If you require a large number of explosions, CGI werewolves or are a HUGE Chris Tucker fan you probably shouldn't go to see All Is Lost. Excluding one, fairly brief, voice over there are a probably less than half a dozen words in the entire film (I recall four). But the plot explains this; it is the story of a man trapped at sea. He spends most of his time talking to a volleyball. Oh...wait...wrong movie.

Robert Redford's sailor doesn't talk to anyone because there is no one there to talk to and there is no contrivance to make him speak. He attends to the task at hand, which is what a person in this situation would do.

If you've seen the preview you know Redford's (and his character is not named) character's boat strikes an errant shipping container. From there he works on fixes and plots courses while battling the elements and plain old bad luck.

One amazing thing about the movie is that it never lags and it manages a sort of low-key tension throughout. Redford never has a real moment of rest, of comfort, as he tries to save himself.  Director, J.C. Chandor, foreshadows some of what is to come in the film at the outset. The audience knows what the man on screen does not. Truthfully you know if you saw the previews but it is artfully done in the movie.

Redford gives a powerful performance that, by definition, has to be understated and restrained. But there are moments that have to be done so delicately--rare moments when the character gives into emotion or, particularly, a point where the character truly believes all is lost. At that moment he is about to do something that truly is giving up and he can barely bring himself to do it. His depiction of this moment and of a man in these straits is outstanding.  It is worthy, at least, of an Oscar nomination (although it would be shocking if he won).

One other thing about Redford--he looks good for a man his age but he looks at least CLOSE to his age. This is something aging leading men (or former leading men) should take a cue from. When you get older and you get Jean-Claude Van Damme-style plastic surgery it really doesn't prolong your career. It just makes you look like an alien.

This film curiously mirrors the recent film, Gravity, also about someone marooned and trying to survive but in a slightly different environment. Gravity is spectacular looking and keeps the back story spare. But it is incredibly detailed compared to the story of All Is Lost. We can glean some details from little clues throughout but we only have what happens on screen to go on--there is no talking, no photos of loved ones and no doomed side-kick. It is all Redford and the sea and curiously that is more than enough.

12 Years A Slave is a moving story. How could the story of a free man kidnapped into slavery not be? It is also a very good movie with excellent performances in even small roles.  It is, likewise, an interesting piece of direction and cinematography.

In several instances in the film there are close ups that linger to the point of almost uncomfortableness. One instance where a character is left hanging, feet barely touching the ground as the day goes on about him, is as harrowing and disturbing as any scene in any horror film.

The movie brings the horrors of slavery to life in a way that isn't often seen. The beatings, the cruelty, the horror of separating families have been explored many times. What often is lost is how the institution of slavery corrupted the slave owners-- and not just psychopaths like Edwin Epps, portrayed with a performance destined for a supporting Oscar nomination by Michael Fassbender. Benedict Cumberbatch appears as a more "benevolent" slave owner but his personal decency? In the end it counts for nothing against the putrid system he is part of and institution he supports. The film does a good job of showing the human degradation of slavery. The slaves lose their freedom and the owners their humanity.

But the shoe-in for an Oscar nomination--and it is hard to imagine a better performance--is Chiwetel Ejiofor. His portrayal of Solomon Northup is both understated (yes, my favorite word!) and emotional in turns.  As his situation deteriorates, with just his bearing, Ejiofor, shows the stress on Northup but always maintains his dignity. He is a powerful presence as he has shown in smaller roles in the past (Serenity springs to mind). The actors around him show, again often without words, how their situation has worn them down.

It is all superbly done.

And while all the actors acquit themselves well, there is one other--one who might wind up ignored--who deserves Academy Award consideration. Lupita Nyong'o's portrayal of Patsey, a slave that is the object of the sadistic Epps' sexual obsession, is every bit as good as Ejiofor's.  She is both favored and the subject of terrible abuse. This is also another subtle way this film shows how all encompassing was the evil of slavery; Patsey is a "favorite" of Epps but this makes her the subject of special abuse by Epps' wife.  And, of course, being Epps' "favorite" includes rape and jealous rage. Her position dooms her and makes her even more miserable.

Director Steve McQueen, in his third feature film, creates something great and disturbing. If anything the story of slavery has been under-told in American cinema. We need movies like this that focus on those held in bondage and we need them to be based on fact and not wishful thinking. Basing this on Solomon Northup's account of his ordeal makes it all the more powerful. This is also so well written. There is never a moment where you feel it isn't real. It isn't just the dialog but the action and the non-verbal communication in the film.

Everyone should see this film.

Carrie (2013) version isn't bad but it is as unnecessary as any remake that ever put the dollar signs dancing in a Hollywoood producer's head.

Movies are made in the hope that they will make money of course. Even someone creating an obscure art film has some desire, in the back of their mind, some notion that they might turn some tiny profit. Hell, people who make Youtube videos on their smart phones HOPE to make money off the endeavor.

Then there are the movies that are made JUST to make money. These can still be entertaining--if they are well cast and made with a degree of professionalism.

Carrie is sort of in this category. There isn't anything terrible about it. It, more or less moves along at a decent clip, the acting is decent, the writing isn't embarrassing (even if most of the "scares" are not the least bit scary). It just isn't very satisfying and it seems sort of tired.

Carrie is cotton candy. It has no real value beyond that initial taste. While it is not poorly done it is also not particularly well done. They wisely eschew going for camp  as the original mixed camp and serious too well to be copied. There is no real tension in this movie and some of the acting falls short of "good" (the main antagonist for instance). 

Julianne Moore does a solid job chewing the scenery and playing the mad, religious fanatic mother.  Chloë Grace Moretz, a lovely girl, somehow manages to make herself look and seem awkward and plain in parts (until she is required to look dazzling). She does a fine job with the role, such as it is.

Yet all of this is barely enough to keep an audience engaged. It is difficult to pick out the good and the bad in the film because most of it is just so overwhelminglye mediocre. Carrie does the bare minimum.

There is nothing whatever wrong with Captain Phillips, the latest film starring Tom Hanks. Sounds like faint praise but there are plenty of films in the theaters that have a great deal wrong with them. Having nothing wrong puts a movie well ahead of the curve.

The acting is solid, the film never slows down or gets distracted by side plots. We all know the basics, if not the details of the story. And unless you were on the ship and wanted to be paid for your part of the story worrying about it being 100 percent accurate is silly too. What Hollywood "real life" film is 100 percent accurate?

But Captain Phillips is not the sort of film that is likely to stay with you after you see it either. As noted, the story is still fresh in the minds of many. There are few surprises here. Nor is there any attempt to get at deeper issues--Phillips family life, the conditions in Somalia that lead to such acts etc. It wise decision for the sake of this movie that these topics were only glanced on--any more would have risked dragging the movie down into the briny deep (as much as I am usually for more Catharine Keener screen-time)

We get just enough of Phillips at home to see he has a wife and kids. We get just enough of how and why the Somali pirates do what they do to make them more than just "bad guys." The audience knows they are put in the position they are, largely, by forces beyond their immediate control (ie the men who make the money on such crimes are not the ones racing through the seas on a skiff).

Of course this didn't stop one audience member, upon seeing the sentence one pirate received blurting out "I wonder how much WE are paying for that." Interesting sociological reaction and indicative of America today. Everything boils down into how much something costs. It would have been interesting to hear what this woman thinks should have been done to an apprehended and unarmed man. Some torture perhaps? And how much better are we as a people than they? Really? think about it.

But I digress.

Captain Phillips never gets into these issues and they have only a very peripheral place in this film. It is, however, very clear that the pirates are not operating out of ideology but for money. "No Al Queda." says the "captain" of the pirates--ably portrayed by Barkhad Abdi. Abdi mixes a sort of pathos with menace in his role. He brings a real tension, not necessarily because he is waving around a gun but because you see some sort of internal conflict in him as he makes his decisions, some sort of doubt.

The previews may make the film seem like a U.S. Navy action film. It isn't really about that, although the ending of the film certainly has that element (done quite well).  Most of the movie is about the crew and Phillips avoiding being boarded and then resisting the pirates once aboard. There has been some criticism of the film making the real Phillips seem overly heroic. This is baseless, Hanks portrayal is as an everyman. He does nothing overly heroic--aside from his job.

In fact, one of the interesting parts of the movie is that there is no individualist hero. The "hero" here is procedure. Things do not go well for the crew of the Maersk Alabama in the movie but they certainly do not go as poorly as they might have. The film puts forward that the reason was that captain and crew stuck to the rule book. This is an unusual--and realistic--take on how to survive a crisis in a Hollywood film.  Usually in Hollywood there has to be a hero--a highly paid bankable star with a machine gun. You need Brad Pitt to save you! In real life you need to keep your head and stick with what works (in most cases anyway).

This sense of the realistic animates this movie and while it isn't the most memorable film you will see this year? You will be entertained in the theater. Again, this puts it far ahead of the curve.

Gravity is a tense movie. The audience is barely in its seat before the action begins and from there it barely lets up. It is, in some way, a difficult film to discuss;the character development is minimal and there are only three characters that the audience sees on screen. The plot is fairly simple; astronauts, in space, face a catastrophe and try to survive.

It sounds like it isn't much of a movie, based solely on this synopsis. But it actually is a pretty remarkable film. It looks fantastic. It might even give you a little bit of vertigo and it clearly isn't intended to be a recruiting tool for NASA. Sandra Bullock's character states, at one point, "I hate space."

The film is also, as mentioned, tense, even stressful.

One of the reason the film manages this tension is that it resists Hollywood's usually irresistible desire for a back story, for a love story or maybe a montage where Bullock tries on clothes. There are no flashbacks, no Apollo 13-like anguished family on the ground wringing their hands. The action takes place in space.

That puts the film, beyond the special effects, on the backs of Bullock and George Clooney. Clooney pays the story-telling, wisecracking commander or the mission, Matt Kowalski to Bullock's mission specialist, Ryan Stone. To say there is no back story isn't entirely accurate. We learn about these people how you would learn about someone in real life--through snippets of conversation (in this case under great stress). You do care what happens to them.

Alfonso Cuarón has made a couple of provocative films in the past (Y Tu Mamá También and Children of Men). This film is not really provocative but it is close to perfect. It never lets you rest, never makes you bored but, at the same time, it does not rely on random explosions.

The film is about the action. And it begs the question; why do so many other films fail in this regard?. In many cases it is bad editing. In others someone just decides that MORE explosions is really all you need. Here the "explosions" happen at the right times and are not overdone. You even are given a sort of countdown to when they happen in some cases. It all ticks along like clockwork and the editing is so tight that you are never given a chance to relax. The special effects are not gaudy but truly give the feel of space flight. It seems real even when some of the action maybe strays a bit from reality (it IS a movie).

This isn't to give short shrift to the acting--both Bullock and Clooney do well in their roles, as fairly minimal as they are. Imagine them as people you just meet (in space). They do exactly what they need to in the roles.

It is a peculiar film to try to describe or recommend because it is so focused on what happens rather than the story or the characters. It is also one of those rare films that viewers should consider seeing in XD 3D. A great deal will be lost in 2D viewings of the movie. It is about the visuals.