Far Cry 4 Review

     In 2004, the first person shooter "Far Cry" was released to commercial and critical success. It was extremely over the top and warranted a sequel. In 2008 under the helm of a new studio, "Far Cry 2" was released and marketed as a gritty and realistic shooter; featuring mechanics like weapon degrade, vehicles that must be repaired when damaged, and malaria. While interesting, these new mechanics made the game tedious and sucked all the fun out of the series. So a few years later when the sequel "Far Cry 3" was announced many did not take notice; upon its release though, it was met with almost universal critical acclaim and was named one of the best games of the year by many publications. Personally, it became one of my all time favorite games. The personality, the amount of stuff you could do, and just how ridiculous it was at times worked perfectly together. The game also featured one of the best stand alone expansions ever made with "Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon." Since then I have been pining for the next game in the series; and after a long wait the highly anticipated sequel has arrived.

     The story follows the story of a young man named Ajay Ghale, who has decided to travel to a northern region of Nepal called Kyrat in order to spread the ashes of his recently deceased mother. Upon traveling to Kyrat, the bus he is on is attacked by several soldiers; soldiers working for the self proclaimed king of Kyrat, Pagan Min. Years ago Pagan attempted to make a name for himself in the Hong Kong crime scene but ultimately fails. After murdering his father he flees to Kyrat, where he uses his personal funds to hire a small, private army to help him take control when the country is in the middle of a civil war. Pagan was in love with Ajay's mother before she fled to the US, and after learning that he was coming to the country he decided to intervene. After kidnapping Ajay and his guide they are taken to Pagan palace; after getting away from Pagan, he is intersected by a local terrorist group called the golden path. Ajay's father (who died years ago) was the former leader of the group, so they feel they have an obligation to Ajay and save him. After seeing what Pagan has done to the area, he decides to join the group and fight Pagan's army; not just to fulfill his mother's final wish, but to help the people of the region who desperately need it.

     Going back to the beginning of the year, "Far Cry 4" might have been my most anticipated game of the year behind "Destiny." And while "Destiny" didn't quite live up to my expectations, "Far Cry 4" has. One aspect that really surprised me about both "Far Cry 4" and "Far Cry 3" is that it really works as a shooter, "Far cry 2" didn't really stand along some other FPS games at the time but the newer games really work. "Far Cry 4" just has really nice shooting mechanics, each weapon feels a bit different and you need to work with each weapon to get good at it. The game features a bow and it's arguably the best weapon in the game, but it's something you have to practice with to use effectively. "Far Cry 4" also has a lot more variety than its predecessor: weapons, mission, animals, and challenges are more diverse. In "Far Cry 3" you could put two attachments on a weapon as well as buy "signature" weapons that had more attachments. "Far Cry 4" features many more weapons, including many more "signature" weapons. The game also has a ton of stuff to do, there are hours upon hours of missions ranging from assassinations to hunting to bomb diffusion and many more. And with the hundreds of collectible, this is a game that will require a lot of time to beat 100%. One thing that I really loved about "Far Cry 3" was that it let you chose your play style. I always compare it to a game that came out the same year as it, "Dishonored." "Dishonored" was a stealth game that allowed you to beat it without having to kill a single enemy. The problem was that it gave you no incentive to do so; "Far Cry 3" on the other hand let you go in guns blazing or rewarded you for playing stealthy (which was more difficult). "Far Cry 4" continues with that tradition and gives you even more options to play how you want. The game has also added co-op, so you can now kill hundreds of enemy and animals with a friend. One thing that "Far Cry 3" vastly improved over its predecessor was that it had a much more interesting story and unique characters; "Far Cry 4" does the same thing but also has a much more likable protagonist. In "Far Cry 3" you played some rich kid who gets kidnapped and wants revenge against the people who killed your brother, while you see where he's coming from he usually just comes off as an asshole. The new character is someone you can actually get behind. Another thing that "Far Cry 4" has over the previous game would be the world it takes place in, the world of Kyrat is beautiful and expansive. The mountains, the forests, it really is one of the most beautiful open worlds I've played through in a while. But if there is one thing that "Far Cry 4" has really done right just like its predecessor, is that the game is just plain fun. It is one of the most enjoyable and satisfying games I have played this year and is something I will go back and visit many more times. Despite everything the game does right, it has two major flaws. First off would be the driving, I hate it, I don't like it. They changed up the driving controls so you can shoot and drive at the same time. The problem is that both acceleration and direction are tied to the left analog stick and is just a pain in the ass. Vehicles do have an auto-driving function that will keep you on a road, and without it driving would just be unbearable. But of anything the game suffers from the fact that it can't quite live up to its predecessor. "Far Cry 3" was so good and such a big surprise, and became a favorite for many people. "Far cry 4" is kind of like "Fallout: New Vegas" and "Saints Row 4;" while it makes some needed improvements, it doesn't act as a huge leap forward from its previous game. But while "Far Cry 4" might not be quite as good as "Far Cry 3," it’s still fantastic. In a year that hasn't featured a lot of great games, this one is a stand out. It's fun and features a world with tons of stuff to do. I really can't recommend this game enough; I've had a blast playing it thus far and will be putting a lot more time into it. There are still a few games set to be released in the next month and a half, but it safe to assume that "Far Cry 4" is one of the year's highlights. 

Pros: Solid shooting mechanics, interesting story, unique characters, beautiful and expansive world, tons of stuff to do, more variety than previous game, let's you gun blazing or rewards you to be stealthy, features co-op, more likable protagonist, just plain fun.

Cons: Driving isn't great, not a huge step up from "Far Cry 3," has trouble living up to its predecessor.

4.5/5 Stars

Note: I played this on the PS4 and had very few technical issues, none of which were close to game breaking. I have heard that both the PC and PS3 versions suffer from serious technical issues. So keep that in mind if you decide to buy this game.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1 Review

     Ever since the success of "Harry Potter," dozens of book series have been adapted for the big screen in an attempt to be the next big franchise; very few have succeeded. But of those that have, many would say "The Hunger Games" franchise has stood out from the rest. Based off the best selling series of the same name, the story follows a young girl named Katniss who has to compete in a fight to the death style tournament meant to please the masses. What has made the series so likable would probably be the lead character Katniss; a strong yet relatable heroin, and one of the best female action characters in years. Since the first installment the series has been a massive success, both critically and financially. Not since "Harry Potter" has a film series taken the world by storm like this one. But with so much momentum it is hard to keep up with expectations; which leads us to the third film in the series, "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1." 

     Shortly after the events of "Catching Fire," Katness and the other rebels have taken refuge in an underground military bunker in the now destroyed district 13. After competing in the games twice, Katniss's mind is all but destroyed. Suffering from night terrors and haunted by the games, she is a shell of her former self. One day she is approached by the president of district 13 who wants her to be the mockingjay, a symbol of hope for the rebels who wish to overthrow the totalitarian government. At first she is apprehensive, but agrees after she sees that her home district had been firebombed and completely wiped out. She did demand that the former games winners would be rescued and pardoned, including Peeta. The rebels then embark on political warfare, in an attempt to gain support and shame the government. Slowly but surely, the people start to rise up alongside them; with some even carrying out terrorist attacks. While she doesn't want to do it, Katniss understands that she is a symbol of hope; and she will do anything to take down the government.

     To my own surprise, the second "Hunger Gamers movie" "Catching Fire" was one of my favorite movies of 2013. It was one of the most exciting movies of the year, and just all around enjoyable. So since I had seen it, I have been excited for its sequel. So going into "Mockingjay-Part 1" I was extremely excited; to be honest though, it didn't quite meet those expectations. Ever since the first film, one thing the series has always done right has been casting. Everyone gives a great performance and really embodies their character, especially Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss. At this point, it is hard to imagine anyone else playing that character except for her. Unlike "Catching Fire," this isn't really an action movie, while there are a few cool action scenes its more about political intrigue. The politics or war and the propaganda campaign might actually be the most interesting thing about this movie. I also have to mention the new characters; all of which are all likable and unique. Unfortunately that brings us to the first problem the movie suffers from. There are too many characters doing too many things. The old faces plus the new, there are so many that only Katniss stands out. Several times, some of the best characters in the series only appear for a short while. Haymitch, one of the best characters in the series, is only in like four scenes. And just like one of my problems with "Catching Fire," there are more than a few cheesy lines in the movie that just make you shake your head. But there is one major problem that stands out among the rest; the movie just isn't as exciting as its predecessor. The last half of "Catching Fire" was pure action, while "Mockingjay- Part 1" only has a few action sequences throughout its entire run time. If you’re not a fan of political movies, you might not like this movie at all. This movie is not as good as "Catching Fire," it really is a step backwards for the franchise. For everything it did right it did something wrong; but I'll at least say this, I'm excited for part two. Despite its flaws, the movie serves as a great build up to the finale. Even though this has been a letdown in some ways, it has managed to put "The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 2" towards the top of my most anticipated list of 2015. 

Pros: Great performances from the cast, some cool action scenes, political intrigue, Jennifer Lawrence is Katness, likable new characters, does a good job as build up to the finale.

Cons: Too many characters doing too many things, suffers from some cheesy lines, not as exciting as its predecessor.

3.5/5 Stars

Big Hero 6 Review

  Over the past few years we've seen a shift in what company is the king of animation. From the mid 1990s up until 2010, the undisputed king was Pixar. You had some other talented studios like Dramworks Animation and Studio Ghibli, but no one could surpass Pixar and their 7 best animated feature Oscars. But for the last few years the mantel has shifted, back to Disney Animation of all people. For the longest time, Disney was a god among men from the earliest days of animation to the mid 1990s. But after their renaissance period (late 80s to mid 90s) Disney dropped the ball. For several years they couldn't seem to recapture that magic they once had, up until 2010 anyway. In 2010, they ushered in a new wave of Disney animation with "Tangled." Shortly after they followed up with 2012's "Wreck-it-Ralph" and 2013's two time Oscar winner "Frozen" (not only was it the first Disney movie to win best animated feature, it would become the highest grossing animated movie of all time). Which leads us to "Big Hero 6," the first Disney animated movie to be inspired by a Marvel Comic book. So in a film industry that is seemingly run by Marvel comic book movies, can "Big Hero 6" stand out? And the answer to that question is yes.

     Hiro Hamada is a young genius living in the fictional city San Fransokyo, and despite his intellect he chooses to spend his time squandering his abilities on useless endeavors. One day his brother Tadashi, an aspiring inventor, takes him to the university he is attending. After looking around and meeting a legendary scientist, Hiro decides he wants to enroll. He enters in a science competition that the university is holding, where the best creation will ensure acceptance into the school. After a rocky start, Hiro ultimately comes up with an idea. He builds microbots, small robots that can be linked together with other microbots to create and do just about anything. Blowing every other entry out of the water, he gets accepted. Shortly afterwards, a fire in the presentation building destroys all of the microbots and results in a few deaths. Devastated, Hiro shuts down and locks himself away from the rest of the world. A few days later a microbot in Hiro's possession that survived the fire started to move again and attempts to go to some location. After following its directions, Hiro learns that the microbots survived and more are being made. He is then attacked by a masked man who Hiro believes started the fire. From then on Hiro's only goal is to bring this man to justice; but since he knows he can't do it alone, he decides to gets some help from a few friends. 

     Since getting back into the game, Disney has set the bar real high. With box office successes like "Tangled," Wreck-it-Ralph," and the Oscar winning "Frozen," "Big Hero 6" had a lot to live up to. Fortunately though, it manages to stand by those aforementioned movies. In today's day and age, a majority of animations all look the same. They are computer generated and look just like each other. Having good animation isn't enough anymore, it has to stand out. "Big Hero 6's" animation is beautiful and distinct in some ways; it has that Disney trademark we've seen from their last few films, but also seems to have both a comic book and Japanese anime influence. The futuristic world they live in is gorgeous and vibrant, and the combination of the cultures of San Francisco and Tokyo makes for an interesting combination. When people go see an animation, they usually want a light hearted and fun film; "Big Hero 6" manages to do that and then some. The film is very funny, on more than one occasion was the entire theater filled with laughter. And during the second half of the movie it becomes a full blown action flick, making it look like a combination of "Wreck-it-Ralph" and "The Avengers." And like Disney's last few films, it will be fun for the entire family. Both kids, as well as adults will love this movie. One thing that surprised me was how emotional it was. There are some tragic moments in this movie that may bring a tear to your eye. In a movie like this, they didn't have to bring it to such a deep and emotional level; but I respect the fact that the people behind it did. I also have to give props to the characters, all of which are great. With each character having a distinct personality and voiced perfectly, each one feels unique. One thing I have to note would be the robot character Baymax, he might be the most lovable movie character ever made. He makes Olaf from "Frozen" look like the Jew Hunter from "Inglourious Basterds." He's so likable it's nauseating at times; he's funny, sweet, and just looks adorable. Any parents who take their kid to see this movie better expect to buy a Baymax plushie some time soon. The movie does unfortunately suffers from one major flaw, pacing. During the first half of the movie, a lot of stuff happens very quickly; during the second half, there is a singular goal in mind for the characters meaning not as much stuff happens making the movie feel slower. I'll also say that the second half loses some of the emotional impact the first half did. In a year filled with great animated movies, this one manages to stand out. Beautiful, funny, action packed, and emotional, it has something for just about everyone. While "Big Hero 6" might not be a home run like the last few Disney movies, it is sure to get cheers and applause from anyone who goes to see it. 

Pros: Beautiful animation, action packed, very funny, surprisingly emotional, good voice acting, likable characters, Baymax is the most lovable character ever, fun for the entire family.

Cons: Pacing issues, loses emotional impact second half.

4.5/5 Stars

Whiplash Review

     The things that a person will go through to obtain perfection are astounding. They will push their mind, body, and soul to the absolute limits to be the best they can be. Throughout my life I have known many people like this, people who will push everything to the side except a single facet of their life. One of my very good friends in high school shut himself out from the rest of the world so he could study and have the best grades possible. Since he graduated in the top 20 of our class I guess you could say it worked, but at what cost. He alienated himself from his friends and completely missed out on his senior year. So was it really worth it. "Whiplash" premiered earlier this year at the Sundance Film Festival where it won both the Grand Jury and the Audience Award, a feat rarely done. This movie explores that search for perfection and what it can do for a person, and the journey it takes us on is one of the best of the year.

     Andrew Neyman is an extraordinarily talented young drummer who has hopes to be one of the best of all time. He attends one of the best and most competitive music schools in the country but is afraid he doesn't stand out. While practicing one day he is met by Terrence Fletcher, the teacher of the school's most prestigious band. After taking an interest in him, he decides to invite Andrew to join his band. Excited at first, Andrew soon discovers that Terence is a sadistic perfectionist who will verbally and physically abuse his students. While apprehensive if this is right for him, Andrew is determined to be the best and sticks it out. Practicing until his hands bleed, Andrew only improves; but he soon discovers that it will never be enough for Terence. 

     "Whiplash" is only the third film of director Damien Chazelle, and it is unquestionable that it will take him to new heights. For such a young director this is a very impressive outing, and it shows great promise for him in the future; he might be looking at a best director nomination. While this movie does almost everything right, what takes it to the next level would be the acting of Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons. I first saw Teller in the 2013 independent film ""The Spectacular Now," in which he immediately showed promise. He's most known for playing parts where he's quick witted and sarcastic, but in this movie he shows serious acting chops. It's also worth mentioning that he actually played the drums in this movie. Often where you see an actor play a musician, the music is added in later; but Teller really plays the drums, and he's damn good. Starring opposite of Teller would be J.K. Simmons, who gives what might be the best performance of his career. He's a commanding figure that always draws attention to himself. Imagine if a really mean drill sergeant decided to become a music teacher. What really helps these two is that their characters are so great; Teller's character is driven and hopeful while Simmons’s is a task master who does want his students succeed and will push them to their breaking point. In some ways they are polar opposites, but in others they are surprisingly similar. The film also features great cinematography and editing. The movie it is shot makes it feel alive; there are lots of cuts (especially during music scenes) that emphasizes what is going on and keeps it fast paced. And speaking of the music scenes, this movie has one of the best scores of the year. The jazz influenced band music is great and memorable; I really hope that it is at least nominated for best original score. It's also worth noting that the movie features one of the best adapted screenplays of the year. The movie does suffer from one drawback though, romance. The movie attempts a romance between Teller's character and a young woman towards the begging of the movie, but never really goes anywhere; it is short lived and ends abruptly. In all honestly it could have been cut from the film altogether, it plays such a minor part and doesn't add anything. Overall, this is an incredible movie and an impressive outing from such a new director. Worth all the acclaim that it has received, I really hope that it gets a much wider release. Exhilarating from start to finish, it is one of the best movies of the year.

Pros: Great performances by Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons, one of the best soundtracks of the year, great video editing and cinematography, interesting lead characters, well written screenplay, wonderful directing from Damien Chazelle. 

Cons: Romance feels tacked on and unnecessary.

4.5/5 Stars

Interstellar Review

     There's an old say that when an animal’s back is against the wall it is at its most dangerous, that statement describes humans perfectly. Faced with our own mortality, people will go to the end of the earth to survive; but what happens when there is no where left on earth to go to. The only logical answer is to look to the stars. That is exactly what "Interstellar" is about. Directed by one of the best directors currently working, Christopher Nolan, this has been the most anticipated movie of the year for a lot of people. It had a great cast, an interesting premise, and the fact that it was a Nolan movie only brought more attention to it. Since the first trailer, I couldn't even contain my excitement. I was convinced that this was going to be the next sci-fi masterpiece and would be the best movie of the year. So after waiting more than a year, "Interstellar" has finally taken flight. 

     Taking place in a not so distant future, Earth is dying. After years of trying to sustain billions of people, the entire world has entered into a sort of dust bowl; the soil is no longer fertile, and we are having trouble feeding so many people. Cooper, a farmer and former astronaut, lives with his two children and father-in-law; one day after a huge dust storm Cooper comes upon some sort of anomaly. After decoding what appears to be a message, it takes him to a secret base run by the government. He learns that about 50 years ago, a wormhole was discovered near Saturn that could lead to another galaxy with habitable planets. The people behind the mission ask Cooper to pilot the ship; reluctant about leaving his kids, he ultimately agrees since it might be the only way to save the human race. So along with a group of scientists they head out knowing that if they fail, all is lost.

     Going into 2014, I don't think there was a single movie I was more excited about seeing. I am such a huge Nolan fan, I was hoping this would be the next "2001: A Space Odyssey." Unfortunately though, it is not. One thing that really got me excited was seeing some of the cast, a lot of A-list actors with Matthew McConaughey at the helm. And as expected, everyone does great. There isn't a bad performance in the bunch. Even the kids do a really good job. They're assisted by the fact that the characters are so likable. You want nothing more for these characters to succeed because you see the hardships that they go through and you just want them to catch a break. The movie is also very emotional, on more than one occasion it had me almost tearing up. I did hear a few people in the theater full on crying. What really helps would be the musical score by Hans Zimmer, who always known the perfect piece to assist the scene. One thing that Nolan has become known for would be how beautiful his movies are, and "Interstellar" is no different. The cinematography and visual effects are gorgeous and Oscar worthy. There are multiple shots in this movie were you're jaw will drop of the sheer beauty. The film also has really great production value; Nolan really like to use practical effects and actual sets instead of having too much CGI, and it all looks really good in this movie. I think one thing that this movie really has going for it is that it is ambitious. The scope of the movie isn't something you see every day, and you can tell that Nolan had a vision for what this movie could be and went after it. And that just shows how great he is, and he really does an amazing job directing this movie. And while he does a great job, the movie doesn't always match stack up. The movie is very though provoking, I don't think anyone can deny that, but at times it tries too get a little to philosophical. It wants to be this incredibly deep thematic movie all of the time, but at a certain point you role your eyes and want it to hurry up. Also, this movie is very long; much more so than needed. At 169 minutes, they could have cut out about half an hour of footage. Personally, I think the last ten minutes shouldn't have been included at all. You think the movie is over but there is one more scene, and I think the movie would have been better without it. But the biggest problem would be the plot, it's jumbled. Nolan tries to fit so much into this movie that at times it loses itself in its own ambition. It just kind of jumps from one plot line to another; and towards the end it tries to tie a nice little bow on top, but you still might leave the theater confused and a little frustrated. "Interstellar" is not perfect, it suffers from a few problems that hold it back from being the next great space movie; still though, this is something I would recommend if you are at all interested. It is a beautiful, well acted movie that will make you think about your place in the universe when you leave the theater. It might not be the masterpiece I was hoping for, but it is another solid addition in Christopher Nolan's filmography. 

Pros: Great performances from the entire cast, likable characters you root for, beautiful cinematography and visual effects, solid production value, great directing from Christopher Nolan, very ambitious, thought provoking, really emotional at times, beautiful score. 

Cons: Half an hour too long, plot gets jumbled, tries a little too hard to be philosophical.

4/5 Stars

Birdman Review

     What happens to a star when they have nothing left, what happens when their career is in shambles and their fame is long gone? Usually they have two options, they either accept their fate with dignity and let the past stay in the past, or they do whatever is necessary to revitalize their dead career. When most former stars go for that second option though, it rarely works out. I feel it stems from a need to be special, that they have to be above the common folk. They crave for admiration and popularity, and will sell their souls for it. It's always been like this though, once someone has served their purpose they are nothing more than a faded memory and we just move on to the next young star. We often don't see these stars as people; we see them as a commodity to be used at our leisure. We rarely care what happens to them once we're finished, and through this attitude once great people are thoroughly destroyed. And its reasons like that why they will stake it all for one last chance of fame. 

     Riggin Thomas is a washed up, has-been of an actor most famously known for portraying a superhero named Birdman years back. After saying no to a fourth movie, his reputation started to slip through his fingers. Struggling with alcoholism and eventually getting divorced, Riggin didn't having a whole lot going for him. At the tail end of his career he decides to do a Broadway adaptation of Raymond Carver's short story "What We Talk About When we Talk About Love." Writing, directing, and starring, Riggin manages to put it together. Unfortunately, just a night before the first preview one of his co-stars is severely injured and has to be replaced. An acclaimed actor named Mike Shiner steps in to fill the roll, but is incredibly difficult to work with and tries to take over; and all this is happening when Riggin is slowly losing his mind. Haunted by the voice of Birdman, he attempts to balance the play as well as the relationship with his estranged daughter while slowly descending into madness and losing his grip on reality. Also, Riggin might have telekinetic powers.

     "Birdman" has a run time of 119 minutes, and for those 119 minutes I never even looked at my phone to see what time it was because I was so enthralled with what was happening on the screen. If you were to make the argument that film can be art, this would be a prime example. Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu did an amazing job with this movie, having absolute control of everything going on and filling it with several complex themes. It also does great job as a social criticism. It's very critical of Hollywood and the way that stars are treated; it also shines a light on the way critics and journalists work, who are more concerned about having a good quote than giving thorough critiques and really exploring their subject matter. But the movie doesn't come off to pretentious in that aspect, everything it says makes sense and refers to serious problems that should be addressed. One of the best features of this movie would have to be the acting, every member of the cast does a great job; Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, and Zach Galifianakis Give some of the best performances of their careers. Undoubtedly though, it’s Michael Keaton as the lead who steals the show. He's incredible and has never been better, and I'm willing to bet money that he wins an Oscar. It does help that the writing is so good with such great dialog. By the end you are really rooting for these characters and only want to see them succeed. An interesting aspect of this movie would that it is almost satirical in a few ways, some of the characters act as parallels to the real actors' careers. Michael Keaton played Batman in the 1980s at the height of his career, and has never really been able to recapture that former glory. What's funny is that like the play is for the lead character, this movie could seriously revitalize Keaton's career. Another actor parallel would be Edward Norton who, like is character, is notorious for being difficult to work with. I will say that Edward Norton's story line could have been handled better towards the end. For most of the movie he plays a major part and is the source of much of the conflict, but in the third act his involvement just kind of tappers off. I feel the director purposely sought out actors who could so closely relate to these characters, and if so it worked perfectly. Something that everyone has been talking about would be the film's cinematography, and I will say it may be some of the best cinematography I have ever seen. The entire movie is designed to look like one continues shot, and it manages to do it through meticulous planning and clever cuts. One of my favorite aspects of "Birdman" would be the soundtrack and more precisely how it uses the music. Most of the score is only percussion based with a jazz influence and feels very in the moment. It makes the movie even more dynamic, in a way we don't often see. One of the few problems I have with the movie though would be the end; it's not that the ending was bad or inappropriate or even unsatisfying, it's just that I felt it could have been handled better. The last ten minutes or so could have ended in several other ways that would have ended itself better to the story overall. "Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" is arguably the best movie of an already stacked year. It is smart, original, and in some ways genre defining. Only open in a few theaters, this is one of the most see movies of the year. Meant for true film lovers, it's movies like this that show that the cinema is not a dying art form. 

Pros: Oscar worthy performance from Michael Keaton, great performances from the entire cast, fantastic directing from Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Oscar worthy cinematography, great use of music, great writing and dialog, complex themes, very funny at times, several sincere and emotional moments, critical of Hollywood and critics in all the right ways, the very definition of film as art

Cons: I didn't love the ending, Edward Norton's story-line just tappers off.

5/5 Stars