2015 is wrapping up and looking back on the year there have been a fair amount of films that have been emotionally provoking, but The Big Short is in many ways at least equal to Mad Max in blood-pressure-raising cogency. The nearness of so recent a catastrophe combined with Adam McKay’s blended fact-driven drama and absurd-because-it’s-true comedy, ensures a righteous resentment. The film moves quickly introducing a lot of people and breaking the fourth wall often to explain terminology and provide a high level of self-awareness as characters explain when the film is being truthful and when it’s taking liberties for the sake of moviemaking. This candid storytelling builds a level of trust that feels akin to watching a documentary. The roller coaster ride of not being sure when to laugh at the preposterousness and scope of the events unfolding, or when to cry whenever the realization of their truthfulness sinks in, by far makes for one of the most peerless filmgoing experiences of the year.

Based on Michael Lewis’s bestselling nonfiction book of the same name, the focus of this expose is on the unlikely people who not only predicted the collapse (or bursting, if you will) of the credit and housing bubble that led to the crisis of 2008 and contributed greatly to the longest recession in U.S. history, but who also profited greatly when it happened. There’s the awkward Asperger’s-savant hedge fund investor, Dr. Michael Burry played by Christian Bale, who crunches the numbers and predicts the future, pretty much to the month the collapse will happen. He starts investing his clients’ money, betting against the banks, who happily take it thinking such a thing could never happen. His clients are understandably unhappy with the risk.

Word spreads of his crazy actions and soon Wall Street banker Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling doing what he does best, faking a New York accent and being as shmarmy as can be) catches wind and wants in on the potentially huge earnings involved, he manages to enlist outspoken hedge fund manager Mark Baum (Steve Carell) and his team. Baum operates under the umbrella of Morgan Stanley but actively despises the practices of big banks. After doing his research—part of which hilariously involves interviewing strippers on their financial practices in Florida—Baum realizes the truth of the housing bubble and invests. The remaining morally ambiguous underdogs are small timers Jamie Shipley (Finn Wittrock) and Charlie Geller (John Magaro) who started an investment firm out of their garage and are looking to get into the big leagues, without any clout they have to get retired investor Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt) to do the deals for them. He also agrees out of spite for corporate America and the rest of the film is watching the wool unravel as the banking world parties and denies that anything bad—at least, related to mortgages—could ever happen to them.

It would be easy to focus on the moral ambiguity of the individual men who gained from America’s huge downfall, but the spotlight of The Big Short can’t help but fall on the banks and governmental entities who tried (and in almost every way succeeded) to deny their fraud and negligence. McKay highlights the deceptive nature of the industry even as he pokes fun at it. For instance, the complicated lingo of the banking industry, while possibly useful to those on the inside, is beyond confusing to the layperson, especially when reduced to acronyms. McKay brings in celebrities playing themselves to break down these terms and provide visual explanations. Anthony Bourdain, Selena Gomez, and a naked Margot Robbie explaining terms like “CDO” and “subprime mortgage rates” is as entertaining as it is informative. That said, a film like this would require multiple viewings to fully grasp the full extent of the economic and fiscal theory playing out and the sheer mathematics that explain all that happened. But this isn’t a documentary, and it’s not meant to be viewed as such.

McKay seems to respect that viewers know how this story ends and that as wrapped up as we get in the characters’ schemes to make it rich off of the evil banks, rooting for them is, in fact, rooting for the failure, financial ruin and catastrophic misfortune of the American people. Any criticism of the film would have to be that very little time is spent focusing on what that misfortune looked like for people. Only one shot depicts a family, met earlier in the film, now homeless and living out of a van. But this seems a smart move as the point isn’t to focus on the sadness invoked by such imagery, but instead to hang on to the infuriation that bubbles up as the full extent of awareness and collusion of the banks and the government is revealed. It’s an unprecedented circumstance in American history and the film spells out just how few consequences there were for those responsible.

The star power of the film is overwhelming, even with Pitt providing the least amount of screen time. Carell is the most impressive, proving once again he has depths barely yet tapped. He brings to Baum all the social disregard of The Office’s Michael Scott with the intensity of Foxcatcher’s John du Pont and adding a moral anger that ties it all together amazingly. Christian Bale—never one to go halfway on any character—combines aloofness with the burden of genius to make his detached character perhaps the most sympathy-inspiring. But the real star is by far the director, who almost retroactively makes his comedies like Talladega Nights and Step Brothers seem even more astute now that we’ve been given such a clear example of how deftly he can comically reflect on true-life drama.

It’s easy to dismiss the complicated mess of the housing crises and collapse, shaking our heads at the math and economic intricacy, and McKay seems to know that his film isn’t going to incite retroactive punishment or propel a revolution. The significance of a film like The Big Short isn’t just a much-needed reminder that we the people should always take the time to understand and reflect on how hardships like this occur, but that comedy is a sharp weapon in shaming those who deserve to be called out.

In a drastic, surprisingly smooth departure from his typical work directing major studio comedies, Adam McKay tackles the dense subject matter of The Big Short, a screen adaptation of Michael Lewis‘ best-selling book about the devastating financial collapse of the mid-aughts. A heavy drama boasting an all-star ensemble (including Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Christian Bale, Brad Pitt, and more) playing men who watch the world burn to ashes around them from a credit and housing disaster only they saw coming, the film operates in a dark world of complex real estate jargon and impending Wall Street doom. Nevertheless, the film is imbued with a crackling, unpredictable energy a filmmaker with McKay’s comedic and improvisational background naturally brings to the table.

We spoke to McKay in a roundtable interview about the film, which opens this Friday in select cities and expands wide on December 23rd.

As a filmmaker, how hard or easy was it to maintain the balance of making sure your audience understands all of the Wall Street terminology while also being entertaining?
I think what we did with breaking the fourth wall was inspired by Lewis’ book. If you look at his book, he does a lot of footnotes where he says, “You’re still keeping up with what I’m saying. You deserve a gold star.” He kind of talks to the reader a little bit. That inspired us doing that in the movie. I just felt like the movies had to be inclusive. One of the ways the banks get away with ripping us off is by making us feel stupid or bored by financial talk. I wanted to open it up in a fun way because, once you get it, it’s a really energetic, exciting world. I figure if a college dropout who directed Step Brothers can understand it, the rest of the audience can. That was my operating premise. This isn’t that hard—it’s just moving dead money around and giving it weird names.

The balance is a different question. Ultimately I felt like this movie had to be driven by those characters. That’s what drove me through the book—Dr. Michael Burry, Mark Baum, Jared Vennett, the young guys. That’s the meat of this story. They’re us. They’re the people that the rest of the banking world doesn’t respect—they’re obnoxious, they’re weird. There’s also the big question of why they saw [the crisis] when no one else saw it. In the edit room, that was a big thing we looked at, balancing, trying to get the audience to have enough information so that you can go for the ride. But sometimes I’d have to stop the movie and go, “What the fuck is a synthetic CDO?” For the most part, the audiences really love it and feel like it pulls them into the movie more. The only people who have been bitching about it have been super stodgy film formalists.

You come from a theater/improv background where addressing the audience is quite common. Why do you think it’s considered such a radical idea in movies?
There’s definitely a snobbery about it that I’ve noticed. It’s a film school thing. In film school they teach you “show, don’t tell.” They literally do exercises with it. Friends of mine who were in film school talk about how you’d get in trouble if you’d tell and not show. I think it’s become this sort of unspoken rule. But some of my favorite movies of all time involve breaking the fourth wall or using narrators, like 24 Hour Party People. That’s a movie that I love. There’s such an energy to it. American Splendor. Scorsese’s done a bunch—Goodfellas, Casino. You freeze the frame, you talk. That new show, Narcos, does it a lot. I think it’s kind of changing. Early on, there was a power to film in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s where they’re showing. They’re showing a lot. I think now, because there are so many mediums going on, we can blur it a little more. I’m less precious about it. I find it really exciting to [break the fourth wall].

You worked with four A-list actors on this movie. How much direction does each of them require, and are there different techniques you have to use with each of them?
You kind of dial into each actor and what they need. In the case of Bale, he comes to set and he is the character by the time he arrives. But he’s sort of internalized all of the guy’s physical tics and emotional outlook, but we’re trying to find the right pace for it and how much [he] lets out. Do you want to see a full tour de force of what the guy is in every scene? He and I worked a lot on when to use different aspects of the character. We were constantly having a discussion about that. Occasionally, the real Michael Burry’s voice will just get loud for no reason when he’s talking to you, so we talked about when to use that. It’s a constant checking-in with Christian. He’s completely grounded in the guy, but you try to find the right times and places and make sure it feels real.

Carell is very different. Carell almost hunts down the truthful moment like he’s got a pack of dogs. When he doesn’t have it, he gets very pissed at himself. He’s just chasing it and chasing it. When I do comedies with him, it’s not like that, but with this I realized my job was to be like his hunt-master. The two of us would just chase it down. You’re just nudging it and pushing it. When you get there, it’s very cool because he’ll never say “we got it,” but then suddenly, he’s silent. I’ll say “we got it,” and he won’t say anything and we’ll move on. He’s really, really hard on himself in a great way.

Gosling had an odd role in this movie. He’s both inside the movie and outside the movie. He can talk to the camera. So he was closer to a writer-director. The way we’d talk was closer to the way Will Ferrell and I talk. He’s a super collaborative, funny guy. Brad Pitt just came in with this fully formed character. He had the hair, the beard, the look. He knew exactly who this guy is. I was like, “Hey, I want to do this scene in the kitchen.” He was like, “Yup. I want to talk about saving seeds in Monsanto.” Melissa Leo lands, gets off the plane, smokes the scene in fourteen takes, says goodbye, gets on the plane and leaves. It’s like, “Where did that come from?!”

Coming from the world of making really big studio comedies, how easy or difficult was it to pitch yourself to take on a very different project?
You’re one hundred percent right. I’ve tried to make other movies. I tried to make Garth Ennis’ The Boys at one point, and I couldn’t get anyone to make it. That was a case where I went to all the studios in town and I could feel when I was pitching it [them thinking,] “Oh, he’s a comedy guy.” It was a tricky, ambitious project, but it didn’t help that I was a comedy guy in their eyes. In this case, I got very, very lucky. The company that I went to, Plan B, are the coolest people in the world. Really open-minded. The second I pitched my take they were like, “Why didn’t we think of this? This is perfect.” They were one hundred percent behind me from the beginning. And at that point, you have to put up or shut up about the script. When Paramount got the script, they actually liked it. Then we got this incredible cast, so we were good to go. I give all the credit in the world to Plan B for being open enough to talk to me about this. Not only open, but excited to talk about it.

How deeply involved were you with Michael Lewis in translating his book to screen?
Basically, I had lunch with him before we were going to get going. He said to me, “The book was my baby. You take the baby to college now.” He really loved the script. The greatest moment was when he saw our third-to-last screening and just went on and on about it and effusively loved it. Of course, we all reacted like giant geeks!

As a moviegoer, Steve Carell continues to surprise me as his career goes on. He’s always revealing new layers to his gifts. You’ve known him for years—has he always had these dimensions to him or is he really evolving with every project?
I think he’s definitely evolving. He’s got a little bit of Peter Sellers to him in the sense that he’s very meticulous and mathematical in the way he goes about comedy. It’s all very small, precise choices. I always knew he was a very detailed technician. But I don’t think I started thinking, “Oh, wait a minute—he can play these other ranges!” until Little Miss Sunshine. He was pretty frickin’ good in that, but then I thought, “Alright, he’s a good actor, but I’ve always known he was a good actor.” But then he did The Way Way Back. That was the first time I thought, holy shit—this guy’s really good. There’s this anger there and all these emotions. And then, of course, Foxcatcher blew me away. That’s how I ended up casting him in this role. I thought, son of a bitch, I think he can do this. He’s got the anger, he can transform enough. I was knocked over by what he does in this [movie].

What’s it like not working with Will Ferrell?
I can say this: Life is twenty percent less enjoyable. He came and visited us for, like, three or four days on set just because he wanted to hang. We had the best time with him. I always miss him. He’s the best! But I think it was good that we did something separate, you know? I actually was talking to him about doing a cameo, and he was like, “McKay, go do one without me!”

Talk about the pressure cooker of working with Paul Rudd on Ant-Man to craft what that movie became.
I gotta tell you—it didn’t feel like a pressure cooker. It felt like I was in heaven. I grew up on Marvel comics. I met with Kevin Feige and I could tell, “This guy gets it.” Sometimes you meet with these executives and it’s like, “They kind of get it…” The bummer of that is when you write something really cool and they don’t get it. It was so much fun knowing that, if we wrote something cool, Feige was going to get excited about it. We just had the best time, man. It was Rudd and I holed up in a room for two straight months, writing giant action sequences. Everyone assumed I was just doing the comedy, but we rewrote huge parts of that movie. [We got to write] the whole Falcon fight at the Avengers [base]. It was so much fun. I told Feige afterwards, “Any time you need me, give me a call. That was a blast.”

Brad Pitt has a thing for assassin movies, especially ones where two assassins get married and then discover each other’s assassin secrets. The Mr. & Mrs. Smith star is slated to lead Robert Zemeckis‘ upcoming and untitled WWII drama. Recently signed up to join him is French Oscar winner Marion Cotillard. Cotillard is hot off last year’s Two Nights, One Day and this year’s raves at Cannes for Macbeth. And while Pitt hasn’t knocked it out of the park recently, he has continued to turn out solid performances in lesser films (The Counselor, Fury).

The details so far, according to THR, look to have Pitt star as a French-Canadian assassin who meets and falls for Cotillard’s German assassin in WWII Casablanca. It’s only when the two get married that their secret lives are revealed and Pitt must take out his new bride.

As for Zemeckis, he’s had some ups and he’s had some downs, and while many like to point to his failures (The Polar Express, Beowulf) we can’t help but love him for his highs, because boy are they high (the classics Back To the Future and Forrest Gump and the very-good-but-not-quite-classics Cast Away and Flight, among many others). But through it all he has been a director shamelessly interested in playing with the tools of the trade. This year’s upcoming The Walk is no exception, with the Joseph Gordon-Levitt starring film looking to be a stomach turning 3D spectacle.

At this rate as things keep unfolding Zemeckis’ project is shaping up to be something special; Pitt and Cotillard are rarely bad (if ever) and Zemeckis, when good, can be film-classic good. So, for the time being we’re keeping our fingers crossed for this one as we queue up for The Walk on October 2nd.

In honor of Oscar season being fully upon us, Oscar Winners Revisited is a new column that combines three of our favorite things: arguing about the Oscars, nostalgia, and passing judgment on others. These features hope to re-evaluate past Academy Awards results and see how well the winners and nominees held up versus the choices Way Too Indie Staff members would make today. We’ll be sticking to the big six categories: Best Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, and Supporting Actress. Make sure to visit yesterday’s installment on the 2011 awards, and check back on Way Too Indie tomorrow for another year’s batch of Academy Award winners, revisited.

Best Supporting Actress

Who Won – Octavia Spencer, The Help
Who Should’ve Won – Berenice Bejo, The Artist

The Artist cleaned up most of the major categories in 2012, earning wins for Best Director, Best Picture, and Best Actor. But I was bummed when Berenice Bejo’s dashing performance in the film failed to capture a win on Oscar night, falling to Octavia Spencer in The Help. Even to call Bejo a supporting actress in the silent film era throwback is kind of a stretch, she spends a great deal of time on-screen with Jean Dujardin. Her charming performance as the young dancer and love interest was done without saying a word. It’s hard to deny Octavia Spencer’s captivating performance, but part of me just wanted this to end in a tie between these two great actresses. [Dustin]

Best Supporting Actor

Who Won – Christopher Plummer, Beginners
Who Should’ve Won – Nick Nolte, Warrior

I’m tempted to award the newcomer Jonah Hill, the youngest nominee by more than 20 years, for his surprisingly textured work in Moneyball. Considering the combined age of the other four nominees totalled more than 250 years, it was unlikely the Apatow-bred actor was going to break through. Beyond Hill, 3-time Oscar nominee Nick Nolte may have delivered the most heart-wrenching performance in this group of actors. Christopher Plummer does solid work in Beginners, but likely garnered a lot of support due to the nature of his role and Plummer’s long career (at 82, Plummer became the oldest competitive Oscar winner ever). Nolte’s Warrior performance came as the sole nomination for a mostly overlooked but beloved smaller project (much like Plummer for Beginners), but his gravel-voiced vulnerability gives his role an emotional anchor. Both veteran actors are deserving of acknowledgement, but the more affecting performance scene to scene for me was Nolte’s. [Zach]

Best Actress

Who Won – Meryl Streep, The Iron Lady
Who Should’ve Won – Viola Davis, The Help

Surprise, surprise Meryl Streep wins again. Okay, so maybe she doesn’t win all the time, but Streep has racked up a whooping 19 Oscar nominations. That’s enough nominations to make one wonder if she’s getting noms now solely based on her name, not her performances. Her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady wasn’t particularly impressive. In fact, most people that year expected Viola Davis to win since she won at the Screen Actors Guild. And rightfully so. Davis dominated the screen and our hearts when she’s forced to bite her tongue as a black maid serving her white employer. If there was one thing to take away from the 2012 Oscars, it’s that you should never count Streep out when it comes Oscar night. [Dustin]

Best Actor

Who Won – Jean Dujardin, The Artist
Who Should’ve Won – Brad Pitt, Moneyball

2012 lacked the type of standout male lead that drives most Oscars races. With all due respect to Demián Bichir whose surprise nomination came in a film not many had seen (including myself, although the role garnered acclaim from those who did), his inclusion feels like a reward in and of itself. Dujardin’s malleable performance in the lead of the Best Picture winning “silent” film The Artist certainly has a novelty the other nominated performances lack; however, as strong as Dujardin was in the movie, there are inherent limitations to the role. Brad Pitt’s role in Moneyball is by far the more conventional of these two performances. Yet Pitt is delivering a performance that exemplifies the qualities that has made him one of Hollywood’s biggest stars for decades. The ease with which he delivers his lines, the disaffected persona he portrays while still communicating a committed interest in his actions, and the subtlety of the role in comparison to Pitt’s other not-so-subtle standout performances make the part of Billy Beane a highlight of Mr. Jolie’s acting career. He’s no runaway winner, but Pitt is an appealing alternative to Dujardin here. [Zach]

Best Director

Who Won – Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist
Who Should’ve Won – Martin Scorsese, Hugo

I don’t give Hugo the win for Best Picture and I don’t usually like to give splits in Director/Picture (though in 2013 I would give Cuaron Best Director and The Wolf of Wall Street Best Picture), but Martin Scorsese really deserved it this year. The 3D family film was in fact a much more deserving effort than his long-awaited win for The Departed five years earlier. Hugo saw the filmmaker working completely out of his comfort zone and he absolutely nails it, I’d be hard pressed to think of a more inspiring and heartfelt family film to be released this decade. His use of 3D is also incredible, the best use of the technique I’ve seen thus far, as if Scorsese had turned himself into a sort of modern day version of Méliès (sorry Terry Gilliam). Marty really knocked it out of the park on this one. [Ryan]

Best Picture

Who Won – The Artist
Who Should’ve Won – The Tree of Life

Other than Drive, The Tree of Life was easily my favorite film of 2011 it was one of the most beautiful, poetic, and awe-filled experiences one could have with a film so far this century. A philosophical and emotional epic that sees abstract filmmaker Terrence Malick operating on his most breathtaking canvas yet with the help of God’s gift to cinematography, Emmanuel Lubezki. It’s his most powerful film in a small, but nonetheless outstanding filmography (though Badlands will probably always be my favorite). It’s kind of incredible the Palme d’Or-winning film was even nominated at all (the expanded field helped I’m sure) and it definitely feels like one of those films where the voting body was saying “the nomination is your reward, but you have no chance.” Out of the other nominees only Hugo really comes close to The Tree of Life, though it seems unlikely Malick’s masterpiece ever would have taken home the top prize when competing with the Academy’s continually frustrating choices. The Tree of Life will stand the test of time though which is far more important and telling of a film’s impact. [Ryan]

This is a big one, folks! We’re giving away two blu-ray copies of 12 Years a Slave, which took home several awards this year including Oscars for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay, an armful of Independent Spirit Awards, and a truckload more. This is your chance to own one of the best films of the year!

How To Enter

You’ve got three chances to win:

• Follow us on Twitter and tweet us your favorite film of 2013
• Like us on Facebook and share this article
• Tell us your favorite film of 2013 in the comments section below

Two winners will be selected at random. If chosen, we’ll notify you either by email, twitter, or Facebook. Winners must respond within three days of being contacted. If you do not respond within that period, another winner will be chosen.

Good luck!

Taking a cue from Garfield Minus Garfield, special effects artist Richard Trammell’s digital removal of Tyler Durden from a classic Fight Club scene has been creeping us out since he released the clip last week. Now, Trammell’s followed it up with an eerie version of a scene from The Shining between Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) and Overlook Hotel caretaker Delbert Grady (Phillip Stone), with Grady scrubbed out á la Durden.

The effect is disturbing and kinda cool in the Fight Club clip, but the removal of Grady makes Nicholson’s already insanely nutty performance even spookier. Unlike the Durden clip, Trammell leaves Grady’s dialog audible, saying that the character’s existence is “a bit murkier” than Durden’s.

Movies on my wish list for the “Trammell Treatment”: The Sixth Sense, A Beautiful Mind, Angels in the Outfield, The Lion King, Swimming Pool, The Machinist, Play it Again Sam

Check out Trammell’s Vimeo page.

The Shining minus Delbert Grady from Richard Trammell

Fight Club minus Tyler Durden from Richard Trammell.

With the 50^th anniversary of the Civil Rights Movement’s march on Washington having just passed, and with the historically deplorable Columbus Day holiday upcoming, we can’t be reminded enough of the history of humanity’s tyranny over one another. Sobering and immensely difficult to watch, British director Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave, is to date the most unyielding film depiction of slavery in America ever released. With raw and heart wrenching performances from it’s cast, and a brutally honest artistic perspective from it’s director, this film deserves serious attention and veneration.

Based on the book published in 1853, 12 Years a Slave is the true story of Solomon Northup, a free African-American living in New York in 1841, who was torn from his life of freedom to that of slavery. Once a man of distinction and known for his musical talents, Northup is duped into taking a job with two men who drug him and sell him into slavery. Given the new identity of “Platt Hamilton” and forced to recognize himself as a runaway slave from Georgia, he was sold to and owned by several plantation owners in the Louisiana bayous. Unsure of whether he would ever see his wife and children back in New York, Northup is faced with the greatest obstacle any man can face: the revocation of his humanity and freedom.

Just as a slave in those days had no respite from the daily injustices they were subjected to, the film offers very little rest from the non-stop emotional and physical devastation of slavery. Indeed, in the way that Northup is thrown into and introduced to the severity of what it was to be a slave, so are we the audience forced into an uncomfortable understanding of what it would be to have all ones privileges and family stripped from them. Northup’s position as a free man is identifiable to us, and therefore his harrowing journey is all the more provoking. Through every hanging, every lashing, each panic-inducing escape attempt, McQueen uses the camera to show more than we’ve ever seen before and for longer than we’ve ever seen it. But aside from the physical barbarity we’re forced to witness, it’s the assassination of the soul that is hardest to watch.

Chiwetel Ejiofor (Children of Men) IS Solomon Northup. Each wide-eyed look of disbelief when Northup encounters new injustices, and his eloquent speaking patterns, as a man both educated and wise, shows a complete immersion into the role. Michael Fassbender (an actor I often find myself not recognizing immediately in films because he seems so utterly different in every role he plays) epitomizes the very worst of men to emerge from white dominance in the slave-fueled South. As Solomon/Platt’s master, Edwin Epps oversees his slaves with a sort of controlled insanity that can only come from the drunkenness of entitled power. Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Giamatti, Paul Dano, and Brad Pitt also give pivotal and fantastic performances. Though, side note, it’s honestly unsettling how well Paul Dano seems to be at playing despicable people. The face to watch from 12 Years a Slave, however, is that of Lupita Nyong’o. This newcomer plays fellow slave Patsey, a woman subjected to the living hell of being the Master’s favorite. Arguably having the hardest content of the entire film to perform, she is mesmerizing and her performance is truly affecting.

McQueen has made two other feature films, Shame (2011) and Hunger (2008), each about difficult topics. He’s made it clear he isn’t afraid to challenge his viewers with disturbing content, but with this film he’s found the best outlet for his talent. He shows a masterful control of the subject matter, never letting it overwhelm the artistic focus of the film, and pairing every heightened moment with well-designed sound editing and an unsettling musical score.

While Tarantino’s vengefully satisfying Django Unchained showed far more blood, gore, and savagery than 12 Years a Slave does, it’s ridiculousness made it laughable and thus far easier to take. McQueen’s film is not easy to take, and this is what makes it an absolute must-see; in fact even elicits a feeling of significance while viewing it. This film, and others like it, will always be necessary. Serving as a reminder of all we have, and all that can be denied from us. The moment we stop thinking about the past, at it’s most truthful, may be the moment we lapse into old ways of thinking. 12 Years a Slave has set the bar in honest historical filmmaking, as well as just how emotionally connecting a film can be.

12 Years a Slave trailer:

Steven McQueen’s highly anticipated 12 Years A Slave is a follow up to his mesmerizing sex addiction film Shame, which also features Michael Fassbender, and the first trailer for the film has just been released. The most notable part of the trailer seems to be the stunning performances from the cast, some of which include; Chiwetel Ejiofor, Paul Dano, Paul Giamatti, Quvenzhane Wallis, and Brad Pitt. 12 Years A Slave will be out on October 18th, the perfect time for Oscar potential.

Watch the official trailer for 12 Years A Slave:

When you first watch this story of trickery and deceit, you may perceive it quite differently as you would following a second viewing. After seeing Burn After Reading for the first time in 2008, I was compelled to hate everything about it. I found it hard to enjoy the events that occurred, I was unhappy with the character arcs that Joel and Ethan chose and I was dissatisfied with the ending. Having recently watched it again, however, I was willing to retract my previous judgement and declare that I was quite taken with the quirky, deceitful scenarios that rolled out.

Burn After Reading is a story based upon the idea that when people want something badly enough, they can sometimes go to extreme measures in achieving it; and the Coen Brothers once again demonstrate different ridiculous outcomes to the everyday circumstances these characters endure.

Academy Award Winner, Frances McDormand (Fargo) – a Coen Brothers/Amy favourite, plays as Linda Litzke, a woman who is absolutely determined to undergo plastic surgery to reshape her body and uplift her life. The whole film is molded around Litzke’s unwavering focus on her desire to reinvent herself, and mishap after mishap ensues as her schemes become increasingly reckless (and as a result a lot more dangerous). Initially disheartened by her insurance company refusing to cover the surgery; Chad (Brad Pitt), discovers a disc containing what he believes to be “high quality information” that he presumes will help her money issues. What unfolds thereafter is a series of events that leads up to you finally thinking “so what did we just watch?” It is not a bad movie as a result of this, I enjoyed the fact it gave me time to reflect on what I had just sat through: a story full of real feelings, real emotions and a narrative that never leaves you wanting to drift off face first into your popcorn.

McDormand’s character portrayal is not the only one I wish to comment on, as Brad Pitt’s character Chad, was one of his most versatile performances to date. Playing an energetic yet comically naive personal trainer for a fitness centre, it gave Pitt a chance to step back from his alter ego Rusty Ryan/Tyler Durden persona. Chad’s simplicity gets him in a lot of trouble during the course of the film, but his optimism for life never falters.

Each scene leaves you thinking “what is actually happening” as the story continues to take us in many different directions. Subplots divide and multiply as the film unfolds, yet all are interwoven. You’re not necessarily confused with what the characters are up to, but more so why they’re perhaps building a reclining sex chair or chasing fitness instructors with an axe. There are characters that you’ll come to love or hate, but on some level you’ll secretly empathize with each and every one of them.

Joel and Ethan Coen have such a rich history in filming excellent and unforgettable movies, such as Raising Arizona (1987), Fargo (1996), The Big Lebowski (1998) and more recently No Country for Old Men (2007) and True Grit (2010), that anything they make is classed as unique and creative; and Burn After Reading ticks both those boxes. Because of how interesting the storylines for each character are and how entertainingly painful they are to watch, after every scene you’re constantly questioning yourself as to whether or not you love or hate the film.

The quote that the movie went for, “Intelligence is Relative”, fits perfectly to the references to the CIA, where “Intelligence” is paramount, every character, including those government officials, are clueless as to what is happening within their own lives let alone anyone else’s. It’s a great quote to summarize the plot and the characters alike – that there can be no stupid questions, only stupid answers; cue Burn after Reading.

Moneyball is a film based on the book of the same name that was directed by Bennett Miller about a small market baseball team that found an innovative way of evaluating players. Co-written by the talented Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network), the film is a true story about how Billy Beane used unconventional thinking to focus on buying wins instead players.

Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) was a whole package as a baseball player. He could hit, field, throw and run; a rare package to find. The New York Mets gave him an offer right out of high school. Billy already had a full ride to Stanford but a tough decision that the Beane Family would have to make is go to college or go to the pros.

There are some players that just do not pan out in baseball. They have the ability on paper but for one reason or another just do not perform in the major league. Billy Beane was one of those players. After 6 years he comes to grips that he is not a baseball player but he would like to stay in baseball as a scout. He eventually became the General Manger for the Oakland Athletics.

Set in the 2002, the team with the lowest budget aims to get back to the postseason again but will have to do so without 3 major players. They lost first baseman Jason Giambi, outfielder Johnny Damon and closer Jason Isringhausen to teams that could offer a higher salary. “There are rich teams and there are poor teams. Then there is 50 feet of crap. And then there is us, says Billy.” Their budget limitations make it an unfair game but it is his problem to fix. Billy realizes that they need to think differently with their existing recruitment process.

On a trip to the Cleveland Indians management office, Billy is talking to their GM about possible trade acquisitions. As they throw some possible trade ideas around he notices a man in the corner who whispers advice into the ears of the other guys in the room. The negotiations are going nowhere but the man in the corner intrigues him.

After the failed negotiation meeting is over Billy walks right out of the office to the desk of the man in the corner to find out more about him. His name is Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), a shy young player analyst who has never had a job in baseball before this. Not only that, but this is his first job in any profession. This baffles Billy but he is more concerned on what exactly he told the guy in the meeting.

The two step out of the building to talk more privately about what Peter Brand is all about. Peter explains that baseball teams are misjudging their players and more importantly mismanage their teams. He explains that instead thinking in terms of buying players they should think in terms of buying wins.

Soon after the two first met, Billy hires Peter to his team as the assistant GM. Peter uses Bill James’s formulas to come up with the true values in each player. He believes that there are 25 undervalued players out there that the team can buy on the cheap. Billy refers to their new strategy as counting cards at the blackjack table, trying to beat the odds. He calls this new strategy Moneyball.

The team’s scouts were very skeptical about this new strategy. They believe that there is more to baseball than just numbers and stats, it is about people and chemistry. There are fundamental elements where stats do not apply. Billy knows that the only way he can prove that the system works is by winning games.

The team starts the season off cold (losing 14 of the last 17 games). The seriousness of their poor record is starting to be brought to Billy’s attention. Even by his daughter. She asks him if he will be losing his job. He tells her not to worry about the fact his team is in last place and the things on the internet about him potentially losing his job. He tells her not to worry for her comfort but you can tell he is worried. Still, deep down he believes in his strategy.

The film portrays the hero to be Billy Beane but when you really think about it, it was only his acceptance of Peter Brand’s (in real life his name was Paul DePodesta) strategy and philosophy really changed the game. Every decision that he makes is because Peter said to do it. At least that is what I got out of the film, though props to Billy for looking for progressive ways to win and giving Peter a chance.

It is a movie about sports but it is not a sports movie. In fact, you do not even need to be a baseball fan to enjoy Moneyball, but it does not hurt either. The point of the film is not about an underdog sports team winning games but rather the way they went against the traditional way of evaluating players.

Brad Pitt does a fine job playing Billy Beane but I think the top performance goes to Jonah Hill. He played the number-crunching nerdy Yale graduate wonderfully. Philip Seymour Hoffman comes in with the small role of the team manager named Art Howe but takes a backseat to the main roles of Pitt and Hill.

Moneyball is an entertaining and soulful crowd pleaser with great acting and terrific writing. The only thing preventing this home-run film from being a grand-slam is the lack of risk taking. In the film’s defense, it is hard to take too many risks when it is based on true life events because staying true to the story is best. I do not know much about Billy Beane but perhaps they could have developed more from his ex-wife, the high billed Robin Wright, who only is seen in one scene. Still, you will likely not walk out of this film disappointed.

From the acclaimed director Terrence Malick comes The Tree of Life, an artistic and profound film about the meaning of life centering on a normal and rather insignificant family of the Midwest. The film forgoes traditional narrative in favor of a visual opus that even Stanley Kubrick would appreciate. The best thing you could do is go into the film expecting a cinematic experience; it rids itself of any conventional qualities.

The Tree of Life starts off by tells us that there are two different ways through life either nature or grace and we must choose which one to follow. Grace does not try to please itself and accepts being forgotten, disliked, insults and injuries. Nature only wants to please itself, like to have it’s own way and finds reasons to be unhappy. Clearly that symbolizes the differences between how the mother and father end up raising their children.

The film then briefly shows a glimpse of Mr. O’Brien (Brad Pitt) and Mrs. O’Brien (Jessica Chastain) who lost one of their children. We hear from the father, mother and brother how they regretted things they did or did not do while the son was alive. A quick introduction is given to the present day Jack O’Brien (Sean Penn) who is an adult but is remembering his deceased brother from childhood.

To say the film is visually stunning is a gross understatement and it does not take long for the film to show it. The film shifts not just back to the beginning of the story but the beginning of time. Beautiful shots depicting how the universe expanded and life as we would know it began.

Fast forward millions of years and Jack O’Brien is born. It slowly shows different stages of him growing up, mostly consisting of his upbringing in the house with his family. A short while later another son is born into the world and shows Jack curious of him. The children grow up together living normal lives under the somewhat strict guidance of their disciplinary father. In one immensely emotional scene, the father breaks down a bit and admits his regret of pushing his kids too hard.

One of the things I enjoyed most about the film is how Malick shows us the smallest of detail and we can instantly relate to it. Such as the way the sunlight is reflected onto a wall, the way your hand moves through the air when you put it out of a moving vehicle, or the way the wind blows through clothes hanging from the clothesline in the summer. The way he evokes emotion through visuals instead of words is amazing.

There is definitely more style over substance overall in the film which is why a lot of people have a problem with the film, it can be a bit of a challenge to watch. I would say it was more of an experience than it is a traditional film. People hated 2001 Space Odyssey when it came out because of the long absence of dialog during the opening 25 minutes. If you dig deep though the film does touch on some philosophical questions such as the age-old nature vs nurture debate.

The cinematography and use of the camera was done masterfully from the very beginning and carried throughout. It might be the most technical and beautiful American shot film since 2001 Space Odyssey. The film would certainly have my Oscar vote for cinematography but time will tell if it actually will or not. It did, however, win the Palme d’Or at Cannes Film Festival this year.

It is a rare that a film so poetically written and masterfully filmed comes along. Watching what Malick perceives what life and death looks like is stunning. The Tree of Life may be hard for most people to watch because of it’s non-linear narrative and art like visuals but that is really quite a shame because I think it would take multiple views in order to fully appreciate. Although, to fully understand the film may be difficult to do because of how subjective the film is, which is a subject that the film itself brings up.

Cannes Film Festival came to a close Sunday night and announced the winners of Palme d’Or, Grand Prix, Best Director and other high status awards. Kirsten Dunst won Best Actress in Lars von Trier’s film Melancholia and thanked the director after a very controversial comment he made about Nazi’s during a press conference that caused a lot of media attention last week. The top prize, Palme d’Or, went out to The Tree of Life directed by Terrence Malick which stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn.

See the full list of nominations.

The Tree of Life, (director Terrence Malick)

The Kid with a Bike, (directors Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne)
Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, (director Nuri Bilge Ceylan)

Nicolas Winding Refn, Drive

Joseph Cedar, Hearat Shulayim

Las Acacias, (director Pablo Gorgelli)

Polisse, (director Maiwenn)

Kirsten Dunst, Melancholia

Jean Dujarin, The Artist

Cross Country, (director Marina Viroda)

Arirang, (director Kim Ki-Duk)
Stopped on Track, (director Andreas Dresen)

Elena, (director Andrey Zvyaginstev)