"Noah" - 2.5 stars out of 4 (C+)

Hollywood likes to give indie directors a chance to helm large pictures. Maybe this occurs because the studios appreciate the talent and expertise that these directors show with small budgets. Maybe it is simply that there is a dearth of directors in the running for productions. Often it is a mistake for both the director and the studio. The director has often made a career of making artistically challenging films and now much orchestrate something for bosses who demand ticket sales over quality. Jean-Pierre Jeunet followed up the visually captivating The City of Lost Children with the ridiculous Alien Resurrection, killing the franchise. David Lynch followed up Eraserhead and The Elephant Man with Dune, a critical and box office failure. Now the money bags have been placed in Darren Aronofsky's hands. His last film was 2010's Black Swan, a disturbing and challenging film that brought in money and acclaim. It was only a matter of time until Aronofsky was given a big production. Noah is a $150 million dollar epic retelling of the biblical story and much like Alien Resurrection and Dune it is a film that alternates between artistically challenging moments and events that only seemed to be included to please test audiences. It is inevitable that Aronofsky would have to tone down his material to appease someone. This inevitability doesn't make it any less disappointing or upsetting as we get occasional glimpses of the brilliance that could of been had concessions not been made.

Noah (Russell Crowe) roams a world that doesn't look too far-removed from the post-apocalyptic wastelands we have seen in many movies over the last couple of years. Food and vegetation are scarce leading many to take to cannibalism. Groups of marauders kill whatever they want and often eat it afterwards. Noah unwavering belief in his Creator has influenced him and his family to only use violence to defend themselves and to abstain from hurting plants or eating animals  One night Noah has a disturbing vision in his sleep one night. The ground starts erupting with water holding him suspended and unable to breathe. His unshaking belief in his Creator leads Noah to believe that this is a prophecy of what will occur. Noah sees this upcoming flood as a cleansing of the evil which will leave only the truly innocent: the animals. He and his family band together to create an ark, a giant ship that will house two of each animal. Noah must protect those he loves from the ever-growing human threat and also deal with the internal struggle from knowing that his ark may save the animals and his family but would damn the rest of mankind to a violent death.

There are moments of brilliance littered throughout Noah. Aronofsky has made a career of directed disturbing yet beautiful movies. There are flourishes throughout the film that remind us that this is the same Aronofsky that directed 2000's Requiem for a Dream and 2006's The Fountain. Noah is at it's best when it is at it's most simple. Quick flashing images of visions. Characters contemplating what they must do and knowing what will happen as a result of their actions. Dark moments of graphic and brutal violence. Noah would have been a great movie had it simply stuck to simplicity. While the visual effects are nice and the swelling score aptly epic, Aronofsky is not a director who needs large set-pieces to tell a compelling and deep story. These moments of intimacy are where the heart of Noah appears. They are almost enough to make me recommend the film. These are scenes most, if not all, big-budget filmmakers would never go near. Their risky inclusion should be championed.

Another risky inclusion is the addition of the Watchers, large creatures made of rock that play a major part in Noah's life. They resemble a cross between the tree-like Ents of Lord of the Rings and a Transformer if they were re-imagined by Ray Harryhausen. While they might be one of the most "creative license" additions to the story (a passing mention in the original talks of giants existing but makes no mention of "giant creatures made out of rock") they are expertly well-designed. The herky-jerky, almost stop-motion appearance feels like something out of Clash of the Titans. Film goers have become so accustomed to shiny yet empty computer-generated creatures that the sight of them is oddly comforting. When you get over the feeling that a stone Optimus Prime is going to help Noah, they become some of the most interesting characters in the film.

The moments of dark desperation are where Noah succeeds the most. At the core, the story is depressing. Noah must build an ark to save his family from the end-of-the-world brought on by man's volleys. A scene where Noah sits in the ark hearing the screams of those being ravaged by the floods is a deep and poignant moment. The brutality of the other inhabitants of the land is also shocking. In one sequence, an animal is thrown into a crowd of starving people and they tear it apart in the air. There is a sense of dread to these scenes you don't see often in film, let alone big-budget epics.

Unfortunately, there are just as many moments of out-and-out banal stupidity in Noah that almost destroy the wonderful moments. The inclusion of a villain in the form of head marauder Tubal Cain (Ray Winstone) is ridiculous. When you have a movie that already has roving bands of cannibals and the prophecy of total world annihilation, you don't need an angry bearded baddie. Tubal Cain's character reeks of a studio saying "But... you need a villain. Who else is Noah going to have to defeat in the last act?" Any scene with Winstone seems like you accidentally turned the channel to an episode of Vikings.

The fact is that Noah is the only interesting human character in the film. Crowe is given some great solo moments where he must consider if what he is doing is truly right or insane. The rest of the cast suffers though. His wife Naameh (Jennifer Connelly) is given very little to do besides look concerned and be uncomfortable by a legion of snakes as they enter the ark. If you lived in a time full of the threat of cannibals and the impending end-of-the-world you would think slithery creatures would be the least of your worries. Ila (Emma Watson) is the token female love interest for Noah's son Shem (Douglas Booth). We know very little of Ila except she can't have kids and Shem desperately wants to put one inside her. Noah's other son Ham (Logan Lerman) is almost interesting as he struggles to find his purpose in his current life and the life after the flood. Unfortunately, Lerman is given little more than looking slightly creepy. It is almost as if he was trying to do a Paul Dano impersonation but didn't feel like fully committing to it. Anthony Hopkins plays Methuselah, Noah's grandfather who is capable of performing miracles. At this point Hopkins seems to be playing essentially the same character and only altering the length of his beard and hairstyle. While he isn't bad, he doesn't quite give off the aura of a powerful and magical individual that the story tries to sell.

The uneven nature of Noah makes me give it the weakest of recommendations. At the very least, it is a curious film that takes impressive and brilliant risks almost as often as it falls flat on it's face. It is worth seeing just to get in the discussion. Some will no doubt be able to overlook some of the problems and savor it for the moments of artistic and gutsy film-making. Just as many will be disappointed in the "creative license" and wonder why in the world Noah is being aided by a Rockbiter from The Neverending Story. In the end though, nobody will end up with what they truly want. They will either end up with a half-full or half-empty world of water.

The Raid 2 - 2 stars out of 4 (C-)

Let nobody say that The Raid 2 is simply a retread of its prequel The Raid: Redemption. Instead of giving us a similar story as the original, one of the best action films to come out in quite some time, writer/director/editor Gareth Evans has decided to take the series in an altogether different direction. Gone are the grimy and claustrophobic action sequences of the original. Instead we get lengthy scenes of dialogue, lingering shots of decor, and surprisingly long gaps of time between action sequences. While it is certainly adventurous of Evans to take one of the most respected and original action films of the decade and move the series in a different direction, the shift is not entirely pleasant. What we have is a film with frantic and sometimes incomprehensible action sequences sandwiched between poorly-paced scenes of dialogue.

Beginning almost immediately after the events of The Raid: Redemption, The Raid 2 opens with Jakarta cop Rama (Iko Uwais) who had just fought his way out of a apartment complex full of criminals. He entered the high-rise in hopes of toppling a drug kingpin but walked out realizing that the police force he devoted his life to was plagued with corruption. Rama knows that he and his family aren't safe and encouraged to change his identity. He starts going by "Yuda" and goes undercover as a violent criminal in hopes of working his way through the crime-world in hopes of bringing an end to the corruption and hopefully protecting his future. Rama joins a gang run by Uco (Arifin Putra), who's father is a very important member of the crime world. As he gets deeper and deeper into this new world, the line that separates "Yuda" and "Rama". He is no longer fighting against a single drug-dealer and his cronies. He is fighting against an entire system plagued with brutality and corruption.

Much of The Raid 2 comes off as an attempt to combat the complaints toward the first film in the series. The late Roger Ebert, one of the few critics who hated the film, found the original film repetitive claiming "This film is about violence. All violence. Wall-to-wall violence". He also "estimated the film has 10 minutes of dialogue". It was almost as if Evans took this review to heart and crafted The Raid 2 in a different style. If it weren't for the opening sequence connecting the two films (and also pulling a move reminiscent of Alien 3 by getting rid of everyone but one character) and having a main character played by Uwais, it feels like an different story. The Raid 2 features far more dialogue than the original. While this may please those who want a story to go along with their spectacle, these scenes get repetitive. They show the seedy crime underworld in a way we've seen plenty of times before. Showing that crime-lords are despicable people who will kill and torture anyone who gets in the way of their power and wealth. Evans true talent is in his choreography of fight sequences and not in his writing abilities. While the dialogue and story here is better than The Raid: Redemption, these changes are not necessary. When you have amazing stunt work and an awe-inspiring performer like Uwais, it doesn't make sense to favor lengthy character-building over adrenaline-pumping action sequences.

What set Evans's film-making in The Raid: Redemption apart from his action-film contemporaries was the filming of his action sequences. They were frantic but exhilarating. If it weren't for the fact that you knew these were actors weren't truly being beaten into submission, you would swear you were seeing real battles. Audiences were wincing and gasping out loud at some of the more hardcore scenes of violence. In The Raid 2, Evans unfortunately has succumb to what appears to be the industry standard and filmed his action sequences using handheld cameras. This results in the scenes plagued by the much maligned "shaky cam". This technique gives the action sequences an almost sped-up and unrealistic feel that was not present in the action scenes of first film. The battles become hard to watch at moments, causing the audience to look away not at the brutal violence but in hopes of stopping motion sickness. Evans is an expert fight choreographer. Uwais is one of the most impressive martial-arts performers of the last decades. The choice to film the action sequences in such a rushed and difficult manner almost makes them unwatchable. When he lingers two or three extra beats on scenes dialogue and yet seems to cut his action in half, it almost comes across as Evans downplaying the action and presenting himself as more of a dramatic director. While it is respectable that he would try something new, The Raid 2 is seriously hurt by these choices.

Evans wears his influences on his sleeve in this film. While The Raid: Redemption almost played like a contemporary Die Hard, The Raid 2 appears to be heavily influenced by the work of Nicolas Winding Refn. The first action sequence has Uwais preparing to fight an almost unending series of inmates from the confines of a prison toilet stall. This scene is very reminiscent of the opening sequence of Refn's Bronson, where the main character prepares to fight off police officers in his small cell. While Evans doesn't bring in Refn's odd mismash of creepy cold instrumental music and synth, he does abandon The Raid: Redemptions pulsing "Linkin Park meets dubstep" score for orchestral flourishes. There is no hard-driving grimy action sequences set to throbbing music here. Instead we get more artistic presentations. A scene where a character bleeds out on snow is presented with symphony music.  Evans fight choreography also shows his influences. A scene featuring a character named Hammer Girl (Julie Estelle) tearing into hoodlums with claw hammers is very reminiscent of a similar scene in 2003's Oldboy. A fight that takes place inside a moving car recalls a similar scene in 2010's I Saw the Devil. While I definitely wouldn't say Evans is copying any of these films, the originality that was present in the first film is replaced by a feeling of "been there, done that". We aren't invested in an action sequence if it simply brings to mind other films.

There is a good action movie somewhere in the bloated 148-minute runtime. Several scenes and an entire sub-plot could have been cut, leaving a much leaner and more interesting film. A sub-plot featuring an assassin played by Yayan Ruhian is especially pointless and actually confusing. Ruhian was one of the stand-outs from The Raid: Redemption, playing the deranged and violent henchman Mad Dog. Here he plays an altogether different character and there is no mention on why he looks so similar to Mad Dog. This makes every scene he is in incredibly odd. Maybe Evans just wanted to include Ruhian's talents in another film. They are mostly wasted here as he is not given anything close to what he was given in the first film. It is just a confusing and somewhat bewildering inclusion.

The Raid 2 is not without its merits though. Evans new eye for scenery makes a few action sequences wholly original. An early action scene in a muddy prison field is especially impressive. The unstable ground acts unpredictable elements to the battle and makes you wonder why nobody had put together a similar scene before. There are still many opportunities for the audiences to wince and gasp, even if some of them come across as pandering. Some of the action sequences have nice touches of dark comedy. It is difficult not to laugh at the absurdity of a man killing people with a perfectly hit baseball. These moments remind us that Evans knows what he is doing somewhere in the mix.

Evans is a promising director who is definitely trying something new with the action genre even with the slight misstep here. Much of The Raid 2's problems come from comparing it to the original. Had it simply gone by the international title Berandal (meaning "thug") and changed some of the early plot-lines, it would have no doubt succeeded more. Hopefully his next film will have someone else at the editing bay, delivering the lean and hard-hitting action that we know he is capable of.

My Opinions on This Year's Academy Awards Nominations

As a kid, I loved the Academy Awards. I would stay up far too late on a school night to watch them. I would strain my eyes to the end to see who won "Best Picture". I almost always agreed with them. I was very easily swayed as a child. If you told me "Shakespeare in Love" was the best movie of the year, I would agree with you. My 19-year old self was even convinced of the greatness of "Crash", a movie I haven't even thought about after seeing it for my first and only time. 

It wasn't until I started learning more about the voting process that I started to lose respect for the Academy Awards. When I read that Ernest Borgnine, a voting member of the Academy, refused to watch 2002's "Brokeback Mountain" simply because he disagreed with the presentation of homosexuality, I lost a lot of hope that the Academy Awards were an accurate summation of the opinion of film. Borgnine's refusal to accurately assess a film can't be an isolated incident. How many nominated films went unwatched simply because of the personal beliefs of a voter. Did an Academy member simply not watch "Saving Private Ryan" or "Django Unchained" because they were too violent for their taste? Did last year's "Zero Dark Thirty" not get watched because of the political beliefs of a member?  People are already admitting they refuse to watch this year's "12 Years a Slave" because it makes them uncomfortable. If a member didn't "have" to watch every movie, how many nominated films have gone unwatched simply because of lack of interest or time?

The Academy's refusal to consider most foreign films and almost all animated films as "Best Picture" options is also ridiculous. The fact that "WALL-E" was not nominated in the 2008's Best Picture contest, while "Frost/Nixon" was is absolutely insane. 2006's "Pan's Labyrinth" is an absolutely spell-binding and amazing film. If it were in English and not Spanish, there is little to no way it would have been ignored. When was the last time you thought of "Letters from Iwo Jima" or "Babel", two films that were nominated for Best Picture while "Pan's Labyrinth" was simply only nominated for Best Foreign Language film. The award is not "Best Live-Action Picture". It is not "Best English Language Picture". It is "Best Picture". It should be considered this. If it is a movie, it has the potential to be nominated. Can you honestly say a Pixar film like "WALL-E" or "Up" is less of a film than a Woody Allen film where it seems as if the camera was just placed in the middle of a group of actors? Does the fact that a film is comprised of polygons instead of actors make it less of a movie?

In 2009, in an attempt to make the race more interesting, the Academy increased the amount of Best Pictures nominations from five to ten. It had been capped at five since 1943. This change was an odd choice. Would the Academy be able to watch and assess twice as many movies? Why stop at ten? Why not have 20? 

I am going to write this article as if I were voting for the nominations. I don't care about predictions. There are pages and pages of predictions out there. If you are interested in the Vegas odds or rumors, you can find them. Here I will give you my opinion of the "Best" choice in almost every category. "Best" is not the same as "Favorite". My "favorite" movie is "Almost Famous". I will never in a moment say that is the "Best Movie" I have ever seen. "Almost Famous" is not a better film than hundreds of other films. I love it though. I would watch it every day if there were more hours in a day. A film's re-watchablity is not an accurate summation of its worth. When was the last day you sat down and say "I really want to watch "Schlindler's List" again?" That does not diminish how great it is. My favorite film of 2013 was "The Wolf of Wall Street". It is not the "Best Picture" of 2013 though. It is the most entertaining film I saw but that does not mean it is a "better" film than "12 Years a Slave". My top 10 list of 2013 was based on "favorites", not "greatness".

Best Picture
"12 Years A Slave"
"American Hustle"
"Dallas Buyers Club"
"Her"
"Nebraska"
"Captain Phillips"
"The Wolf of Wall Street"
"Gravity"
"Philomena"

The clear winner here for me is "12 Years a Slave". While every movie on this list was good, "12 Years a Slave" is the "Best Picture". It is a jaw-dropping display of film-making. Every shot is gorgeous. Almost every performance is fantastic. Hans Zimmer's score is wonderful. It might not be as re-watchable as the other nine nominations, but it is the "Best" film. While I agree that "Gravity" is a technological marvel, I found it to be a bit disappointing. Those who loved it will no doubt be able to explain how it is "Best Picture". I found it to be beautiful but repetitive and thematically flawed. "Philomena" and "The Wolf of Wall Street" were two of my favorite films of the year but neither is a "better" picture than "12 Years A Slave".

Actor in a Leading Role
Bruce Dern - "Nebraska"
Chiwetel Ejiofor - "12 Years A Slave"
Matthew McConaughey - "Dallas Buyers Club"
Christian Bale - "American Hustle"
Leonardo DiCaprio - "The Wolf of Wall Street"

This might be the hardest category to vote for. Both Ejiofor and McConaughey delivered great performances although I honestly don't know if either did a truly amazing job. For the Golden Globes I voted for Ejiofor in a quick gut-reaction. A vote for McConaughey is also respectable though. I fear though that vote is not necessarily just for his performance in "Dallas Buyers Club". It might be for "Dallas Buyers Club" and his wonderful, yet all too brief part in "The Wolf of Wall Street". Maybe it is for his master-class of acting he is exhibiting in HBO's "True Detective". A vote should be for the film nominated and that film only. It should not be for the "year" or a career. After re-watching both "12 Years a Slave" and "Dallas Buyers Club", I am voting for McConaughey. The physical transformation McConaughey delivered here is incredibly impressive. It showed great respect for the role. Not for one moment do we see McConaughey in his film. His drastic transformation in addition to a near chameleon-esque performance narrowly beats out Ejiofor.

Actor in a Supporting Role
Barkhad Abdi - "Captain Phillips"
Michael Fassbender - "12 Years A Slave"
Jared Leto - "Dallas Buyers Club"
Bradley Cooper - "American Hustle"
Jonah Hill - "The Wolf of Wall Street"

This is between Fassbender and Leto. Leto deserves the award. He completely became his character and truly "supported" the film. Fassbender was great but Leto helped his film far more.

Actress in a Leading Role
Cate Blanchett - "Blue Jasmine"
Sandra Bullock - "Gravity"
Judi Dench - "Philomena"
Meryl Streep - "August: Osage County"
Amy Adams - "American Hustle"

Amy Adams deserves this award. In "American Hustle" her character is an American who is trying to act as if she were British. In the film, her character is not a good actress. This is a performance of a great actress acting as if she were a poor actress. In several instances, she is expected to switch between character types in the same scene. "American Hustle" is an "actor's film" and Adams is easily the best thing in it. While I loved Dench in "Philomena", Adams delivered the better performance.

Actress in a Supporting Role
Sally Hawkins - "Blue Jasmine"
Jennifer Lawrence - "American Hustle"
Lupita Nyong'o - "12 Years A Slave"
Julia Roberts - "August: Osage County"
June Squibb - "Nebraska"

Nyong'o is easily the best of these five. A vote for any of the other four is ridiculous.

Animated Feature Film
"The Croods"
"Despicable Me 2"
"Frozen"
"The Wind Rises"
"Ernest & Celestine"

While I loved "Ernest and Celestine", "Frozen" narrowly beats it.

Cinematography
"The Grandmaster"
"Gravity"
"Inside Llewyn Davis"
"Nebraska"
"Prisoners"

I'm not sure where the cinematography begins and the visual effects end in "Gravity". It is a beautiful movie but I don't know if if I would be awarding the visual effects or the cinematographer with a vote. Although it has no chance of winning, I'm going with "Prisoners". While it was not a great film, it looked amazing. One scene near the end involving a dangerous drive at night through hard rain was jaw-dropping in how gorgeous it was.

Costume Design
"American Hustle"
"The Grandmaster"
"The Great Gatsby"
"The Invisible Woman"
"12 Years a Slave"

It is between "12 Years a Slave" and "The Great Gatsby". In a gut-reaction, I'm going with "The Great Gatsby".

Directing
Alfonso Cuaron - "Gravity"
Steve McQueen - "12 Years A Slave"
Alexander Payne - "Nebraska"
David O. Russell - "American Hustle"
Martin Scorsese - "The Wolf of Wall Street"

While I may not have loved "Gravity" as much as most people, I can tell you the direction is great. Still, I believe McQueen did a better overall job. There is some staging and framing that is just wonderful. A scene involving a near-hanging is one of the best directed scenes of any film this year.

Documentary (Feature)
"The Act of Killing"
"20 Feet from Stardom"
"Cutie and the Boxer"
"Dirty Wars"
"The Square"

"The Act of Killing" is the easy choice for me here. It is a truly amazing piece of art. A vote for "20 Feet from Stardom" is simply voting for "favorite" or "easiest to watch". It was entertaining and interesting but that is all. "The Act of Killing" is spell-binding. It is everything that the documentary genre can be. I have not seen "Cutie and the Boxer" or "The Square" but I find it hard to believe that they are better than "The Act of Killing".

Documentary (Short Subject)
"CaveDigger"
"Facing Fear"
"Karama Has No Walls"
"The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life"
"Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall"

I did not watch any of these films. Sorry.

Film Editing
"American Hustle"
"Captain Phillips"
"Dallas Buyers Club"
"Gravity"
"12 Years a Slave"

"Gravity" was a technological marvel. It was a taut and suspenseful experience. The editing made this film the way it is. "12 Years a Slave" was great but I can't honestly say the editing made the film what it was. In fact, it could probably have used a few scenes cut. No minute of "Gravity" is wasted.

Foreign Language Film
"The Broken Circle Breakdown" - Belgium
"The Great Beauty" - Italy
"The Hunt" - Denmark
"The Missing Picture" - Cambodia
"Omar" - Palestine

"The Hunt" was a deeply disturbing film. It was great though. It is the only film of the five that I saw unfortunately. I honestly don't feel I can vote for this category without having seen all of the five.

Makeup and Hairstyling
"Dallas Buyers Club"
"Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa"
"The Lone Ranger"

I am not against an award going to "Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa". The makeup was great. Still "Dallas Buyers Club" did quite a lot at helping McConaughey and Leto fully become their characters.

Music (Original Score)
"The Book Thief" - John Williams
"Gravity" Steven Price
"Her" - William Butler and Owen Pallett
"Philomena" - Alexandre Desplat
"Saving Mr. Banks" - Thomas Newman

"Gravity" and "Her" were the only two scores I can truly remember shining in their films. Alexandre Desplat in "All is Lost" and Hans Zimmer in "12 Years a Slave" were both robbed of nominations. The music in "Her" was wonderful and helped that film immensely.

Music (Original Song)
"Let it Go" - "Frozen" - Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez
"Ordinary Love" - "Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom" - U2, lyrics by Paul Hewson, aka Bono
"Happy" - "Despicable Me 2" - Pharrell Williams
"The Moon Song" - "Her" - music by Karen O, lyrics by Karen O and Spike Jonze
Nomination recinded: The song "Alone Yet Not Alone" from "Alone Yet Not Alone" was originally nominated for later removed from the list it was discovered that musician Bruce Broughton emailed members of the group's music branch to make them aware of the submission during the nominations voting period, a move Academy President Cheryl Boone Isaacs, Academy President said "creates the appearance of an unfair advantage."

As much as I loved "Let it Go", it is not better than "The Moon Song". "The Moon Song" perfectly touches on the overall theme of "Her". It helps that film in a way that "Let it Go" doesn't necessarily do. 

Production design
"American Hustle"
"Gravity"
"The Great Gatsby"
"Her"
"12 Years a Slave"

Them parties, tho.

Short Film (Animated)
"Feral"
"Get a Horse!"
"Mr. Hublot"
"Possessions"
"Room on the Broom"

I only saw "Get a Horse", therefore I can't vote for this category.

Short Film (Live Action)
"Aquel No Era Yo (That Wasn't Me)"
"Avant Que De Tout Perdre (Just before Losing Everything)"
"Helium"
"Pitaako Mun Kaikki Hoitaa? (Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?)"
"The Voorman Problem"

I saw none of these. I'm sorry.

Sound Editing:
"All Is Lost"
"Captain Phillips"
"Gravity"
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Lone Survivor"

Sound made "Gravity" the film it is. It gets my vote.

Sound Mixing:
"Captain Phillips"
"Gravity"
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Inside Llewyn Davis"
"Lone Survivor"

Ditto.

Visual Effects
"Gravity"
"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug"
"Iron Man 3"
"The Lone Ranger"
"Star Trek Into Darkness"

The same can be said for the visual effects. Without visual effects, "Gravity" is very little, in my opinion.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
"Before Midnight" - Richard Linklater, Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke
"Captain Phillips" - Billy Ray
"Philomena" - Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope
"12 Years A Slave" - John Ridley
"The Wolf of Wall Street" - Terence Winter

I'm voting for this category with the film script that I would most likely sit and read. "Before Midnight" has wonderful moments of dialogue and tells believable characters. It might be thought that the movie was improvised but the fact that every line was actually written makes it clearly the winner.

Writing (Original Screenplay)
"American Hustle" - Eric Warren Singer and David O. Russell
"Blue Jasmine" - Woody Allen
"Her" - Spike Jonze
"Nebraska" - Bob Nelson
"Dallas Buyers Club" - Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack

"Her" has some of the best dialogue I've heard in a movie in years. It is easily the most original and thoughtful film of this group. It is my vote.