Nymphomaniac Vol. I & II (Lars von Trier, 2013)

6.5/10
Nymphomaniac is less a coherent film and more a lengthy therapy session by and for its creator, Lars von Trier, as he tries, as he did in Antichrist, to pin down and figure out the fairer sex. In a 4+ hour movie, this goes in a lot of directions. Sometimes the experiences of the central female Joe are funny, sometimes erotic, sometimes hideous, sometimes silly, sometimes mundane, and everything else in between. What's disappointing about Nymphomaniac is that it's essentially what it promises on the tin - when I imagined a long movie by this title from this director starring Charlotte Gainsbourg, it wasn't worlds away from what I ended up getting. Both of von Trier's last two movies, Antichrist and Melancholia, were extremely unique. Nymphomaniac feels considerably less so, to the point of even quoting a scene from Antichrist directly.
In the end I feel like this was more of an "exploration" of female sexuality and addiction than any kind of real definitive statement. You get some glimpses of von Trier's honest opinions (male/female double standards) but it's clear he's also just as happy to be the provocateur (its main character's unsettling sympathy towards pedophiles, a misanthropic but painfully predictable ending). I thought the movie had an interesting, kind of built-in "anti-reflex" to any accusations of misogyny, as to accuse the film and the actions and desires of its female lead of being misogynyst, would, in fact, be misogynyst in itself. If it were a man as the lead instead, no one would accuse it of being misandrist. So why should the reverse be true? So I did enjoy that aspect, and that kind of way it made, I think, an empowering point about women.
I'm modestly curious about the unedited version that's supposed to be released later, but I probably won't rush to see it. If these two pared down parts are messy and scattershot, the long version is probably even more so.

The Iceman (Ariel Vroman, 2012)

6/10
As a fan of Michael Shannon, I wanted to see this movie for a while. It came on TV the other day so I watched it, and it's easy to understand why it slipped under the critical radar. Despite a solid cast and very good performances by just about everybody, the direction and plotting are so by-the-numbers that the movie never elevates itself to anything beyond "movie of the week" status. The story of film's subject, Richard Kuklinski, the family man-slash-contract killer, is such a strange and unique one that it deserves a way more interesting movie than what it was given here.

Now You See Me (Louis Leterrier, 2013)

2/10
I thought this looked fun when I saw the previews, so I recorded it off the movie channel the other day. I was very wrong. In fact, it's kind of shocking just how not fun Now You See Me is, considering its premise and cast. In the course of plotting its con-artist magicians versus its FBI agents, it somehow leaves the human element entirely by the wayside and strands you without a single character on either side to cheer for. The FBI agents (featuring a truly horrible performance by Mark Ruffalo) are stubborn and unlikeable, and its four magicians were probably sketched as anti-heroes on paper, but just come off as smug jerks, to a man. And Morgan Freeman is around to play the wry old man caught in the middle in a shtick you got tired of fifteen years ago.
So with no rooting interest on either side, we have to look to the plotting of the story to find some entertainment, but even that's a dud. The movie doesn't so much deceive the audience with a series of clever illusions to keep them on their toes as much as it outright insults them and jerks them around with one groan inducing twist (or lie) after another. It seems to be desperately struggling to justify its own existence but just becomes progressively more ludicrous and unlikeable.

Philomena (Stephen Frears, 2013)

8/10
I liked this very much too. A gently touching, sad, sometimes funny, sometimes very scary movie with a great performance by Judi Dench. Steve Coogan also brings a welcome bit of levity, often without saying anything. I was surprised to find he wrote the screenplay, which was also well done. It maybe moves a bit too speedily at the beginning when it could have afforded to take its time, but it's smooth sailing after that. The movie is rightly unshowy - director Stephen Frears takes a less is more approach, letting the often-incredible story and the strong lead performances do the legwork. It's a smart choice and pays off greatly. I didn't really know much what to expect going in, or if I'd even like it at all, but it's hard to imagine anyone not being moved by Philomena's story. Recommended.

Her (Spike Jonze, 2013)

9/10
I enjoyed this very much. Joaquin Phoenix was incredible, it was very easy to forget the fact that he spent almost the entire movie acting against himself, so to speak. It was an incredibly tight year for Best Actor but seeing some of the incredible performances left out in the cold (Phoenix, Hanks) makes Bale's nod seem like even more of a bad joke. OK no shots at American Hustle in my next review, I promise. Maybe.
There's not much to say that hasn't already been said. Spike Jonze deserves a truckload of credit for an amazing, believable story set in a future that never feels too "futuristic" or alien, as well as for dealing with a fairly out-there idea with a lot of seriousness, maturity and sensitivity. The movie was also gorgeously photographed, which didn't hurt.
I wouldn't say I was surprised at how much (or many times) this movie touched me emotionally, given what I had read about it, but that didn't make the fact that it did any less impressive.
If I had a minor complaint it would be to say the ending felt a little rushed and even a little out of step with the rest of the film, as if a problem was needed immediately to bring about a resolution with which to end the film...but it still worked well.

The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese, 2013)

7.5/10
This is a hard movie to critique, I feel like it very much 'is what it is'. Which was fun, generally speaking. I'd heard some complaints about the length but it never felt long to me.
DiCaprio was good. Best Actor worthy? A nomination, sure, but I don't think he should win the big prize. A lot of scenes were simply played to excess (obviously) that I felt a lot of actors could have done. However, just when I thought DiCaprio wasn't bringing a whole lot that was unique to the role, he gave the "Steve Madden speech" which served as reminder to anyone who forgot just how good he can be when he has to. I also thought the infamous quaaludes scene showed a dimension of physical comedy that I wouldn't have expected from him. Jonah Hill is also very good, also deserving of his nomination.
As for the movie itself, I guess what was slightly frustrating was its refusal to take any kind of moral stance. I guess it's more fun to show Jordan Belfort in all his excesses and let him off the hook by passing as little judgement as possible. I did enjoy the ending, however - the scene of the detective on the subway was suitably understated, and the closing shot of the sea of people waiting to be molded into the next Jordan Belfort is appropriately terrifying. The Wolf of Wall Street is as much (maybe more) a celebration of the culture that creates Jordan Belforts as it is a condemnation of it, but I find this to be a bit like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I wish Scorsese had maybe tried to say a little bit more with his movie, but I still enjoyed myself regardless.

Inside Llewyn Davis (Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, 2013)

8.5/10
I've seen a good number of movies this year from all over the place, and Inside Llewyn Davis, for me, was one of the most challenging. Or difficult. Or impenetrable. Or maybe it means nothing more than what's on screen and I'm reading more into it than what is actually there. The Coens have a history of inserting weird, magical, semi-symbolic scenes in their movies that seem out of place in worlds that are otherwise starkly rooted in reality (off the top of my head, the dybbuk opening scene and the closing tornado in A Serious Man, the bowling dream sequence in The Big Lebowski, the fiery hotel in Barton Fink, the repeated shots of ceiling fans in Blood Simple). Inside Llewyn Davis felt like one of those scenes, stretched out to a 1h45m running time. The car trip in particular was one of the most disorienting and surreal sequences I've seen in a movie that I thought was supposed to be "normal". Of course, there is a relatively "normal" storyline but much in the same way I'm certain A Serious Man is about a lot more than a Jewish guy in Minnesota, I'm certain Inside Llewyn Davis is about a lot more than a folk singer in New York. Don't ask me to explain what more it's about, I'm just the cat in the car along for the ride.