Ben Farber's Profile - Rotten Tomatoes

Want-to-See Movies

Want-to-See TV

This user has no Want to See TV selections yet.

Rating History

Black Hawk Down
20 months ago via Rotten Tomatoes

Let me just start out this review, by saying that Ridley Scott is one of my favorite directors. The way he operates with his films is simply brilliant. In his movies, he tries to capture the audience, and throw us into the movie, without corrupting the non-cliche aspects of his work. His movies aren't corny, and there not stupid. It's all about the filming with him, and I love it. "Black Hawk Down" is no different. In an age of ridiculous action war movies, Scott brings us back with a knockout of a film, which generates both sorrow and beauty. The sorrow coming from the tragic loss of soldiers, and the beauty coming from the amazing cinematography, film editing, and screenplay that his been set up for us. "Black Hawk Down" is an amazing movie.

"Black Hawk Down" follows the actual events that occured in Somolia in 1993. Bill Clinton sent in troops to take out a warlord in restore peace in the country, but things got very complicated. The portrayal of this event is done perfectly in this film.

For me, this film came down to two things. Acting, and cinematography. These two aspects made this movie what it is. Acting wise, everyone does a great job in this movie. The group of actors we are presented with are mostly not American, so we see a lot of people hiding there accents with southern accents, and that's okay. Orlando Bloom, Ewan Mcgregor, Eric Bana, and Jason Isaacs all attempt to hide there actual voices in this movie, and I thought that was very interesting to see. Besides Orlando Bloom, these actors all did a great job in the movie, and presented their lines well, and approached this movie with maturity and passion. Now your wondering why I said "except Orlando Bloom". Well heres why: Bloom was in literally all together 20 minutes of the film. He's only on screen a couple of times, and the monologues he gives are boring and unimportant. He was the only negative aspect about this film, but he is so miniscule in his importance, that he didn't take away any overall quality. I just thought I'd mention it. What I didn't mention though, was the performances of American actors. I'm specifically talking about Josh Hartnett, and Tom Sizemore. Hartnett did a great job in this movie. Usually, I think he's a little ridiculous, and most of the time I think he's just eye candy for women when he's on screen. He definitely proved me wrong in this movie. The perfomanes he gives is full of emotion, and he really impressed me. The monologue that he gives at the end of the film is simply brilliant, but I won't give anything away. Nobody really recognizes the performances that Tom Sizemore gives in a film. I think that he always does a great job, and he really cares about his work. In this movie, he gave an awesome performance, and did exactly what he needed to do. It was awesome.

Another thing that I mentioned was really important in this movie was the cinematography. It's amazing. The shots we are presented with are all handled with great care, and there are no errors to be found. The specific lighting and contrast textures that we see are all awesome, and I love films that are made like this. It makes the film excellent, and it's really well done.

But "Black Hawk Down" is more than just a movie. It's a message. Don't leave anyone behind, and help the people around you. The story that Ridley Scott told, and what we see on the screen, is literally fantastic. "Black Hawk Down" is a movie to definitely be remembered for a long time.

Godzilla (2014)
3 years ago via Rotten Tomatoes

These last few weeks have definitely been pretty nostalgic for me. I was one of those children that grew up in the height of the resurgence of Godzilla's popularity in the late 1990?s. When Toho decided to section off the rights of Godzilla to TriStar in the mid 90?s-children like me freaked out and jumped for joy in the expectation of an American Godzilla film. What we got was just another Roland Emmerich blockbuster that saw almost no correlation to the actual source material. Matthew Broderick gave a pretty lackluster performance, and Puff Daddy's remix of Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir" wasn't doing the terrible film any favors lets just put it that way. As a child however, I loved the spectacle. I had all kinds of Godzilla toys and my VHS copy was one of my most prized possessions. I made my parents watch that film over and over again- at the time unaware of how malicious something like that could be. Its been 16 years since that film has been released, and since then, Warner Brothers has acquired the rights through a pretty grueling acquisition process that lasted for a couple of years. American audiences have been prepared for the giant monster spectacle, with films like "Pacific Rim" being released a year earlier.

A Little Bit more Nostalgia: Over the course of my adolescence, a drew a great appreciation for Godzilla. Ishiro Honda's original horror masterpiece "Gojira" became one of my favorite foreign films as a child. What made that film different from the 20-something sequels that would follow are its gritty undertones. Created in the wake of World War II, "Gojira" exhibits political commentary on the use of nuclear warfare-and the consequences of violence and the evil nature of humankind. "Gojira," other than showing the great spectacle of a giant monster destroying Tokyo-gives its audience a chilling understanding of Japan's horrific experiences with Hiroshima and Nagasaki-as well as the country's dynamic shift politically and socially after the war had ended. Akira Ifukube's timeless score still plays over and over in my head-a composition that I will never forget. Its one of the best B movies (if you even want to call it that) and one of the greatest monster films ever conceived and brought to life. Warner Brothers was certainly aware of the legacy that the original film has had. Sometimes audiences like to think that the big budget businessmen and women in Hollywood aren't very aware of what true fans are craving. And while this might be true, they're really good at hiring individuals who are fans themselves. Gareth Edwards, a confessed Godzilla fanboy-was an ideal candidate by executives to helm the second Hollywood realization of Godzilla. I was startled to see how grandiose the advertising campaign for this film had actually been. I knew that Warner Brothers was going to push this pretty hard-but it was very surprising to see just how much they were attempting to proliferate information about this picture. It definitely signified how much faith the studio had in the films production and critical reception. Gareth Edwards and Warner Brothers have succeeded in creating an incredibly entertaining return for Godzilla. Audiences will without a doubt be entertained by this spectacle. It doesn't necessarily succeed in tackling the gritty and horrific undertones of the original, but with a solid cast-and just enough core exposition to get the story across-"Godzilla" dishes out what it had promised-an exciting and relentlessly entertaining return of the greatest movie monster of all time. However, the film left me wanting a lot more than I had actually received.
With a major budget comes big-time actors. "Godzilla" begins with the story of Joe Brody, an engineer at Janjira nuclear power plant in Japan. After a diaster causes massive devastation and tragedy-Brody refuses to believe that what happened was an accident. He investigates and begins to discover that the organization had been keeping some things hidden from the public. Ford Brody, (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) Joe's son, while skeptic at first-begins to understand what his father is talking about. Before anything can be fully figured out, a giant monster comes out of the plant and starts terrorizing the world. Dr. Ishiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) reveals that his organization has been documenting a secret giant organism since 1954. This creature is known as "Godzilla." Serizawa claims that the only way to destroy the monster is at the hands of Godzilla himself. Serizawa claims that nature will take the necessary action to bring things back into balance. The human portion of the film is a bit stale. All of the fictionalized science fiction stuff-while logically nonsensical at times-is solid enough to get the point across. However, some of the interactions between characters are a bit weak. Aaron Taylor-Johnson's performance is incredibly poor. He puts almost no effort into his lines-and his apathetic approach to the material is baffling to see along with actors like Ken Watanabe and especially Bryan Cranston-who attempt to bring the script to life as much as possible. Elizabeth Olsen does what she needs to do-and there really isn't much room for her to mess up her performance anyway. If the film was made in a way that barely focused on its human element than that would be one thing. But "Godzilla" primarily focuses on its human characters. That being said, it becomes difficult watching the film attempt to juggle attention between the acting and the monster fighting when some of its human qualities are a bit derivative.

The best thing that "Godzilla" has to offer, and for this film the most important attribute, are its visual effects. "Godzilla" is aesthetically brilliant. The computer-generated effects on the giant monsters and the worldwide destruction evoke the serious and gritty atmosphere that the dialogue isn't necessarily able to do most of the time. Edwards approaches the devastation from a realistic perspective, attempting to focus on how society might deal with massive-scale destruction as it is happening right before them. The film constantly interchanges between monster destruction and human interaction. During scenes where Godzilla is causing havock, the movie finds its main characters at the center of the action-using quick shots and pans to focus back and forth. This is definitely an interesting idea. The film spends a lot of its time teasing the audience as well. There are moments where viewers are expecting a full-scale fight, and at the last second the film cuts back to its actors. Most of the time I found this to be pretty clever. But as the film performed this trick over and over again I began to wonder why the movie wouldn't simply allow its audience to see what its wanted to see from the very start of the film. Personally, I felt that there was just one fight scene missing. The audience is never shown an almost 15 minute long sequence, in almost Michael Bay fashion, where Godzilla is the primary focus for this entire span of time. The movie never allows the viewers to focus specifically on Godzilla. This can become pretty aggravating. I began to think, "why isn't there more Godzilla?" It can become tricky when attempting to please critics and fans at the same time how to find an equilibrium in a movie that's about giant monsters. If the film were to just focus on Godzilla and destruction, then snobby critics would pan the film for its lack of human interaction. If the film were to simply focus on the humans for the most part, than Godzilla fans would complain that the studio is simply trying to bring fantasy to a realistic perspective-something that almost every major studio has been doing in the last couple of years. It seemed that Edwards and company attempted to find this balance. The problem is that this balance is never really successful. The film had a hard time finding its focus. What saves the film however, are those small moments of sheer captivation. Godzilla's visual representation in this go around looks great-and the powers he possesses and his physical mannerisms are back in full force-as a tribute and respect to the Toho material. Edwards also pays respects to the early Godzilla sequels that invoked qualities of the monster that I don't want to give away. Fans will be pleased to see this.

Its tough to make a Godzilla film to full fruition when you have a major studio breathing down your back at any given moment. Edwards' decision to focus largely on the movie's human characters works sometimes-and fails at others. For the most part, actors like Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe are able to keep the film's narrative afloat. There are times where you'll be asking yourself why Godzilla isn't as prominent as he should be. This film left me wanting a lot. Its difficult to say that this film took itself way too seriously when the whole purpose of the picture was to pay respect to the original source material-which was incredibly serious itself. I will say however, that "Godzilla" felt a lot different than I thought it was going to. While the film invokes serious themes-there are moments where the movie just seems like a big budget monster bash. And that's totally fine-although it becomes confusing when you're trying to figure out the purposes behind the undertones of the film's story. In any event, "Godzilla" is able to entertain its audience. Moments where Godzilla is on screen are just a treat to watch-and wanting more at the end of the film might in fact be an advantage in the eyes of the studio. It wasn't as fantastic as I wanted it to be-but it was certainly a great blockbuster to watch. I had fun.
Directed by: Gareth Edwards

Her (2013)
3 years ago via Flixster

Whether or not one sees plausibility in the sci-fi undertone of its story (I certainly do), it can be said without the slightest hesitation that Spike Jonze's "Her" exhibits the complexes of relationships and personal struggle in an incredibly honest and painstakingly heartfelt manner. Instead of focusing primarily on the futuristic elements of the film's premise, Jonze shifts his gaze towards the conflicts found within his characters. The cool gadgets and flashy effects are implemented to simply give shape to the powerful dynamics that the film presents its audience. This is why it works so well. With a story like this, it can be so easy for the film's thematic components to become blurred within contemporary cinematic technique. Jonze is no stranger to special effects. Films like "Being John Malkovich" and "Where The Wild Things Are" rely heavily on their visual effects to help benefit the story. However, Jonze's discipline never seems to slouch. Through and through, he's able to use these aesthetics as an apparatus without disrupting his core exposition. "Her" finds Spike Jonze benefiting from this same technique in possibly more successful fashion than ever before. This is also thanks to Joaquin Phoenix, who gives one of the greatest performances of his career. Phoenix represents the fully realized vision of Jonze's thesis, and with wonderful supporting performances by Amy Adams, Rooney Mara, and Scarlett Johansson, "Her" manages to excel in almost every possible fashion. Spike Jonze has managed to create a nearly perfect work of art; elevated by the authentically raw talent of his entire cast and crew.
Theodore Twombly is a recently divorced writer who lives alone. From the moment the film begins, the audience gets a sense of Twombly's inability to express his problems and emotions. Ironically, he uses his writing skills to send personal love letters for people who aren't able to do it themselves. Eventually, Twombly decides to buy a recently constructed operate system that has its own artificial intelligence. Per his request, the operating system is given a female identity, and Samantha is born. Over time, Theodore and the operating system begin to garner a strong relationship with one another. For Twombly, Sam represents the idealized vision of the perfect woman. More than a story of their relationship, Jonze successfully exhibits how Theodore's eventual love for Samantha represents both his introverted struggles and overall state of mind. In this sense, "Her" identifies itself as a story of the perception of love rather than love itself. This is what makes the film's content so effortlessly authentic. This isn't to say that the love that Theodore has for Samantha isn't portrayed as authentic itself. However, Jonze allows his audience to question their own personal sense of love and attachment by executing the story in the way he did.
Jonze's commentary on intimacy is brought to life through the relentless abilities of the film's cast. Joaquin Phoenix's electric presence transcends the stereotypes and cliches of "Hollywood leads" and gives the audience an unflinchingly honest portrayal of the notions that Jonze raises throughout the course of the picture. Phoenix, more than an actor in the film, represents a common challenge that is presented in our contemporary. More than a story of love and intimacy, Jonze manages to raise a commentary on human interaction. Twombly's relationship with his operating system reflects how our society's technological metamorphosis of the last ten years both effects and transforms our interaction with one another. In the case of the cyber, or artificial, Twombly's relationship with Samantha can be attributed to our possible perceptions of perfection. I didn't walk away from "Her" contemplating our relationship with artificial intelligence as strongly as I considered how our relationship with technology effects our more subjective experiences. The voice acting of Scarlett Johansson in "Her" is as imperative as the reflection of human authenticity that's found within Phoenix' performance. The sensual approach and nature of Samantha's presence gives Twombly's experience an incredibly vivacious undertone. To put it simply; its sexy. Its this sexual expose that Johansson drives forward that gives Samantha a human voice. After all, sexuality exhibits one of the most important components of the human condition. All of these themes might not be presented in an obvious format, however what can be said is that Jonze presents the perfect amount of content to allow his audience to come up with their own distinctions on what he brings to life on the screen. This is excellent filmmaking.

Joaquin Phoenix in "Her" (2013)
Hoyte van Hoytema's colorfully rich aesthetics serve as a catalyst to the tone that Jonze sets up for both his talent and his audience. Hoytema's cinematography is as potent and visceral as the actors themselves; giving us visuals that keeps us grounded while simultaneously showing us a glimpse into a possible near-future. With all of the sci-fi undertones, Hoytema's most powerful moments come in his simple profile shots of Joaquin Phoenix. Cutaways to Rooney Mara sitting and laughing; simple shots. These are the ones that have the most meaning. Hoytema doesn't try to do too much with the pallet that's given to him. He offers just the right amount of visual bliss that gives shape to the rest of the movie. The musical score by Indie Rock band Arcade Fire gives both a somber and lighthearted atmosphere to the film. What could have easily been over the top in terms of both production and content, Arcade Fire manages to subtlety incorporate their recognized sound into the movie without dominating the attention of the audience.
Everything seemed to just click. "Her" reflects a collective effort from almost every aspect of its production to manifest a work of art in the highest of quality. The delicate yet assured direction of Spike Jonze is responsible for bringing this collective effort to life. "Her" successfully tackles multiple issues that are raised in our contemporary in the least condescending ways. The film never preaches. Its me who's doing most of the preaching here. Not only is it one of the best films of 2013-2014, but it deserves every accolade that it has received in the last couple of months. "Her" is nominated for several Academy Awards including Best Original Screenplay and Best Picture. It may not win over the hearts of Academy members like big-budget Hollywood films such as "Gravity" might, however, for me, "Her" is a complete triumph in almost every regard. Its a sweet and soulful effort manufactured by one of Hollywood's most talented contemporary filmmakers.
Directed by: Spike Jonze

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues
3 years ago via Flixster

With "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues," director Adam McKay finds himself operating in his classic niche of randomness. Films like "Step Brothers," "The Other Guys," and of course the original Anchorman all operate on random gags to promote the films exposition. While this process may seem excruciatingly derivative and lackluster to some, McKay compensates this issue with moments of sheer hilarity. "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy" (2004) contained all of the randomness and perplexing character arcs that audiences have come to expect while simultaneously providing strongly quotable moments that represent a huge portion of contemporary comedy. With "Anchorman 2," it seems that all of these quotable moments are lost in a largely disconcerting screenplay that almost seems to be largely unfinished. The irrelevancy and randomness that Mckay operates around seems to be used as a crutch in this film to juxtapose sequences and further the duration of the movie. Because the film dwells so largely on its own storytelling faults, the audience quickly becomes aware of this overarching problem. Without Mckay's signature sporadic moments of creativity, "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" feels like a tired and quick-to-draw film that doesn't seem to know where its going.

Ten or so years after the events of the first film, Ron Burgundy and Veronica Corningstone are happily co-anchoring together for the San Diego news. Veronica gets a job offer to be the head anchor for prime time national news, and Ron Burgundy gets fired. Burgundy exclaims that either Veronica turn down the job or divorce Ron. Naturally, Veronica chooses the latter and Ron finds himself alone and without a job once again. Months later, Ron gets an offer to become one of the anchors for a 24 hour news network, the first of its kind (an obvious allegory on contemporary media). Ron decides that the only way for him to be able to run the news is with his old crew. He gets the team back together, and the film kicks into high gear. In the years that have taken place between the two films, Veronica and Ron had a son together. Ron realizes that he must decide what is most important in his life, and where his devotion really lies. However, these sub-conflicts represent a sort of vehicle for the gags that ensue throughout the duration of the piece. Elements of plot aren't really used to elevate the characters as much as they are used to give justification for humor. This is where the main problem in "Anchorman 2? resides.

"Anchorman 2? seems to rely on old jokes and elements from the first film on a staggering level. These old gags are reconstructed into long and drawn out sequences that bore the audience until they come to a close. In this sense, the second installment doesn't seem to have anything uniquely individualistic to offer its viewers other than the exhibition of old material. One of the largest examples of this issue comes within Brick Tamland's character (played by Steve Carell.) While the first film uses Brick's idiotic and random babble on a minimal level, these aspects are heightened and focused to extensive amounts in this go-around. Brick is given a love interest with a woman of the same intellectual level played by Kristen Wiig. There are sequences where these two actors run around in circles and scream at the top of their lunges, assuming that the audience will get a kick out of the overwhelmingly excessive amount of obnoxiousness that coincides with these scenes. Upon viewing, it certainly seems that the actors themselves were having a great time filming these sequences. I feel like I was left out of a great inside joke and forced to subject myself to a long and awkward moment where I don't understand the punchline. I shared a similar sentiment with a lot of other scenes in this film. There are moments where the audience isn't quite sure if they are supposed to laugh or not. There seemed to be large amount of uncertainty in the theater as to what is supposed to be funny and what isn't.

There is never really a moment when the viewer genuinely cares for the actions of a character. This concern is sidelined for the questioning of when a joke is going to be incorporated randomly into a scenario. McKay and Ferrell take us from scene to scene and randomly transport us to completely random sequences that have literally nothing to do with what we just saw. There is a 30 minute portion of the film that focuses on an event that Burgundy experiences in the film, only to provide the audience with jokes that take place within that particular environment. It comes off as aggressively lazy and uninspired. Whether or not all of this randomness and incomprehensibility was done on purpose to screw around with the audience, it just seemed stupid nonetheless. I found myself waiting for all of the jokes to serve some kind of purpose for the film's story, but this never happened.

The one thing that remained clever in "Anchorman 2? was its subtle commentary on contemporary media. In the film, Burgundy says "Why give the viewer what they need to see, when you can give them what they want to see?" This line serves as clear-cut protocol for major news corporations in today's day and age. With 24 hour news networks like FOX and CNN, producers need to discover what will keep viewers hooked enough to keep watching. This sentiment is what keeps these networks circulating and in control. "Anchorman 2? brings light to this in the slightest way, and for the most part, this is executed rather well. These small moments made me smile a little bit knowing that the creators of the film may have had some kind of purpose behind the creation of the piece. However, these clever moments are drowned by all of the film's ineffective components. The film feels long, long-winded, and seriously exhausted towards the latter half of its duration. Even though components of characterization and political allegory are never consistent, its the random gags and useless humor that reoccurs on a systematic level throughout the movie. The question "why?" came up for me way to often.

"Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" just feels unnecessary. Without the quotable takeaways that make Mckay's films sensible, the movie feels pointless and weak in almost every sense. The intangibility with the characters and incomprehensible exposition create a strong level of fatigue in the audience upon viewing. Just like its predecessor, this movie feels assured in its sense of randomness and sporadic layout. The only problem is that there is nothing to grab hold of once the picture comes to a close. This is what makes the random sequences seem so stupid and pointless. Without purpose, there is almost nothing to gain from this movie. Overall, the promotional ads and marketing tactics that were implemented for this film may have been more entertaining than the final product itself.
Directed by: Adam McKay

Dallas Buyers Club
3 years ago via Flixster

The year of 2013 is shaping up to be Matthew McConaughey's finest hour. With two wonderful performances under his belt, there should be no surprise for his Oscar contention in February. With "Mud", McConaughey proves his chops and his ability to act within a gritty and dark undertone. "Dallas Buyers Club" takes the actor to unknown depths; displaying methods of acting and an emotional capacity that I've never seen from him before. The unique thematic elements of Jean-Marc-Vallee's aggressive and passionate direction allow this film's story to transcend any possible Hollywood cliches, exhibiting a brutally honest portrayal of personal fear and the perception of imminent death. The film has its share of head-scratching moments, but McConaughey's command over Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack's impressive screenplay leave no room for any sort of doubt in the film's narrative. Its an ambitious piece that ultimately pays off with one of the finest performances of the year.

McConaughey plays Rob Woodroof, a bull rider from Texas who's self-destructive lifestyle and sexual aggression have labeled him as quite the character within his small community. Sometimes a thief, sometimes a cheater, but all times risky, Woodroof lives for each moment and any possible chance to win a quick buck. However, Woodroof's way of living ultimately turn on him when he's diagnosed with HIV. Because of Woodroof's drug abuse, his immune system is subsequently lowered, and he contracts AIDS. The film takes place right in the middle of 1985, when perceptions of the disease were scattered, and reasons for contraction were unknown to the common population. In Texas, garnering AIDS meant an association with homosexuality. Woodroof's own personal homophobic dispositions are called into question when all of his friends turn him into a social pariah. Through a transwoman named Rayon that he meets in the hospital, Woodroof begins to understand the imperative situation that he's in. He slowly learns that with the medicine that's available to him within the United States, and his current state of health, he doesn't have long to live. The FDA commissions a drug to test on the population of AIDS victims called AZT, which is ultimately a harmful concoction that lowers the immune system and poisons the patient. This drug is given to hospitals all across the country, and in exchange, the hospitals acquire subsidies on their personal stocks of the medicine. The price of AZT is raised and becomes available through common health insurance plans. Woodroof learns through a doctor in Mexico that the drug itself is dangerous. He ultimately discovers that there is a plethora of drugs around the world that have not been approved by the FDA that might alleviate some of his symptoms. He also learns that it would be easy to sell the drugs himself in the States. With the help of Rayon, Woodroof forms an illegal corporation called "The Dallas Buyers Club", which operates through a 400 dollar membership. The FDA and DEA begin to investigate what Woodroof is doing, and subsequently, Woodroof begins to change his perceptions of what he wants and what people need.

The strength of the film comes in the performances of McConaughey and Jared Leto. These two are absolutely excellent together. McConaughey's devotion to the material, both mentally and especially physically, creates a startlingly realistic undertone to the films execution. It seems that McConaughey lost almost one hundred pounds or so for the role to dictate the ultimate degradation of the body with the contraction of AIDS. From the beginning of the movie, we learn of Woodroof's bigotry and dogmatic ideals. The audience learns to feel compassion for the character as he begins to discover a strong association with a seemingly inevitable death. McConaughey becomes Woodroof in every possible fashion. Jared Leto's subtle and brilliant embodiment of his character convey a strong chemistry with McConaughey. Jennifer Garner, who plays Dr. Eve Saks, probably gives off the weakest performance in the film. There is nothing identifiable to describe her performance other than its association with Leto and McConaughey. These two performances are so incredibly strong that Garner's by-the-books approach to her acting seems a little off-putting. However, the abilities of Leto and McConaughey are too strong to leave any lingering resentment towards Garner's execution of the script.

Jean-Marc Vallee takes a lot of unique routs with his direction of the piece. The film starts off in a deeply dark and brutally visceral style that immerses the audience within the story. However, the movie's tone constantly changes over the course of its duration. The film always stays honest, but its undertone never stays the same. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but its definitely noticeable. There are times where it becomes apparent that the narrative of the piece and its ultimate objective get a little scrambled, however, Matthew Mconaughey's talent serves as an incredibly effective distraction to whatever problems might be found within the ultimate bare-bones content. At moments funny, and at other times painfully sad, Vallee takes the audience on an emotional roller-coaster ride with no clear destination. The constantly changing tone and sometimes confusing execution do not take away from the film's quality. Vallee proves that there is a method to his madness in one way or another. With the talent that is captured on screen, there is ultimately no room for confusion.

"Dallas Buyers Club" is a great movie. What makes the film work is simply Matthew McConaughey. This is the best performance of his career. His physical and mental devotion to this film is staggeringly compelling. This actor has certainly come a long way from the generic blockbusters of the late 90?s and early 2000?s. Jean-Marc Vallee's weird and sometimes confusing tone ultimately pays off in conjunction with McConaughey's execution of the screenplay. Its a proper reflection of the time period, and definitely captures the confusion and xenophobia of the American public during the time. This film serves as a perfect display of the talent's of an actor who is truly coming in to his own. McConaughey is one to watch.
Directed by: Jean-Marc Vallee