappointment with “Into the Woods” for novices that haven't seen the show on stage is based on the self-inflicted limitations director Rob Marshall places upon himself. The man behind the film adaptation “Chicago” has so much at his disposal given the fairy-tale world and the magic that setting brings, yet he rarely does anything with it. Sure the giant looks a little more interesting than it might on stage, and there is a bit of CGI tossed into the mix, but he doesn't build a world out of it; rather, he erects a barrier between the audience and the fantasy land in front of it that just reinforces the faux staginess of it all.

Also at issue is an uneven flow, as the back third moves as expeditiously as a sloth covered in molasses. Chopping a song would solve the flow problem beautifully.

Yet I still enjoyed “Into the Woods” immensely despite its problems. Even a weakened cinematic translation reveals a rather splendid show with imagination, wit, a cruel streak and some excellent songs, highlighted by “On the Steps of the Palace,” “Moments in the Woods” and a rendition of “Agony” that evoked some sighs of gratitude from female audience members.

Credit too goes to the person or people who corralled a very game cast that, aside from a moderately flat Corden, bite into their roles with glee. Depp and Streep embrace the campy aspects of their performances, although Streep reins it in a little more and delivers a perfectly good performance. The again, it would have been much more interesting if played by the show's original witch, Bernadette Peters.

Peters, pictured here amid a moment of melancholy.

But the highlights are Kendrick and Blunt, as the former plays Cinderella's indecisiveness perfectly and maintains a level of likeability to a character who could easily mosey into shrillness. Blunt is simply delightful, a bastion of joy and playfulness who finds the right blend of fire and mourning to a woman who resigns herself to a meager life with the poor baker. She nails the role's comedic elements and never goes too broad with her performance.

Blunt is “Into the Woods'” heart and soul; the moments when either she (or Kendrick) are off screen reveal the underwhelming artifice of the whole production.

Rating: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 124 minutes (Two hours and four minutes)

Genre: Musical

Ask Away

Target audience: We'll go with Stephen Sondheim followers and anyone who's into a good musical during the holiday season.

Take the whole family?: “Into the Woods” does have a modicum of sexual undertones — something of a given due to Sondheim's involvement — but there's nothing overly objectionable to prevent a family outing.

Theater or Netflix?: It's cool to venture out as a matinee or as a way to blow time on Christmas; otherwise, stay home and wait.

And the Oscar goes to? Meryl Streep will get a nomination just for being Meryl Streep, and the fortune tellers have Emily Blunt getting a well-deserved nomination (although I'd trade Anna Kendrick for Streep in the best supporting actress category). It should earn a best picture nod and might get some love for adapted screenplay and the technical/costume categories.

Watch this as well?: I've always had a soft spot for “The Company of Wolves,” a little nasty retelling of the Red Riding Hood legend. You could revisit classics like “West Side Story” or “Singin' in the Rain” or, if you want to keep the kids involved, just re-watch “Frozen” for the 70th time. 

Plus, Olaf is just delightful.

Lifestyles of the rich and crazy

Channing Tatum as Mark Schultz and Mark Ruffalo as David Schultz in "Foxcatcher." Photo by Scott Garfield and Courtesy Sony Pictures Classic.

Every generation dreams of saving America. Every new generation dreams of rescuing it from some great evil, treating it as if it were Penelope Pitstop. Every generation wants to return America to a former glory defined most clearly by its opaqueness.   

The country is a shell of itself, says Steve Carrell's eccentric John du Pont in Bennett Miller's remarkable and brutally graceful “Foxcatcher.” America is a place that can only be saved through heroism and people like Channing Tatum's wrestler Mark Schultz. As Carrell tells his young, male ingénue as he readies himself for the 1988 Olympics, “You're going to do great things, Mark, great things.”

The definition of great things beyond ephemeral success on the mat is never explained, nor does Miller want them to be. Really, the important part isn't how America is saved or what that actually means; rather, what’s most important is the person who leads it to the Promised Land.

Carrell — eerie and dang-near perfect in his performance — inserts himself as the coach of America's next batch of champions, a leader of men who gives himself the nickname “Golden Eagle.” He has little knowledge of the sport and no perceivable athletic talent — his pasty figure contrasts greatly with the nubile young wrestlers around him — but he has money, and he has just enough charisma to lure Tatum into the Pennsylvania woods. 

It's an overly difficult task to accomplish; Tatum, whose performance is nothing short of excellent, lives a lonesome life defined by rigorous training routines as he goes for his second gold medal, half-cooked Ramen noodles, a dingy apartment, and rambling speeches to bored students as a replacement for his more successful older brother David (the terrific Mark Ruffalo).

 

As he always is.

Living deep inside your brother's shadow is a torturous experience, so an opportunity to move into a wealthy man's kingdom (the titular Foxcatcher estate) to train aspiring wrestlers and train for a shot at world glory is impossible to pass up. And things go quite well in the kingdom for a while, with Carrell becoming Tatum’s de facto father figure and the young wrestler earning success on the mat and dabbling in a world of riches and opulence he could barely dream of before.

But nothing gold can stay even in Shangri-La, and Carrell's desperate and ultimately failed attempts to please his mother (Vanessa Redgrave) drive him to spurn Tatum for Ruffalo to add more legitimacy to his operation. Tensions mount between Tatum and Carrell, and the latter seems to fall deeper and deeper into his eccentricities. It ends in blood and tears.

There is no hope for a pleasant ending in “Foxcatcher” — Miller quashes any signs of optimism through his terrifying, foreboding atmosphere — because no such conclusion exists in the real-life story of the Schultz brothers and du Pont the film is based upon. (It’s worth reading about independent of seeing the film.) Then again, based on is not quite the right way of describing how real life relates to the scenes in “Foxcatcher.” The film is more of a grotesque retelling – see Carrell's prosthetics as an example – mixed with the filmmakers’ attempts to explain how a man like du Pont plunges so far into the mental abyss. The aforementioned mother issues receive a nod, as does a life of loneliness forced upon the heir to an empire, although both are too simple to fall on.

No, what drives Carrell's destruction, along with the film’s machinations, itself is the idea of an America in peril, a place that can only be saved by the strongest warriors fighting on the international stage. Those expectations are enormous, capable of crushing the fittest of men, let alone one as soft and strange as the du Pont shown in “Foxcatcher.” It’s simple enough to call yourself a leader of men; actually being one is a far different beast.

Expectations of excellence and individual success haunt Tatum too, bringing the heartbroken warriors together in search of a more perfect America. They place the burden of being a savior upon their heads, and neither man is capable or strong enough to bear that pressure.

The only one who could is Ruffalo, although he never aspires to be anything more than a wrestler and a decent human being. He’s found and cherished everything he needs out of life; a family (two kids and wife Sienna Miller), excellence on the mat, stability in life and an overarching sense of accomplishment. Ruffalo doesn’t need to save anyone and serves as a contrast between broken men like Carrell and Tatum, who force themselves to chase windmills and scowl as Ruffalo smiles through life.

Again, as he always is.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 134 minutes

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: Prestige film followers trying to keep tabs on Oscar contenders, along with current and former grapplers; the film's wrestling sequences are very well performed.

Take the whole family?: It's not suitable for kids, but that's much more attributable to the film's length and haunting ambiance than for any on screen action. For the life of me I'll never understand how the MPAA hands out its ratings; how is this worse than the vomit of gunfire and murder produced “Expendables 3,” which picked up a PG-13 rating?

Theater or Netflix?: Worth a trip to the theater to understand the Oscar buzz. Speaking of which ...

And the Oscar goes to? Possibly no one from this film, although that depends on what the tea leaves say this week. Steve Carrell has a strong shot at earning a (deserved) best actor nod, with Mark Ruffalo a pretty safe bet to make it in supporting actor; unfortunately, that will probably mean nothing for Channing Tatum's surprisingly nuanced performance. “Foxcatcher” might receive some nominations for Bennett Miller for best director, best picture and best original screenplay.

Watch this as well?: Rent David Fincher's “Zodiac” if you can. Also based on real events (and it also happens to star Ruffalo), “Zodiac” is Fincher's reinterpretation of the infamous Zodiac case that, like “Foxcatcher,” never lets the audience have a moment to breath.

 

This sequence always gets me.