Stop me if you’ve heard this before. A con man walks into the room and stares at you. He winks and says, “Am I playing you or are you playing me?” After some daring adventure, the “game” becomes increasingly convoluted and less and less feasible. Soon enough, you say to the con man, “Perhaps ’twas I that played you, eh?” After another few twists that only make sense if you had read the script beforehand, you part ways feeling happy but hollow, like you just ate a giant inflatable plate of spaghetti smothered with real cheese. Sure, it was good going down, but it won’t leave you with anything.

Focus is a heist movie in the spirit of The Italian Job or Ocean’s 13 (that’s right, I said 13). It stars Will Smith as Nicky, an older, talented thief who has charisma nearly akin to Will Smith himself! That’s a minor miracle, Will Smith actually showcasing his fun, dangerous side (not too dangerous, but still). The movie also stars Margot Robbie as Jess, a grifter wannabe who stumbles across Nicky and decides she wants a mentor in the “art” of what you might call “gentleman theft.” It’s all slick moves and distractions, nothing violent, but a lot of pickpocketing.

So after a bit of reasonable back and forth, Nicky agrees to let Jess join his huge team of thieves as they steal from innocent victims at a “Super Bowlish” football event with a thinly defined and tossed out code of ethics that basically excludes the elderly and disabled. This leads to the most tense and interesting scene of the movie, where Nicky faces off against a foreign rich guy (a fantastic B.D. Wong). Although the resolution is decently done, it’s ultimately a bit of a letdown because the rest of the movie doesn’t get that interesting again.

The second part of the movie is three years later, where Nicky is about to run a new con, paid for by a Formula 1 rich guy (Rodrigo Santoro). And wouldn’t you know it, he runs into Jess again! But who’s really playing the con here and who’s playing an even deeper con? Will love conquer all? Unfortunately, the chemistry between Margot Robbie and Will Smith isn’t that great, and the writing is very flip on why they like each other. That said, Margot Robbie is great with an underwritten character, stealing “focus” every moment she’s on screen. Gerald McRaney as the rich guy’s head of security is also curmudgeonly amusing, while Adrian Martinez as Nicky’s friend Farhad is hilarious. Although I didn’t really like how he was just assigned to be Persian, considering the actor isn’t.

Are there twists? Turns? Etc? Of course! Some predictable, some silly, some very predictable, and a few kind of cool. The lesson seems to be “love is more important than money,” which while seemingly important, also seems out of sync for a heist movie. The romance angle just doesn’t work, but the rest is decent fun.

Sometimes I feel like all indie movies are the same, with stylized cinematography and lighting, achingly acted scenes of pain, and a final message of “love’s great, but life sucks for the most part for most people.” This is perhaps unfair, but soon I realized that it’s not that all indie movies are the same, but that there’s a certain type where it’s always the same. These films are painful to watch if the acting is well done, because you empathize so strongly with the characters and their pain. Naturally, this is tricky, because it also can be draining and ultimately, repetitively tiresome. So it takes a real gem or unique idea to stand out in the crowd. Does this one? Well . . .

Mommy is a French Canadian movie written and directed by Xavier Dolan that aches with sorrow with a few shining moments of happiness that only serve to make the sad parts worse. Diane (Anne Dorval) is a single mother and widow of a troubled fifteen year old son, Steve (Antoine Olivier Pilon). Steve also has issues with ADHD, but the film doesn’t quite seem to understand mental illness all that well. There is an opening splash text that in a fictional alternate version of Canada, legislation has been passed that lets parents easily institutionalize kids for a variety of reasons. This is 100% pointless, because the movie does not really need to be in an alternate world for really anything to work.

The movie begins with Diane being forced to live with her son again after Steve gets kicked out of an institution for kids with special needs. Steve loves his mother, but perhaps too much. There are elements of near Oedipal issues here, as Steve has severe attachment disorder, leading to frequent violent outbursts. It can be difficult to watch, especially when it seems like it’s yet another scene in line of horrible scenes. But then the two befriend Kyla (Suzanne Clément), a new neighbor across the street with her own dark history, and together they seem like they might be able to help each other.

I mentioned a gimmick earlier, but it’s an odd one. The movie is mostly shot in a 1:1 aspect ratio; that is, it’s a small square on the screen. When I first saw the movie, I thought it was a mistake or some sort of low resolution film. But it wasn’t a mistake; it was entirely thematic. Although I get why it was done and I suppose it makes some sense, it almost seems too pretentious to me, given the decent but not superlative quality of the film. That said, the movie has positives and negatives.

The acting is excellent, particularly Anne Dorval as Diane, understated at times and highly emotionally fraught at others. The kid is okay, but his character is written to such extremes that it’s hard to get a handle on whether or not he’s really acting or overacting. But in general I found the performances affecting, at least the main ones; the other folks in the backgrounds, forgettable I’d say. The dreary coloring of the movie is intentional, and it does get inside your head. But at over two hours, I think the movie could’ve stood to be trimmed in a few places. The emotional turmoil gets blunted when it seems like it’s the same scene over and over again.

Still, it is a good movie, a classic indie movie of its type, subtitles and all. Just don’t expect to feel so great afterwards.

The problem with true stories is that they are rarely simple. When you construct a fiction, you can add in story beats as you like, emphasize some themes and minimize others. If you don’t like a character, you don’t need to include them. But when you are writing about reality, it’s different. It’s impossible to be comprehensive, to discuss every real life facet of whatever event you’re talking about. So no matter what, some things get left out. And the “based on a true story” line is sometimes even more dangerous, because there’s always the temptation to throw in some “Hollywood friendly” story elements that aren’t really relevant, or drama that may overlook legitimate problems. This is sort of a long way of saying that it’s easy to screw it up. And … that’s sort of the case here.

Spare Parts is based on the real life story of four undocumented Mexican American students in Phoenix, Arizona. There are two primary characters here, the teacher and student, although there is just a bit, just a bit, of the other three students. Oscar (Carlos PenaVega) is a proud member of the ROTC in high school, but discovers that the military isn’t really interested in enlisting an undocumented immigrant, even one who’s basically grown up in the US. Not only that, but it may draw unwanted attention from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). We hear a few times about how deported family members hurt and impact these characters. Sometimes we even feel it instead of being literally “told” it.

But back to it; now that Oscar’s chance to help support his family the way he planned is gone, he stumbles across the idea of entering a contest. Apparently NASA is sponsoring a national robotics competition and is looking for the best water robot around (by high school or college students). So this first part of the movie is about the trials and tribulations of Oscar building his team of misfits and oddballs while also letting co-producer George Lopez do a quasi-dramatic, mildly comedic role as a teacher/mentor. George plays Fredi Cameron, a combination of the two real life teachers (scriptwriting for you) and Marissa Tomei plays a random female teacher that provides plot-required assistance. Her character was useless, because she was merely there to increase drama or attempt (and fail) romantic tension. Nothing against her, but the two have no chemistry and her character is written very flat.

Jamie Lee Curtis plays the “Lady Principal” who’s “Tough But With a Heart,” and she has some funny lines. But these are the background characters. There are three other boys on the team: brainy, weird Cristian (David del Rio), bad boy mechanical whiz Lorenzo (Jose Julian), and really big guy Luis (Oscar Gutierrez). Luis has no real story arc to speak of, and Cristian is basically just the nerdy bullied kid who gets slowly minimized as the movie continues. We do see some character beats between Lorenzo and his difficult father (Esai Morales), predictable but mildly moving. There’s some artificial drama, and some drama that feels real. The more interesting stuff (to me) is watching these kids struggle through low budgets and technical limitations to achieve great success.

But man, I didn’t think George Lopez had the “chops” for the character he was playing. He was okay, I guess, but I didn’t really buy it. Plus his romantic subplots were pointless and meh. Oscar is the primary point of view of the kids, driving the story forward because he has a legitimate desire to achieve something for his family. But unfortunately, although we get some “hitting over our heads” political talk about the problems of undocumented immigrant children, it’s really subsumed by the overly melodramatic story beats. I did some research after seeing the movie, and discovered that the real life kids had some significant problems due to current laws, but that’s only slightly touched on in a postscript note. That’s the difficulty here; you want that happy (true) ending, but you also want the “message” — undocumented kids deserve a chance too — to sink in. With all that, this movie is too forgettable for anything real, and will be quickly forgotten until it comes out on Netflix.

It’s not bad, but it’s not special.

Growing older isn’t necessarily terrible. You can learn new things, live through new experiences, and even achieve what you never could as a younger person. You may even get a bit of wisdom. But there’s one 100% downside — getting older means your body is slowly falling apart. You might lose control of limbs or speech or even thought. It can be nothing or it can be everything. As people, we rely on our memory, unreliable as it may be (see Memento for words on this concept). People sometimes do this intentionally, taking drugs or meditating, trying to lose themselves in nothingness. But when you cannot control your own mind, it can be the most frustrating thing possible. And potentially the most destructive.

Still Alice is based on the novel of the same name, from writing/directing pair Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland. Interestingly enough, in 2011 Glatzer was diagnosed with ALS (also called Lou Gehrig’s disease), so there was real life inspiration to draw from. Julianne Moore plays Alice, a linguistics professor (a bitter irony) with a happy marriage to her husband (Alec Baldwin), and three kids of varying degrees of closeness. There’s her eldest Anna (Kate Bosworth) a well put together lawyer, middle child med student son (Hunter Parrish), and Lydia (Kristen Stewart), who’s an aspiring actress. But suddenly Alice is having difficulty with her memory and her words, and the worst is revealed: she has developed a form of early onset Alzheimer’s, and that’s not even the worst part. It’s also genetic, which means any of her kids may be susceptible.

There is an open question here, which is how much drama one can stand to watch. If you can’t handle people in pain, I’d avoid this movie. But if not…

The rest of the movie is to show the slow deterioration of Alice and how horrible it is for everyone. Perfectionist Anna can’t take the pain of losing her mom right in front of her, and Lydia, always the least like her mother, can’t help but lash out. And of course, Alice’s husband is suffering watching the love of his life slowly disappear. Thus begins an entrancing, horrifying, magnetic performance from Julianne Moore. She’s truly phenomenal here, easily showing off frustration and fear, pain and confusion. It’s not a movie to see when you want to feel great about life, but it is honest with the message it’s saying, which is simple enough: Losing your mind sucks. Alec Baldwin is fine here, subtle enough but I feel he’s better as a comedic performer. I actually really liked Kristen Stewart, being one of the few people who’s only seen in her non-Twilight movies (like Adventureland or On the Road).

She was good, letting you feel the pain and horror too, worrying about her mother but also her own future; would she be at risk too? I felt sad and empty after seeing this movie, but I’m not sad I watched it. Sometimes art can tell truth about pain, and that’s what Still Alice does brilliantly. It may not be the best movie on paper, but Julianne Moore makes it great.

When you have created something, you have an attachment to it. For art, that is just as true. Not only that, but there is a conflict inherent in the creation of art; money versus substance. Sometimes you are lucky enough to have something that touches a nerve or interests a crowd, and that’s a great thing. But it’s easy to fall into enjoying success without thinking about why you were successful in the first place? Some might say that success implies quality, but others may assert that money isn’t everything. Sometimes art doesn’t stand the test of time because it wasn’t that good to begin with, or because it just only meant something once, but never again. Even so, every artist has one thing in common: They want people to know they were the creator.

Big Eyes is the latest movie from director Tim Burton and tells the true story of Margaret Keane, the artist of a very popular series of paintings of children with unusually large eyes. However, her husband Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) specifically took credit for the art and sold it under his name when the pieces came out in the late 1950s and 1960s. Up until his death, Walter insisted that he was the true artist, although the evidence against him was staggering. Margaret starts the story leaving her first husband and traveling with her daughter to San Francisco, seeking something she can’t yet define. Her work is noticed by Walter, who claims to be a fellow artist. After her work gets a lot of attention, Walter decides that nobody will buy a painting drawn by a lady. Heaven forbid!

So they sold work under his name, Walter schmoozing up the elite and monetizing the art, while Margaret slaved away in anonymity and craved acknowledgment of her own. Of course, art critics panned the drawings, but most people loved them and the Keanes became quite wealthy. Until Margaret could take no more of it, and no more of Walter’s increasingly unstable behavior. The movie tells this story, showing Walter to be a charismatic man with some serious, deep-seated issues, with Margaret trying to escape her mentality as a 1950s housewife.

Tim Burton’s interesting and unique visual aesthetics are nowhere to be found here, except for one particular scene that I won’t spoil. But in many ways, this could be directed by anybody of talent, because the movie doesn’t really have a recognizable style. Perhaps there’s something to that in the take on the big eyes children, but perhaps not. The story itself is dramatized, but interesting. I didn’t know exactly what would happen, so seeing the crazy twists and turns that actually happened were quite entertaining. There are moments of real drama here, watching Amy Adams do that “silent soulful” thing she does so well.

I particularly enjoyed her performance, although I also liked Christoph Waltz. I’ve heard some people complain about it, but I don’t get that myself. His character was odd, sociopathic at times, and the performance reflected that. I guess I just don’t get people sometimes. There are a few smaller parts filled by enjoyable, talented actors, like Krysten Ritter as Margaret’s best friend who’s being pushed away, and Jason Schwartzman and Terrence Stamp as art critics that despise the big eyes children pieces.

In the spate of two hour long prestige pictures at the end of the year, I was glad to see a movie under two hours that had a decent pace and kept me interested, for the most part. Perhaps we could’ve dipped more into the depth of certain parts of Margaret’s struggles and less on Walter’s marketing, but to me it works quite well. A few dramatic moments, some lightness, and a satisfying ending. Perhaps it’s not as interesting to look at as Burton’s other movies, but that’s really okay with me.

In 1965, the Voting Rights Act was passed, ensuring protection for minorities and preventing any racial discrimination when voting. But it wasn’t an easy journey. Although desegregation had been outlawed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, this didn’t prevent corrupt government officials from creating essentially impossible hurdles for blacks to go through just to register to vote. The city of Selma in Alabama was 57% black, but only 1% were registered, making it of particular concern for civil rights activists. In order to attempt to change the law, many demonstrations were held, but this still hadn’t changed anything significantly.

Selma begins with a tragedy, showing immediately the horrors of racism in an instantly personal and understandable way. Although the tragedy really happened, it also serves as a way to demonstrate the importance of the civil rights efforts past anything political and to the personal and human. The movie tells the story of what happened as protestors attempted to march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama and the brutality they were subjected to during that attempt. We see what happens as Martin Luther King Jr. (David Oyelowo) works to coordinate the efforts, dealing with difficulties from all sides.

He must attempt to convince President Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) while simultaneously managing the explosive personalities in the movement, all the while trying not to be influenced by the actions of the FBI to ruin him and his marriage. We see the entire story of these marches, from the intentional failure of the first brutal march to the final triumphant one. I dare anyone not to feel choked up when you see the march of people from all walks of life gathered together as they walk across the bridge to face the Alabama state troopers. The movie is beautifully directed and scored. But it would all fall apart without the right performance of MLK.

David Oyelowo is brilliant here, using a touch of makeup to transform into the legendary leader. Apparently the studio was unable to license Dr. King’s speeches, which makes the actual dialogue they end up using more impressive by how accurate it all seems. The movie is smart enough to show MLK as both a fiery speaker and a real person with real problems when it’s just him and his wife, played by Carmen Ejogo, who also does an excellent job in a historically difficult role. Tom Wilkinson does a great job as the complicated LBJ, and Tim Roth plays the truly terrible George Wallace, governor of Alabama. Even Oprah Winfrey has a small but affecting part as Annie Lee Cooper, who’s real life story I won’t give away if you don’t already know.

Although MLK wasn’t the only one of note in those times, he is the one people will remember. That said, I think the movie does a fair job of showing a bit of the other people who helped the marches succeed, some more than others. When I see movies like Selma, they reaffirm the knowledge that although people can be terrible and violent, scared and reactionary, they can also be empathetic and brave, clever and persistent. I don’t know whether or not this movie will strike a chord with anyone, or if anyone will even notice with all the problems we still face today. But it is worth going to see how far we’ve come, and how far we’ve yet to go.

Historical biopics are tricky, as I’ve mentioned several times before. I don’t much care for ones that screw it up, and I care even less for ones wholly meant for getting some awards. And perhaps, just perhaps, I’m a bit sick of Benedict Cumberbatch everywhere. The man is a good actor, but I did not like his performance in Star Trek Into Darkness or August Osage County, plus he was unrecognizable CGI in The Hobbit movies. Now he’ll be starring in a new Marvel movie as comic book magician Dr. Strange? He’s getting on my nerves a bit. But on the other hand, that doesn’t mean I should necessarily judge the movie he’s in based on his Jude Law penchant for being in movies.  No, no, it’s just better to judge the movie instead.

The Imitation Game tells some of the story of famed World War II technological innovator Alan Turing’s life, based on the book Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges. Alan Turing, played by the omnipresent Benedict Cumberbatch, is essentially responsible for pioneering advances that led to the first digital computer. The movie utilizes a limp wristed and ill-advised wraparound device, starting in 1952 with Turing’s home mysteriously robbed but seemingly with nothing of value lost. By virtue of a sort of flashback induced by a police inspector interrogating Turing, the rest of the movie is shown. Now, if you ask me, this device did not work. It made no sense, and served no real purpose, because it tried to create a mystery of “why did he get robbed,” but the question is not answered. Instead, we get barely anything on what really happened; but I’ll get back to that in a minute.

During World War II, England is in bad shape. We see several scenes of bombings and crowds huddled in shelters, which does add an interesting level of pathos to the movie. Does it make sense with that narrative device I mentioned? No! Not in the slightest. But I’m harping on that. So the movie jumps back and forth between little scenes of the future investigator trying to discover the truth, a few bits of Alan’s past in boarding school, and the actual content and story of the movie. Alan Turing joins an elite group of men working to break Nazi codes, specifically the Enigma code machine. The military commander Denniston (a superb Charles Dance) does not care for Turing’s awkwardness or odd way of doing things, but his hands get tied when Turing goes over his head. So Alan works, or tries to work, with his group of fellow codebreakers. But he doesn’t get along well with people.

Eventually, he is permitted to hire someone new who might be smart enough to assist, and he hires Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), although in real life several women worked on the Enigma breaking project. In any event, Turing and Joan have a connection of sorts, their intellects, although Turing stumbles and stutters his way through most human interactions. It all leads up to whether or not they actually break the Enigma and help win WWII. SPOILERS! They do. There are others on his team, but they aren’t that interesting. But unfortunately, despite Alan helping to save the world, he is arrested in 1951 on charges of “indecency,” which means he admitted to having a homosexual relationship. The movie barely touches on this terrible tragedy, and basically only hints on how Turing committed suicide after having been chemically castrated. In fact, only in 2013 did the British government finally grant an official pardon. That’s ridiculous.

Now, it is true that there are some excellent performances in this movie. Charles Dance, as I mentioned is great and amusing as the intimidating military officer. And sure, Keira Knightley is lovely here too, even if her part is underwritten, like everything is in the movie. The various other whos and whats in the movie are forgettable and not really important for anything the movie cares about. Cumberbatch does a pretty good job as a man with a high intellect but other problems, although he plays it like a man on the autistic spectrum, which is … debatable about the real Turing. The movie is mostly paced pretty well, but there are very slow parts. There are some really great scenes, building up the tension and despair as they fail and fail again to crack the codes. Although the actual way they figure it out seems … well I won’t give that part away.

In this time of the year, with all the fancy schmancy prestige flicks coming out, The Imitation Game is nothing close to the best of the bunch. Alan Turing may be an important historical figure who deserves to be remembered, but I don’t think this is the movie that will accomplish that.

[easyazon_image add_to_cart=”default” align=”none” asin=”069116472X” cloaking=”default” height=”160″ localization=”default” locale=”US” nofollow=”default” new_window=”default” src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Mny0ykzYL._SL160_.jpg” tag=”cliqueclack-20″ width=”103″]

Biopics, my old foe. Why do you always try to hurt me like this? I want to like you, I want to know more about the interesting people of history. But then you go and make me all … yawn.

It is funny how envy works. A person can seemingly have a great life but be envious of one particular thing about someone else. Maybe it’s their job, or their family, or their face, or even their personality. Looking in from the outside, you may never understand it. Of course, an exception must be made for the mentally disturbed, because their behavior is not understable except by the mental health professionals, and perhaps not even them. I’m going somewhere with this, trust me.

Foxcatcher is based on a true story, where down on his luck Olympic wrestling champion Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) is asked by the odd but obscenely wealthy John du Pont (Steve Carell) to lead a team for the 1988 Olympics in Seoul. Mark is certainly talented, but he wasn’t doing well despite his gold medal win; all he really had was the support of his kind but older brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo — it’s a bit confusing, but Mark doesn’t play Mark here). Dave basically raised Mark and is a Gold Medalist himself, and is doing very well in life, getting great job offers and has a loving wife and kids. So Mark is craving to make something of himself, to be his own man and win the championship again, to prove he wasn’t just a flash in the pan. But John du Pont is a very odd person, obsessive and mercurial, supportive at times, creepy at others, and legitimately abusive still others. It’s clear that John suffers from dealing with his overbearing mother (Vanessa Redgrave), who hates the sport of wrestling and thinks of it as a “common” sport.

Eventually John invites Mark to a new facility at his Foxcatcher estate, hoping both to be a father figure to Mark and be a successful wrestler himself, if only for the older set. But Mark can’t hope to live up to John’s lofty, unfair expectations and John soon pays Dave an exorbitant amount of money to take over the training. Although Dave tries to be supportive to Mark, it’s not that simple. Jealousy abounds, but it’s not just Mark. John is also jealous, crazily so, of Mark, of Dave, of everyone else despite his wealth. Covered with prosthetics and utilizing some weird physical tics, Steve Carell is indeed excellent as this creepy guy, really making some uncomfortable scenes truly hard to watch. It’s an uncomfortable movie to watch, but then it gets dull and boring.

I had a real problem with the pacing on this one. This movie is over two hours long, but it feels much longer — some scenes went on forever and didn’t seem to add anything important. It seemed like there was just yet another crazy, odd thing John du Pont was doing, and eventually it lost impact. I stopped emotionally connecting with John and even with Mark. Channing Tatum is also really great here, not really having a lot of range in the character, but showing off a hidden rage and fury without the capability to communicate it. He had this very engaging physical way of acting, moving in an animalistic, hardened way that connected with me when the weaker script and dull direction did not.

But oddly enough, I was most impressed with Mark Ruffalo, because from the very start of the movie to the end, he made every scene he was in so much better. He didn’t say much, but his character was filled with decency and inner strength, if not the ability to talk eloquently. Makeup on Steve Carell doesn’t particularly impress me, I knew he was capable of dark characters since last year’s The Way, Way Back. And ever since 21 Jump Street, I’ve known Channing Tatum could be a good actor. Of course, Mark Ruffalo’s always been great. I remember his cop character from the excellent Collateral and his minor role in the really great Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. He was pretty great in The Avengers too. But this particular performance impressed me, because it wasn’t showy or obvious. Just engaging and deep.

In the end, I guess the movie’s okay, but really, if the strength of the acting weren’t here, I would say the movie was actually not good at all. It’s hard to have good movies based on real life events, because real life isn’t a fictional story. But keep those Oscar pools ready to go, because Steve Carell is a lock! His makeup job too.

There’s been an interesting trend lately with art describing itself. Sometimes a movie, TV show, or book is obvious about it; this is when you have a character that is clearly either an author insert or mouthpiece. Or perhaps it’s the opposite, a straw man character meant to suffer the attacks of unsubtle jabs to provide a suitable target for the artist’s rage or frustration. I don’t always think it’s necessarily a bad thing; it’s problematic when it becomes pretentious or dreary. The worst offense is to be obvious, but that isn’t so common. So when you have a movie about a young girl torn between wanting to be herself and being influenced into becoming a media sensation to push a message, it’s not the craziest idea to think that maybe there’s something there. Except of course, that the original material wasn’t about that — or was it?

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 is the third in a series of four Hunger Games movies, with the final Part 2 out next year. The final book, as we saw with Harry Potter and Twilight, is being split into two movies. I haven’t read Mockingjay, but Twilight didn’t have the material for one movie, let alone two, and I think Harry Potter would’ve worked better as few short British-style seasons of television instead of movies. The material for this movie is mostly paced well, with only a few obviously padded scenes. The story is simple, continuing on from the fallout of the last Hunger Games movie. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence, of course) destroyed the gaming arena in the last movie, escaping from the clutches of the evil Capitol with fellow tributes Finnick (Sam Claflin) and Beetee (Jeffrey Wright), but also, incidentally, an accidental friend and ally in Elizabeth Banks’ bizarre Effie Trinket. And also the home of Katniss, District 12 has been brutally bombed, but her old friend/boyfriend/ex-boyfriend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) managed to survive with her mother and sister Primrose. Yes, the names aren’t much better this time either.

But they have still left the cowardly but lovable scamp Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and angry tribute Johanna (Jena Malone) behind to be held by the minions of the sinister President Snow (Donald Sutherland). So Katniss and company have been relocated to the secret hideout of the survivors of District 13, led by an austere President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore), although former propagandist Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman in one of his final roles) and drunken Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) are also helping out. That may seem like a lot, and it is, but the good thing about this series is that the characters have always been quite memorable, and the movie is no exception. Katniss finds herself in a difficult situation, seeing Peeta as a mouthpiece for the Capitol but not really wanting the attention herself. She’s also worried about her sister and people dying, etc.

This is one of the great things about Jennifer Lawrence’s performance, because she acts as a girl who cannot act at all, yet when it is needed, she experiences strong and sincere emotions. She’s the draw here, at least for me. That’s not to say that the acting from the others aren’t good, nor is it that the characters don’t seem fleshed out. With the lone exception of Gale, who is boring and seems simply to be “handsome guy,” all main characters are interesting to watch.

Obviously Philip Seymour Hoffman is awesome, wringing laughs from little subtle touches and elevating lines a lesser performer couldn’t touch. Julianne Moore is obviously great, all hard lines and serious business, contrasted against the unstoppable force of personality that Elizabeth Banks pushes nearly off the screen. Donald Sutherland is effortlessly sinister here, but you knew that much. We also get a new character, Cressida, played by Natalie Dormer making a flat character instantly intriguing because she’s awesome. Even adorable little Josh Hutcherson won me over with his portrayals of pain and confusion.

Now, the story here is paper thin, having many scenes of dialogue that are mostly interesting with a few tense action scenes. The themes are still fascinating, the contrasting ideals of freedom and security, the line between fascism and safety, and the omnipresent political narrative through the lens of art and media. All that is interesting, without adding in parallels to the real Jennifer Lawrence’s struggles to stay likable despite how hard that is for anyone, especially women in Hollywood. The action is mostly shot carefully, but sometimes it goes cinematically and that is far more interesting. This is a sci-fi world after all, and sometimes it’s nice to see the scope of things beyond small rooms that could exist in a simple soundstage.

My overall feelings were positive, and I thought that the stopping part, the setup for the final part next year, worked well enough. Better than the cliffhanger from the second movie in any event, and that was just one book’s story. Perhaps there isn’t quite enough material for the 123 minute running time, but it’s almost enough. At this point, I’m more interested and curious about the next movie than desperately wondering for it, like say, I was with the Harry Potter books or even a few TV shows out there. That’s enough for me to recommend this movie, but I will really be curious how well it’ll work paired with the final movie. As for that, we shall have to wait and see.

 [easyazon_image add_to_cart=”default” align=”none” asin=”B008JFUS8M” cloaking=”default” height=”160″ localization=”default” locale=”US” nofollow=”default” new_window=”default” src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61qqUpYxOnL._SL160_.jpg” tag=”cliqueclack-20″ width=”127″][easyazon_image add_to_cart=”default” align=”none” asin=”0545670314″ cloaking=”default” height=”160″ localization=”default” locale=”US” nofollow=”default” new_window=”default” src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51dvPNSo82L._SL160_.jpg” tag=”cliqueclack-20″ width=”106″][easyazon_image add_to_cart=”default” align=”none” asin=”B0084IG8TM” cloaking=”default” height=”160″ localization=”default” locale=”US” nofollow=”default” new_window=”default” src=”https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Je5YUprmL._SL160_.jpg” tag=”cliqueclack-20″ width=”118″]

Do you still have friends from your childhood? How about your college days? The answer may depend on how old you are, or perhaps it may not. Some people retain such friends for years, but that also doesn’t mean that they are friends past the updates on Facebook. This is why high school reunions are fascinating and confusing; you never know what to expect. Will your thin, gawky friend become a record breaking weight lifter? How many children will everyone bring? Are people still holding grudges or crushes long past? And will there be any fighting or drunkenness? I suppose it depends on your high school. My reunion was dull. But I haven’t thought of making it into a movie.

Beside Still Waters is an indie movie from writer/director Chris Lowell of Veronica Mars fame, although he does not star in the movie at all! Zach Braff, you taking notes? The conceit is a relatively simple one: the reunion. It’s the depth of characters and dialogue that elevate the idea from cliche. Daniel (played by Ryan Eggold of The Blacklist) is depressed after the recent death of his parents and the foreclosing of their vacation cabin — the cabin that he and his friends spent summers at when they were young. So he gathers together his old crew, all of whom come with their own secret, or not so secret, issues and problems that will soon surface. Among them is Tom (SNL‘s Beck Bennet), the gay guy in the group who’s also a misanthrope, Charley (Jessy Hodges), the wild girl, James (Brett Dalton of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D), the current reality star, and young lovers turned bored married couple Martin and Abby (Will Brill and Erin Darke). But of course, there’s also Daniel’s old flame Olivia (Britt Lower), but she’s bringing a surprise guest: her boyfriend Henry (Reid Scott of Veep).

Soon enough, alcohol is consumed and secrets revealed. Terrible choices are made, some forgiven, some not. Some characters will experience catharsis and growth, others pain and suffering. This is the story of friends on a last get together for just one night of laughs and memories. I’ve heard a few compare this movie to The Big Chill from 1983, but I haven’t seen that movie, so I can’t speak to the comparison. Still, I can look at the movie from the perspective I have without knowledge of that particular one, as I’ve seen other reunion movies. The draw here is to see characters that have complicated histories colliding again after many years, and because of that the movie succeeds or fails on two things: 1) The story and 2) The characters. These two ideas are intertwined, of course, but the good news is that the movie works pretty well.

I didn’t find all of the characters completely compelling, but most had at least a few important things happen to them. Charley was mostly forgettable as a character, and I had trouble remembering what impact she had on anything. The travails of married couple Abby and Martin aren’t the most interesting, but the characters gain depth as the movie progresses. Arrogant actor James has a fascinating personality and a mostly predictable story arc, but I found Brett Dalton to be interesting enough to keep my interest. Naturally the biggest storyline is the grieving Daniel and his attempts to reconnect with his ex-girlfriend while the new boyfriend, Henry, looks on in concern. I liked Britt Lower a lot here as Olivia, going through some very complex but believable character points.

As for the big guy, Ryan Eggold does a pretty good job, although sometimes I found the material to be a little advanced for his capabilities as an actor. Usually the movie is shot pretty typically, but there are some clever bits later on with editing and dialogue tricks with a pretty great extended run of intermixed and interconnected conversations that I had to nod my head at in appreciation. For a character-based indie movie, I found the movie very well paced and very rarely boring; it helps that it’s only 76 minutes long, so it zips along.

Not every twist and turn were that fascinating, and there were some pretty terrible things done that were glossed over, but that would spoil things. In the end, I liked watching these characters, even if I will likely never see them again.

Beside Still Waters is currently available at select theaters and will be available on iTunes and on demand November 18th.