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

Well, looks like Will Smith is back on the big screen with another movie that had high expectations but fell short of them.  Most of the blame for this one falls on the pacing of the film.  For the first hour or so, the film seems utterly cluttered as it constantly shifts the story around.  The audience is dragged around to a point where I felt that the focus of the film was completely lost.  The odd thing is the film could easily find a focal point in the NFL story, but maybe there was too much backlash from the organization.

The really crappy part of the film is that Will Smith is actually quite good in the film.  At first I thought that his Nigerian accent would get in the way of the film's progression, but it actually felt authentic to the point that I almost forgot that I was watching Will Smith.  Yet, he was wasted since the film got muddled down in its lack of focus.  While Smith was great, I still would have liked to see someone who could better fit the role.  That's great that the casting crew got a big name actor and all, but come on.  Let's start getting some fresh talent on the big screen!

My last critique is that the film felt quite safe.  Sure it jabbed a bit at the NFL, but it could have gone so much further into the story.  This probably contributed to the overall clutter of the film that fell short of my expectations.  One memorable line uttered from Smith's character is "Tell the truth."  Funny how this film managed to tell the truth and yet refuse to uncover the full story.  Its as though the studio valued its relationships more than its morals.  Oh well, guess that's just Hollywood.

The Bottom Line:  Here's another film that had potential, but fell apart because of its lack of authenticity.

​Score: 5.5/10

I am about to tell you all something super controversial to film fans and boxing fans alike, so get ready.  I like Creed more than the original Rocky film.  For those of you that I just punched in the gut, I apologize but its true.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and hope it gets some sort of sequel.  Maybe we can even get four more Creed films out of the franchise, who knows.

Unlike Rocky, this film kept me enthralled the whole time.  Stallone is a much better supporting actor than he is a lead actor.  My biggest critique of Rocky was Stallone talking to himself for most of the film.  Michael B. Jordan redeems the franchise for me as he portrays Apollo Creed's son.  Adonis Creed (Apollo's son) is a very well-written character who clearly develops throughout the film.  Boxing aside, Adonis has a sort of charm as a troubled youth that the audience can connect with.

The film also moved at a fantastic pace.  The intensity builds up to the fight towards the end, but there are multiple boxing scenes to keep the crowd's attention.  The technical aspects of the film also create a concrete boxing movie that is slightly over two hours.  Every boxing scene is filmed spectacularly as the camera bounces around in the ring.  I really felt like I was in the middle of the fight, taking all of the punches that Adonis was taking.  Of course, along the way there are some awesome montages that remind the viewer of the first Rocky film.  Finally, while the score is not by Bill Conti, it still recalls the old themes that are always stuck in the audience's head.

The Bottom Line:  This film is a very fun watch that Rocky fans can enjoy alongside people who have never even seen a Rocky film.

Score: 9.5/10

After watching this film, I was a bit underwhelmed but still able to see why there is hype around Rocky.  Going into the film I expected a stellar performance from Sylvester Stallone.  That would be something that I have yet to see from this actor.  While I am unsure of whether I believe Stallone was stellar in this role, he was certainly different from any other role I have seen him in. Rather than creating a solid character, it appeared that Stallone's own writing created a character that said everything that came to his mind.  To me, this type of acting based on stream of consciousness seems to get old after a while once.

Recently, I have come to enjoy sports films with newer films such as Rush, 42, and The Fighter.  So I figured I would go back to one of the most classic sports films, Rocky.  Unlike most other sports films, Rocky really only had two actual sporting events to keep the audiences attention.  I would have probably felt more into the film if there were a few more boxing events in the film.  My focus seemed to wain at times from Stallone's continuous dialogue.

Yet, I still enjoyed this movie mainly because of the camerawork involved.  A lot of the scenes in the film involved long tracking shots that made me feel like I was following the characters through the streets of Philly.  Furthermore, the cinematography created a beautiful atmosphere and setting.  Honestly, I would love to go to Philadelphia and retrace Rocky's steps to experience that setting.  

The Bottom Line:  The acting was certainly unique, but the camerawork and cinematography really create the classic feel of this film.

Score: 8.5/10