The Wolf of Wall Street

Year: 2013 (USA)
Genre: Biography/Satire
Directed: Martin Scorsese
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie, Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler, Jon Bernthal, Jon Favreau, Jean Dujardin, P.J. Byrne, Kenneth Choi
Production: Paramount Pictures


Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a master manipulator. Trained to be a Wall Street stockbroker, Belfort’s life hits a small inconvenience when he is let go after the market collapses, forcing him to take a job at a penny stocks firm. That’s when he gets an idea, if stockbrokers get 50% commission based on lousy penny stocks, why not sell them as if they were the greatest thing since 401ks. He starts his own firm, hires his own crew of borderline criminals and kicks the party into high gear.

Based on a largely true story about a scurrilous financial figure nicknamed “The Wolf of Wall Street”, Martin Scorsese’s newest feature largely succeeds in lampooning the financial markets of the eighties and…well the ones we still have today.. In fact the sheer lunacy of stock trading and market manipulation is summed up elegantly by Matthew McConaughey’s character at the beginning of the film, “It’s wazy it’s woozie, its fairydust.” The name of the game is to put the client’s real cash into your pocket, while leaving them with imaginary money tied up in the stock market. Right? Right. So just two and a half hours to go.

After the principle theme is introduced, the rest of the film consists of Gordon Gekko Jr. and his conspirators making a name for themselves. That name is unbridled excess which actually leads to some inspiring moments. Between Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill’s characters, the two do more drugs than a hippie crack den culminating in an overly slapstick moment involving a completely out of it DiCaprio driving a Lamborghini. There are constant parties, cheerleading, marching band playing and tons and tons of sex all throughout; it’s all quite mesmerizing.

The nudity in this picture has suddenly inflated

It’s also quite numbing after a while when the audience comes to the realization that none of this is leading to anything. Scene after scene of debauchery spliced with sardonic undertones and cheeky narration and soliloquies does not a good movie make. The fact that Wolf of Wall Street (2013) has been getting polarizing reviews can be seen as a testament to Martin Scorsese’s waning capabilities as a director.

Yet I wouldn't count out the old master just yet. Perhaps Wolf of Wall Street was meant to be polarizing. There is not a single redeemable character with maybe the exception of Belfort’s wife Naomi (Margot Robbie) and that is done on purpose. We as the audience are not meant to find Belfort’s antics amusing or heroic, though he considers himself a twist Robin Hood.  We’re meant to be appalled by the character and disappointed when he gets his inevitable slap on the wrist. Belfort is Gordon Gekko done right; the master of a universe we don’t want to live in.

Until now!

Scorsese’s condemnation of the Wall Street stockbrokers are in may ways harsher than Henry Hill of Goodfellas (1990) or Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull (1980). Belfort’s id gets him into a heap of emotional and personal turmoil yet the true tragedy is he’s left without catharsis or redemption unlike Ray Liotta who keeps his family or Robert De Niro who enjoys a crowded auditorium after the credits roll. There is no pat on the back or promise of reemergence. Belfort is forced to live in modesty and obscurity.

But Belfort did have his supporters among the audience that I saw the film with. At one point in the film Kyle Chandler’s straight edge FBI agent in so many words tells Belfort he’s going down. One audience member found it appropriate to blow a raspberry while the others including myself looked his was with scorn. Thinking about it, I realized that audience member was actually rooting for Belfort and the board members of Stratton Oakmont. Did he choose to ignore the inherent evil in what Leo DiCaprio was doing? Or was he seduced by his wily charms and excessive lifestyle?

Or was he just an asshole?

While being bombastic and lurid, The Wolf of Wall Street, like all good art, lets you decide for yourself if all the bacchanals and drugs were worth it. In one truly masterful coda, Belfort’s comeuppance, Stratton Oakmont’s dismantling and Kyle Chandler’s train ride home are accompanied by a cover of Mrs. Robinson by The Lemonheads. Each tableau conjures images of The Graduate’s (1967) final repose of Dustin Hoffman and Katharine Ross sitting in the back of a bus with the look of “what now” on their face. It’s a good way to end a movie like The Wolf of Wall Street, I only wish it ended sooner.

Final Grade: C+

Danton

Ouiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!

Year: 1983 (France)
Genre: Biography/Historical Drama
Directed: Andrzej Wajda
Stars: Gerard Depardieu, Wojciech Pszoniak, Anne Alvaro, Roland Blanche, Patrice Chereau, Emmanuelle Debever, Krzysztof Globisz, Ronald Guttman, Gerard Hardy, Tadeusz Huk, Stephane Jobert
Production: TF1 Films Production


I’ll be the first to admit I am far from an expert on the French Revolution. While my minor in college was history and I read regularly on the subject, the dismaying period of upheaval and chaos doesn’t fit into the narrative of clean-cut history defined by the reigns of Kings and the administrations of Presidents. What I do know about it are the basic causes, the main factions and the end result. I am familiar with the names Maximillian Robespierre, Jean-Paul Marat, Louis XVI and Jean-Jacques Rousseau but I have never heard the name of Georges Danton. If I were to take a class on the subject I’d probably fail.

It is the year 1793; the second year of the Republic and the infamous days of terror are in full swing. Danton, who is portrayed in the film by French actor Gerard Depardieu, makes his way into Paris to take his seat in the fractured General Assembly. His possible political machinations frighten the Revolutionary Tribunal headed by the cautious Robespierre played by Polish actor Wojciech Pszoniak. They all want to place his head promptly on the chopping block but Robespierre demands an audience with Danton first.

Directed by Polish auteur Andrzej Wajda, Danton (1983) is a crash course in Republicanism run amok. Robespierre looks to create consensus between Danton’s rival faction and the Tribunal. He doesn’t like Danton but he understands his value as a man of the people and therefore is hesitant to simply round up his allies and take them to the guillotine. Yet the clanking machine he and Danton helped create is forcing him to take severe action to provide order. At one point in the film Robespierre laments no matter what course he takes, the revolution is dead.

Depardieu’s Danton is a boisterous foil to Robespierre’s uptight revolutionary zeal. When he speaks, the whole room listens and his public bloviating is tempered by a genuine need for good. Yet Danton isn’t a blind idealist like he claims the Tribunal to be. “People want peace, stability and bread, they don’t care where it comes from,” he mutters. He trusts the people of France to deliver him from execution and holds on to that ideal until the bitter end.

The film’s depiction of the reign of terror was meant to mimic the Solidarity trade-union struggle in Poland happening around the same time as the film’s release. Solidarity was the first non-party controlled trade union in the Soviet block and was instrumental in spearheading free and fair elections in Poland. The foibles of that struggle were better highlighted in Wajda’s earlier film Man of Iron (1981). Yet that film was released on the cusp of the martial law crackdown while Danton was released on the tale end of said crackdown. During that time Wajda fled to France after his production company in Poland had been pushed into bankruptcy by the Communist party. He directed two films before returning, the first was Danton and the second was A Love in Germany (1983).

Unfortunately while Wajda’s passion and personal bias are prevalent in Danton, his technique seems less assured than Man of Iron or his other political works. Part of it may have to do with his habit of employing Polish cinematographers including the famed Edward Klosinski. Outside his element in France, his cinematographer Igor Luther (Who also worked on A Love in Germany) likely wasn’t on his wavelength.

What results is an interesting history lesson and a lively discussion on political theory but a film that feels static and overly talkative. It provides little action or intensity and apart from the gravitas of Depardieu and Pszoniak, there’s nothing holding it together. Even if you were to settle for an old-school cloak and dagger flick, Danton only delivers on the bare necessities. There are political maneuverings, alliances forged then displaced, etc. But it’s all C+ work put together by an A+ director. As for the subversive elements that define political drama? Let’s just say it needs improvement.

Final Grade: C-

Mister Roberts

Year: 1955 (USA)
Genre: War Drama/Screwball Comedy
Directed: John Ford, Mervyn LeRoy, Joshua Logan
Stars: Henry Fonda, James Cagney, William Powell, Jack Lemmon, Betsy Palmer, Ward Bond, Philip Carey, Nick Adams, Perry Lopez, Ken Curtis, Harry Carey Jr.
Production: Warner Bros.


John Ford was the brilliant director behind such American classics as The Searchers (1956), Stagecoach (1939) and The Grapes of Wrath (1940). Henry Fonda was the agile lead actor in such classics as 12 Angry Men (1957) Young Mr. Lincoln (1939) and On Golden Pond (1981). Put them together and add James Cagney, William Powell and Jack Lemmon and you have yourself the amiable Mister Roberts (1955), a movie whose backstage drama should have been called Clash of the Titans.

Did you question my authoritah there boy?

Ford had always been known as a tough man to like yet he did have a stable of reliable actors willing to work with him including Fonda and the legendary John Wayne whom he called the “big idiot”. James Cagney recalled meeting him for the first time and immediately knowing there would be personality concerns saying “He told me we would tangle asses”. The set of Mister Roberts was made infamous when Ford punched Fonda in the face after an argument. That and an emergency gallbladder operation led Ford to leave Mister Roberts, being replaced by Mervyn LeRoy of Quo Vadis (1951) fame. After LeRoy had finished putting his mark on the film, Fonda brought original play author Joshua Logan in to re-shoot key scenes.

What results after all this horse trading is done is a movie that is surprisingly good. Not South Pacific (1958) good but decent enough to pass for nostalgic WWII fare. Fonda stars as Roberts, an underappreciated junior lieutenant onboard a cargo ship in the middle of the Pacific. He yens to fight with his brethren but is refused multiple transfers by Captain Morton (James Cagney) who sees him as the key to his success in the Navy. Only the wise ship doctor (William Powell) and careless Ensign Pulver (Jack Lemmon) know his motivation to fight the good fight and aspire to help their friend make it to the front.

Seriously why would you punch an actor in the face?!

It’s hard to tell which director did what to make Mister Roberts the sum of its parts. LeRoy wanted to shoot things how Ford would have and hides his style well. Likewise there is only a handful of interior scenes with drifting camera movements that has Logan’s name all over them (Ford used to avoid tracking shots and close-ups).

Still the film has the overall feel of having too many chefs in the kitchen. The energy between scenes is jerky overall, most evident when the ship lands ashore for liberty. Actors seem to talk past each other while attempting to convey they’re having a good time. Minutes later the scene ends with Roberts standing triumphantly under a warm morning light; then the Captain reestablishes authority. The scenes are cut correctly but lack an overarching theme. We know what Roberts wants yet at this point we should know how he’s going to get it. Unfortunately this isn’t so. Is Roberts supposed to be pensive, worried or celebratory throughout? Did he feel he won a victory against the Captain for allowing liberty? How does all this relate to his goal?

You dare question my artistic decisions?!

Henry Fonda had always said he was proud of the film but thought seeing the play live was much better. Fonda had been playing the main character for years on the stage and due to being absent from the screen for eight years, likely wanted a surefire triumph to reinstall his box-office appeal. Yet his insistence in adapting the play with only minor changes I feel stifled Ford’s attempts to breathe air into the picture.

Regardless Mister Roberts is still an interesting film with much to say about the wartime doldrums. Eager soldiers and sailors poise for deliverance and absolution yet are met with a mind-numbing wait. “I’m tired of being a lousy spectator,” remarks Roberts. Yet while most military men in WWII eventually saw battle, the crew of the U.S.S. Reluctant never got to be on the frontlines staying listless in the safe area of the Pacific. Still Roberts becomes a hero of a different sort and for that we thank the multiple hands it took to put Mister Roberts to the screen.

Final Grade: C-

Captain Phillips

Year: 2013 (USA)
Genre: Action/Docudrama
Directed: Paul Greengrass
Stars: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi, Barkhad Abdirahman, Faysal Ahmed, Mahat M. Ali, Catherine Keener, Michael Chernus, David Warshofsky, Corey Johnson, Chris Mulkey
Production: Scott Rudin Productions


Director Paul Greengrass has carved out a nice little niche for himself in Hollywood. While occasionally delving into the imaginary trappings of action junkie heaven, the majority of Greengrass’s movies are retellings of real life situations. They’re movies where action has been imposed on ordinary people instead of the common trope of extraordinary people put in extraordinary situations. They’re suspense films that require no suspension of disbelief because they are stories we know. They’re uncomfortably topical yet while being as predictable as a Scandal Maker’s-type made-for-TV movie, they’re also engrossing.

It started with his lukewarm freshman project Resurrected (1989) the true story of a British Soldier during the Falkland Islands War. His predilection with real stories and current events continued with Bloody Sunday (2002), United 93 (2006) and Green Zone (2010) all of which had a contemporary feel about complex problems not yet resolved at the time of their respective releases.

Thankfully now, this problem is way behind us.

In comes Captain Phillips (2013), based on the harrowing adventure of Captain Richard Phillips (Tom Hanks) and his brush with modern piracy. His journey starts in Oman where he is assigned to deliver cargo to Mombasa. He’s aware the horn of Africa is a hotbed for pirate activity and takes every precaution but a scrappy crew of Somali pirates is desperate to make bank and set their sights on his ship, the Maersk Alabama.

Even if I promised no spoilers, I’m guessing you as the reader know how it ends; even if you didn’t see it on the news in the spring of 2009. Still, the entire movie hinges on your ability to suspend everything from prior knowledge of the incident to prior knowledge of action-movie mayhem and just go with it. I went with it and found the movie to be thrilling and intense. Much like all of Greengrass’s movies, the film was a self-contained hyper-reality that showed its audience exactly what we needed to see and nothing more or less. In the words of Joe Friday, the film gives you “Just the facts ma’am.”

Not gonna lie, I'm kind of a big deal.

The film is buoyed by two remarkably different performers playing remarkably different roles. Tom Hanks is arguably the best actor of our generation having played everything from a gay lawyer with AIDS in Philadelphia (1993) to a wise-cracking party animal in Bachelor Party (1984) to a child’s plaything in the Toy Story films (1995-2010). Add to that a charming personality and you’ve got the closest version of a male Meryl Streep as you’re willing to find.

In Captain Phillips his heroics didn’t come from a special ability or a John McClane-esque capacity to improvise; no his instincts were drilled in him by what looks like years of training. He accepted the reality of pirates approaching his ship and does everything in his power to mitigate whatever damage they’re likely to do. Yet what sets the Captain apart from any of Tom Hank’s other characters is once he’s past the Worst Case Scenario Handbook his mind is always at work yet doesn’t know where to go. He’s unsure of his actions and tormented at the thought of what the pirates might do to him and his crew. In that sense we see a person who is a hero because he has to be but otherwise is a normal Joe.

The real Abduwali Muse. Estimated age: 18.

Barkhad Abdi’s performance as the lead pirate Abduwali Muse is a whole other beast. He plays him with scary realism, a down-and-out Somali with a strong need to prove something to the world. His world-weary face, pigeon-toed introverted mannerisms and surprising physical strength underlines a contemplative mind and desperate cunning. In another life, Muse could have had the craven fortitude and industry to become a successful business leader but due to geography he has to pay his dues by “fishing”. Captain Phillips is Abdi’s first full-feature experience acting and joins the ranks of Jennifer Hudson, Julie Andrews and Jaye Davidson as a first time Oscar nominee. Before becoming an overnight sensation, Abdi was no joke, a limo driver with little interest in acting; here’s to hoping he follows up Captain Phillips with something worthwhile.

Sadly unnecessary

As with all Greengrass films, there are some slight third act problems. There’s only so much you can do with five men stuck on a lifeboat and Greengrass doesn’t have the considerable skills of Hitchcock to keep that kind of energy going. There are some arbitrary images of Seal Team 6 jumping out of an aircraft in darkness and while I understand the principle belligerents in this tale are men couldn’t there be more than two female characters? It’s a minor sticking point but it’s irksome when a talent like Catherine Keener is relegated to one single pointless scene.

There are three reasons why you should watch Captain Phillips and they are the names of Tom Hanks, Paul Greengrass and Barkhad Abdi. Abdi’s freshman performance is vibrant and uninhibited and brings to mind the intensity of other first timers like Lou Castel in Fists in the Pocket (1965) and more recently Dwight Henry in Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012). Paul Greengrass’s intense, grabbed from the headlines style has served him well over the past decade and Captain Phillips further raises the bar for the action director. Finally, Tom Hanks once again develops a character so real and genuine that it’s hard not to admire the actor who got his start in a little seen horror movie called He Knows You’re Alone (1980). And I know I’m not alone in my disappointment that Hanks wasn't nominated this year for his stunning performance in Captain Phillips.

You mean Saving Mr. Banks wasn't nominated either?

Final Grade: C+

Blowup

Year: 1966 (UK)
Genre: Drama/Psychological Drama
Directed: Michelangelo Antonioni
Stars: David Hemmings, Vanessa Redgrave, Sarah Miles, John Castle, Jane Birkin, Gillian Hills, Peter Bowles, Veruschka von Lehndorff
Production: Bridge Films


Oddly enough, my first thought after watching Blowup (1966) was the song “Pure Imagination” from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971). The film wasn’t a musical by any stretch of the imagination and it wasn’t sweetly decadent. In fact the music in the film is diegetic, that is to say, only on when a character actively plays it; and unlike Willy Wonka, Blowup can be rather unpleasant to watch. Still I was strangely attracted to the film and it’s subtle, ever changing reality.

The story of Blowup takes place in 1960’s London. A well-off photographer (David Hemmings) thinks he may have photographed a homicide but is not quite sure. What he does know is the woman (Vanessa Redgrave) who he initially photographed wants the negatives he took of her and another man in the park. Who is this man? We only know of his possible demise but he may be her former lover.

Don't mind me, just bird watching

We never really know a lot of things in this film. While the photographer’s friends and models are named: Bill (John Castle), Patricia (Sarah Miles), Veruschka (Veruschka von Lehndorff) etc. the photographer himself is never named. Throughout the film pieces of dialogue fills the audience in then obfuscates objectivity once more. The photographer may or may not be married, he may or may not have children, he may or may not have romantic feelings towards Patricia.

The death toll could have been lower if anyone cried for help

Many believe the lack of clarity is supposed to be an artistic take on the limits and failures of communication. Snapping away at his models, the photographer struggles to tell them exactly what he wants. When he asks the meaning of Bill’s abstract painting, Ron explains meaning comes after the fact. All the characters for the most part act too lackadaisical to tell each other anything of substance; even when being blunt. “I saw a dead body in the park,” says the photographer. “Are you sure?” says Patricia.

Yet I’m not convinced Michelangelo Antonioni’s main point stems from humanities inability to connect. The dialogue is willfully abstruse to force audience members to read between the lines. Like the photographer’s Kantian response to justify buying a propeller for decoration, “It’s completely useless”. We’re meant to be observers, voyeurs if you will, not eavesdroppers. Like poetry or Bill’s painting, the meaning comes after the fact and without a context, we’re meant to decipher significance for ourselves.

It’s a movie about perspective, or rather the breakdown of one’s perspective to assume another. The photographer believes he has witnessed a murder yet his suspicions have been verified by no one. His evidence, when put in a context via ever expanding blowups, the man who follows him when he sees his agent (Peter Bowles), the behavior of the woman who comes to visit him, etc. creates the indication that a murder took place but without every piece of the puzzle things start to fall apart.

If you look closely, the photos that the photographer shot were not the ones he developed. The angle is slightly askew to where he was watching the couple. You can tell because at one point, David Hemmings snaps a shot from behind a fence with a spindly young tree blocking a partial view. When the photos are developed there is no tree; a mistake? I tend to think the director knowingly did this to play with the audience and his character. It sneaks in facets of Antonioni’s perspective while informing us of the faults in our own. Can it give credence to the theory that the photographer is going crazy? Perhaps.

One of these things is not like the other...

You can never be too sure what Antonioni’s motivations are with Blowup, though there are two scenes I believe put the communication/perspective debate to rest. Ironically they’re the parts in the movie that confuses the most amounts of people; the scenes involving the mimes that bookend the film. Anglophiles would know that 1: British people are weird, and 2: the mimes are actually part of a tradition known as “The Rag”. Student Rag groups dress up and act like lunatics running around with coin cans for charity. While this isn’t an expressly mimed tradition, Rag groups have been known to practice miming during these events.

Rag raid then and now

At the beginning of the film, the photographer puts a few coins in their cans so they’ll get away from his car. He’s late for a photo shoot and has no time to assume their reality. At the end of the film however he watches the rags play an invisible tennis match in the park. They mime the ball going over the fence and beseech him to go and get it. When he does so he not only accepts the notion that the ball exists and accepts their perspective, he follows the first rule of improv, never deny your partner’s reality. If they say there’s a ball there, you throw it back.

Our reality is we think we're funny after 20 years

Perspective and context can make a broken guitar neck an impossibly valuable artifact or a useless piece of garbage. It can make the controversial scene between David Hemmings, Jane Birkin and Gillian Hills seem like the scurrilous acts of a deviant opportunist or a fun roll in the hay. It can make Willy Wonka relatable to Blowup by the power of each film’s imagination. In the words of Veruschka when approached about going to Paris in a pot-addled haze, “I am in Paris.” I suppose if you want to view paradise, simply look around and view it.

Final Grade: B+

Cabaret

Year: 1972 (USA)
Genre: Musical Drama/Musical Comedy
Directed: Bob Fosse
Stars: Liza Minnelli, Michael York, Helmut Griem, Joel Grey, Fritz Wepper, Marisa Berenson, Elisabeth Neumann-Viertel
Production: Allied Artist Pictures


There is an unwritten rule in musicals and specifically movie musicals. They have to be decadent. Especially in modern times everything from the themes to the set pieces have to be elaborate, abundant, clean, shiny and new; and why the hell not? No one really breaks out into song with a mood forming Greek chorus bellowing behind them. It only makes sense that if you’re going to be creating your own reality in song; you might as well go for broke.

Cabaret starts in the Berlin Kit Kat Club during the waning years of the Weimar Republic. Sally Bowles (Liza Minnelli) works and performs there clinging to a dream of discovery and eventual stardom. The Emcee (Joel Grey) invites us, the audience into her world where the attitudes towards booze and prurient pleasures are as loose as the women. In comes Brian (Michael York) an uptight British writer who is working towards his doctorate in Germany. He pays for his schooling and boardinghouse boudoir by teaching eager German heirs and heiresses English. The two meet as Brian is moving in and start a friendship that might just become a little something more.

Oh crap, the monkey can't remember her lines!

Cabaret is the granddaddy of modern movie musicals for very good reason. In addition to being topical and intricate, it’s also does decadence with originality and spontaneity. How odd then that the film isn’t strictly speaking a musical. The music is diegetic furthering the story largely through Joel Grey’s character. The songs inject the film’s themes with a macabre sense of humor yet no character sings who isn’t already doing it for a living. What results is a world very much its own entity yet functioning within an increasingly hostile reality.

There is also a subplot about two of Brian’s pupils falling in love and marrying in an unabashed Jewish ceremony yet the principle story revolves around Sally and Brian’s unconventional romance. Themes like poverty, the rise of Nazism, homosexuality, poly-amorous love and freedom of artistic expression all run amok creating a sense of frenzied fatalism. Yet that fatalism is choreographed with panache and seduction that is impossible to resist.

If there are any noted faults in Cabaret they stem from director Bob Fosse. He may have won the Academy Award for Best Direction, beating out Francis Ford Coppola and The Godfather (1972) but I couldn’t help but feeling slighted by his hawkeyed style. Fosse he makes the mistake of keeping the camera at mid-range one too many times. It parades by the sidelines of the Kit Kat Club stage but never meanders on stage for too long. Fosse should have taken some cues from famed director and choreographer Busby Berkeley, making the camera a participant in the choreography. You compare the famed “Life is a Cabaret” to “By a Waterfall” from Footlight Parade (1933) and you’ll see what I mean.

Better yet, I'll compare them for you

Still you got to give Cabaret credit for ushering in a new generation of American musicals; a generation more jaded and cynical yet still looking for a good time. Without Cabaret there would have been no Sweeney Todd (2007), Hairspray (2007) or Chicago (2002), which incidentally Fosse directed for the stage. Provocative, sensual and surprisingly relevant, Cabaret deserves it’s stature as a gold standard for musicals. I just prey filmmakers don’t take that legacy and do this with it…

Too late

Final Grade: C+

Dallas Buyers Club

Year: 2013 (USA)
Genre: Drama/Docudrama
Directed: Jean-Marc Vallee
Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Jared Leto, Denis O'Hare, Steve Zahn, Michael O'Neill, Dallas Roberts, Griffin Dunne, Kevin Rankin
Production: Voltage Pictures


Matthew McConaughey’s career was leading up to the masterwork that is Dallas Buyers Club (2013). The man has always struck me as an actor who played roles beneath his ability of the sake of a paycheck. At the apex of his popularity the Southern-fried hunk seemed to be languishing in romantic comedy hell; How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days (2003), Failure to Launch (2006), Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2008), et al.

Man, if I just throw her off the side, I'll never have to do this BS again!

Then came the 2010’s, and McConaughey surprised the masses. It all started with the supremely underrated The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) which didn’t get that much attention from audiences yet McConaughey’s performance garnered near universal praise. That film in addition to memorable supporting parts in The Paperboy (2012) Magic Mike (2012) and Bernie (2011) led to his breakout year 2013, which includes a supporting role in Wolf of Wall Street (2013) and a lead role in film festival circuit darling Mud (2012). Now he’s poised to win the Best Actor Oscar for his work in Dallas Buyers and make no mistake he will deservedly win.

Yea, you know I be like straight up gangsta

Dallas Buyers Club starts with Ron Woodroof (McConaughey) having a steamy three-way in the darkened hallways under the Dallas rodeo. He fancies himself a bit of a hustler and a delinquent though when not at the rodeo or consuming booze and cocaine, he’s an electrician. After an accident at work he wakes up dazed and is told they did blood-work on him and discovered he’s HIV-positive. The doctors (Jennifer Garner and Michael O’Neill) estimate he’s got thirty days to live.

The hard drinking, hard living Woodroof goes through quite a dramatic change over the course of the movie. An admitted homophobe, Woodroof is ostracized by his peers because according to them he’s got f****t blood. He finds a community of people going through the same thing and at first tries to exploit them for profit. That’s when he meets Rayon (Jared Leto), a transvestite who sees the opportunistic hick for what he is but nevertheless helps him with his burgeoning business. And what is this business you ask? Well you’ll have to watch the film.

As mentioned earlier, McConaughey will likely win the Best Actor Oscar for the following reasons: The actor lost all most fifty pounds to prepare for a role that at the beginning is heard to like the impossible not to love. He plays a character that addresses a still, very prevalent health issue in this country and does so with bravado. Finally, his Woodroof goes up against some heavy players’ i.e. big pharmaceutical.

The other strong performance and likely Oscar recipient in Dallas Buyers Club is the revelatory Jared Leto who has been absent from films for four years to focus on his music career as the front man for 30 Seconds to Mars. He likewise lost a considerable amount of weight for the role of a lifetime. Like William Hurt’s performance in Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985), Leto doesn’t ham it up and mold the character into an offensive stereotype of homosexuality. Instead he creates a sympathetic character who is far from a mensch yet partially redeemed through his actions. In other words a true, live, fully fleshed out character.

Dallas Buyers Club is a superb film about a sinner turned saint who fumbles into greatness through an unbearable tragedy. He goes up against impossible odds with a positive attitude and a sinister grin towing the line between a community leader and advocate and an opportunistic drug smuggler. If you’re a believer in grace and redemption and a fan of outstanding acting, you need to watch Dallas Buyers Club. I promise you by the time the credits role, you’ll love McConaughey’s style. He’s gone a long way since The Wedding Planner (2001) I tell you what.

Final Grade: B+