If the unhealthy food at McDonald's is not enough to reduce your visits, the portrayal of Ray Kroc in The Founder will surely turn you away from the company.  Although I have eaten at Mcdonald's many times (too many times) in my life, I never knew the history of the fast food empire.  Since I only have this film as a perspective of the franchise's history, I cannot tell if Ray Kroc was actually a complete sales shark or if this film is terribly biased towards one side of the story.  The film basically claims that Kroc stole the restaurant company from Richard and Mac McDonald, which might be accurate.  What started off as a family restaurant became a worldwide phenomenon based around the model of speed.  

Although there are star actors in this one, the performances feel forced at times and never hit the depth of emotion of similar films.  Coming off of vast success in Birdman, Michael Keaton seemed poised to take on any role as a lead actor.  Unfortunately, this one was a miscast with Keaton forcing a personality that is fake.  Hopefully this role won't lead him downwards from the peak of success, but I have high hopes for his role in Spider-Man: Homecoming.  Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation) and John Carroll Lynch (Gran Torino) are decent as the McDonald brothers, but their talents feel wasted with small parts.  If there was a bit more heart in the script, there could have been a lot of room for fearless performances.  Yet, The Founder falls far from similar pictures like The Social Network and The Wolf of Wall Street.  

Another issue that I had with this film was the pace of events.  The film opens with almost no backstory for Ray Kroc.  Our minds are implanted with the fact that he is just a cheating salesperson.  If I were given more outlook on his upbringing, I would have had more of a connection with the character.  Nothing about this character is moral or good.  Surely, there is another trait that we can at least appreciate about Ray Kroc.  The film is rushed into paperwork signings and contracts, without stopping to show the audience the actual process of Kroc's success.  He seemingly does nothing and succeeds, making him an even less likeable character.  

The Bottom Line:  A broken pace and forced acting create a boring look at the fast-food takeover that Ray Kroc committed.   

Score: 6/10

Image credit: ​By Memorias22 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=58336632

For a three hour runtime, this is one of the quickest paced movies I have ever watched.  Scorsese (The Departed) directs this biopic about Jordan Belfort, one of the many salespeople who took advantage of others for their own gains on Wall Street.  I have not yet read Belfort's book, but I imagine that it is just as crazy as the film adaptation.  Drugs, sex, and all sorts of raunchiness progress the film forwards at a relentless pace.  Just when I wondered what could happen next, surprising events unfold as Belfort and his gang constantly get high and make millions of dollars.

A trio of acting dominates the storyline with Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception, The Departed, Titanic) at the helm.  Leo's portrayal of Belfort balances on a tightrope of lovability and immorality.  Even with his wishy-washy character, Leo leads the film in what is his best performance to date.  Don't get me wrong, The Revenant is another great film in his filmography, but nothing beats the authenticity of this role.  The other two screen-dominating roles are Jonah Hill (21 Jump Street, Superbad) as Donny Azoff and Matthew McConaughey (Interstellar, Dallas Buyers Club​) as Mark Hanna.  At a time when Jonah Hill was starting to take off, he plays the perfect henchman for Belfort to work with.  Azoff is an oddball character that is shrouded in mystery.  No actor could have been a better fit for this role.  Alongside Hill and DiCaprio, McConaughey shines bright as a mentor for Belfort.  Even though his role is short-lived, he is iconic and exciting to watch.

It still amazes me that this film is directed by Scorsese.  The Wolf of Wall Street is not for all ages, but geared toward a specific audience.  Anyone who is interested in economics might take offense with the film and its display of Wall Street crookedness.  However, at a time when everyone dreamed of being rich, the film played well to young adults.  Honestly, who doesn't dream of a life with the comfort of Jordan Belfort's.  Of course there were clear flaws with living this sort of life, but you have to admit that being able to buy a yacht and go wherever you want in the world has an appeal.  Scorsese's character study is able to appeal to wannabe millionaires even with a story as immoral as Belfort's.

The Bottom Line:  Fine acting and a quick pace push this drug-filled film forwards, creating a piece of art that will be remembered by anyone who dreams of being rich.

Score: 9/10

Natalie Portman (V for Vendetta, Black Swan, Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith) has played a lot of large roles, but she has never filled the shoes of someone as iconic as Jackie Kennedy before.  Her performance makes her almost unrecognizable, blending in as Jackie without a trace of pretend.  She looks just like her, sounds just like her, and I imagine that she took some time researching the mannerisms of the former First Lady.  At times the story drags a bit, but Portman is fun to watch throughout the full film.

When the trailers came out a few months back, I was not exactly sure what the timeframe of the film would be.  The film takes place right after the assassination of JFK, spanning over only a few days.  By choosing to focus on a very short time period, Pablo Larrain's (Neruda​) direction is centered around the character rather than big events.  For this reason the film chugs along slowly so that the audience is forced to study Jackie's thoughts and actions.  This is a full character study after an event that formed the main character.  It is nice to see that Jackie is the focal point, rather than her popular husband.  It is not often that directors choose to create a story around a strong female character.  Yet, that is the beauty of contemporary indie filmmaking.  We finally get good roles for actresses to portray.

To create the connection between the audience and Jackie, Larrain uses close-up shots, putting us directly in front of the character.  We see every ounce of emotion in Portman's facial expressions, proving her abilities as a lead actress.  Personally, I was not alive at the time of the events that take place on screen, so the grainy footage also adds to the film's time period.  A good amount of the film looks like it was taken from cameras that were actually filming in the 1960s.  That sounds weird, but these subtle decisions in filmmaking create an authentic atmosphere for the audience.  

The Bottom Line:  Portman's authentic acting and Larrain's superb direction re-create an interesting story that younger generations haven't been exposed to.

Score: 9.0/10

When news broke that Steve Jobs was pushed out of his own company, the world went a bit crazy.  The man who everyone believed had been the crucial part of Apple parted ways for a while, but eventually made a triumphant return to his brainchild.  With this new film, Danny Boyle (Slumdog Millionaire, Trainspotting, 127 Hours) breaks down this complex character that the world really never fully understood.  Rumors constantly revolved around Jobs, who had a bad family history and an articulate vision for his creations.  Steve Jobs shows the audience a behind the scenes look at the legendary man, using an odd storytelling method that feels original and holistic.

Steve Jobs discusses the story behind Jobs's life through a look at three different public product launches.  Personally, I knew very little about Jobs's background and the first two product releases.  As a Macbook Pro user, I was somewhat ashamed that I had no knowledge of the product releases.  The first release brings us into the story with grainy 1980s imagery and costuming.  The first 30-45 minutes of the film are portrayed as a period piece, delving us into the life of Jobs at a time where conflict was boiling under the surface.  At the second release, the conflict unravels into a full-out fight between Jobs and John Sculley.  The audience starts to choose sides during the conflict, and Boyle gives us a level playing field.  Finally, we are brought into the final product release where resolution is forced into the story.  I have an issue with the very last scene, which gave me flashbacks to The Newsroom season 2 finale.  Still, this film does a great job telling a story that Apple-users and PC-users are mostly unfamiliar with.

Adding to the originality of the film, all of the performances are different for the respective actors.  Michael Fassbender (Inglourious Basterds, X-Men) does a great job as Steve Jobs, the man whose inner-struggles constantly impacted his relationship with his family and coworkers.  Seth Rogen (This is the End, Superbad, The Interview) finally takes on a serious role as Steve Wozniack, showing audiences that he can not only make them laugh but also make them sympathize.  Pairing with Fassbender, Kate Winslet (Titanic) plays Joanna Hoffman.  Winslet's accent is believable for a Polish women, and she adds to the emotion behind Fassbender's portrayal of jobs.  Finally, we come to Jeff Daniels's (Looper​) portrayal of John Sculley.  Daniels's performance guides us through one of Jobs's tougher relationships.  At times we understand what Sculley is doing, but we also choose whether or not we like or hate him.  To me, all of these performances were on par in the making of an original take on a contemporary story.

The Bottom Line:  Danny Boyle takes three events from a man's life and creates an original film to reflect on Steve Jobs's inner-struggles.

Score: 9/10

​Image credit: ​By MetalGearLiquid, based on File:Steve_Jobs_Headshot_2010-CROP.jpg made by Matt Yohe - Own work, based on File:Steve_Jobs_Headshot_2010-CROP.jpg made by Matt Yohe, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16232621

In 1971, Dr. Philip Zimbardo conducted one of the most well-known experiments to date.  The experiment involved random individuals who were hand selected to play roles as prisoners and prison guards.  The experiment was supposed to last for two weeks, but ended up being cut short because of the findings that Dr. Zimbardo gathered.  The Stanford Prison Experiment retells the story of Zimbardo's work in a haunting fashion.  What starts off as a paid job for twenty-four male students ends up escalating into something that no one expected.  The film handles the event extremely well, taking us inside of the prison simulation that ended with results that are still hard to comprehend today.

Director Kyle Patrick Alvarez (C.O.G.) takes us into the cramped space that Zimbardo created for his experiment, masterfully giving a claustrophobic portrayal to the audience.  Capturing the tone of the experiment, Alvarez creates a haunting reimagining of what the "prisoners" went through after signing up.  The film features performances by actors that I have barely seen on screen.  All of the performances are crafted from the original experiment, giving the film a genuine cast.  Billy Crudup (Watchmen, Almost Famous, Big Fish) plays the role of Dr. Zimbardo and capably puts himself in the shoes of a man whose experiment turns for the worse.  A few other actors do a nice job in their respective roles are Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being a Wallflower, Suicide Squad) and Michael Angarano (Almost Famous).  Miller shows us what was going on in with one of the prisoners, who felt mistreated and had a mental breakdown.  On the other side of the picture, Angarano plays one of the guards who gets carried away with his role.  In his role as Christopher Archer, Angarano terrifyingly takes control of the prison.

This is a film that leaves the audience pondering the outcomes of the experiment.  The experiment shows us that people can become power-hungry if they are placed in specific roles.  There are also implications of ingroups and outgroups, where people join up with others who are in similar situations as themselves.  Some of the prisoners banded together to rebel against the guards, while some chose to follow along with what the guards made them do.  The guards often ganged up on the prisoners, taking the experiment to the extreme via the use of physical brutality and mental harm.  The film brings us visually into an experiment that is hard to imagine from simply reading the thesis.  In writing, the reader can get an idea of the experiment, but we can only truly understand what was going on through visual interpretations.

The Bottom Line: The film gives the audience a fascinating peek into an experiment that had to be called off because of certain interactions among the guards and prisoners.

​Score: 7.5/10

Image credit: ​By Zahra Borhan - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49047896

Alright Clint, we get it.  You are a patriot who loves America and hates seeing threats against America.  Alright Tom, we get it.  You are an actor who can take on any role and act at your finest every time.  With both of those things in mind, Sully is a dull view of the plane that landed in the Hudson.  Clint Eastwood's decisions in telling the story are scattered and footage is constantly reused to get the film over the 90 minute mark.  The story recurringly thrusts the audience back to the scenario that only lasted for a couple of minutes.  Odd flashbacks and PTSD combine to create a film that has little impact and feels disorganized.  

Tom Hanks brings a decent performance to the role of Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger.  He is a believable pilot who encounters problems even after his heroic landing on the Hudson.  As the storyline jumps around, Hanks is a constant for the film always acting as the helpful captain.  Aaron Eckhart also makes for a good sidekick in his portrayal of First Officer Jeff Skiles.  I cannot really complain about the duo, who act the best they can with the material that they are given.

One thing that I found to be a problem with the film was Eastwood's constant turn toward patriotism.  This was seen in American Sniper, where the story revolved around a U.S. soldier.  To me, the patriotism fit a bit better in that film.  Yet, Sully's nudges towards 9/11 allegories often feel over-the-top and less fitting for the film.  Eastwood is clearly capable of making good movies, so long as he doesn't get caught up with preaching too much about American pride.  Sully got too caught up with ideologies on American pride, but it would be hard to create a film about that incident without having some sort of side-issue to discuss.

The Bottom Line: Sully is a well-made movie, but it gets too caught up with side-track stories and issues to maintain the audience's full interest.

Score: 6.5/10

Image credit: By Greg L - Larger size, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5723434

Once again, Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada, Doubt) reminds us of the importance of fine arts.  As Florence Foster Jenkins, Streep takes on the role of a poor singer who pays her way to the top.  However rather than being a self-centered rich woman, Jenkins had a true love for the art of opera.  Streep gives us this portrayal through her emotional journey as Jenkins.  No one other than Jenkins's husband and accompanist understood this, but now the movie-goer gets this look at their perspective.  Stephen Frears (The Queen, Philomena) once again targets an older audience, but anyone who enjoys a well-made film can find something to entertain themselves with this one.

The film is often times hilarious, but also heartwarming as a story of true love, loyalty, and devotion.  Hugh Grant (Music and Lyrics) plays Jenkins's loving husband, providing for her but also living a double life.  As St Clair Bayfield, Grant is dramatic around his costar but playful around the other characters.  The two roles suit him well and I cannot remember a performance by Grant that I liked as much as this one.  The other stand-out star in this film is Simon Helberg (The Big Bang Theory) as Cosme McMoon.  McMoon was Jenkins's piano accompanist, which was clearly an odd setup for McMoon.  Helberg brings the awkward relationship that the two "musicians" had throughout their time together.  Towards the beginning of the film, Helberg steals the show through his comic delivery and facial expressions.  He fits perfectly into the shoes of his character, overacting to get the audience roaring for more of his screentime.

In a film about such a famous singer, it is important to realize the soundtrack accompanying the imagery.  Streep brings out a new voice in her portrayal of Jenkins.  Listening to recordings of Jenkins, Streep sounds almost exactly like her.  This is one of Streep's best performances in any role I have seen.  It is also an extremely painful performance to watch, but somehow I could listen to Streep sing like this for over an hour and still find it hilarious.  The original music written for the film is a complete contradiction to Florence's voice.  Alexandre Desplat (The King's Speech, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Argo, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows) once again creates a score that fits the setting of a bustling New York in the early 1900s.  Desplat's score is dramatic and retrospective, bringing out the gravitas of the film.

The Bottom Line:  This film is painfully hilarious and fantastically flat.

Score: 7.5/10

For now, we all remember Lance Armstrong and his fight against cancer through Armstrong bracelets.  We also remember his fall from fame when it was discovered that he was doping after years of telling the public he never used steroids.  This film reminds us of his legacy and his shocking confession to the press.  Just as Lance cycled his way to seven Tour de France wins, the film moves at a ridiculously quick pace jumping through more than a decade of material in an hour and a half.  The jumpy cutting detracts from the film as the viewer is constantly distracted with odd side stories.  For example, a small portion of the story reflects on Floyd Landis's past and his religious family's values.  The Program never expands on the subject and it acts as a half-assed background story for a character that barely matters.  Other quick side-tracking stories plague the film with content that could have been replaced with practical content.

The acting throughout the film seems well-researched on everyone's part except for Ben Foster (Lone Survivor).  Personally I have not seen a lot of Armstrong's press conferences or public appearances, but Foster felt awkwardly placed in the role.  The other actors are more authentic and naturally take on their characters.  Jesse Plemons (Bridge of Spies) and Chris O'Dowd (Calvary, St. Vincent​) really stand out in their roles.  Plemons and O'Dowd both create the bridge for the audience to connect with the story and characters.  Unfortunately, Foster is not relatable in any sense of the word.

I recall watching a documentary on the Tour de France on an Imax screen quite a few years ago.  The Program has very similar camera shots to that documentary.  One of the early scenes in the film really struck me as the camera follows a bicyclist on a straight path, moving at the same speed as the bicyclist.  The shot is smooth and flowing, as if we are on the bike ride right next to the racer.  One other neat convention used is a vertical tilt during a mountain scene.  The audience is put on the edge of the mountain with the riders, feeling unstable and insecure.  This shot and so many more create a spectacle of adrenaline that kept me in fear of crashing as many of the bikers do at the large race.

The Bottom Line:  This film jumps around a lot in a short period of time, feeling unfocused and often unstable.  Yet, the cinematography is still a smooth and flowing spectacle.   

Score:  7.8/10   

Image credit: ​http://cdn1-www.comingsoon.net/assets/uploads/gallery/untitled-lance-armstrong-cycling-project-1386388200/11037811_1588410554744529_2099016994877134401_n-1.jpg

I found this gem at a used movie store for $3 and I think it might have been my best movie purchase ever.  Wow, just wow.  I was told that this film was extremely slow and not that great, but to me this is one of the greatest tragedies in modern cinema.  Sure, the film is a bit slow but the buildup is worth it.  As the plot progresses, the drama increases to a point that I honestly did not want to blink in fear of missing a single moment.  Yet, I was forced to blink several times as I could feel myself tearing up from the sheer beauty of what I saw and heard on screen.

The acting is a great place to start off my review.  Let's just say that I have never been fond of Channing Tatum in any film.  In Foxcatcher, I am finally forced to accept that Tatum has a talent for acting.  In fact, I would not have minded at all if Tatum took home an Oscar for his part in the film.  As always, Mark Ruffalo is superb in his role which breaks out about halfway through the film.  But maybe an even more shocker to me in the film was Steve Carrel.  Where did this personality come from?  How was Carrel even cast in such a role?  Well, I don't even care because he was amazing and probably the greatest casting choice for the role.  Who knew that such a comedian could have such great power over a film's plot?  I thought he was fantastic in The Big Short but that was nothing compared to this.

Foxcatcher deserves even more praise because of its artistic aspects.  The movie is dragged out, keeping the audience sunken in their seats.  Somehow I felt like I was falling further and further into the story though.  Trapped in the delusional minds of each of the three main characters I was falling into a hole of tragedy that was simply inescapable.  This might sound crazy, but it is exactly how I felt as the movie fell deeper and deeper into the plot.  The string instrumental score helped keep me down with its sustained tones of buildup.  The film was simply one of the greatest tragedies I have seen in quite a while and possibly ever.

The Bottom Line: Its an art film, a tragic film, and certainly a unique film that is worth every second of your attention.

​Score: 9.7/10

From the creative mind of Adam McKay comes another comedy that is based on a more dramatic premise.  The Big Short is a new type of film for those of us familiar with the Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers form of McKay movies.  Rather than creating a straight comedy, McKay turns to drama with comedy to support the story.  For an issue that is so hard to understand, McKay makes it entertaining and maybe more understandable.  To be honest, I still have no idea how the economy collapsed in 2008 but the film definitely kept my attention.  Maybe if I watch it about five more times it will all make sense!

The Big Short also has a star-studded cast that meshes quite well together.  Seeing Christian Bale as a person who cannot fit into society but somehow ended up work at an investment company was awesome.  Also, McKay's use of Steve Carell in a dramatic role was great.  Certainly Carell has proven himself to be capable of taking on just about any role.  Surely, the skills seen from the many actors and actresses will gain some Oscar buzz and hopefully quite a few nominations.  Not to mention, this film had the greatest cameos and placement of cameos I have ever seen.  

Put together all of these factors and you get a solid dramedy reminiscent of The Wolf of Wall Street.  However, this film strives on more of an ensemble cast and it uses some more unique film devices.  Often times, the actors break the fourth wall by talking directly to the audience.  This always tells the audience that something fishy is up with the film and it builds a direct connection with the audience.  This is just one of the tools that McKay uses in creating this glorious comedy or drama.  I am not exactly sure which he was going for mostly, but it definitely works as both.

The Bottom Line:  Expect a film reminiscent of McKay's previous works, but also deeply dramatic and full of crazy cinematic devices that might somehow leave you with no knowledge on the issue that it is trying to explain.

​Score: 9.4/10