Dawn of the Planet of the Apes: That Rare Sequel

     I can't say that I was ever too interested in the older Apes films, though they clearly hold a special place in many moviegoer's hearts. So I was very surprised when back in 2011 I found the reboot of the franchise--Rise of the Planet of the Apes, starring James Franco no less--a perfectly enjoyable summer diversion with a great motion-capture performance by Andy Serkis, the king of creature acting. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes takes place 10 years after the events of the first film, where the Simian Flu has devastated the world and the super-smart apes reign over the woods without a sign of a human for multiple years. It's a rare sequel that surpasses the already-good original, a fitting mid-summer movie with action, intensity, heart and emotion. And yet again, it showcases Andy Serkis and his unbelievable ability to breathe realistic life into a computer-generated creature.
     News reports at the beginning of the film show that the world is now a post-apocalyptic landscape. The Apes that Dawn focuses on live in the steep woods outside the crumbling city of San Francisco, where throughout the years following the human collapse their leader, Caesar (Serkis), has taught the rest of the apes to flourish. They can communicate through hand signals (and in the rare instance, speaking actual English). They haven't seen humans for years, and the majority think that it's for the best: since some of the apes had been experimented on (essentially tortured) in the first film, the distrust they feel is warranted. The new little prospering world that they have created is thrown into disarray when a few gun-equipped humans show up, looking to restore a dam to bring back some of the city's electricity.
     One of the main problems with Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (also a bigger problem of Godzilla earlier this year) is the human characters. Gary Oldman portrays a sort-of military leader of the humans--it's safe to say that he's not keen on the apes controlling the land that the dam sits on. Keri Russell (damn good in FX's The Americans recently) pops up as the sympathizing significant other of Jason Clarke, who--like James Franco in the first film--realizes the potential and love that the apes can bring to Earth. But nobody impresses. The apes--led by Andy Serkis--portray far more emotion than their human counterparts. And when an ape deception occurs, you feel it as hard as any other human drama.

   Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a summer blockbuster where you would just assume not have any fighting or destruction. Can't they all just get along? That's a testament to the awesome computer-generated apes and the stellar direction by Matt Reeves. With Cloverfield and Let Me In, he's been a director to showcase a signature style: but in Dawn he's truly come into his own, creating a sequel that's better in every way than it's predecessor. The mixture of action, emotion, tension and drama is an impressive balancing act, and it catapults the film far higher than most of this year's sad display of cinema.
      Like my the last film I reviewed, Snowpiercer, Dawn delves into social ideas about discrimination, equality, and deception. This time it's just humans vs. apes rather than humans vs. humans. But Dawn is good enough even if you're just there for the action. Sure, the image is (kinda) laughable of an ape duel-wielding machine guns riding a horse into battle. But with the tension-filled buildup, it's hard to not be excited by it. And Reeves stages some great scenes that have you picking sides, rooting for who you think is right. If you've been a bit bummed by this year's film entertainment, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a good remedy: an ape evolution that's thoughtful and thrilling.     (B+)

Snowpiercer: A Smart and Strange Summer Train Ride

     Snowpiercer is one of those rare summer spectacles: a film that is unique and original, a risky proposition among a sea of stinky sequels and safe bets. Making his English-language debut, director Bong Joon-ho (who has impressed me before with monster-movie mayhem in The Host) skillfully crafts a weird thrill ride about rocket-fast train and class warfare, and it contains some of the better action scenes this side of The Raid 2. It has echoes of some recent Hollywood blockbusters (like The Hunger Games or Elysium), but it's fully its own creature--a strange beast with a mixture of themes and cultures that completely stands out among American cinema's recent cardboard cut-out clones.
     An experiment to end global warming has caused an ice age that almost has wiped out the entirety of Earth's population. The only survivors make it onto a train that flies along a global railway system powered by a mysterious man and his perpetual motion machine. The basics: the rich live in luxury at the front of the train, the poor people in the rear. Guards periodically arrive in the back of the train, giving our dirty downtrodden disgusting protein blocks (they look like old cranberry sauce) and occasionally taking children for unknown reasons. At the tip of the train, a mysterious man named Wilford resides, and his rule is law.
     Everything is not swell, and a rebellion is brewing: led by our humble hero Curtis (Chris Evans, better known as Captain America), the less-fortunate come up with a plan to bust through the guards and gates to overtake the train. To do so, they need the help of an engineer, Namgoong Minsu (Song Kang-ho) who spends all of his time sniffing a mind-altering drug called Kronol, and his maybe-psychic daughter Yona. With their help, they attempt to move through the seemingly-mile-long train car by car. This is one of those films that mixes humor and shock and violence with a surreal skill. You just can't wait to see what is behind the next door, and it's always surprising.

     There is some awesome action in Snowpiercer, violent hand-to-hand combat with sharp weapons that is directed with noticeable excitement by Bong Joon-ho. There are plenty of villainous characters, but the most memorable is Tilda Swinton, with her fake teeth and sheer disregard of anyone who is against the man behind the curtain, Wilford. I feel like I now measure all film and television action with The Raid 2, which completely blew me away earlier this year. And Snowpiercer never reaches the tension that The Raid 2 managed. But it didn't need to: the sheer strangeness and fun that Snowpiercer provides more than makes up for it.
     The film doesn't reach for perfection; consequently, it's not perfect: the political messages in Snowpiercer are just a backdrop for the action-adventure story and the excitement to see what weird thing is contained in the next car. And some of the special effects (mostly the outside views of the train barreling through snowdrifts and tunnels) are far from stellar. I also didn't love the ending. But these thing's don't take the enjoyment away from the weird ride. If Snowpiercer teaches us one thing, it's that we need more foreign and unique ideas thrown into American cinema. Ten years from now, I want to be watching more films like this one--not Transformers 8: Transforming Yet Again.     (A-)

Hitting the Reset Button with Edge of Tomorrow

     It's time to give Tom Cruise a break: ever since the infamous dance on Oprah's couch, viewers have dismissed his work. But he's actually produced a few really entertaining movies--Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and last year's sci-fi pic Oblivion to name two--in the past four years. This week's Edge of Tomorrow is a yet another showcase of entertainment in a science fiction setting. Tom Cruise's image died in the media's eyes (with his strange antics and batshit-insane Scientology beliefs) years ago, so it's fitting that in Edge of Tomorrow he dies over and over and over again, occasionally in comic fashion for our pleasure. It might not be a total career rebirth, but it's another step in the right direction for a guy who was once America's biggest movie star.
     It's impossible to write or speak about Edge of Tomorrow without mentioning the obvious connections to Bill Murray's comedy classic Groundhog Day (and to a lesser extent, 2011's underrated Source Code). But Edge of Tomorrow never suffers from the similarities--if anything it thrives with them. The film begins in typical apocalyptic movie fashion: images of destruction and war and an unknown alien force flash across news screens, as Cruise's character (Maj. William Cage) spins a PR campaign with every reporter and newscaster for a pro-military intervention against the unknown force. Cage's biggest character flaw (and one of his biggest fears) is being involved in actual combat. So when a cocky general (portrayed by the great Brendan Gleeson) forces him to go to the front lines, Cage resists, is tasered, and wakes up in handcuffs at a military base near where a D-Day-style beach storming is about to happen the next day.
      Cage gets thrown into battle, a chaotic storm of bullets, mech suits, bombs and lightning-fast slithering aliens called Mimics, only to die quickly, covered in an exploded Mimic's blood. But then he wakes up, handcuffed again, at the military base the day before. He meets the same people, gets harassed by the same Sergeant (a having-fun Bill Paxton), and gets thrown into the same group of soldiers. Only to go back into battle and die again. Wake up, die. Learn a little more. Wake up. Die. Learn a little more. Repeat. On the battlefield he meets Rita (Emily Blunt as a kick-ass heroine), the public face of the assault on the aliens, who seems to know what is happening to Cage. She tells Cruise to come find her when he wakes up, and this interaction sets in motion the majority of the mind-bending film.

     Edge of Tomorrow is skillfully directed by Doug Liman (probably best known for The Bourne Identity and Mr. and Mrs. Smith), and he barely lets you catch your breath as Cage and Rita try and figure out a way to take out the frightening aliens. Like many battles against extraterrestrials, there is something of a "hive queen" (to quote directly from Ender's Game) that controls the entire horde through a complex system of brainwaves/telepathy/etc. Cage (who, because he was doused in the blood of a Mimic, has certain special powers) and Rita must find the brain of the operation and take it down before the large number of Alien minions threatens the entire human race--starting with the beach invasion that always ends in a massacre now matter how many times Cage lives and dies. The action and special effects in Edge of Tomorrow are top notch, and Cruise--with his determination--and Blunt--with her fortitude at showing emotion while destroying alien scum--propel the film past watchable into something much better.
     Sure, in a film where the main character has to live the same day over and over again (maybe for thousands and thousands of times--you never really find out) there are going to be plot holes and derivative scenes that seem too familiar. Even the title sucks: Edge of Tomorrow. It was originally titled All You Need is Kill, the same name of the Japanese graphic novel which it is based. But who cares? This is an original film (not a sequel or reboot) that is imaginative and exciting in a sea of films which are the opposite of that. And by the looks of the blockbusters coming out in the next three months, it might be one of the best of the summer.     (B+)

Go Back to the Future in X-Men: Days of Future Past

      Time travel can be a slippery slope in modern film entertainment: for every great usage of it (like in the low-budget Primer or the stylistic Looper), viewers then get a couple duds that are filled with WTF moments that can leave you scratching your head. So I can see why you would be skeptical of the new X-Men film, Days of Future Past (the title itself is kind of stupidly confusing)--Travelling back in time to re-shape the future is a major plot point. But somehow, it totally works. By bringing back Bryan Singer, who created the first two (good) X-Men films, and sending the fan favorite Wolverine back in time to a story involving the younger versions of characters that we met in X-Men: First Class, Days of Future Past is top-tier summer entertainment: incredibly fun, exciting, and full of wonderful acting, especially for a comic-book film.
     The plot of Days of Future Past is seemingly intricate, with dozens of characters from multiple time periods intersecting and having their paths shaped by the events of the past and the future. But credit goes to a tight script and Singer's direction: everything is laid out in a natural and exciting way, and confusion never sets in. Though the ending is a bit predictable, the film is no less satisfying because of it. Here are the basics: in the future, mutants and humans who like mutants are segregated into work camps, slaves to the machine. These big and bad robot mofos that can adapt and use any mutant's ability (called Sentinels) are crushing the last of the mutants to bits, hunting them out like predators. A small band of mutants is surviving due to an important ability: projecting a person's consciousness back in time to warn them of incoming danger. This small band eventually meets up with our known heroes, namely Xavier, Magneto and Wolverine, and they all team up, deciding to send Wolverine's consciousness back to 1973 when an incredibly fateful moment for mutant plight occurred.
       This incredibly fateful moment deals with the blue, shape-shifting Mystique (America's girl, J-Law) assassinating the future creator of the Sentinels, Dr. Boliver Trask (Game of Thrones' Peter Dinklage). She gets captured, and the Bad Guys use her mutant DNA to make the Sentinels incredibly powerful. Wolverine goes back to stop Mystique from this fateful decision that changes the course of history. But first, he must enlist the help of the younger Xavier and Magneto (James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender) who instead of being friends, like in the future, are mortal enemies after the events of First Class. There's a line in the previously mentioned Looper that deals with the complexity of explaining time travel: "We'd be here all day making diagrams with straws." The beauty of X:Men: Days of Future Past is that it doesn't need any explanation. It moves forward and backward in time with an organic symmetry full of fun scenes.

     There wasn't a moment in Days of Future Past that lacked entertainment. Many scenes leave you incredibly excited: the opening of a dystopian future and the ensuing mutant vs Sentinel battle that sets the film's tone extremely early. The breakout of Magneto from a maximum security cell underneath the Pentagon (Quicksilver [Evan Peters] is the star here, as he moves much faster than a speeding bullet). The assassination attempt on Dr. Trask. Though Matthew Vaughn did a good job with the sort-of-reboot of the X-Men universe with First Class, it's nice to have Singer back in the director's chair (though his real-life controversy isn't clearly isn't good) . His love of the characters and source material is obvious, his set-up of key scenes admirable. And when your comic-book film is filled with great actors (Fassbender, Jackman, McAvoy, Dinklage, Lawrence, among others) who are adept at showing every emotion, it just adds to the overall experience.
     X-Men: Days of Future Past makes some other recent comic-based films look like total child's play (e.g. The newest Spiderman). It balances over a dozen characters, and though some mutants get significantly more screen time than others, you still feel as though you spent your movie money wisely. The villains, if you could even call them that term, have motivations that contain a complexity far more real than the typical world domination. And though the plot was sometimes a bit predictable, the fun-factor exceeds any specifics or questionable plot points of the time-travel story. It's super superhero summer entertainment.     (A-)

Godzilla: A "Meh" Monster Movie

     I didn't expect to enjoy last year's Pacific Rim: I can't say that big-budget monster movies are especially my thing--giant creatures smashing each other in the full glory of CGI hasn't been enough to make a movie great since I was 10 or 12 years old. But Rim was a great surprise. Director Guillermo Del Toro injected enough excitement and humor into the picture to make it one of last year's more entertaining films, full of vibrant color and creature fights with actual tension. So it only makes sense to compare this year's big Monster event, a re-imagining of Godzilla, with Del Toro's clearly-made-with-love movie that is still fresh in some movie goers' minds. It doesn't really compare: the 2014 version of Godzilla focuses far too much on uninteresting and uninspired human characters, has a tendency to cut the camera away when something cool is about to happen, and contains massive monster battles that simply lack excitement. It arrives with a yawn rather than a roar.
     Obviously the quality is far superior than in the 1998 embarrassment directed by disaster-porn master Roland Emmerich, but that isn't saying much--not many films are considered worse. At least in this one we get former Walter White Bryan Cranston (who portrays Joe Brody) as a nuclear power-plant operator in Japan who loses his wife in a freak accident. 15 years later, he's gone a little bit wacko in his conspiracy theories and his son (Kick-Ass's Aaron Taylor-Johnson) must travel back to bail him out. Things don't go as planned, and Joe Brody begins to look like he's the only one who knows what he is talking about.
     The human aspects of Godzilla suck. There's nothing new or original, nothing with enough emotion for you to care, and no characters that make you pine for their plight. You might say: "Who cares about the humans? The movie's called Godzilla. We're here for the Monster fights." That's all fine and damn dandy, but in the two-hour run time of Godzilla, there is precious little destruction other than the climax, except for the occasional shot that cuts far too quickly back to humans running around in disarray. Maybe the film-maker is building anticipation for the finale, which admittedly is cool (a group of soldiers jumping from 30,000 feet to deal with a nuclear device in the middle of a destructive monster battle). But it's too little, too late.

     Speaking of the film-maker, director Gareth Edwards (who previously only directed 2010's Monsters [a fitting title]) clearly has a knack for dealing with special effects on a massive scale. The obliteration of San Francisco is impressive and realistic enough. The titular creature is almost a good guy, going against two massive Alien-esque monsters that feed off of radiation sources and then mate to make massive amounts of world-destroying atrocities. I just wish--by these late minutes in the film--that I cared more about the fate of humanity at this point rather than itching for it to be over, complete with the only two love interests reuniting in the demolished city, the music sweeping in stereotypical fashion.
     Godzilla isn't a bad film. But it isn't good, either. Both this year's Noah and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were far better displays of making entertainment with dozens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars injected into the their respective budgets. Above all, 2014's Godzilla just isn't fun. There weren't enough moments that brought a smile to face or butterflies into my belly (or any at all, really). It's typical movie-studio summer weekend placement: a massive and intriguing marketing campaign that leads to a movie that's all safe with no lasting stimulation.     (C)

Spinning a Web of Confusion with The Amazing Spider-Man 2

       If you weren't tired of the character Spider-Man after the atrocious third installment of the Tobey Maguire trilogy, surely you must be close now. We're already on the second movie of the reboot series with director Marc Webb and star Andrew Garfield (who is 30 years old), and though the first film had a few fresh approaches, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 suffers from that notorious illness that many other comic-book sequels have experienced: too many villains, too many plot lines, too much annoyance. Sure, it has awe-inspiring visual effects and CGI. And some of the smaller moments between Peter Parker and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone) inject some needed sweetness and chemistry (probably because they're a couple in real life). But these moments are not enough to overcome the murky plots and the (seemingly) dozens of villains.
     The film starts with an exciting and tense flashback plane sequence where Peter's parents are flying out of town with secret and important information. Much of The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is downhill from there. Spidey still patrols the city, taking down bad guys (the first being a way-too-over-the-top Paul Giamatti). Unfortunately, it seems like he's also a failed stand-up comedian, spouting out extremely unfunny one-liners before shooting people with his white sticky stuff. Him and Gwen are now officially a couple, but if you remember the first film (which you probably don't), her dad's (Denis Leary) dying wish was for Peter to stay the hell away from Gwen--to protect her by leaving her. Peter thinks about this a lot, and he even sees visions of Leary all over town giving him threatening glances.
      But the real threat lies with a few different aspects of the Oscorp company: Peter's childhood friend, Harry, has taken over the corporation after the passing of his dear old dad, but he's inherited the same disease that could lead to his demise too. He thinks a dose of Spidey's blood could cure him, and he'll do anything to try and get it. There has also been a major accident at Oscorp: an under-appreciated employee named Max Dillon (Jaime Foxx) has fallen into a tank of experimental electric eels, becoming a powerful villain named Electro who can harness the power of the entire city's electrical grid. Our red and blue hero has a lot in his web. Too much, and the film suffers because of it.

     The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has absolutely incredible special effects. The dazzling colors and action flash across the screen like a theme park ride. But top-notch CGI just simply isn't enough anymore. If this film had been released 10 years ago, you'd hear non-stop praise about it. But since Hollywood effortlessly puts out visual splendor (usually bypassing a cohesive and exciting story) on a weekly basis--especially during the summer movie season which this film signals the start of--it has become less of an event and more the norm. The visuals that a big-budget blockbuster provide just aren't enough (except for last year's Gravity) anymore.
      This Spider-Man is also too long. It's one of those films with a few false endings, and by the time it's actually over, you wish it had been over 15 minutes ago. If The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is any indication, this summer is going to be full of unoriginal blockbusters that look like a million bucks but feel like only a dollar or two. And in a couple of years, when The Amazing Spider-Man 3 is announced, I'll meet that news not with a smile but with a shrug of the shoulders.     (C)

The Raid 2 Radiates Excitement

     As I mentioned in my last review of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, one film has soured the taste of nearly all modern American action films: The Raid: Redemption. Its incredibly brutal and realistic hand-to-hand combat and blood-squirting violent gun and knife play has propelled the film into cult hit status, satiating the dying hunger of action fans who are tired of confusing quick-cut fight scenes and over-the-top characters and corny gore. The story of Rama and his floor-by-floor fight to the top of a crime and thug-ridden apartment complex was all set up for bone-crushing punches and kicks. But there wasn't too much of a story: it was a 100 minute adrenaline pill. The sequel, The Raid 2 (sometimes shown with the subtitle, Berandal), fixes that issue. Continuing the story of Rama (Iko Uwais, a man you just have to root for) after he escapes death at the apartments, The Raid 2 is a much bigger story with complex relationships. There is downtime between the action this time around (other than the last hour), but it allows for even more building of intensity. If the first Raid is a small watercolor painting of pain, The Raid 2 is the Sistine Chapel: big (2 and a half hours), beautiful, and utterly breathtaking, especially when the action kicks in.
     The Raid 2 is one of those rare films, a sequel that is masterful at exploring the themes of the first while exceeding every expectation along the way. Rama is back, and he has to go deep undercover and get involved with a dangerous mob, gaining trust with the leadership to gain vital information about crooked cops. The Raid: Redemption was confined and claustrophobic--all of the action took place in one building, and only in the beginning and at the end did the film leave the confines of four walls and a ceiling. But the sequel takes the story in some fresh directions (even a masterful car chase battle) with numerous memorable locales. The film gets room to breathe, though much of it will leave viewers breathless.
     Some two hours have passed since the end of the first film, and Rama becomes convinced to get thrown in prison to buddy up with a son, Uco (a charming Arifin Putra), of a powerful crime lord. When Rama proves his worthiness during a muddy prison riot, Uco gives him a job working for the family once Rama gets released. The story is pretty intricate--you will read a lot, unlike the sparse dialogue in the first Raid--and all characters and crime factions have different motivations. The main tension deals with three groups: Uco's local family, a rival Japanese gang, and Bejo (Alex Abbad) and his cronies, a rising group of gangsters that threatens the power struggle between the two violent families. The story is stellar and serves the action well, but let's be honest: that's not what we're here for.

     Much of the first half of the film deals with Rama's slow rise from the henchman in Uco's family. The action and tension is there: but it comes in short frenetic bursts that spike your heart rate in a teasing fashion, cutting you off at peak moments of excitement. During this first half, you might find yourself itching for a little more fighting, a little more payoff for the growing story. But just wait: The Raid 2's slow build eventually reaches its threshold of pressure and it explodes into a frenzy of some of the best action in film since...well, ever really. The characters are memorable, funny, and scary: a fan-favorite machete-wielder from the first Raid who has become long-haired and homeless, a deaf woman whose skill with a pair of sharp hammers puts Kill Bill's The Bride to shame, a dangerous thug who bashes skulls in with an aluminum baseball bat (and sometimes a baseball, too)--these fights reach a crescendo of action poetry that is unrivaled in modern fight films.
     And the credit really goes to director (and writer) Gareth Evans, a Welshman who become fascinated with film making and the Indonesian martial art called pencak silat which is prominent in his films. With The Raid 2, Evans has propelled himself to the forefront of action directors working today. His ability to make you feel like you're in the middle of the fight--with the innovative camera angles, jarring direction changes, and brutal efficiency--rather than just watching a fight is incredible. No American film will match the excitement of the last hour of The Raid 2 this year. It's essential viewing for any un-squeamish movie fan: a choreographed master-class in excess and excitement.     (A)

Captain America: A Tale of Two Soldiers

     Of all of the Marvel films that star one of the Avengers individually, Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) was my least favorite. There was nothing particularly bad about it: some of the pulpy story and action was enjoyable enough. But it had nothing memorable--no classic lines or brilliant action set pieces--to grasp onto. Since then, namely with The Avengers and Iron Man 3, the comic company has perfected the art of must-see superhero entertainment, stories filled with humor, tension and action scenes that showcase their 100+ million dollar budgets. So now we ride along to the second film in the Captain America series, The Winter Soldier. It's a solid--if unremarkable--spring movie. Showcasing a story where our hero Steve Rogers's foe is more of a corporation than a specific villain, The Winter Soldier is a more thoughtful Marvel film with notions of politics and surveillance. It's Captain America finding his way through modern America.
     In a world where it's nearly impossible to determine who to trust, Captain America must navigate the throes of S.H.I.E.L.D. itself, as always led by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). At the beginning of the film, Nick sends our Captain, a group of soldiers, and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) on a mission to a submarine that has been taken over by pirates--not Somalian like in the other Captain movie, Phillips, but Algerian terrorists. It showcases some of the fast-paced, more intimate fighting that Captain America performs. The Widow downloads some secret information, they save the hostages, and they head back home. Soon after, Fury himself gets attacked (seemingly because of the information of the zip drive that's now in his possession) while driving, and it becomes clear that a nameless force with infinite henchmen and government resources is trying to become a superpower, wiping out targets across America.
     This paranoia--that same worry that some Americans feel in this present day of Drone strikes and traffic light cameras--is present throughout Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Much of the film is spent with Captain America and Black Widow on the run (along with a new bird-like friend, portrayed by Anthony Mackie) , enemies of the state and of S.H.I.E.L.D. itself. If it feels familiar, that's because this notion has been explored before (and more skillfully) in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight. It's almost impossible to not see the similarities though, and it makes The Winter Soldier feel much more real than its WWII-set predecessor.

     These individual Avenger films follow a pretty specific formula--it's rare that we feel true danger for these characters, so there needs to be other entertaining aspects from them to stand out. Other than the focus on a political story, in Captain America: The Winter Soldier, the uniqueness comes in two new characters and the intense hand-to-hand fight scenes. It's interesting to see Robert Redford in a superhero film--the man doesn't appear on screen very often, so it's intriguing watching him portray Alexander Pierce, a higher-up in S.H.I.E.L.D. who clearly has motives of his own. He's a nice presence in the political intrigue. The Winter Soldier in the title is a villain who's as powerful as Captain America, and maybe they even have a connecting thread. He's a good antagonist: violent and ruthless. And when the two soldiers are pitted against each other, it makes for great superhero fight scenes.
     We all know that Marvel films can showcase some of the best action set pieces in the universe of big-budget film making. And though Captain America: The Winter Soldier contains large-scale Avengers-esque battles and explosions, it's the smaller fight scenes that are the real star of the action--the battles that are fought on the ground rather than in the air. Not too many American films can convey excitement when it comes to hand-to-hand combat, not after films like The Raid: Redemption that show you how realistic movie fighting can look, but The Winter Soldier performs admirably: they don't leave you breathless, but they seem much more brutal and real than the cartoony (but still fun) action in the Iron Man films.
      Chris Evans portrays Captain America as a man who is vulnerable--maybe not vulnerable to fists or bullets (he's quite capable of handling those), but to finding his place in a modern world that he still doesn't quite understand. It's a naivety that is charming, like the first few scenes in Thor after Chris Hemsworth crashes onto Earth. It's funny (enough) and likable. A few scenes drag in The Winter Soldier, and it could have been more concise, cutting a few of the plot points that lower your adrenaline too far. But the film is a thoughtful spring superhero film that is well-worth watching once: completely respectable and an above-average entry into the Marvel canon.     (B)

A Customer Complaint at The Grand Budapest Hotel

     It's become a bit of a cliche for Wes Anderson films. A reviewer will see his latest (undeniably pretty to look at) creation and state: "It surely won't change your opinion about Wes Anderson and all of his eccentricities!" Yes, I think we all know at this point: you either "get" Anderson and his never-fail Doll-House style film making, or you don't. To me, he's always been a bit hit or miss. For every Rushmore--a coming-of-age full of hilarious sarcasm--there's a Darjeeling Limited--a film that combined all of Anderson's quirks in the worst possizzzzzzzzzzzz...sorry, I fell asleep just thinking about it. And that's the thing about Wes Anderson: his films inspire wonderful praise or intense hatred depending on who you talk to. The Grand Budapest Hotel, his new one, has all the makings of classic Anderson: a great cast, a luscious and exotic setting, and stellar reviews. But nothing sticks. Peering into the past for a story (mainly) about the bond between a talented hotel concierge and his lobby boy, Budapest doesn't have characters as much as thinly-drawn caricatures. It's a Hotel that left me feeling vacant.
     Anderson's latest doohickey of a film is a story within a story within a story, a sort of Russian nesting doll that takes place over 3 different time periods, though one (the period starting in the year 1932, the beginning of the end of the hotel's glory days) is significantly more prominent (and also shown in a different aspect ratio, making it feel older). The main story revolves around Gustave (Ralph Fiennes, who performs admirably enough), the Hotel's concierge who sees to the "needs" of the older women clientele who frequent the establishment. He befriends a new Lobby Boy, Zero (Tony Revolori [as a kid] and F. Murray Abraham [as an adult]), and when one of his most-loved older women dies, Gustave and Zero try to outmaneuver her family dealing with the inheritance, mainly a painting titled Boy with Apple that's basically priceless. They decide to make off with the painting rather than wait for the legal proceedings.
     They meet a wide assortment of characters during their caper journey, the most entertaining being Harvey Keitel as a fellow prisoner once Gustave gets tossed behind bars. Adrien Brody pops up as the deceased Madam's son, Dmitri. Needless to say he's not happy with Gustave showing up to take a portion of his inheritance, so he sends a henchman, J. G. Jopling (Willem Dafoe, who doesn't so much as act as sneer and growl), to pursue the pair. The story then unravels through Anderson's detailed imagination jumping from location to location, the history of the coming war in the background.

     Many other actors--like flocking birds--appear throughout The Grand Budapest Hotel: Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Edward Norton, and the always-present-for-Anderson Jason Schwartzman. But rather than showing up to become fully (or even partially) fleshed-out characters, their purpose more-often-than not seems to be a wink at the audience. Oh, look who just popped onto the screen, Bill Murray, haha! Like in The Darjeeling Limited (Anderson's worst film), Budapest tries to be funny and clever but it rarely makes you laugh. It's full of emotional themes that could easily have some resonance but end up getting sucked below the eccentricity.
     I did enjoy Fiennes as Gustave (at least in the first half of the film), and since he's the main star, he gets most of the screen time, allowing us to relate a little bit more than the other actors who are playing dress-up. But his shtick, full of the colorful and quirky language (this time with a 1930's flair) that Anderson is well-known for, still grows tiresome by the time the credits roll. The good Anderson films contain funny characters and idiosyncratic dialogue too: but they allow allow their characters to live and breath. There are moments of silence...moments of thoughtful emotional plangency. The Grand Budapest Hotel barely has any--it's plot point after plot point, location to different situations. Nobody grows. There's just a lot of narration. And when the climax travels back to the start of it all, the lobby (more incredible set design) of the Grand Hotel, I was too busy checking out of my room to care.    (C)

The Passion of Noah

     Adapting Biblical stories is a slippery slope. The director or screenwriter is bound to piss somebody off: either the story stays too close to the source material (annoying non-believers) or strays too far away from it (drawing the ire of believers). The story of Noah and his Ark was bound to take certain liberties with the original story, since there isn't nearly enough material to keep viewers gripped for two hours and twenty minutes (the run time of this film). There is one reason that I was intrigued with this adaptation of the story: director Darren Aronofsky. And like all of his previous films, Noah has moments of tension, of fascination, of awe-inspiring visuals. And if you take it as a fantasy epic--part disaster film, part family saga, part cautionary tale (of climate change, of religious fundamentalism)--rather than a "true" story, you're bound to leave the theater completely satisfied. It's the best adult film so far of 2014 (though that's not saying much).
       Noah is quite a jump for Darren Aronofsky, but he makes the leap to big-budget spectacle successfully, maintaining plenty of the indie quirks and excitement that he has showcased throughout his career, namely in the haunting Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler, and Black Swan. Aronofsky is a self-described Atheist, and ultimately that helps Noah become more than just a straight adaptation of a Biblical passage. An expensive movie about Noah's Ark starring big-name actors is going to have plenty of Wow! moments with computer generated animals and rushing/roaring water that blasts out of the theater speakers better than a Roland Emmerich film. He even inserts battles that fit more into Crowe's Gladiator than a story about a man possessed with an idea. But it's the smaller moments that truly give you goosebumps: Aronofsky's quick-cut directing (reminiscent of the drug use scenes in Requiem), the scenes with Noah, his family, and his descent into madness, like an ancient Glenn Beck who thinks he's acting out the word of God.
     Russell Crowe portrays Noah, and it's his best role in years, a return to form after films like Broken City, State of Play, and Body of Lies (let's be honest--he wasn't a stellar singer in 2012's Les Miserables). From the first moment we see him, when he's teaching his sons about not soiling God's creation (a thinly-veiled metaphor about environmental preservation that pops up now and then like flowers from the soil), it's easy to see that he's a good man. He loves his family: his wife, Naameh (Jennifer Connelly, arresting as always), his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth (Douglas Booth, Logan Lerman, and Leo McHugh Carroll), and Ila (Emma Watson), an injured girl they take in.

     What really sets Noah in motion is a vision that the titular character gets in the throes of a dream (showcased with typical Aronofsky flourish): a violent flood, corpses of people and animals in the water, a great wooden structure above that's bathed in light, a signal of safety. This prophecy begins the change in Noah's arc (his character, not the boat): he becomes obsessed with this vision, traveling towards a mountain where his grandfather, Methuselah (a charming Anthony Hopkins), resides. It's here that Noah meets the Watchers, massive CGI stone creatures (who are also fallen angels) that decide to help him with the mission at hand. Some might find these rocky beings corny or far too fantastical--but I thought they added to the spectacle.
     Though Noah has incredible willpower and the brute strength of the enormous living rocks, building the Ark isn't an easy task. Planting a seed from the original Garden of Eden (given to him by his grandfather), a massive forest intersected with streams is created, providing the supplies needed to build a damn big boat. Animals begin flocking to the area, a horde of many species walking (or slithering) in line to enter the Ark. But this draws the attention of other people too: namely Tubal-Cain (an entertaining-as-always Ray Winstone), who believes that the will of Man is bigger than an empty vision by a creator. And Tubal has a nothing-to-lose army--when the rain starts falling, thousands swarm (outfitted with jagged weapons) to jump aboard, battling with Noah, his family, and the powerful boulder-creatures in an action set-piece that's slathered in blood-and-rain-soaked excitement.
      And yet again, we go back to the smaller moments, the ideas that make Noah a really solid film. Crowe's growing tyranny grows to epic proportions, and it's haunting to watch a man (willing to go way too far) come unglued due to a vision that he's not positive he even interpreted correctly. Just like when reading a religious text, thoughts, visions, dreams, and ideas can turn into fundamentalist views that put mankind (and even more shocking, Noah's own family) at great risk. The climate change metaphor is there too: you can choose to bury your head in the sand (like a Fox News anchor) if you want to ignore it. But the true parable of Aronofsky's Noah, an adaptation of a Biblical story, is just how violently far people can go in the name of their unproven God.     (B+)

300: Rise of the 6-Pack Abs

     I never got on the 300 train the first time around when the original blasted its way into theaters almost eight years ago in all of its brawny, bloody glory. Sure, it was a spectacle: but one can only put up with so much stylistic slo-mo before they get burnt out like a spent light bulb, sizzling away with a lack of substance. So I was a skeptic when the news of a parallel sorta-sequel was coming out. The trailers didn't do much for me (they looked like much more of the same). But--surprisingly--300: Rise of an Empire left me feeling (basically) entertained. Focusing more on naval battles between a new hero and a sexy and treacherous villain (portrayed with fervor by former Bond Girl Eva Green), the new 300 is a serviceable entry of super violence, sex and style that barely lets up steam during its short 100 minute run time.
     That's not to say that 300: Rise of an Empire is a great film or anything (not even close)--but in the doldrums of winter, you could do far worse than watching attractive and fit people creatively slaughter each other on various epic 3-D battlegrounds. And the 3-D is actually good too, worth the price of admission even, the blades and blood slicing across the screen seemingly right in front of your very eyes. It has its typical problems during the darker battle scenes, muddying the image and making it harder to decipher what exactly is going on. But the pros of its 3-D presentation outweigh the cons.
     Gerard Butler made his name with the original 300, and ever since his career trajectory has basically been on a downward spiral (except for maybe last year's fun Die Hard-in-the-White-House film Olympus Has Fallen). He's not in Rise of an Empire; we get a new hero, Themistokles (Sullivan Stapleton), and though he doesn't share quite the same alpha-male machismo as Butler, he does a serviceable job as a man who needs to inspire confidence in his troops when they are severely outnumbered at sea. Themistokles (told through a flashback scene), killed the father of God King Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro), who was in the first film, and now Xerxes needs to avenge the death of his dear old dad. He's got a secret weapon: the cunning and deadly Artemisia (Eva Green), who leads the Persian forces in the high-stakes sea battles against the Themistokles-led Greeks.

     She's the best part of this new incarnation in the 300 universe (I'm sure with their success that we'll see more in the future), eating every scene she's in with a fiery fierceness. In one scene, she decapitates an enemy and proceeds to tenderly kiss the bleeding head. In another, she is the focus of a violent sex scene that gives new meaning to the term "lover's quarrel". Sorry for the spoilers, but you're either going to see this movie or not--it probably won't take my convincing. Without her, the film would lack a necessary womanly touch that balances the brawn of the men. She's the funniest and most entertaining aspect. All of her antics lead up to a large-scale finale that is okay but doesn't leave you breathless. But really, who cares about any of the story here--no professor will show this in any History 101 classes.
      We're here to escape the real world for an hour and a half. Maybe it's because nothing of note has gotten a wide release so far this year, but while watching 300: Rise of an Empire, time flew by, blood squirted like it came out of a Super-Soaker's barrel, and limbs were hacked off to fly in every direction. I realize that may not be your cup of tea. But my cup was filled just enough to be considered worthwhile.     (B-)

Thoughts on HBO's True Detective

     It's not hyperbole (even with my extreme love of all things branded with the HBO logo) to say that True Detective is the best new television show in the past three years (at least). That it came out so shortly after the ending of the epic AMC series Breaking Bad (some argued that when Walt went away, the Golden Age of T.V. would bite the dust too) is even more impressive: you'd think there would be a lull in such frightening, tension-slathered entertainment.

The story of Det. Rust Cohle (Matthew McConaughey) and Det. Marty Hart (Woody Harrelson) and their efforts to catch a potential serial killer is halfway through its opening season. There are only 8 episodes--this is a blessing and a curse: of course we, the viewers, want to see as much as possible of this incredible entertainment (especially when such trash gets upwards of twenty episodes a season on network television), but we all know quality is far more important in the game of premium networks. A short season of 8 episodes allows the story to keep on track and the tension to stay as high as Rust on a coke binge.

You're actually not going to see better performances on a television show this year. I'm confident of that. I was originally excited to see Woody Harrelson sink his teeth into a dramatic role, especially one on a no-holds-barred network like HBO. And no doubt he's a force--his inner struggles with balancing his family and the investigation is never more apparent when he lashes after a few drinks. His interaction with Cohle is even better: you can almost taste the annoyance and occasional hatred that the two feel for one another. But McConaughey as Cohle is a straight-up revelation. Most know to take him serious lately (after Magic Mike, Dallas Buyers Club, Mud, etc.), but in True Detective (after only four episodes) he is showing us one of his best performances of his entire career. The show is split between 1995 (when the detectives are working the case) and 17 years later, when the former partners are being interviewed separately by two other detectives. The contrast between the two time periods is made most apparent McConaghey's skill of showing a broken-down man with plenty to hide.

Plenty of shows in recent years have explored the "who-dunnit" narrative structure: giving you plenty of red herrings and false-plot twists to cliffhanger you into watching the next episode (like AMC's The Killing, which I enjoyed enough). And True Detective has plenty of intense twists and turns that demand to be seen before they're discussed at the water cooler (or email chain) come Monday morning. Everyone has their own theory about what character is involved, what metaphors are pointing you in whoever's direction, and what specific symbolism makes you scream, "The killer is most definitely that dude!" But what sets True Detective apart is the fact that it doesn't especially matter who the killer is. Sure, it will be exciting to finally found out: but--like many great novels--it's Cohle and Hart's journey and change that truly matters.

True Detective, like a few great shows--The Sopranos, Breaking Bad--before it, expertly blends (and sometimes erases) the line between film and television. Episode 4, in particular, really made you realize this. The show this past Sunday (it airs at 9pm EST) finished with a 6-minute tracking shot with no camera cuts through an action-packed and dangerous housing complex. It was one of those wow moments that is extremely rare in television. It instantly brought to mind some of Alfonso Cuaron's best moments in the modern classic Children of Men. It's barely an exaggeration: True Detective gives you the reasons to confidently say that you're witnessing something rare and special. It helps that all 8 episodes were directed by one person (Cary Fukunaga, who directed 2011's film Jane Eyre) and written by one person (newcomer Nic Pizzolatto). It maintains a constant thread of awesomeness.

Now is the time to catch up! If you love great drama television, buy HBO for a month or "borrow" an HBO GO password (not mine) and spend 4 hours with it by this Sunday night. You won't regret it. Time is of the essence, because Rust and Marty's story ends in a little over 4 weeks. True Detective is pulling a similar strategy as FX's American Horror Story: every season (though it hasn't been renewed for a second season yet, it's nearly inevitable) is going to contain a new story with new characters and actors. It's not going to pull a Killing and barely reveal anything through 20 episodes. Shit has already gotten real, and there are only 4 episodes left. Get on it, and watch True Detective before your friends have asked, "Have you seen True Detective?!?"

Clear and No Surpises--Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

     There's no real reason to call Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit a Tom Clancy movie: sure, some of the characters are based upon the late author's, but there isn't too much to differentiate between Jack and Jason Bourne or Ethan Hunt--other than Jack Ryan, in this 5th incarnation that features the character (dating back to Alec Baldwin's portrayal in 1990's The Hunt for Red October) is less exciting than most. He's just a pretty face who knows how to handle himself in stressful situations, instead of a gruff and entertaining machismo like what Harrison Ford brought to the table. Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit contains all of the ingredients to make delicious spy-movie stew (a good director and supporting cast, an intriguing echoes-of-Cold-War story): but since this incarnation of the Ryan character is so bland, Shadow Recruit becomes a tame and by-the-numbers action movie. It barely satiates your appetite.
    Chris Pine stars as the titular character, and he has enough charm to definitely make Jack likable. But he's more fitted to the cocky swagger of Captain Kirk than the humble Marine turned Wall Street compliance officer that Jack Ryan is in this "reboot" of the so-called franchise. We first meet Jack as he witnesses the 9/11 attacks from London, where he's attending their School of Economics. Deciding to become a Marine, he gets deployed to Afghanistan to fight for his country. Events transpire that cause him to become a hero, and people take notice: most notably Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner, in full-on mentor mode) and Dr. Cathy Muller (Keira Knightley), his rehab nurse who gets all googly-eyed at his quick progress.
     So begins this reboot, minus any significant excitement that the viewer got from Bond's reboot in Casino Royale or Batman's in Batman Begins. We flash-forward 10 years, and Jack is working under cover on Wall Street for the CIA, trying to decipher terrorist activity through stocks, companies and numbers. He soon finds enough information about some peculiar transactions, and he gets sent to Moscow on what turns out is his first operational mission, complete with assassins, constant surveillance and a loaded handgun.

     Much of Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit's tension revolves around typing on a computer or plugging a drive into a port or hacking into security systems. It's all very hi-tech, but there's only so much excitement one can draw from fast-moving fingers on a computer screen with hundreds of codes and passwords flying by. We get a villain, Victor Cheverin (Kenneth Branagh, who also directed), a Russian who plans to bring down America's economic system. But villains have been far more complex and terrifying in many different Bond films. Sometimes you may wonder how Victor even became so powerful, since he gets duped numerous times by ideas that are in the Obvious 101 handbook. The climax of the film is kind of laughable and anticlimactic, featuring a generic motorcycle chase scene and some hand-to-hand combat where the viewer can barely decipher who is punching who.
      These first couple of months of the new year are usually the cinematic dumping grounds, where studios drop off films without originality or wit to die. Occasionally, viewers can come upon a surprise: but Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit surely isn't it. The cast and director Kenneth Branagh (who has the skills--he directed the first Thor) do fine with the standard script, but the lack of major excitement and the absence of any thought-provoking views make this Jack Ryan a film that won't be remembered a few months from now.     (C+)

Top 10 Films of 2013

     I don't know if anyone could claim that the year 2013 was a great year for film making: sure, there were some gems, but they were few and far between and were sandwiched between dozens of below-average efforts. A question begs to be asked: does Hollywood know that much of the public is tired of the same ol' stuff? By the looks of the first few months of 2014, it seems that the answer is "No". However, it didn't stop me from watching 72 films released in the year 2013. Here are my favorites:



Honorable Mentions:

25. Enough Said
24. Don Jon
23. Her
22. Side Effects
21. Oblivion
20. Upstream Color
19. American Hustle
18. Dallas Buyers Club
17. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
16. The Place Beyond the Pines
15. Pacific Rim
14. Blue Jasmine
13. This is the End
12. Out of the Furnace
11. Before Midnight

10.

Rush

Ron Howard's Rush is an exciting sports film, and it's filled with great competition and a cockiness that makes every minute fun to watch. If you don't know the specifics of the true story, even better: the rivalry between Britain's James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Austria's Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl) during the 1976 Formula 1 racing season has as many twists and turns as an event at Watkins Glen. But there's one reason Rush races ahead of more average sports stories: Daniel Bruhl's portrayal of Niki Lauda. If Bruhl's face looks familiar, he had roles in Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds and was in one of the Bourne films, but in Rush he really becomes a name to watch. As "rat-faced" Niki, Bruhl portrays a racing obsession (and making his life goal beating cocky playboy James Hunt) with a charm and likability that grows as the film's minutes zoom by. And after a race that changes both of the drivers' lives forever, James and Niki's competition morphs into an ever-growing respect for one another that defines the rest of their lives.

9.

Short Term 12

This little indie film probably isn't on your radar, but it should be. It's mostly about a character named Grace (Brie Larson) who works at a facility for at-risk teenagers. These kids come from broken homes, or they've been molested, or they have anger issues that don't allow them to communicate well with others their age. Short Term 12 is about the people who basically dedicate their lives to make a difference in the kids' lives. It could have easily (and quickly) fallen into TV movie cliches and eye-rolling, but it somehow sidesteps most of the pitfalls of the genre, becoming an emotional experience that is sad, heart-breaking and hopeful from scene-to-scene. Brie Larson is a wonder as Grace, and John Gallagher, Jr.'s Mason (you might recognize him from HBO's The Newsroom) is funny and touching, as he slowly comes to realize the reasons why Grace is so passionate about her work. It can be a little corny at times (no story about social work avoids that), but Short Term 12 has the most true-life emotion of any film this year.

8.

Gravity

Alfonso Cuaron created one of my favorite films of the last decade in 2006's Children of Men: the cold and realistic setting was made even more real when the theater I saw it in (during the winter time) hadn't turned on the heat yet due to its early matinee showing. We could actually see our breath. I went to see Gravity at the IMAX and had a similar experience (but not due to the temperature): the big enveloping screen made me feel like I was actually floating in space, adding to the weightlessness feeling that is prevalent throughout the film. Gravity instilled a sense of panic in my nervous system that I wasn't sure was possible in modern cinema. It's also the most technically brilliant film 2013: though I couldn't really care less about the story (or Sandra Bullock's dead child plot line), Gravity is sheer glory in its special effects, computer generated imagery, and its use of sound (or lack thereof, due to the vacuum of space). No, Gravity doesn't have a great story, and it didn't come close to affecting me like Children of Men, but it's a master class in the potential of where film making may be headed in the coming years.

7.

Blackfish

Blackfish is the best documentary of the year. It's also one of the most thrilling films, period. You're stuck in you're own little bubble if you think this story of the behavior of killer whales in captivity (particularly at SeaWorld) is just liberal propaganda or just another basic sob story of animal cruelty (not that those aren't relevant, too). Focusing on Tilikum, a killer whale whose bloodline is full of rage and violent outbursts against trainers at ocean-life parks, Blackfish plays out like a horror movie: it's drowning in shocks and incredibly violent moments that almost take your breath away. It can also bring tears to your eyes--not just because of the living conditions or treatment of the killer whales (which surely is sad enough), but because of the trainers whose lives have been altered even if they had perfectly good intentions. Blackfish does two things: it makes you never want to go to SeaWorld (if you ever did, anyway), and it solidifies its status as top-notch documentary film making.

6.

Tie: 

Iron Man 3 

Star Trek Into Darkness 

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

If Hollywood did something correctly in 2013, it may have been big-budget sequels. Most were better than their previous installments (Maybe not Star Trek Into Darkness, but it was at least as good), something that is rare in this era that puts more stock into watching the money roll in than the actual quality of a film. These three were the best of the bunch:

Iron Man 3: This sequel far surpassed Iron Man 2. Reinvigorated by director Shane Black (of 90's era action movie fame), this incarnation of Tony Stark's story is full of wit and incredibly done comic-book action sequences (that plane scene) that leave you breathless. It unfortunately still contains Gwyneth Paltrow, but an entertaining Guy Pearce is a nice touch. 

Star Trek Into Darkness: Many fans were pissed about the big reveal (that wasn't much of a reveal at all): it's Khan! How dare they do another story about Khan? But I really didn't care. It's every bit as fun as J.J. Abrams' first installment, and Benedict Cumberbatch's villainous performance is thrilling. I could listen to him read J. R. R. Tolkien and it would be entertaining--and I did later in the year, because he's the voice of the dragon Smaug in the newest Hobbit. 

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire: I was wondering how the filmmakers would pull off "The Clock" (the new arena for the competitors). I thought they did an admirable job. The budget was almost double of the original, and it's easy to tell: the action and special effects are slicker and more exciting. And though Jennifer Lawrence can show off her acting chops easier in other roles, she embodies Katniss and is as watchable as ever. 

5.

You're Next

You're Next was some of the most fun that I've had at the movies this year, and that's why it has climbed so high on my list. In a year full of pretty good (not amazing) movies taking on serious subject matter (many of which take themselves a little too seriously), You're Next was a breath of fresh air--well, not too fresh, with all of the bloody mist flying about. It starts off as a typical low-budget slasher film with some less-than-stellar acting: a wealthy family is having a reunion at their remote Missouri mansion. There's plenty of family tension with arguing and dick-measuring (not literally). The crew sits down for dinner and...all Hell breaks loose. Outfitted with creepy animal masks, a group of intruders begins to assault the house, picking off members of the family with brutal weapons and excessive violence. It's short and sweet at 95 minutes (more would have been too much), and it's slathered with stylistic horror, it's full of laughs and it has a heroine who is significantly more than what she seems. A fun time.

4.

Mud

Matthew McConaughey is the man. Throughout the past couple of years, he has completely transformed himself into a damn fine American actor: Killer Joe, Magic Mike, Dallas Buyer's Club, The Wolf of Wall Street--his roles in all of these films (however big or small) are memorable and are the work of a person at the top of their game. He's already garnering praise for HBO's new show True Detective and also is starring in one of my most anticipated films of 2014, Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. Mud is no different. Directed by the skilled independent director Jeff Nichols (Shotgun Stories, Take Shelter), Mud is a modern day Mark Twain-esque story about two coming-of-age boys and a strange man on the run (McConaughey), taking place among the swamps of the Mississippi River. It has the essence of a fairy tale: Nichols directs the setting and nature of the area to make it feel almost timeless. But McConaughey's performance is what anchors Mud: it's full of sadness and regret, but also a fierce excitement and hope. Many people didn't like the violent outburst of an ending. But I thought it solidified Mud as an unsettling parable about growing up.

3.

12 Years A Slave

If you had seen director Steve McQueen's other two films, Hunger and Shame, you'd realize that the man can take on any subject, making it riveting and uncomfortable viewing. American slavery is already an uncomfortable subject, one that hasn't been portrayed that well in cinema (I'm not counting last year's revenge fantasy Django Unchained). Until now: 12 Year's a Slave is necessary viewing, and not just for white liberals who want to suffer in guilt because of their ancestors. For everyone. Some of the film follows a pretty standard path, but a few particulars stand-out: Michael Fassbender's scary portrayal of slave owner Edwin Epps. Can he just be a part of every film from now on? Chiwitel Ejiofor's portrayal of Solomon Northup, a free black man who wakes up in chains after a night of drinking, and realizes the tightrope walk of life and death that he's now living. And two scenes that are incredibly difficult to watch: Solomon hanging from a noose with his tiptoes barely touching the ground and Solomon having to whip another slave to save his own life. McQueen's handling of these scenes transforms them into some of the best of the year.

2.

Prisoners

Prisoners is far from a feel-good movie. It has the kind of story that gets under your skin and sits there, festering until a resolution allows the pressure to dissipate. It's incredibly powerful: when Keller Dover's (Hugh Jackman) daughter gets kidnapped, how far should he take himself into an abyss of violence when he thinks he knows who committed the crime? And can Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhall) locate the girls before it's far too late? Both Jackman and Gyllenhall have top-notch performances, but I'm especially partial to Gyllenhaal's: his Detective seems typical at first (single, incredible solving-crimes record), but it's not long before you can see something boiling under the surface of his nervous tics. But the real star of Prisoners is director Denis Villeneuve. This is his first American film, and his beautiful direction, transfixing imagery and incredible use of darkness and light allows Prisoners to transcend a normal kidnapping film, becoming a dread-filled exercise in great film making. 

1.

The Wolf of Wall Street

No film this year is crazier than The Wolf of Wall Street, the story of stockbroker Jordan Belfort and his rise from pushing penny stocks at a rundown strip mall operation to snorting cocaine out of an expensive stripper's butt hole. And no performance reaches the highs of Leonardo DiCaprio's: his passion, his insanity, his hilarity, his powerful speeches, his shocking bursts of emotion. Martin Scorsese--DiCaprio's frequent collaborator (and after Wolf, let's hope these two have even more in store for us in the near future)--has created a three-hour film about sex, drugs and America that consistently pushes the boundaries of good taste and misogyny yet crosses the line so quickly that the audience refuses to care. It's the work and cockiness of (since Scorsese is 71) a much younger man. You may think The Wolf of Wall Street is a drama about stock brokers on Wall Street who behave badly on their free time. But you'd be wrong: The Wolf of Wall Street is a bleak black comedy--and it's one of the funniest films of the year.