Thank God for movies like Nebraska. There is nothing whatever wrong with blowing things up, with CGI, with duels to the death were someone always says "This ends HERE." All those things are good. But it is also nice to have a film that is about people who might easily live next door, about the actual human condition, with its humor, frailty and ultimate need for redemption.

Perhaps the most important thing to say about Nebraska is how stunningly beautiful it looks. The black and white film, from beginning to end, is a masterwork of cinematography. It doesn't matter if you are looking at landscapes and lonely roads or close ups of the often bedraggled characters. The film is just beautiful looking from start to finish.

If it doesn't win the Academy Award for cinematography they should do away with the award.

There is also, of course, more to the film than how it looks. Ostensibly it is the story of an elderly man, Woody Grant (played in an Oscar-nod worthy performance by Bruce Dern), who believes he has won a million dollars. He heads out, on foot, from Billings, Montana to Lincoln, Nebraska to collect his reward. Everyone knows there isn't any reward (except perhaps Woody). But his son, David, played by Will Forte, in what has to be a break through role, decides to take him to Lincoln.

What could go wrong?

He views it as a way to get to know his dad and to get the notion off the old man's mind.  In short order, however, they wind up sidetracked into Woody's hometown where discussion of his "winnings" brings out the good and bad in old friends and relations. This description gives the film short shrift because as it moves forward you learn, piece by piece, about who Woody really is. The film is about kindness and decency as much as it is about greed.

Alexander Payne delivers a wonderful film here and the casting is also flawless. Dern's taciturn Woody and Forte's well-meaning David are joined by June Squib as Woody's wife (another possible best supporting Oscar), Bob Odenkirk as Woody's other son, Ross, Stacy Keach as the ill-flavored Ed Pegram and Angela McEwan as Peg Nagy, a long lost love who, with very little screen time, makes a huge impression.

And it is nearly as beautifully written and in its intent as it is visually stunning. There are places where you laugh, where you feel a little angry and there should be, if you are human, places where you tear up. This is a small film, there are no explosions, the universe isn't going to end, there isn't a single car chase and, again, thank God for that.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a solid second film in the series. But it may suffer a little from being the middle movie in a trilogy. Those old enough to remember when the second Star Wars film, The Empire Strikes Back was released may remember the sensation.  It was a good movie that ended with something of a letdown (or what seemed to be a letdown). The film seemed, out of the context of the trilogy, to be a little disappointing.

Then, years later, when watched in the context of the trilogy? The film is arguably the best of the three. This may be the fate of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. At the very least the film may seem fuller once surrounded by parts one and three.

The film begins with the victors, home in their district, preparing to go out on a sort of victory tour. President Snow pays Katniss a visit to let her know she better really sell it--or everyone she knows will pay the price. The film shows the moment she finds out she's failed in the same way as the book;  it is a subtle, effective and even a little scary. It happens with a nod.

The film, like the first one, has a fine collection of actors and is a reasonably faithful adaptation of the book. The changes made are not substantial. This is not a Peter Jackson movie that runs gleefully away from its source material cutting and pasting. It isn't identical. Of course the third book is going to be two movies, not one (KA-Ching!). It has worked in the past--the last two Harry Potter movies came from one book. But that was a massive book.

There is little attempt to develop existing characters further in the second film--we know who they all are from the first film. Woody Harrelson's Haymitch and Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss are the same as we left them. The former alcoholic and crafty and the latter brave and conflicted. Some characters get a little more human (Elizabeth Bank's Effie, for instance) but mostly this is status quo.

There are two new characters of note; Finnick, Johanna, Beetee and most notably Plutarch Heavensby, played by Philip Seymour-Hoffman. All these characters are not just important in this movie but have a big part in the two films to come.

The film perhaps drag a bit in the set up, as we see the tour of the victors unfold and then go through the set up for a second Hunger Games--the procession, the interviews and the melee as the games start. It is all a little familiar but it also tracks along fairly close to the book. Parts of what is actually going on are hidden and a second viewing of the movie may--or may not--reveal clues.

This is a good film, not a great one. But it may prove to have a second life with a second look.

The most remarkable thing about both of the Thor movies, and maybe even more about Thor: The Dark World, is that they are not terrible. They are entertaining, well-paced, well-directed action films filled with good acting and relatively coherent stories (even given that there are various monsters firing lasers at Norse gods in the new film.)

They make sense within themselves and that is about as much as you can ask for in a super hero movie. Hollywood seems to have gotten this down--for the most part. They play it basically straight throw in some humor. They never make the mistake of thinking they can make this any of the Batman movies. It is played serious but a great deal lighter than the caped crusader films. It isn't something you will think about after you see it? But you won't be bored watching it.

Seems like faint praise but only to those who do not attend many movies. Being entertaining all the way through is the exception not the rule. Thor has that going through it.

It is difficult to get too deeply into a movie like Thor: The Dark World because there is so little depth to it. There are evil elves who want to destroy everything and make the universe dark. Thor aims to stop this.  This lack of detail, this lack of complication might actually be a strength of the movie. There is very little time spent talking about the goobledeygook science behind the evil elves and the physics of their schem and the less time doing that the better.

Just get the basics to line up and let Chris Hemsworth, Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hiddleston chew some scenery; they do it expertly. Director Alan Taylor has directed a number of episodes of cable television series; Game of Thrones, Nurse Jackie, The Sopranos, Deadwood and even Sex in the City. He knows how to move things along and seems to realize this isn't Shakespeare.

Of course Kenneth Branagh was successful making the first Thor movie by making a film with a Shakesperean feel. It was good for one film but Taylor was wise to move in another direction.

Thor is still in theaters but it won't be the end of the world if you see it on DVD.

Dallas Buyers Club isn't a grand overview of the prejudice and hysteria of the early years of the AIDS epidemic. It isn't really a story of some great triumph either. It is a small story, about one man, Ron Woodroof, trying to survive. He does it, basically on his own, in the face of massive attempts by the government agencies that should be helping him.

It is a little more complicated than that too. The complications are sort of under the surface in the film. The "bad" doctors were sort of right, AZT worked in lower doses. The protagonist, at the very least, starts out aiming to not only stay alive but turn a profit. He isn't a saint.  Yet he is played by Matthew McConaughey as so likeable that it is impossible to resist him. You like him even as you realize what he is.

But the character changes as the film progresses too. The brunt of prejudice maybe he, somehow, comes to understand the other characters pain.

The one other character in the film who really matters is Jarod Leto's Rayon. He delivers a performance that should get serious consideration for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. He HAS to be nominated. He plays the role mostly in drag, partly with great humor but also with a pain that is almost palpable--that seems real.

Rayon isn't someone it would be wise to give your apartment keys to. He isn't someone you want to lend money or have talk to third graders about "just saying no" but he is a character that demonstrates how even people at the bottom of society love, are loved and are worthy of love. It is a remarkable and moving performance.

The other actors in the film do the best they can with their less flamboyant roles. Jennifer Garner is fine in the role of Dr. Eve Saks but just seems sort of dull next to McConaughey's Woodroof. If she didn't seem that way it would be a silly film and it is not. One interesting note is that the small roles where an actor is only on screen for a few minutes are all quite well done. It is tough to be memorable in a few minutes but many here do that--Denis O'Hare, Kevin Rankin and Steve Zahn specifically. Rankin must long for the day when he gets to play a character that isn't a racist redneck. But he does it so, so well!

The movie is moving and full of great performances. It also serves another purpose. Those who recall the early days of AIDS remember the hysteria well. It wasn't "just another disease." it as God's wrath and the "gay plague" come to kill us all. This movie brings you back to that time and is something of a cautionary tale.

It also, oddly, since the intent is likely the opposite, leaves you with a feeling that ultimately the system works. It just lacks compassion for individuals. That isn't the job of "the system" it is the job of actual humans.

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.

Lee Daniel's The Buter (to use the official title) is a fairly compelling movie that is not, in fact, a true story. It is based on a true story and has a definite ring of truth throughout. But do not take every single thing that happens in the film to be indisputable fact.

It is better to look at this movie as am amalgamation of the experiences of black families in the America of the last century. And it is a moving amalgamation.

Usually when a film comes out that deals with civil rights issues (or, even worse, slavery) you can count on box office failure. In this case? After one week in theaters this film is the number one film in the country. Guesses as to why this is the case are that it is the end of the summer and there is a dearth of new movies worth seeing and, Oprah Winfrey is in it.

Winfrey's last film, the underrated Beloved, underperformed (it was marketed as a "slavery" story when it probably should have been marketed as a "ghost" story).  This film is marketed as just what it is. Some of it is hard to watch. Who want's to hear people called "niggers" and demeaned?

Ultimately, this film is about a generational divide.  The father made his living as a butler, the son sees this 'servile' position as demeaning. They disagree on race relations and how change can be made. The son, ably played by David Oyelowo, is less a character than a representation of the change in attitude. He turns the other cheek and follows nonviolence but then changes. How is it that you stick to nonviolence when it seems to get you nowhere? Oyelowo brings this character, who could have been just a symbol, to life. He makes him human.

Forrest Whittaker plays the father, Cecil Gaines (loosely based on Eugene Allen). There is a great deal of the real character's life in the film but the changes help make the film broader. Whitaker is one of those actors you can say is always good. He just is, even in movies that are not, Whitaker has shone. Here he plays his character with understatement that makes the occasional explosion of anger or grief all the more powerful.

The film is full of cameos. Various well-known actors portray, in bit parts, some of which are only one scene, famous Americans--from Presidents to First Ladies to civil rights leaders to regular folks. Most of these work and those that do not are not particularly glaring. Many will find Winfrey's presence distracting. She is OPRAH. We all know her and it is hard to get past that. Yet she delivers a solid performance (she really should act more).  There is some padding of her character that is, perhaps, a little irrelevant to the plot of the film but it isn't overdone and never brings the film to a grinding halt.

This is an entertaining film. It may not be an easy film to watch in all parts but has a humanity to it. It is, in parts, funny even. The characters are alive and real. You care about what happens to them. Some of the most heart wrenching events, events that seem "Hollywood-created" are actually from the life of Allen.

We know the basic story here, or it is to be hoped we do. But with recent events that divide the USA along racial lines? It is always a good thing to be reminded of the bad old days, days when things WERE worse. This doesn't mean things are perfect and racism is gone now. It shows us that, even when attitudes among the majority ranged from poisonous to indifferent, change was possible. How much easier SHOULD it be to move forward now? That is hopefully part of what people will take away from this film.