The best (and worst) from 2015

Charlize Theron in a scene from "Mad Max: Fury Road." Image courtesy Warner Bros.

Theater going in 2015 was a very, very satisfying experience. Audiences could pick from a little of everything this year and find stellar options, whether it was an action epic, an animated tearjerker, a wonderful romantic comedy masquerading itself as an Oscar flick, or a thrilling peek into the drug trade. Every genre was well represented and included at least one excellent selection to choose from. And, as with any year, there were a few dregs as well, one of which is much worse than the others.

All of the below are films I reviewed for this year, which knocks out the gripping documentary “Going Clear.” I also kept it to the seven films I thought were worth highlighting, but these other flicks deserve at least a mention: “The Big Short,” “Furious 7,” “Crimson Peak,” “Suffragette,” “Bridge of Spies,” “Me Earl and the Dying Girl,” “Dope,” “Love & Mercy,” “The Second Mother,” “The Walk” (as seen in theaters) and “The Stanford Prison Experiment.”

No. 1: “Mad Max: Fury Road”

Just an outstanding, astonishing movie that’s nothing less than an action masterpiece. The continuation of the post-apocalyptic adventures of Max Rockatansky (now played by Tom Hardy), George Miller's fourth installment took 30 years to come to fruition, and it was worth the wait. Miller's vision – a fair use of the word given how much creative control he has on this – goes old school on the effects, limiting the CG and crashing as many cars in the desert as he could.

“Fury Road” is a marvelous movie to watch and a wonderful film to think about. Many articles have analyzed the film's feminist bent, but it is worth emphasizing how every female character in this film is more heroic than their male counterparts, whether in battle like Charlize Theron's iconic Furiousa or finding the courage to leave an abusive situation as the wives do. As the film implies, it was the men destroyed the world; it's up to the women to save it.

Image courtesy Disney/Pixar.

No. 2: “Inside Out”

I cried once the first time I watched this. I cried twice when I went to see it again. Any film that evokes that kind of reaction is a lock to make it into the top five.

“Inside Out” hits the beats of the best Pixar film, putting the right voice actors (Amy Poehler, Phyllis Smith, Mindy Kaling, Bill Hader and Lewis Black) inside the mind of a preteen girl undergoing the greatest shift in her young life. Moving across the country is scary and intimidating, no matter how much Poehler's Joy tries to imbue her charge Riley (Kaitlyn Dias) with positivity. Joy learns how valuable Smith's Sadness is to Riley's life, how valuable she is to the girl's continued emotional evolution, and the film portrays that journey of self-discovery in a way that's silly and heartbreaking. Plus I still haven't gotten over the fate of poor Bing Bong (voiced with desperate pride by Richard Kind). 

Image courtesy Open Road Films.

No. 3: “Spotlight”

One of the frontrunners to win Best Picture at the 2016 Academy Award ceremony, “Spotlight” is the least cinematic film on this list. There's nothing flashy about it aesthetically; the office walls are white and drab, the clothes are toned down, the streets of Boston are shot as if the city is crumbling around the characters. Then again, the absence of cinematic grandiosity fits the film's workmanlike theme of people plugging away to get to the bottom of a complicated, horrifying cover up perpetrated for decades by the Catholic Church.

The staff of the Boston Globe's eponymous investigation unit (played by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams and Brian D'Arcy James) are single focused on their job, putting the story and, most importantly, the victims above themselves. Plus, the acting is  thoroughly terrific, especially Stanley Tucci as an attorney for several victims. “Spotlight” is good journalism, and it practices exactly what it preaches.

Image courtesy The Weinstein Company.

No. 4: “Carol”

Christmas is rarely as beautiful and melancholy as it is in “Carol,” which documents the early stages of a romance between Cate Blanchett’s Carol and Rooney Mara’s Therese. Their rapport is a strange, based little on spoken words and more on those little moments like the soft touches and the tender stares they share. The film even goes out of its way to show how the two talk to other people far more often than they do each other, perhaps because the conversation only gets in the way of the spark they share.

“Carol” is a beautiful film to watch in large part because of the way director Todd Haynes frames the 1950s era, yet the aesthetic loveliness is belied by an ugliness of the era directed at the central pair’s relationship. “Carol” contrasts itself frequently like that and plays around with expectations and filmmaking techniques, framing certain moments as dreamy fantasies while mocking a well known writing convention. The result is a portrayal of a dizzying romance that takes its time to reveal the inevitable.

Image courtesy Lionsgate.

No. 5: “Sicario”

“Sicario” is simply intense, the kind of film in which breathing becomes a near impossibility during a few key sequences. As depicted in the film, danger is a constant presence for all involved in the drug war, along with the people who just happen to live in cartel area.  Director Denis Villeneuve never lets the audience have a moment to breath; something bad could happen within that half second between inhalation and exhalation.

It's a shame this film isn't getting the level of Oscar attention it deserves. Villeneuve and screenwriter Taylor Sheridan do a tremendous job invoking an atmosphere of fear and mistrust – a feat that often goes unrecognized during Award voting – and the performances by Emily Blunt and Benicio Del Toro are top notch. Hopefully “Sicario” at least gets a nod for Roger Deakins' cinematography efforts; if anything the film illustrates how beautiful the region could be, and how ugly the drug wars have made it.

Image courtesy A24.

No. 6: “Room”

Speaking about crafting an intense sequence, “Room” director Lenny Abrahamson created one of the most frightening moments of the year when Jacob Tremblay's Jack tries to escape the only place he's ever known. That's what makes the moment effective, as Abrahamson frames the escape through Tremblay's eyes, making the outside world a large, ominous and alien place.

The film's highlight though is star Brie Larson as Ma, who has spent seven years trapped in the eponymous place by kidnapper/rapist Old Nick (Sean Bridgers). Larson is simply stellar, convincingly oscillating between strength and weakness when the time calls for it. Her moments with Tremblay are a delight, which makes the scenes in which she starts to fall apart all the more shocking. It's the best performance of the year, regardless of gender.

Image courtesy Twentieth Century Fox.

 No. 7: “Brooklyn”

“Brooklyn” is the best romantic comedy to come out in a very long time, a smart, sweeping story of a woman discovering what she wants for herself and fighting to get it. It's easy to see the dilemma Saoirse Ronan (who is fantastic) faces with the two men courting her, as both of her beaus treat her with respect and love. There is, however, one significant difference between the two, and that difference is the one Ronan eventually recognizes and fights for.

The film succeeds because of how it lays out her internal journey, and it is unexpectedly funny as well. Nick Hornby's dialogue is crisp, clear and laser focused, and “Brooklyn” benefits greatly from Ronan and a supporting turn by Julie Walters as the sharp tongued Mrs. Kehoe. This film evokes a fair number of smiles between the moments when it pummels with sadness.

Image courtesy Universal.

Bottom of the barrel: “Ted 2”

There are quite a few contenders for this title. “Truth” is frustrating and ire inducing but is redeemed slightly by Cate Blanchett's performance, and Dakota Johnson similarly counters the suck that is “Fifty Shades of Grey.” “The Boy Next Door” is too silly and dumb to be offensive, while “Insurgent” and “A Walk in the Woods” are bad in a forgettable fashion.

That leaves “Ted 2,” a risible piece of garbage with few laughs and an obnoxious streak a mile long. Director Seth MacFarlane, who also voices the titular stuffed animal, has crafted a perfectly offensive, misogynistic and cruel film film whose comedy is derived from laziness. Those problems are exacerbated by leads MacFarlane and Mark Wahlberg, whose characters lack anything resembling likability. That’s kind of a problem considering their relationship is, supposedly, the heart of the entire film.

Breaking taboos

Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett star in "Carol." Image courtesy The Weinstein Company.

One of “Carol’s” most interesting aspects is its employment of the holiday season as a backdrop. Like the film, the days leading up to Christmas and New Year’s Day are equal turns cheerful and miserable, and it is the one time of year in which both feelings are equally acceptable. As “Carol” shows, the sense of optimism and hope brought by the season is undercut by a sense of disappointment and even sadness, essentially creating a paradox befitting a film that revels in contrasts and ambiguity.

Funny enough, “Carol” starts off as a meet cute between two women who are very, very different. Shop girl Therese (Rooney Mara) is a mousy girl whose small ambitions match with the tiny, barely furnished New York apartment she calls home and boyfriend (Jake Lacy) constantly pushing the relationship. Contrast that with the life of the eponymous character Carol (Cate Blanchett), a miserable housewife with a loving daughter and a husband (Kyle Chandler) who fights furiously against their impending divorce. Still, Mara and Blanchett see something in each other – a quiet sense of desperation each has – and kick off a strange, mismatched romance. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Blanchett’s divorce proceedings turn ugly due in part to Blanchett’s relationship with long-time friend Abby (Sarah Paulson). She needs to leave town for a while and takes Mara with her on a road trip to the west, stopping by a few small towns along the way. The trip is fun and cute at first, until a dramatic twist curtails the party and results in a major change in the relationship.

“Carol” is a difficult film to get a good read on because director Todd Haynes and screenwriter Phyllis Nagy break a few conventions along the way. The romance between Blanchett and Mara is often quiet, as the two exchange far fewer words with each other than they do with the rest of the cast; the film even makes a point to catch the two toward the end of conversations. Most films would flip that around, but the result shows effectively how extraneous words get in the way of the heart of the romance. Their language consists of devilish smiles and subtle touches that add a hint of intimacy to the film itself.

Also bizarre is a plot point that violates one of Checkhov's most well-known rules of writing. Haynes and Nagy establish the element in an obvious and intentionally cliched fashion, yet the payoff never occurs, and the moment where it could happen reflects the circumstances the characters involved face. It’s a masculine concept, and the women can’t bring themselves to violate their sapphic natures.

Little in “Carol,” essentially, is as it appears to be; rather, it's all just a bit distorted, a little bit off kilter. The sparse dialogue spoken between Mara and Blanchett has an odd cadence to it, the lines delivered with caution and with a comedic timing that wouldn't necessarily fit into such a heavy drama. It's as if the reality within “Carol” is heightened to an extravagant level – not overly surprising considering how the film oscillates between dreams and reality in a manner akin to a David Lynch film that makes everything feel a little surreal. Everything is a little ambiguous, and straightening out what is going on would remove some of the mystique that makes “Carol” so wonderful. There's a lot of mystery to be found in this film, much of which emanates from the terrific performances offered by both Blanchett and Mara; neither says everything on their respective minds, but get just enough across to have an inkling of what they might be thinking and allow silence to fill the holes.

And yet they do get what they want from the other without overly expressing their desires, and their wishes are both rooted in offering honesty. For Blanchett, it's escaping a situation she cannot cope with and being herself; Mara, on the other hand, wants control over her life and to establish something resembling a path through life, The ending suggests both characters might get what they want (arguments are easily made the other way though given “Carol's” inherent ambiguity) but the question Haynes and Nagy offer is whether the journey to that happy-ish ending is worth it. Happiness often has an exorbitant and unfair price, and like the season the film centers on, that joy is tainted by misery and despair.

Review: Four and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 118 minute

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: Anyone interested in LGBTQ issues and who are down to watch some wicked good performances.

Take the whole family?: The film takes a while to get to it, but it does get quite explicit. In other words, it might be best for the children to stay home.

Theater or Netflix?: “Carol” is definitely worth a theater trip.

Academy Award odds?: Cate Blanchett is close to a lock for a Best Actress nomination. Rooney Mara's status is up in the air – the main question is if she'll qualify for Best Actress or Best Supporting Actress according to sites that track these things– and the film is on track for nominations for Todd Haynes for Best Director, Phyllis Nagy for Best Adapted Screenplay, and for Cinematography and Best Picture.

Watch this as well?: Hit up another Todd Haynes film about homosexuality and forbidden desires rooted in 1950s society, “Far From Heaven.” Julianne Moore is terrific as usual, and Haynes evokes great performances from Dennis Haysbert and Dennis Quaid.

Betting big against America

Steve Carrell and Ryan Gosling star in "The Big Short." Image courtesy Paramount Pictures.

Every film recapping the market crash from 2008 is brimming with venom. Those films – from fictionalized accounts to documentaries – have a plethora of bad guys to choose, people who can serve as the closest approximation to scapegoats available given the dearth of arrests or justice. (Really, how hard is it to find a villain among a bunch of arrogant, unscrupulous, well-groomed sharks?)

The newest look back at last decade’s chaos, “The Big Short,” has more than enough scoundrels to pick from, but, as the film points out, but there weren't exactly a lot of heroes in this situation either. None of the characters in the film (which is based Michael Lewis’ book) do much more than feel some guilt about their actions and put in one token attempt to report the shenanigans to the press. Rather, much like the characters from “Dr. Strangelove,” they seem pretty content to watch the world burn around them. The true anger about the economic destruction belongs to the men behind the camera, who sadly let their ire get the better of them.

“The Big Short” spends most of its time a few years before the crash and splitting time between three sets of investors. Hedge fund manager Michael Burry (Christian Bale), an aloof fellow in possession of a brilliant mind and just a hint of an ego (he prefers to be addressed as “Dr. Michael Burry”) is the first to spot a notable weakness in the subprime mortgage market. Realizing the end of the market is near, Bale takes out more than a billion dollars in credit default swaps, effectively betting millions of Americans wouldn't pay their loans. The deal trickles down to oily investor and film narrator Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), who wants in on the action but needs money to join in. He eventually stumbles upon cynical hedge fund manager Mark Baum (Steve Carrell) and his team (Jeremy Strong, Rafe Spall and Hamish Linklater) who work under the auspices of Morgan Stanley, and presents an economic opportunity that appears too good to be true. But a little research and a trip to Florida reveals the danger in the market, and provides Carrell and his team ample motivation to invest in credit default swaps. The final side of the triangle consists of aspiring investors Charlie Geller (John Magaro) and Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock), who desperately want a seat at the table with the big boys but don't have the experience or the capital to earn it. That is until they catch wind of Gosling’s proposal and recruit retired trader Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt) to assist them. All that's left then is for the players to wait and see if their forecasts are correct.

While the film is presented in a linear fashion, the filmmaking is not as straightforward. Characters repeatedly breaking the fourth wall to offer short asides to the audience or redirect viewers to a few celebrities, and several clips of pop culture moments infiltrate the screen to point out how easily distracted the American people were at the time. Director Adam McKay takes an absurd approach to the material, which fits the absurdity of the events that actually occurred. Like its spiritual forefather “Dr. Strangelove,” is organized chaos, and while not all of it succeeds, enough lands to keep the film engaging for more than two hours, and the little tricks showcase McKay's distinct voice and sensibilities, along with a bite he hasn't shown often in his comedic films.

That bite ends up souring the film, especially when McKay's rage starts to boil over. The man is very, very angry about what happened, angry that the people responsible effectively got away with it and have already rebooted the same practices that led to the last collapse. The problems arise when the McKay and his fellow screenwriters begin to let that frustration seep into the filmmaking – a few bits of dialogue have a strong “mad as hell” vibe to them – that diminishes the “Big Short” as a film. It’s why the film suffers, and the reason “Dr. Strangelove” makes for such a strong point of comparison. Both films find humor from humanity's eagerness to destroy itself, but while “Dr. Strangelove” embraces the farce and let’s the insanity speak for itself, “The Big Short” is just pissed off by it and can’t help but rant and rave about the injustice. Even if the anger is justified as it is in this case, it just isn’t a very good means of storytelling; yelling at the audience to wake up is condescending no matter how good the intentions are.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 130 minutes

Genre: Biographical

Ask Away

Target audience: People still peeved at the people who caused the economy to fall asunder and the system that let it happen.

Take the whole family?: A fair amount of cursing and nudity earns this a solid “R” rating. Only bring the kids if you play an extended game of earmuffs and cover their eyes with a free hand.

Theater or Netflix?: You might be better served waiting for the streaming version. Hit up a matinee screening though if you do opt to see it in theaters.

Academy Award chances?: It has a strong shot to get Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay nominations in the very near future, and Adam McKay might sneak in for Best Director. Any major awards beyond that could be tough, as the Best Supporting Actor field is crazy deep (Christian Bale has a chance per Oscar tracking sites, although it is a volatile category).

Watch this as well?: The documentary “Inside Job” does a terrific job navigating the complexities of the fall while holding a few of the major players accountable for their deeds. Also seek out one of McKay's previous ventures, “The Other Guys,” which touches on the economic collapse, as well as the raucous, insanely funny and dispiriting “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

The dangers of social climbing

Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard star in "Macbeth." Image courtesy The Weinstein Company.

The very first shot in the new film adaptation of “Macbeth” is an attempt to explain the ensuing wicked deeds of the titular character and his wife. It’s not the sole narrative shift the film takes from the play, but it sets an off-kilter, moderately anachronistic tone for this adaptation that keeps the dialogue while changing the characters’ motivations radically and not to the film’s benefit.

“Macbeth” stars Michael Fassbender as the eponymous Scot, whose bravery and ferocity as a warrior are second only to his loyalty to the king, Duncan (David Thewlis). After stunting an uprising alongside friend Banquo (Paddy Considine), the pair is visited by four witches who tell Fassbender he will become both the thane of Cawdor and the future king of Scotland while Considine will be the father of a line of kings. Fassbender and Considine are confused at first by the seers' fortune, but the fates begin to play their hand when Fassbender receives his promotion moments after the confrontation with the witches.

The coincidence is notable enough to convince Lady Macbeth (a very good Marion Cotillard) of her husband's grander future, and she persuades Fassbender to commit regicide to advance up the ranks. He's hesitant to participate until Thewlis proclaims the meek Malcolm (Jack Reynor) will succeed him on the throne. Once the act most foul is done and Reynor runs away in terror, Fassbender is named king and accomplishes everything he set out to do. The hard part though is keeping the dream, and he worries about the witches' prophecy about Considine's children, as do additional bodements about his downfall from the throne involving a possible heel turn from the good Macduff (Sean Harris).

What happens next is what one expects from a Shakespeare play, with the man’s paranoia serving as the means to his inevitable downfall. The debate over how much control the fates have over a person’s life remain in the film adaptation, along with the era-appropriate dialogue and sense of impending doom that swarms around Macbeth. The film version does take advantage of the medium though, showcasing the oft-beautiful (albeit infrequently used) Scottish/United Kingdom locales and staging large and impressive battle scenes scored with a screams and a heavy soundtrack. Blood flows relentlessly amid the skirmishes, and “Macbeth” doesn't shy away from showing the effects such brutality has on its participants; Fassbender and his fellow soldiers are covered in gashes and mud well after returning home from the war. The dirtiness works as a contrast to Thewlis' Duncan, who is garbed in fine white clothes as his men do the dirty work to protect his stature.

“Macbeth” would be a much more successful film had it limited the changes to the senses, but the desire to explain the plotting and reinterpret the Macbeth clan do far more harm than good. That opening image of the funeral mentioned earlier is proffered as the reason to the madness that eventually conquers Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, but it undermines that all too human sense of greed that drives the couple to murder for social advancement. The lust for power is strong to inspire such levels of evil; implementing a dead child as the justification is a cop out.

So it isn’t greed that drives Macbeth in this case; it’s loss and sorry and a need to atone for a family torn apart by the death of a child. The shift effectively reduces the cunning edge he develops after murdering Duncan; rather, savvy is exchanged for insanity that effectively removes the fault from his stars and shifting it to the fates. Considering the man is goaded into the act by his wife in the first place and Macbeth can pretty much blame the world for his actions and have some justification for it.

And then there’s poor Lady Macbeth, whose emotional complexity is stripped away by a film too eager to enter into pop psychology. Those undercurrents of fratricide that plague her during the planning in the play are gone, and the film opts to link her sudden illness death to an act of barbarity committed by Macbeth against Macduff's wife and children instead of Duncan's death. Macbeth's cruelty toward Macduff's family is revelatory for Lady Macbeth because it puts the monster she created on full display, but attaching it to a traditionally feminine concepts – family and innocence – erodes the strength behind her eventual madness. She transforms from an oak to a willow, with her expedited fall into eternal sleep taming material that’s better served with a little ferocity and bite.

Review: Three and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 113 minutes (One hour and 53 minutes)

Genre: Drama

Ask Away

Target audience: Lovers of Shakespearean drama and anyone down for a little war Scottish style.

Take the whole family?: “Macbeth” gets pretty bloody at times, but teens reading it for lit classes will be more than fine.

Theater or Netflix?: Wait for Netflix; the visuals are OK but just aren't strong enough to justify the additional expense.

Can you understand what’s being said?: Every now and then. The dialogue remains Shakespeare's, and the lines are delivered with thick accents by those involved, making for a rather tricky listening experience for viewers. Fortunately, the context of the situation remains easy to figure out, so it's easy to follow along even if a few lines fly well above your head.

Watch this as well?: I admittedly have a soft spot for Kenneth Branagh's adaptation of “Much Ado About Nothing.” Emma Thompson is wonderful as always, while Denzel Washington and Michael Keaton seem to have a lot of fun with the material. Plus Keanu Reeves flails at a British accent, which is always fun to watch.

Going back to home on the range

Spot and Arlo in a scene from "The Good Dinosaur." Image courtesy Disney/Pixar.

One of the more enjoyable aspects of the “The Good Dinosaur” is a thought experiment in which viewers try to figure out what the differences are between a human and dinosaur dominated society. Per the filmmakers, agriculture is an evolutionary inevitability, as are domesticity, drug trips, speech, and the development of morals and ethics among a civilized society. Humans wear items related to clothing, although it appears to be designed for preserving a creature's modesty as it does for warmth and protection. On the whole, much of the dinosaur society is like that of that early humans, if just a hint off, just as the film itself is a bit off and a rather interesting letdown.

Like the famous line by T.S. Eliot, The Good Dinosaur” opens with a whimper, or at least a shooting star that would have caused the destruction of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, according to the text on screen. Jump to a few million years into the future and dinosaurs have evolved into a lifestyle akin to those found in westerns. For little Arlo (Raymond Ochoa), that means life as a corn farmer in a small valley with his Poppa (Jeffrey Wright), Momma (Frances McDormand), sister Libby and brother Buck (Marcus Scribner). Poor Arlo is a neurotic runt, afraid of the chickens he feeds and the bugs that swarm around his head and the little humanoid creature (later named Spot and voiced by Jack Bright) consuming the family's crops. Poppa doesn't take kindly to the last act and uses it as a chance to coax the fear out of his young son, a choice that results in the older dinosaurs untimely, strikingly familiar death.

Arlo blames the little human for his father's death, and an opportunity to partake in revenge against the little moppet goes awry, sending the little dino miles away from his home. Stuck with the devoted and effective human as his only companion, Arlo must navigate through the unknown to find his way home. The trip is fraught with peril, as the weather, dangerous scavengers (notably a group of fearless pterodactyls led by Steve Zahn's Thunderclap) fear and self doubt combine to keep Arlo from reaching his goals. But the dude is resourceful, and he has a habit of striking up unconventional friendships, including a family of Tyrannosaurus rex rustlers voiced by Anna Paquin, A.J. Buckley and the silver-voiced Sam Elliott who offer comfort, advice and a little direction for the dino boy and his dog.

If certain segments of that description feel familiar, it's because “The Good Dinosaur,” to its detriment, is influenced greatly by other Disney-related properties, most notably “The Lion King.” “The Good Dinosaur” lifts a lot from the non-Shakespearean bits from “The Lion King,” like the death scene alluded to earlier and the mythical visitation of the father figure as a point of self discovery, which wouldn't be as big of a problem if it had a stronger narrative arc for its characters. That's not something the film opts to invest in – due in part to the heavy western influence that runs through it – and the haphazard story is uneven and is weighted to make the second act something of a bore. The plotting is one of the little things that just makes “The Good Dinosaur” a little off among its Pixar brethren: The story is a little sparse, the characters a little flat, the humor a little scatter shot, the speed of the action a little slow.  

But “The Good Dinosaur” is still a Pixar film, and it has enough of those core elements coursing through it to keep it an entertaining disappointment. The movie is quite often magnificent as a spectacle, just a beautiful film with open landscapes befitting its western roots and a pair of sequences involving fireflies that is just a wonder to watch unfold. And the loose plotting offers benefits of its own thanks the time extra spent with Arlo and Spot, who engage in silly antics and romp about the forest with whimsy and comfort. Getting that bond solidified results in an emotionally heavy scene that will wreck a few audience members, matching the minimum requirement for every good-to-great Pixar film.

I think the best way to think about “The Good Dinosaur” is to see it as an experiment for the studio, a new way of storytelling that’s simple and less frenetic than other films. The fact the film doesn’t work as well as it could is almost secondary to what it could lead to; like a pitcher developing an off-speed pitch to expand his or her repertoire, the new variation could become magnificent with more practice.

Review: Four out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG

Run time: 100 minutes

Genre: Animated

Ask Away

Target audience: Pixar fanatics and parents who need a break in between shopping trips.

Take the whole family?: Good for almost all age groups, save toddlers who will get a little intimidated by the more violent scenes.

Theater or Netflix?: Might be a nice way to keep the kids distracted during Black Friday shopping, but don't spring for the 3-D glasses.

What about the animated short?: It was actually the highlight of the screening. The short, “Sanjay's Super Team,” is about how a boy learns to understand his faith through the power of imagination and super heroes. Few words are spoken, but the tenderness and brilliant animation are awesome, as well as the idea of interpreting religion through one's own lens.

Watch this as well?: Pick your Pixar flick, especially the wonderful “”Inside Out.” Beyond that, the original “Land Before Time” is a rather good little animated films about how beings define family and the importance of conquering fear, just like “The Good Dinosaur.”

Fighting the man one quip at a time

Bryan Cranston as Dalton Trumbo in "Trumbo." Image courtesy Bleeker Street Media

“Trumbo” purports itself to be a film of great import, written and starring the type of men who make Aaron Sorkin drool through his dreams. The topic is a modern witch trial – no witches were harmed in the making of this film though – and the lesson bestowed by the filmmakers about how bad such things are is more apropos of a poorly written textbook than a film. There really isn’t much else to “Trumbo” aside from that lesson either; the filmmakers get so wrapped up in hammering their point home they forget to offer their audience an engaging film. To quote one of the great philosophers of this decade, oops.

Baseball fans familiar with hard-hitting, out-making, poor-fielding Seattle Mariners slugger Mark Trumbo will be disappointed that this film is not dedicated to his epic adventures in the outfield. Rather, the titular Trumbo is legendary writer Dalton Trumbo, known in film circles for penning such classics as “Roman Holiday” and “Spartacus.” Well, he's recognized for writing the former now; Trumbo persuaded a colleague to put his name on it so a movie studio actually purchase the script. The reason why he had to resort to that is the heart of his film, which stars “Breaking Bad,” “Seinfeld,” and “Malcolm in the Middle” alum Bryan Cranston as the mustached scribe. He starts the film riding high alongside his wife Cleo (Diane Lane) and three children after receiving a contract that makes him the richest writer in Hollywood, but the fall commences shortly thereafter because of his affiliation with the Communist Party. Given this happens to be 1947 and the early years of the Cold War, associating with the party of the so-called enemy is not a decision welcomed by many.

It really doesn't take all that long for Cranston and a few of his fellow writers (Louis C.K. and Alan Tudyk among them) to get called in front of the infamous House Un-American Activities Committee (or HUAC) to testify about the issue. None of them actually offer any testimony of note, and they are all summarily charged with contempt of court and, most notably, blacklisted by every major studio in Hollywood at the behest of the powerful and venomous columnist Hedda Hopper (a divinely vile Helen Mirren). With his life completely asunder, Cranston must find a way to rebuild his stature in the industry – the route takes him into the employ of B-movie magnates Frank and Hymie King (John Goodman and Stephen Root, respectively) – without losing the affection of his family, especially eldest child and burgeoning rebel Niki (Elle Fanning). Shenanigans involving prison, speed, Michael Stuhlberg doing a good enough Edward G. Robinson impersonation, David James Elliot doing a dreadful John Wayne impersonation, and some writing ensue.

Viewers learn a fair bit about the Hollywood Ten, the blacklist, Hollywood backroom deals and Dalton Trumbo's politics. The man himself, however, remains something of an enigma, which is quite strange given the film is called “Trumbo.” Viewers glimpse the eponymous figure through his crusade and his bathtub writing quirks, but there's little about the man as a writer or as a human being beyond the political realm, excluding of a short interlude in which he treats his family like crap and then stops. What the film is unwilling to do is separate the man from his politics, treating Cranston's Trumbo more like a megaphone than a human being. All Cranston, who is committed to the role but not left with very much to work with, can do is don his glasses, grow a funky mustache and dole out enough witticisms to irk Dorothy Parker.

Director Jay Roach and screenwriter John McNamara – both of whom appear out of their element with this kind of film – are much more interested in wagging their fingers toward the past and condemning those idiots for their paranoia than telling the story of a clearly complex and interesting man. And lord do they ride the high horse, raising platform after platform for characters to pontificate against the government overreach and the decimation of the First Amendment. They are very valid points to make, but the levels of self righteousness Roach and McNamara reach in “Trumbo” are staggeringly brilliant. The filmmakers fashion themselves and their titular character as heroes; then again, people act far more courageously when they have the benefit of hindsight.

Review: Two and out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: R

Run time: 124 minutes

Genre: Biopic

Ask Away

Target audience: People who are down for a moving about the Hollywood Ten and are patient to an incredible degree.

Take the whole family?: Aside from a shot of Bryan Cranston's derriere, it really isn't an “R” film. Teens younger than 17 who must watch it won't have an issue.

Theater or Netflix?: Put it on the que and save it for later if you want to watch it.

Academy Award odds?: There doesn't appear to be a lot of traction going for this one. The best bets are Bryan Cranston for Best Actor and Helen Mirren for Best Supporting Actress, but both are listed outside the nomination bubble on tracking sites. Both will probably get a Golden Globe nomination though.

Watch this instead?: “Bridge of Spies” has the same problem “Trumbo” does about lecturing its viewers, but the lesson is didactic and the back half offers an excellent spy film to keep you entertained. A much better Cold War flick is the wonderfully manic “Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” I know the full title isn't necessary, but it is just so much fun to use.

One last game, for old times' sake

Jennifer Lawrence stars in "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2." Image courtesy Lionsgate

“Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2” leaves a mildly bitter taste on the tongue immediately after viewing, a sensation linked directly to the middling dialogue and a silly ending in the same vein as the last few moments of the “Harry Potter” finale a few years back. Yet for a film targeted at a young demographic, it has a pretty excellent stew-quality to it; mulling it over for a night or so results in a hint more respect for it than the initial impression leaves. It's still not great and a bit of a letdown for a series that hasn't had a below-par movie, but it deserves brownie points for thematic depth and emotional heaviness despite its frequent trips into camp territory.

“Mockingjay” kicks off right after the conclusion of the first part, with heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) recovering after she is strangled by brainwashed romantic interest Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). The scene itself features poor Lawrence attempting to speak with bruise marks still on her throat, an idea that sounds strong on paper but is a better vehicle for unintentional laughter than emotional resonance.

Nevertheless, Lawrence is quite peeved by what happened to her (possibly) beloved Hutcherson, and she hatches a plan to assassinate the evil President Snow (a ridiculous, over the top Donald Sutherland) for revenge. Her mission comes against the wishes of steely rebel leader Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and the mysterious Pluutarch (a dearly missed Philip Seymour Hoffman), but she sneaks her way to the front lines of the war anyway and she joins her other beloved, Gail Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth). Both are placed on a special squad for the rebels' invasion of the capitol, along with Hutcherson, the charming Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin) and squad leader Boggs (Mahershala Ali), to film propaganda pieces and strike fear into the hearts of the Capitol. A relatively safe mission goes awry thanks to Sutherland's idea of turning the city streets into yet another round of Hunger Games, forcing Lawrence and her team to fight for their lives as they march toward Sutherland's mansion. Woody Harrelson pops in and out as Lawrence’s mentor Haymitch Abernathy to offer token bits of wisdom, while Jeffrey Wright, Jena Malone, Elizabeth Banks, Willow Shields and Stanley Tucci return to their respective roles to pad out the runtime for a few moments.

A film as long as “Mockingjay” shouldn’t need the padding, and the two-plus hour movie often feels much longer than that. The film is slowed down by scenes that add little to nothing to the narrative flow, except to try and justify splitting the third book in Suzanne Collins' popular young adult series into two films. It never quite works, and the result is two OK films with far too much fat instead of one pretty good that's three hours long but comparably lean to the four-and-a-half hours combined length of these two flicks.

So what do viewers get with the extra time with Katniss and her friends? A fair amount of relationship drama – the weakest part of the series by far, although Malone's character provides a nice meta jab at its inanity – and really miserable dialogue that provide more of that unintentional humor mentioned earlier. Audience members are blessed too with lazy writing tricks – Sutherland's Snow employs the blood in the handkerchief trope – and a few scenes of Lawrence looking confounded. Lawrence is more often than not a terrific actress, but “Mockingjay” brings out the worst in her. She’s horridly entertaining in her two big emotional scenes; then again, she is reacting to an especially bored cat and an disengaged baby.

It takes more digging than it should to get past the annoyances, but there is something worthwhile within “Mockingjay's” heart. It's a morally complex film, with the idea of doing the right thing often a pipe dream given the realities of war. War is a dirty contest in this film, a fact represented by the amount of grime and sewage contestants have to wade through to fight, and it becomes even messier when the characters debate exactly how far they are willing to go to win. Even Lawrence's Katniss, who state emphatically her moral boundaries during wartime, finds it difficult to stick with that moral rigidity when the opportunity for revenge arises.

So do the ends justify the means? Not quite in “Mockingjay,” as the film acknowledges there is at least one major line – eerily reminiscent of the attacks in Paris last week – that should not be crossed. It's a brutal scene carried over from the source material and presented with striking simplicity by the filmmakers, and it turns what is a dark series into an absolute horror. It's a moment that emphasizes the hopelessness of the war and Lawrence's quest; people who fight evil never leave the fight as pure as they entered it.

Review: Three out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 137 minutes (Two hours and 17 minutes)

Genre: Action

Ask Away

Target audience: Teen girls and fans of the either the books or the rest of the film series.

Take the whole family?: Kids will get turned off a bit by the explosions and a rather horrifying plot twist, so keep children younger than 10 at home.

Theater or Netflix?: Probably could wait until its available on home viewing, but stick with matinee if opting to see it on a large screen.

Is Jennifer Lawrence worth the money?: Lawrence, who will apparently make $20 million for her upcoming film “Passengers,” has more than justified an increase in pay. Even if her acting isn't up to her own standards in this one, she's still the face of a major box-office film series, and she is a leading figure in the “X-Men” series to boot. The star system is overrated for sure, but Lawrence has earned that money based on the rules of the game.

Watch this as well?: “Catching Fire” is the best individual entry in the series – Philip Seymour Hoffman is great, and the action is much tighter than the rest of the series. Similarly, check out the third “Harry Potter” film, “The Prisoner of Azkaban,” which is by far the best in that series and is a terrific standalone film.