In Melissa McCarthy’s recent film, Can You Ever Forgive Me?, I thought I would not be able to take her seriously.  That is because in many of her movies, she plays someone that is silly or uses graphic dialogue for a ton of laughs. In Can You Ever Forgive Me? she is opposite from the characters she usually plays. Still flaky to a moderate extent, but also very serious, and not humorous. Even though I found Can You Ever Forgive Me? to be captivating, I understand why it did not get tons of attention in the Oscars. I felt the performance by McCarthy was the only real Oscar-worthy portion of the movie, but most of the film needed some improvements. Some of the moments seemed rush and other times tended to drag. However, this is a true story of a movie which made it noteworthy.

McCarthy is Lee Israel, a cranky, opinionated, talented, but very disliked author that publishers have no desire to work with. The film is set in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and in that timeframe, Israel struggles to get people to work with her because she is against writing about issues or events that are current. Israel does not want to improve or gear on what is current, so she turns to deception. With the help of her friend Jack Hock (played by Richard E. Grant), they begin a process of deceit by forging letters supposedly written by high-profile authors and try to sell them to bookstores and collectors. Both Israel and Hock are self-destructive, but do so with the intention of making themselves feel accomplished.

Both the acting by McCarthy and Grant are top-notch, but I felt that the film focused more on their friendship than the seriousness of the forgeries they were committing. There are a couple moments in the film where they forge letters and their schemes do become funny, but it seemed as though the funny portions of the movie were trying slightly too hard. I mean, I understand that in real life Israel and Hock were close, but the movie spent time on certain moments that did not add up to me. On the other hand, I remember that Israel loved her cat, and the film did a good job of having the cat play an important part in the movie as Israel’s friend. The film does an effective job proving that Israel was not popular because the director, Marielle Heller, shows Israel’s limited social life. Viewers will realize this as McCarthy’s character says, “I’m a 51-year-old who likes cats better than people.” McCarthy’s performance and snotty dialogue proves its point that Israel was someone that was very set in her own ways, and she did not care how her con- artist activities would impact her.

Given this film is an adaptation, I felt it was not that faithful to its portrayal of Israel. Before going to the movie, I was reading about her and wish that the film would have discussed her schooling or her life when she was younger.  It would have been interesting to learn more about Israel’s parents, Jack and Sylvie, and brother, Edward. I feel the film was basically like a painting to just show how negative Israel was and it did incorporate her good qualities that much.

The film’s cinematography had a tone for the film to be a dark topic. Every moment, scene, or location is just faded dark where there is no positivity to go around in Can You Ever Forgive Me? That approach, I believe, is another key element that led to this being an award-winning movie. Overall, it is not a heartfelt movie, but the technical elements behind the film, enthrall its viewers to feel more dramatic as the film gets deeper into conflict scenarios. The scenarios are mostly set during moments where negative conversation are occurring, and the lighting appears to look almost like a crime interrogation in a dark room.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? has some memorable moments, but also has ones that are easy to forget. That is why I had a hard time to trying to figure out why the movie had some Oscar nominations this year. When I think of this movie, I think the filming seemed rushed so it could get into festivals and compete for awards. Overall, I am not saying it is a bad movie, but just not as well done as it could have been. I am going to stick to a two-star rating review for this movie.

Films that are adaptations and based on true events are often heavy. Hotel Mumbai takes the realism and the disturbing factors of the Taj Hotel attack in 2008 very seriously. This is Anthony Maras’ first full-length movie, and viewers can tell that he put effort into making Hotel Mumbai frightening, but enthralling. Fans may want to see this film because of its line-up of actors ranging from Dev Patel, Armie Hammer, Nazanin Boniadi, Anupam Kher, and Jason Isaacs. However, Hotel Mumbai is not a blockbuster thriller, it is extremely brutal and unsettling. In the first few minutes of the movie, viewers will realize that the film is going to be an experience of controversial elements that is very accurate to what happened in 2008.

Hotel Mumbai opens with the attackers getting to their locations for their attacks throughout Mumbai and then transitions to the workers and the guests of the Taj Hotel. One of the employees is Arjun (Patel), and his manager is Oberoi (Kher). The day for both Arjun and Oberoi starts as just a normal day at the hotel. This means there are regular guests and VIP guests checking in. The three main guests are husband and wife, David and Zahra (Hammer and Boniadi), and Vasili (Isaacs). All of them have paid for the VIP treatment at the Taj Hotel and are trying to live their lives to the fullest. That all changes, when Mumbai begins to experience some minor attacks which then become more serious. In the Taj, the employees assume that they are safe and secure, but they are not. Within a few hours, the attackers have the Taj Hotel as their main target and based on their religious beliefs, they believe that the Taj is the hotel to be attacked to feel they are faithful to their beliefs. As soon as the hotel turns into a danger zone, the film becomes hard to watch. The guests desperately want to escape and get to safety, but it is impossible because the attackers are in every corner of the hotel with all kinds of guns and ammunition. The intensity makes viewers wonder who is likely to survive. This leads Arjun, Oberoi, David, Zahra, and Vasili to take matters into their own hands to get to safety.

When I was watching Hotel Mumbai, I felt the most difficult scenes to watch were when the attackers freely roam the hotel after already killing many innocent people. That is because each time someone is shot or injured, the film is just gruesome. I felt like the realism was very similar to Paul Greengrass’ United 93 (2006). Maras has a directing eye quite like Greengrass’ because he is faithful to having Hotel Mumbai be as factual as possible.

The heavy tone for the movie is survival. When the main characters mention they have children or are on their way to having children, viewers will become eager to know if they will make it out alive. David and Arjun fight for their lives the hardest. That is because David is a father and his baby is in the hotel room with their nanny as the attacks are taking place in the hotel. Arjun’s wife is on her way to having their second child. David takes measures to get to his room as the attackers are all over the hotel. There is a moment where he is in the elevator and hides behind a food cart, and the attackers are just inches away from him. As soon as they realize he is hiding they begin to shoot at him, but he gets the elevator door to close and tries to quickly find another safe route to his room which proves to impossible. Whenever there are moments like this in the film when one of the characters want to get to safety from where they are hiding, the more intense Hotel Mumbai gets.

The violence is not the only emotional element in the movie.  The dialogue regarding the religious beliefs held by the attackers also has an emotional impact. The director uses these scenes to heighten the intensity of the peril. However, a few of the attackers do come to the realization that what they are doing is wrong, but at the same time they believe that based on their religion they need to finish what they started. What they do not realize is that they have forces bigger than them that can bring them down. Once that happens, they are out numbered and cannot compete with the special forces coming towards them.

Hotel Mumbai is worth the time, but only if viewers are ready to walk out with mixed emotions. The positive moments are rare in this movie. There is something devastating that happens in almost every scene throughout the film. And, as we know from history, the story does not end happily for a many of the characters. Some survive, some die, and some end up severely impacted by the injuries they sustain. I was captivated by the film’s realism. However, I will probably not be watching this movie again anytime soon.  Still, I give this movie three stars.

Jesse Eisenberg, Alexander Skarsgard, and Salma Hayek have all played roles where they have egos. Eisenberg had one in “The Social Network” (2010), Skarsgard had one in “Straw Dogs” (2011), and Salma Hayek has had many more egotistical roles. In “The Hummingbird Project” all of them have an evil plan to get what they want through technology, but Eisenberg and Skarsgard are on the same side and Hayek is the antagonist. Director and writer, Kim Nguyen, arranges “The Hummingbird Project” so that its audience has an idea of which responsibility each character plays in the conflict of the movie. The film is a funny, clever, and dark story about the negatives of the digital world we live in. The negative chemistry between the characters shows how business in the digital world is all about profit and performance, and the risks people take to make their businesses or technologies more enthralling to its consumers. “The Hummingbird Project” will hold a viewer’s attention if they are a technology connoisseur.

The film is about two cousins named Vincent Zaleski and Anton Zaleski (Eisenberg and Skarsgard). They are high-frequency traders that decide to quit their jobs and prove they are better than their former boss, Eva Torres (Hayek). They want to prove their point to her by attempting to earn millions of dollars through a fiber-optic cable deal. Vincent is the business man in charge of the money and the locations for cables, and Anton is the computer geek who knows all kinds of coding and hacking skills. Vincent wants Anton to be able to make the internet one millisecond faster than most other businesses to establish their goal and get more traffic. The problem that arises is when Eva tries to stop them. As Vincent and Anton arrange for their teams to build the cell towers in the mountains of the east coast, Eva starts buying the land they intended to use and filing lawsuits to impede their progress.  The film turns into a war in terms of money, politics, taxes, real estate, and computers. “The Hummingbird Project” is “The Social Network” meets “Wall Street” (1987).

Even though I did enjoy the “The Hummingbird Project” it was a predictable performance for Eisenberg. He was Mark Zuckerberg all over again!  This time he owned land not a new website. His acting seemed the same because his character does not admit fault or agree to his penalties. In “The Social Network” he did not admit to those elements either. In “The Hummingbird Project” he is back to playing the person who believes he is a legend, but at the same time, he is socially awkward and very opinionated.

In terms of Skarsgard’s performance, I felt this role was different for him in a positive way. In a variety of his films he is either the antagonist, or the man who is the negative authoritative figure, but not in “The Hummingbird Project.” In this film, he had on the nerd glasses, was on the shy side, and would let claustrophobic elements stress him out to the extreme. He played the role quite well and I can see him playing characters that are intelligent. This is one he will be remembered for.

Hayek is decent in this movie and I did enjoy seeing her play a superior in a technological business. She has the intelligence, the scary presence, and the sharp dialogue gives viewers watching “The Hummingbird Project” a bumpy ride. The last film I remember where Hayek played a superior was “Savages” (2012). In “Savages” Hayek was the superior of a criminal organization, and in this one she is the superior of a computer business. She always plays superiors who wants negative results for those who she feels are her enemies.

“The Hummingbird” project is not amazing, but it is done properly and is not all that predictable. There are many elements to pay attention to in regards towards what the Zaleski’s are trying to accomplish. The film is setup in a step-by-step process that helps its audience to understand what the Zaleski’s go through to make their cable projects successful. There are obstacles that make the project a challenge, but some get surpassed, and some do not. The film is a hit or miss, but I found it worth the time. For my rating, I give “The Hummingbird Project” three stars.