Yet another biographical film this year, Wild is based on the book of the same name. Written by Cheryl Strayed, I read this one last year or the year before. It is her account of her trek on a portion of the Pacific Crest Trail in the ’90’s. Cheryl had spent a rough couple of years after her mother’s death, dabbling in drugs, infidelity to her husband (which resulted in the loss of her marriage), and a general aimlessness to her life. One day she decided to hike this trail, almost on a whim, to escape everything and spend time focusing on herself.

The film seemed to be a pretty accurate portrayal. Reese Witherspoon plays Cheryl, and she is all ready getting acclaim for the role. Cheryl struggles the whole way throughout the film. From physical struggles (she started the hike with too-small boots, resulting in painful sores and lost toenails) to the mental ones (being alone, facing the harsh reality of what she has done to her life), she attempts to overcome every cliff she faces, real and figurative. We see her history through a series of flashbacks, with her very real demons dogging her on her trail. In the end, the film is obviously about much more than the physical trials of a strenuous hike through desert, rain, snow, and mud.

Reese is fantastic, and is at her best since Walk the Line about 10 years ago. Like the book, the film felt a little meandering in the middle, but you want to stick around for the conclusion to see how Cheryl comes out in the end.

This time of year, there are a lot of oscar-worthy dramas hitting the theaters, so a good comedy is a nice change of pace. Top Five stars Chris Rock (who also wrote and directed). He plays Andre, a mega star comedic actor and former stand up, who has tried to do more serious roles, only to end up with a string of box office busts. He is days away from marrying a reality show tv star, whose wedding on Bravo is the tv event of the year, and really the only thing keeping Andre in the news these days. The movie follows a single day, as he is being interviewed by Rosario Dawson’s character Chelsea, a reporter for the New York Times.

Everyone, including Chelsea, wants to know why Andre isn’t funny anymore. He has distanced himself from comedy films and his past, and hasn’t done stand up in years. Ostensibly he says it is because he’s tired of comedy and wants to do more, but Chelsea senses early on something else is up and needles him throughout the day to get truthful answers.

The movie is funny, at times hysterically so, but there is good heart in it as well. When Andre’s past demons (and Chelsea’s secrets too) come to light, it brings a lot of depth to the story. Viewer be warned, like Rock’s style the movie can be vulgar at times, but it is one of the better comedies this year and features a great cast (small parts featuring Cedric the Entertainer, Kevin Hart, Tracy Morgan, and many others, even Jerry Seinfeld!). Not a family film, but a solid adult comedy that will entertain.

Whole lot of faith-based movies this year. Ridley Scott’s Exodus is the newest and tells Moses’ famous tale. Unfortunately it comes out closer to the fictional Noah, which I also didn’t like earlier this year. To say Scott took artistic license is a big understatement, and I just don’t get it.

Moses is played by big-time star Christian Bale. Bale is a very fine actor, but his Moses isn’t all that believable, and I have to believe some of that is the writing. Moses struggles with his faith throughout, to the point that the viewer is left wondering if he really believes in God or their mission at all, even when the plagues are hitting Egypt. He is mostly a reluctant figurehead for the Hebrew people calling for freedom. God doesn’t work through him, and even Moses is unaware what plagues are coming. It almost seems Moses is just there to spat with Ramses, his jealous adoptive brother. All of the big turning points from the Bible are shown in the film, but events come about because of different circumstances, or even mere chance at times.

I can understand when the tale of Noah was expanded for this year’s movie. In the Old Testament, there isn’t much to Noah’s story, at least not enough to fill out a 2 hour film, so events had to be constructed. I didn’t like it, but I can understand the reasoning. But Moses’s unique life was full and exciting, and didn’t need the Hollywood touch to make it more thrilling. If you aren’t a believer, you probably have little desire to see this movie anyway, so why not tell it as it was written?

Previews have been hyping this film for quite awhile, as the next great “masterpiece” featuring Hillary Swank and Tommy Lee Jones. I thought it was just ok. There is some superb acting, but it was a little choppy and took a weird turn two-thirds of the way through.

Swank plays Mary B Cuddy, an aging single woman in the frontier trying to keep a farm by herself. She is rebuffed by men she tries to finagle in to marrying her, but plods on showing that she can do everything herself anyway. When 3 woman in the territory come down with mental illness, due to different reasons, and are no longer able to be looked after by their husbands, Cuddy volunteers to take them to a church in Iowa where they can be cared for. She enlists Jones’ character Briggs to help.

Most of the movie is spent showing the journey, and the various events that led putting these women in the position they are in. You don’t really know if they’ll come out of their predicament before the end, or if they will even make the journey due to hardships they face along the way. As I said, there is some truly brilliant acting, but I don’t feel it reached the heights it wanted to. Worth a single viewing for the portrayals alone, as besides Swank and Jones it features a strong cast of Meryl Streep, John Lithgow, and James Spader, among other familiar faces.

I try to keep up on current events, but I’m sad to say I didn’t know anything about the detainment of Newsweek reporter Maziar Bahari in 2009. Rosewater tells his story, in subtle but gripping ways.

Bahari, portrayed in the film by Gael Garcia Bernal, returns to his home nation of Iran in 2009 to film the presidential election. Working for Newsweek, he tries to show supporters of both sides. Despite early polling showing Mir-Hossein Mousavi leading, incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is declared a clear winner, leading to protests by the younger, disillusioned population. Bahari captures some of these protests on camera, including scenes of the protesters being fired upon by militia and/or police. When his footage is posted online, he is immediately arrested by the Iranian police and interrogated over the next few months.

Because Bahari is a high profile prisoner, he is not beaten or physically harmed, but the movie still paints a harsh picture of the psychological abuse he receives. He is robbed of sight for long stretches of the day when he is forced to be blindfolded. He is told he will never see his family again and will be killed unless he cooperates. Even when he does finally join in their propaganda, he is not set free and continues to be held. He sees visions of his father and sister, both of whom spent time in Iranian prisons.

This is a good, if somewhat soft spoken film. It makes me appreciate more the trials journalists can go through for only doing their job and trying to show the truth going on in this world. I can’t help but wonder why the population of countries like Iran don’t leave en masse, when faced with harsh dictatorship and oppression. Though Bahari was not physically tortured, others in the rebellious faction most definitely were, and through dialogue it seemed it was commonplace for every household to have had a member detained for months or years. We Americans complain an awful lot about our problems, but we really are very lucky.

Based-on-true-story biographical films usually go one of two ways. Often they can be too fact-heavy and come off like a documentary (last year’s Mandela), but the better ones dance the fine line between story and heart (Hotel Rwanda and A Beautiful Mind are some of my favorites). The Theory of Everything falls towards the latter. While not necessarily a stellar film, it is solid, and it does feature an incredible portrayal by Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawking.

The movie starts with Hawking in college in 1963, before his symptoms of ALS have begun. He meets future wife Jane (Felicity Jones) just as his illness is starting. The film then follows his life from there on, through his initial diagnosis (initially given just 2 years to live!), his ground-breaking scientific theories, and his personal life as his body progressively fails him. I don’t know much about Hawking, but I know enough that the film does sugarcoat some of his flaws in typical Hollywood fashion, but it still creates a beautiful depiction of his perseverance against near insurmountable odds.

The real highlight of this movie is Redmayne. He becomes Stephen Hawking in this movie. Mannerisms, facial ticks, the whole package. He should be a strong candidate for best actor in all the awards shows this year. The film is worth seeing on its own, but even if it weren’t as good as it is, Redmayne’s representation is one all movie lovers should see.

Despite terrible reviews, I enjoyed Horrible Bosses 2. The style is the same as the first one, so if you liked it, then you will like the sequel. Though it has a thin plot, and the only link to the first film is the characters (really has nothing to do with bosses this time around), it features the same kind of snappy dialogue and off-the-cuff banter that made the first film so entertaining.

This time around, the trio of friends finds themselves in tight financial traits. In order to bail themselves out, they decide to kidnap the son of a wealthy businessman. The tables are turned when the son turns out to be nuts, and starts running the scam himself. In a similar twist as the first film, things go from bad to worse until it all comes out ok in the very end. There are some recycled jokes here, but enough new material to keep you laughing.

Saw the recent Hunger Games film this weekend. I never read the series, but I did enjoy the first two films and was looking forward to this one. All in all, Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1 isn’t as gripping or heart stopping as the first two movies, but it does seem to lay down the groundwork for what will be (I’m hoping) an epic climax in the last movie next year.

Full revolution has come to the nation of Panem. Katniss is living with her family in struggling District 13, the epicenter of the rebellion. The president of the district wants to use Katniss’s popularity to make her a figurehead for the revolution, and entices her to start a series of propaganda videos to rally others to their cause. Katniss meanwhile longs for those others she fought with in the Games, and wants her new friends to find and rescue them from the Capitol. When she gets her wish, it isn’t what she had hoped for.

Mockingjay 1 is a bit light on the action. There is a lot of dialogue and plot development going on throughout the film, leading up to the final film. Its always the risk moviemakers take when they split a single book into two (or more – I’m looking at you Hobbit) films. It is still a good movie, if a little campy at times; after all, it is based on a young adult book series. I am hoping the last movie lives up to the scale this film built for it.

While Disney has made some big budget, big action, international blockbusters under its Marvel division since acquiring them in 2009, Big Hero 6 is the first animated film using Marvel characters. I think a lot of people didn’t know what to expect, if Disney could successfully blend the two audiences and make something everyone can enjoy. For the most part, they did.

At surface value, Big Hero 6 seems geared towards the younger audience. There were a lot of gags and jokes that young viewers will find hilarious, but not as much for an older audience, at least not the same that you might find in a Pixar film or something similar. Many of the chuckles revolved around the fluffy white robot all of the pre-release trailers focused on, and the enticed laughs got a little stale by the end. However, the animation and action is superb, so there is something for everyone to enjoy. The movie is about a young genius who uses his knowledge of robotics to build super hero suits for his friends. They band together to take down an evil mastermind. Without giving away too much, the film does have the tried-and-true heart wrenching loss that pervades Disney films for as long as I can remember, but the team learns to work together and stay true to their friendship to win the day.

I think long-term, Big Hero 6 might not go down as a “Disney classic;” personally I felt it was a good movie, though not as touching or memorable as some other Disney greats. But it does show that the Disney/Marvel blend can work and be successful. If you have kids, this is definitely a film you can take them to and enjoy yourself.

Whiplash was the second movie of a double header I saw today. The first was stellar, so Whiplash was going to have to be really special to compete. While very good, maybe even great, it didn’t move me like the first film did. Whiplash stars Miles Teller as Andrew, a young drummer recently admitted to one of the best music schools in the country. His goal is to become “one of the greats,” and when he gets the attention of Fletcher (played by J.K. Simmons), the director of the top jazz band in the school, he pushes himself to be just that. He quickly learns though that Fletcher is an ass. He accepts nothing but perfection, to the point that he verbally and even physically abuses his players for even the slightest missteps.

I’m a musician, and I’ve seen directors like Fletcher before (granted, not to the extreme shown in the film). They can’t differentiate their personal success from the success of their band, and every player in it is just there to show the world his ability as a leader. Fletcher manipulates everyone and uses violence as the only tool to entice perfection from his group.

Teller and Simmons are really great, though the plot as a whole is a little stale by the end. There are parts of the film that are meant to be very serious, though I found some almost comical, but perhaps viewers with a non-musical background may not even pick up on issues and events that seem a bit out of place. I did appreciate that great lengths were taken to make some of the musical aspects, central to the film, very real (others not so much, but good for the most part). The movie is getting tremendous reviews (an unheard-of 97% right now on Rotten Tomatoes), and it is well worth a viewing.