American Hustle

Cinema's new directorial darling, David O. Russell, drops us smack dab into the middle of the 1970's with musical accompaniment that would make Cameron Crowe jealous. The costumes are pitch perfect as the opening scene finds Christian Bale meticulously applying a ridiculous toupee and pinning his combover into place in a painstakingly detailed process. The end result is about the same as the movie, an amazing process and an ironically tacky ending.

Bale for my money is one of the best, and he doesn't disappoint as Irving Rosenfeld. He's a New York grifter who you just can't help but feel a little compassionate for. That's the brilliance of Bale. He's so authentic, even as a scumbag that you care for his character a little. In this case it adds to the story blurring the lines between right and wrong, good and bad. Amy Adams is Sydney Prosser, the love of his life. Kindred spirits and similar scruples, they are a harmless Bonnie and Clyde, until they are caught by shady FBI agent DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). He lives with his mom and desperately wants to be a big time crime fighter. His heart is in the right place, but his motives and methods make him a bit of a loose cannon. His tightly permed hair and cheap suits do his character justice as he shows yet another quality acting performance. Jeremy Renner, Louis CK, and Robert DeNiro all turn in great supporting roles, but the most talked about and probably most volatile is Jennifer Lawrence as Bale's estranged wife, Rosalyn. They share a son and a sort of dysfunctional family dynamic that is endearing. There's no abuse, but there's a lot of frustration and misunderstanding, but it's cute in the way that David O. Russell made mental illness cute in Silver Linings Playbook. If that makes any sense.

American Hustle is a comedy at heart, but it tries to do too much. Mostly based on a true story, as disclaimed at the beginning, we get the sense that this is going to be a major corruption scandal, and the resolution is mostly satisfying, but in retrospect, it's a bit of a lightweight story. No real plot twists, no double crossing, and DeNiro was only in one scene (which he owned), which could have been a much more special role. The film hits style and period right on the nose, and you feel like you're in the 1970's from the get-go, but it just sort of fizzles.

The point of this film is to put an amazing ensemble cast together during the "it" period (1970's) for cinema right now. Argo struck gold with it last year, and the costume, makeup, and set designers must be loving the resurgence of the era. I wouldn't be surprised if American Hustle out-hustles some of the other films for Oscar gold. Lawrence and Bale have rarely if ever been better, Cooper is in his element, Adams is stunning, and Renner plays out of type, which is refreshing, as his character Carmine Polito, the mayor of Camden, NJ is very likable for a bit of a goombah. Don't count the commas in that last sentence please.

Amy Adams will get a Best Actress nomination and Jennifer Lawrence will get a Best Supporting Actress nomination. These are the two sure things, but there are a lot of other possibilities. That's the great thing about the O. Russell phenomenon. He creates ripe characters and has found his muses (this cast is basically a combination of The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook). He evokes great performances and is gaining a reputation as an Oscar magnet. Although I don't personally think it's the best film of the year (Captain Phillips, Gravity) it might be more audience-friendly than the gritty 12 Years a Slave, which is sitting on top of the field right now. The Academy loved Argo, and this has the same vibe, but without the suspense or tension.

The film doesn't really do it for me, and it's because of the ending. I'm not going to give anything away, but I found Bale and Adams to be very likable criminals, and Cooper to be a bit of a loser as a cop. Maybe that's the rub as it's not a typical heist flick, but there isn't enough action for my money. Put these great actors and actresses in a room and see what happens is a more accurate description. Perhaps if the humorous element was removed, and some danger was injected it would have been a bit more fulfilling.

In any case, it's a fun film full of nomination potential, and O. Russell has truly found his niche with a third straight base hit. Not a homerun, and not quite as good as Silver Linings Playbook, but good enough. See it for the acting. See it for Bale's toupee and belly. See it for Lawrence's ranting breakdowns, see it for Cooper's ridiculous perm, and see it for Adams' plunging dressline. Don't expect a great story though. 7/10.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Hours 13-15 of Peter Jackson's 18 hour Tolkien homage take us into the lair of Smaug, the fire-breathing dragon who is guarding the Arkenstone, the gem that can restore unity to the Dwarf tribes, and give them the power to take back their homeland. Meanwhile, the evil Sauron prepares to take over all of Middle Earth and spread darkness throughout the land.

Once again, the fate of Middle Earth depends on the courage of a simple Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins. Surrounded by Elves, Dwarves, Wizards, Orcs, Goblins, and a handful of men, he continues his quest to find a sacred gem, running into peril over and over, and ironically being the one who saves the day repeatedly. He is becoming more of a hero and a fighter than I remember from the book, but then again, Peter Jackson has taken a handful of liberties in his retelling of the story.

The most noticeable liberty being the addition of Tauriel, a lowly yet incredibly attractive elf warrior (Evangeline Lilly) who desperately loves the son of the Elf King Thranduil (Lee Pace), but will forever live unrequited because of their class differences. The son of the King, Legolas (Orlando Bloom), makes a reappearance after being a fan favorite in the first three LOTR films, and he has a decidedly bitter attitude. I couldn't tell if that was intentional, or if the point was to show his combat prowess. Either way, it was strange to see him over ten years older, playing a character many years younger. A bit out of place, but I'm sure it appeased the masses of fans. The Dwarves are again led by the selfish and prideful Thorin Oakenshield, who is thrust into the film's lead role, and loses a lot of his luster as his actions are often cold and without thought of the safety of his men (or entire towns or villages). He of course has the opportunity to redeem himself in the final act, hours 16-18, but I left the theatre kind of hoping that he would get burned up by Smaug.

Speaking of Smaug. Voiced by the unmistakable Benedict Cumberbatch, the visuals are amazing. It's somewhere between and hour and a half and two hours into the movie when we finally get to see him, and he is a spectacular feat of computer generated magic. He toys with Bilbo in a wonderful conversation that is the antithesis of Bilbo's showdown with the harmless Gollum (who I kind of missed this time around). The dragon steals the show, as is the intent. The first half of the film just builds to the inevitable and although there is some action, there's only so much excitement that follows a band of Dwarves and a Hobbit. Smaug is incredible. If there were an award for "Best Dragon", he would win it for sure. But there's not, so...

One parallel story follows Gandalf and his wanderlust around Middle Earth as he leaves abruptly to answer one of life's ponderous questions. He is of course put in harms way, and has to battle with his magic to escape. A second story and seemingly unnecessary finds a simmering love growing between a young Dwarf, and Tauriel. It's odd and out of place, but I guess every action epic needs a love story of some sort, and no offense, but Hobbit women are pretty frumpy. And yet a third storyline follows a new character, Bard the bargeman (the bowman, played by Luke Evans) as we get to see the lake town that seems a terrible place to live. Cold, wet, and literally built on water. What is this, Venice? Of course, next winter's act three (or six if you're splitting hairs), The Hobbit: There and Back Again, will find the humans of Laketown battling Smaug, aided only by Dwarves, Elves, and one small, but courageous Hobbit. Oh Bilbo, you are so adventurous.

What I like about Jackson's storytelling is that he establishes parallel storylines so that it is possible for him to escape dull moments quickly and easily, and skip to some more engaging action sequences with the others. He builds action slowly. Almost too slowly in many cases, but his attention to detail in setting, characters, and the world in which they live is remarkable. Twenty or thirty years from now, the six Lord of the Rings films will be remembered as a cinematic achievement second only to the Avatar quadrilogy (just you wait - parts 2, 3, and 4 will revolutionize cinema). Much like Star Wars was supposed to before the disappointing Phantom Menace, Peter Jackson has created five (let's be honest, how could he possibly screw up part 6?) incredibly consistent and high quality films. He is the master of this genre, and how can he possibly move on to other projects after this?

I love these films, but to be honest, I'm getting pretty tired of them. Blasphemy you say, but I've hit a point where it's just not giving me anything I haven't seen before. For the big finale, I would love to see something shocking, or out of character for Jackson. What we will probably get though, is an hour long farewell to our Hobbit family, and a long, drawn out closure to the entire story. It's going to be fitting however it ends up, and I'll be the first in line for the epic last chapter. It will hold a place in cinematic history to be sure, but that's for the whole collection, not The Hobbit part 2. 7/10 for nostalgia and Smaug.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

My hope is that Suzanne Collins is working on a Caesar Flickerman spinoff featuring two hours of Stanley Tucci doing his sparkling white-chomper, bouffont hair, purple eyebrowed, over-the-top gameshow host persona. His character portrayal is probably the greatest display of Tucci's talent because it's just so much fun.

The second film adaptation in the bestselling YA sci-fi trilogy is finally here and is bigger than its predecessor in many ways: Budget, star-power, violence, and political dissidence. Coming in at nearly two and a half hours, it follows the District 12 Hunger Games victors as they travel their victory tour, witnessing the discontent and squalor in a nod to the growing socio-economic class divide embracing their dystopian society. Katniss and Peeta, the darlings from the 74th annual Hunger Games, are forced back into the arena for the 75th anniversary "Quarter Quell" where surviving victors are pitted against each other in order to cull the inspirational herd, a reunion devised by evil President Snow, who is looking to put down any possible rebellion. Ultimately, the film lays out the groundwork for the two part finale, Mockingjay, which will be a major departure from the theme of the first two games... er, I mean movies. I worry that the franchise could be in danger of taking a "Matrix" turn, but feel that the material and characters are strong enough to avoid that potential franchise collapse.

Katniss is a very well-cast Jennifer Lawrence, who although just won an Oscar last year, will forever be known as the girl on fire. I'm not sure if two more full films of her as the heroine of Panem is going to be good for her professional image, but she's still young and has decades of work in front of her so it doesn't really matter. She's getting paid, and is looking great doing it. Her emotions are at a higher level than what most early-20's actresses would be able to conjure for a film of this magnitude. It's less about a badass girl with a bow and arrow, and more about a girl who is surviving and inspiring others in a broken world. She was a great choice and shines again in Catching Fire.

Peeta is a slightly older, slightly wiser, slightly more handsome Josh Hutcherson. He fits the role much better now, and will only fill into the heartthrob role that he was lucky to get a couple of years ago. His character is the anchor that defines the humanity of the world. He does well, and I can see that if he packs on a few pounds of muscle, he might break out in Mockingjay and build himself a nice little future career path. Let me say, he didn't annoy me the way he did in the first film. Although his character is pretty weakly written.

Supporting cast members from the first film return, notably Donald Sutherland, Lenny Kravitz, Elizabeth Banks, and Woody Harrelson, and we are introduced to a handful of new ones. Most worthy of mention are Philip Seymour Hoffman as the new gamemaker, Jena Malone as Katniss' vampy rival vixen, Sam Claflin as my favorite character, Finnick Odair, and a very small role by Jeffrey Wright, one of the most under-appreciated actors today. They all assimilate into the world of Hunger Games, and do it with alacrity. The world created by director Francis Lawrence is believable and bleak, but I'll expand on that below.

I liked that there was a certain amount of assumed knowledge of the story, as there isn't anyone in America who doesn't know of the franchise, and probably who hasn't either read the book and/or seen the first film. Catching Fire is the only film in 2013 that might be able to rival Iron Man 3's mega-success, but time will tell if it hits the international $1 billion mark. I vote yes. Anyway, the advantage of a sequel is that there isn't the necessary groundwork to lay. We know who the characters are, their motivation and relationships, and we're aware of the rules of the universe in which the film operates. This was a double edged sword as some of the routines that Katniss and Peeta went through seemed a bit redundant after the tension-laden original film of 2012. For example, the tribute training seemed to lack the nervous energy and spirit of competition. The countdown to the beginning of the games was less of a heart-pounding uncertain event, and more of a "come on, let's get on with the show" kind of scene. I know it sounds strange, but even at two and a half hours, some of the critical scenes seemed a bit rushed. The artistic interpretation of the gap fillers dragged on more than it needed to, and although there was more material to cover, I wish the darker tone had made the film a bit more violent and despondent than it was.

Francis Lawrence was the director of this one (Constantine, I am Legend) which had a bit more action and special effects than the first iteration. Francis will be helming both Mockingjay films, as the studio probably wanted to follow the storyline into darkness with a more gritty director than Gary Ross, who did the first Hunger Games. He has more artistic imagination with Pleasantville and Seabiscuit to his credit, so I like the change, and the direction that the franchise is seeming to move. Not that the change is noticeable, but the franchise has a growing sense of depravity as the bleakness and violence build to the revolutionary end. I'm looking forward to it, especially as Danny Strong is writing the final two films. Look for the next two Novembers to be consumed by Hunger Games fever, and then it will disappear, a la Twilight.

One thing I didn't like about it is the portrayal of the future society. It was a gripe from the first one, and one that will haunt Divergent when it tries to take the reigns of "strong heroine" from Katniss' grasp over the next couple of years. The society has been simplified beyond all belief. There are 12 districts in the nation of Panem, which is the remnant of the United States, and each one has just one singular purpose or function. Coal, bread, textiles, agriculture, masonry, etc. It's too simplistic of a world, and maybe I'm reading into the story a bit deeper than I need to, but it seems that a revolution is well overdue. The other thing is the on again, off again relationship between Katniss and Peeta, and that pesky Gale. Young Adult fiction just wouldn't exist without a love triangle, but the Gale role in Hunger Games is confusing. He is not a likable love interest, or a suitable alternative to the reluctantly brave Peeta and his noble virtues. Liam Hemsworth may have a foot in Hollywood's door, but his tryst with Miley Cyrus means that he has some ground to make up with audiences. I can't look at him without seeing Miley swinging naked from a wrecking ball, and until he breaks through that proverbial wall through solid acting, I don't know if I ever will. I don't blame the casting director for that selection, but I question the relevance of Gale in the adapted storyline, that's all.

As I was watching the film, I kept trying to remember what had happened in the book, and I was pleasantly surprised to find that I had forgotten. I'm not sure if that bodes well for the plot or not. I found the ending a perfect segue to the third film, but I also remember how much I didn't like reading Mockingjay. Here's hoping that the Lawrences and others can pull together a solid grand finale and if nothing else, it is certain to make billions of dollars. My wife loved the film, but I found it a bit lackluster. I found the simplicity of the first film's plot refreshing, and there is always the sophomore slump to contend with. All things considered however, this was a very well done film. Great cast, great action, great screenwriting by Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) and Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine, Oblivion). You know you're going to see it. 8/10.

Thor: The Dark World

I discovered two things about myself while watching the famous Norse god from the Avengers tonight: 1. I have new motivation to go to the gym. Chris Hemsworth is ridiculous. 2. I know how my future wake looks; Traditional viking warrior funeral. Broad sword clasped with both hands across the chest, pushed off to Valhalla on a raft out to sea, ceremonially lit on fire. Epic if it ever was.

Anyway, Thor 2 brings us back to the land of Norse legends, Asgard. Thor is once again fighting the evil that traverses the nine realms (including Earth) and this time there is a cool evil smoke spirit called Aether that is being pursued by the dark elf lord, Malekith, played brilliantly by former Dr. Who Christopher Eccleston. Meanwhile, Thor's human crush, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is still researching quantum physics and finds herself in the mix. Loki is still locked up from the Avengers, and Thor's parents are worried about the future of their planet. Of course, only Thor can save the universe from the forces of evil, and through plenty of eyegasmic fight scenes, he flexes his muscles and leads us to the next stopping point in this magical journey that has spanned several heroes and even more films over the past five years since 2008's Iron Man. In scenes reminiscent of Avengers' climactic New York battle, the nine realms lay victim to the might of Thor's hammer, and Malekith's smoke monster spirit magic. And of course, Loki is the wild card as the adopted brother with continually conniving agendas.

The film ends with the Marvel staple story continuation at the end of the credits, this time leading us to a segue into the Guardians of the Galaxy universe (http://www.hitfix.com/news/what-was-benecio-del-toro-doing-in-the-thor-the-dark-world-credits) Chris Pratt and an intergalactic team of aliens, including a tree-man voiced by Vin Diesel, and a raccoon with guns voiced by Bradley Cooper. It's coming at the end of next Summer, keeping with Marvel's consistent timeline (Captain America in April, X-Men in June, G of the G in August. They are keeping busy, but with Iron Man 3's box office showing ($409 domestic, $1.215 billion global), and now Thor 2's $86 million domestic opening (almost $330 million in less than 2 weeks internationally) they need to keep cranking these money makers as long as the audience keeps showing up.

Chris Hemsworth is enormous. Of course they throw in a shirtless scene, but if I had his upper body, I would probably demand to do the whole film shirtless. He's the perfect fit for Thor, and the best lines of the film are his perfectly timed deadpan interactions with the humans. He's a major action star who has the face, body, and acting that will take him down the road of Dwayne, Arnold, or Sly. He's going to be one of the major faces of action for the next decade if he plays his cards right. He's smart to ride out this Thor/Avengers thing though as there is one more Thor in the works (after the box office success, you can pretty much count on it) and at least one more Avengers, but count on two or more.

The rest of the cast does a nice job. It's still odd to see Anthony Hopkins as Odin, and Idris Elba and Renee Russo get a little more screen time this time around as more of the film centers in the realm of Asgard. The rest of the cast from the first Thor return including Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgard, Ray Stevenson, Jaime Alexander, and a few others. They are mostly padding for a rich, action driven film that is fantastical at least, and a vehicle to add more story before the next Avengers at best. Personally, I'm waiting to see what the new Marvel crew does with Hulk. It's been tried twice in the past decade or so, but the job the visual effects team and Mark Ruffalo did in Avengers was terrific, so it's always a possibility that they will sneak it into a franchise.

Alan Taylor is an experienced director mostly with high profile and award-winning television shows, and is an interesting choice to follow up Kenneth Branagh's first iteration. I like what Marvel is doing by getting fresh directors to keep the various cyclic franchises from getting stale. Their business model for sequels is both innovative and brilliant, and they seem to have struck a market niche that DC and WB are desperately trying to emulate. Unfortunately, they are lagging behind, and their failure to get Green Lantern, Wonder Woman, Flash, and even Aquaman off the ground is going to doom the Justice League dream. Batman vs. Superman will be the make or break film of the comic book space race, and if they are smart, they'll introduce more than a couple of the other characters in more than cameos. They need to get some starpower to back up Affleck and Cavill as well, and Jaime Alexander would be an amazing Wonder Woman, but success lies in Green Lantern and Flash.

Three things didn't sit well with me. First, Sif, Thor's gorgeous warrior companion is much more suitable and attractive than Natalie Portman's character. Sorry Jane Foster, you're a human, and you haven't been rumored to be playing Wonder Woman in DC's upcoming film (possibly making an early appearance in Batman vs. Superman). It's a subtly hinted love triangle, and possible fodder for future storylines. Second, Thor is just too bipolar in his invincible Moljnir-wielding god, or vulnerable brutish brawler. He seems to vacillate between the two at will, and when the situation demands it, he turns on the Thunder God and summons lightning at will. Thirdly, I'm not impressed with Loki's seemingly endless amounts of trickery that seems to have no limitations. Frankly, I'm getting tired of him already. Tom Hiddleston is great, but his turn has ended. Give us some new characters! I'm not a Marvel aficionado and never really read the comics, but there are literally thousands of characters to choose from, and fanboys and girls love when the storylines mirror the comics, but newsflash; it doesn't have to. Take a few liberties and give us some new blood on both sides of the fight. Don't get me wrong, Malekith was pretty cool and his unstoppable minion reminded me of the LOTR orc captain, but Loki is overdone. Enigmatic and charismatic as he is, three films for one bad guy is too much unless his name starts with Darth.

All in all, it's the second of the winter action blockbusters (Ender's Game, Hunger Games, Hobbit 2) and it's pretty cool. A bit darker than the first, but it's the Dark World, so what do you expect? Next up is Captain America: The Winter Soldier and it looks pretty fun as well, but I'm mostly excited to see Anthony Mackie as the Falcon. You know you can't resist the Marvel movies, but don't be like the girls behind us and don't talk through the whole thing, and stay until the end of the credits as usual. Am I turning into a Marvel nerd? Maybe so. 8/10.

12 Years a Slave

Based on the Solomon Northup autobiography, 12 Years a Slave chronicles the life of a free black New York man in the 1840's after he is kidnapped and sold into slavery in the deep south. It's a heavy-handed rendering, and at times is even a bit gratuitous in its violence and grittiness, but Steve McQueen wanted to paint a realistic picture, and he certainly did that.

Steve McQueen is no stranger to controversy, as his 2011 Indy breakout, Shame attests. He is one of Michael Fassbender's favorite directors, having worked together three times so far, and Michael Fassbender is one of the hottest names in Hollywood right now. Despite the lackluster reviews of The Counselor (which I still haven't seen yet, even though it's a collaboration of some of my favorites), he has the new X-Men coming next year, is playing MacBeth, and has been working with Terrence Malik in a promising untitled film that will come out next year. If that weren't enough, he's signed on for Prometheus 2, and piques my curiosity as the leading candidate for 2015's Assassin's Creed, a hugely successful video game franchise. His range of role selection is commendable, he's taking on all genres, working with a multitude of strong directors, and is climbing his way up the ladder, showing that the current trio of Germanic actors (Fassbender, Daniel Bruhl, Christoph Waltz) can hang with the Americans just fine. Fassbender channels controlled racist rage and 1840's southern values frighteningly. It must have been a very difficult role to play, but he will likely receive a supporting actor nomination for his work.

Chiwetel Ejiofor stars as Solomon Northup in a bold and unflinching performance filled with such a range of emotion that it's almost impossible not to fall into the time. Ejiofor is a recognizable face from his vast body of work, and he hides his British accent well (as most Brit actors are able to). He challenges the viewer to believe in the injustice and plight that his character is enduring, and I can't imagine another actor pulling off the role quite so viscerally. He will certainly get a Best Actor nomination, but the film's "tough pill to swallow" will probably lose some of the academy votes.

Where the film falters is in the pacing and the dialogue. We are shuttled back and forth in time with no real guidance, and the twelve years goes by without any real sense of seasonal change. What did the slaves do during the harsh winter months? When the fields were tended, what happened? We don't develop any sort of relationship with the slaves, and maybe that's how it was; impersonal because they were treated as property and came and went from season to season. We reach the end of the film and it seems like it's been one long year. There's no aging and no real evidence of the physical toll that his time took on him. The reunion with his family should have been orchestrated more intentionally. It was an opportunity to give the film its finest moment, but it was wasted, dragged down by the heaviness and self-loathing regret shown by Solomon.

Don't get me wrong, there are moments of fantastic film making, and even more fantastic acting. It just had too many moments that could have been portrayed stronger. Chiwetel and Fassbender are terrific. 7/10.

Ender's Game

Gavin Hood's adaptation of the 1985 Orson Scott Card young adult classic sci-fi book of the same name brings us the anti-Katniss in deep space. A young boy with an unlikely combination of an unusually mature sense of compassion and a penchant for violent conflict resolution.

Ender Wiggin is a military strategy prodigy in a futuristic society that has been decimated by an alien attack, only to decide that the best defense against the second coming is in fact, as Whitney Houston claimed, the children are the future. Young kids' meddle is tested on Earth, and if they show promise, they are shuttled up to an advanced training facility dubbed "battle school". It's a pretty cool idea and the book paints a nearly impossible picture, but surprisingly, Gavin Hood handled the task about as well as I could have expected.

Asa Butterfield is the titular hero, playing a few years younger than his 16. He's got great poise for his age, and has some great experience working with quality actors and directors. For a young actor with an unfortunate name, he has a bright future. His shouting match with Harrison Ford got me thinking how amazing it must have been to be on set that day, and I found myself envious of his scenes with Ben Kingsley, who is a headscratcher as Mazer Rackham, a Maori war hero from the first alien invasion.

Hailee Steinfeld and Abigail Breslin play the young ladies, and it's crazy to think that Steinfeld was the breakthrough star of True Grit three whole years ago. She hasn't seemed to grow up, as she plays young and is still only 17. Breslin is a wasted character with just a few minutes of screentime, and the starpower could have been better spent elsewhere. Playing Ender's sister, there is never the emotional investment in the Wiggin family (parents, brother, or sister) as they aren't even eluded to throughout the film more than a couple of times in reference to Ender's divergent and exceptional personality.

Harrison Ford, Viola Davis, and Ben Kingsley play the adults, and they are on cruise control except for a few intense showings by Ford. It makes me wonder if he's working on a real comeback, as he took significant time off from high profile films in the early 2000's and has been on a tear this year with his great performance of Branch Rickey in 42, and some upcoming shows of range in Anchorman 2, Expendables 3, Indiana Jones 5, and Star Wars 7. Whew, that's a lot of numbers. Anyhow, with Abrams Star Wars VII announced to drop on 12/18/15, and rumors of a Han Solo stand alone, you can bet that Harrison Ford will be showing up in Hollywood quite a bit over the next 2 years.

Andrea Powell plays Ender's mother, Theresa, and for the record she is a Joan Allen doppelganger. Don't be surprised if you are fixated on her face. She looks nearly identical to Joan Allen ten to twenty years ago (sorry Joan - who's only nine years older).

Gavin Hood is rebuilding his directing career nicely after the impressive 2007 drama Rendition, and the absolutely terrible 2009 X-Men Origins: Wolverine. It nearly destroyed Hugh Jackman's career. Alright, not even close, but it was a terrible attempt at the first Marvel X-Men stand alone. It put the franchise on hold indefinitely after talks of a few others. Fortunately, America loves superheroes, although Gavin Hood's blown his chance at that career builder. Ender's Game however, he did a nice job considering the abundance of visual effects and literary interpretations. There was a good blend of staying true to the story, and eliminating scenes that didn't build to the climactic twist ending.

All in all, it was a really fun movie experience, but was a very average sci-fi film based off of some great source material. The book was better, but it usually is. 7/10.

Runner Runner

Runner Runner refers to a Poker hand drastically improved by the turn or the river cards. Runner Runner could have used a Runner Runner, as the only thing it had going for it was a pair of Aces. I couldn't resist. Justin Timberlake and Ben Affleck lend their faces to a movie that in any other case should be straight to DVD. I imagined Nicholas Cage, Val Kilmer, or Christian Slater in the same roles, and it's not a stretch to think that you could find it at the bottom of a Netflix queue.

We are introduced to Richie Furst (Timberlake), a wunderkind financial rising star who just happened to be on the wrong side of the banking crisis. He goes back to get his Masters in finance at Princeton, but despite being on the cusp of being a millionaire just a few years ago, he is struggling to pay the tuition. Likely story. He turns to online gambling to try and build his dwindling tuition fund, and while playing, his flawless mathematical analysis captivates a party-going audience, and after building a sizable fortune, he loses it all to a shadow poker site that he suspects is cheating. His suspicions are confirmed by his computer nerd friends at Princeton, and he embarks on a mission to get his money back from the man who runs the sight; Ivan Block (Affleck).

The film plays out extremely predictable and induces more than a few eye rolls. No get-rich-quick cliche is spared in this Wall Street/Boiler Room/ PG version of Scarface. Affleck and Timberlake seem to be having fun playing out the billionaire fantasy in an island paradise that just so happens to have a dirty underworld that they just can't resist. There is even a gung-ho, reckless FBI Agent (Anthony Mackie) who tries desperately to corner Block, convinced that he is running a shady business.

As the film reaches its climax at a premature, but welcome 90 minutes, we find as an audience that essentially nothing has happened except for two actors running around a Central American country looking cool and pretending to matter. The problem is that they don't matter. We're given absolutely no development of characters, and don't care about the outcome. Anthony Mackie is wasted as a federal agent running and gunning all alone; it would have been much better if the FBI had partners. That's an opportunity for some give and take, maybe some witty dialogue. Nope, he's alone. Affleck is an enigma as Ivan Block. A hard and soft man who is perhaps too simple to have developed a multi-billion dollar empire. Where did he come from? Why should we care? Timberlake looks the part for Richie. He's just not believable as a man who would leave everything to follow a hunch to Costa Rica. It doesn't make sense. Nor does it make sense that his father is... shocker alert... a gambling addict in too deep.

Everything about the writing is disappointing. I'm embarrassed that I listened to the hype in early 2013 and listed this as one of the possible Oscar contenders of the season. Absolutely not. The story was written by Brian Koppelman and David Levien, who worked together to write Rounders, Knockaround Guys, Oceans Thirteen, and a few others. Gambling is their wheelhouse, but they just can't really hit the mark with this one. Online gambling is an area of the genre that hasn't been explored too in depth, and they could have milked it for all it's worth. Instead, they polished a turd.

Brad Furman directed, with his big break coming with 2011's The Lincoln Lawyer (not even that good). He's got a few straight to DVD's under his belt, so I can't really knock him for doing what he does.

All in all, the film isn't even worth any more of my time, and it certainly isn't worth yours. How bad was it? I should have gone to Machete Kills. that bad. 5/10.

Captain Phillips

Tom Hanks is back after a long, strange sabbatical of fun projects, critical misses, collaborations with old friends, and voice work. In this critic's opinion, Hanks hasn't been performing at his peak acting ability since 2007's Charlie Wilson's War, and even that was a step below his last truly great performance, 2002's Road to Perdition. A six year hiatus is long enough (or 11 if you're counting at home). Hanks is a little paunchier, a little grayer, but he once again shows why he is the current Great American Actor.

Philadelphia, Forrest Gump, Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, Cast Away, and Road to Perdition showed what he is truly capable of when delivered a strong script and complex character. Captain Phillips is the next great performance in his impressive and already distinguished resume, and it will likely earn him his third Best Actor Oscar, putting him in stratospheric territory with Daniel Day-Lewis, Meryl Streep, Katharine Hepburn, and Jack Nicholson. He deserves it. The only hiccup in this plan might be his role as Walt Disney in December's Saving Mr. Banks. His duplicitous acting year may tear voters between two great roles, in turn sabotaging his chances of winning one. We will see. The only legitimate contender might be Chiwetel Ejiofor in 12 Years a Slave. Hanks is a lock for a nomination.

On a side note, Hanks recently divulged that he has been diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes, and he feels it was likely brought on by the pressures of constant weight adjustment for roles. It's clearly unhealthy to go through so many weight changes throughout a lifetime, and so many great actors and actresses do it regularly to show a more picture perfect portrayal of the character. It makes you wonder how many of our other stars are suffering health complications behind the scenes because of the increasing demands of bulking up and slimming down. It will be interesting to learn more about this over time.

Captain Phillips (spoiler alert!) is a commercial cargo transport captain and was taking the Maersk Alabama through dangerous waters off the Horn of Africa on a routine route from Oman to Kenya in 2009 when he was captured by four teenage Somali pirates. A series of events orchestrated in part by Phillips led to the safety of his crew and his eventual rescue a few days later, but the news made headlines at the time more for the valor of the Navy SEAL's than the bravery of Phillips himself. This is the story of what Phillips had to endure and how his decisions helped save himself and the men under his command.

A recent article claims that piracy in the Indian Ocean off the coast costs the commercial global economy about $18 billion per year in lost cargo or increased insurance premiums. My question is: why don't they carry weapons in a strong box? Throughout the intense boarding scene, I kept thinking "how easy would it be to keep pirates off your ship if you had a gun? Even a pistol?" Maersk may have the answer, but one thing is for sure, the film is causing buzz from two different camps. Phillips has gone on record as saying that the film is more or less an accurate account of what happened. Maersk on the other hand, who have been sued for $50 million by 9 of the crew members saying that the route shouldn't have been taken and that they were in unnecessary risk, said through their lawyer that "Forrest Gump was also a really good movie starring Tom Hanks, but like Captain Phillips, it was highly fictionalized." Although Phillips isn't implicated in the lawsuit, some of his crew hold him responsible for what happened saying he didn't follow orders as he should have. Whatever the case, it's a terrific story of courage, cultural extremism, and survival.

Paul Greengrass is known for his realistic style in films like United 93, and Bloody Sunday, but shows his action chops in 2/3 of the Bourne trilogy (Damon, not Renner) and the underexposed Green Zone. The film was written by Billy Ray with input from Rich Phillips and his memoir from the harrowing events. It's almost a documentary with some flair, and that's what makes it such a compelling and suspenseful film.

We begin with dual preparations. Two sides of the globe which may as well be on other planets. Hanks' Phillips is packing, checking emails, and doing paperwork in preparation for his upcoming trip in his comfortable Vermont home with his wife. Meanwhile, Muse is trying to get sleep on a dirt floor in a hut in the sweltering heat in Somalia when he is awoken by warlords sending him out to sea to bring them back money. This is the real beauty of the film. The diametrical different universes that the two opposing forces live in. The civilized West, and the broken and impoverished East. OK, maybe the analogies are a stretch, but Greengrass does a wonderful job of showcasing the differences. The pirates aren't just a rag-tag band of bad guys. They are given a glimmer of personality and we can empathize with their hopeless situation in life. They are also given a bit of humanity as the film progresses, which clearly added to the emotional charge.

As the ship goes through its pre-launch checks in port, we are comforted by Phillips' professionalism, but also given a peek into the life of a captain. It is captured with just enough detail that we see that his men love and respect their captain, but there is a sort of underlying feeling of annoyance to the protocols and procedures as viewed by the union men. They want to do their jobs and then sit and drink coffee and aren't interested in doing anymore than they have to, and that adds to the suspense when the emergency drill become reality. Phillips finds that his crew really come together in time of crisis, and it's fun to watch the high stakes game of cat and mouse play out on the massive freighter. In the end though, the Somalis escape in a lifeboat with a prized cargo (Phillips), and it's up to the US Navy to rescue him.

The Somali pirates are unknowns, and were kept segregated from the rest of the cast until it was time for them to meet, which really amped up the authenticity. Their pivotal There is buzz developing for Barkhad Abdi, who plays the pirate in charge, and he is frightening as a very contemplative young man, but unpredictable. He uses his thousand-mile stare in such a natural way that he is really an intimidating foe.

It's really a three part film that picks up speed early and never really shuts down until the end, and even then, as an audience, you are in awe of the spectacle that you just saw. Act one is setting the table, act two is the confrontation, and act three is the resolution. All masterfully done in what all in all is the best film of 2013 so far. I predicted this months ago, but after viewing Captain Phillips, Hanks wins Best Actor and it wins Best Picture.

The final ten minutes may be some of the greatest emotional acting I have ever seen, not just this year, but ever. If Tom Hanks wins it is because of his single final scene in the movie. Absolutely amazing. Hanks takes you inside of his mind and body and you experience all of the shock, grief, fear, pain, and sadness all at once in an overwhelming barrage of emotion. It may be the five to ten minutes that define his career one hundred years from now.

Captain Phillips is intense, but done so well that you don't want to look away. There are no tricks played by the director in lulling us into complacency and then shocking us back to reality with a jump. Greengrass is too professional for that. It's full-steam ahead realism. The best film of 2013. 10/10.

Gravity

Every once in awhile, and film comes along and it puts the rest of the genre to shame. In 2009, Avatar revolutionized the cinematic experience and changed the way we look at film. Paving the way for 3D and IMAX to become the norm as opposed to the exception for major events. And although Gravity isn't quite to that scale, it is magical, beautiful, and by far the most realistic look at space that we've ever seen on fictional film. Alfonso Cuaron is a master of his craft, and audiences have anxiously been awaiting his return to directing since 2006's Children of Men, which was quietly one of the most remarkable films of the year, and might even make my 21st century top 10 list.

Gravity opens with some facts and figures about space. How it fluctuates between burning and freezing, and how there is no sound due to no oxygen. This is something that Cuaron obviously took great pride in replicating, and is done nicely throughout the film with the absence of music at well-timed moments of crisis. We find a handful of astronauts and scientists doing some upgrades and improvements to the Hubble when a smattering of debris changes their plans. Dr. Ryan Stone (Bullock) and Astronaut Matt Kowalski (Clooney) find themselves battling fear and the claustrophobic infinite expanse of space in a race against time and odds to make it back to Earth safely.

Clooney delivers a typical Clooney performance. Charming and verbose, there is a light air of flirtiness between him and Bullock, but done so effortlessly that it seems natural enough. The role of an Astronaut would be a stretch for most actors, but it seems like Clooney can assume almost any identity he chooses, and doesn't need to try very hard. That's not the compliment it may appear to be. Clooney is on cruise control as the super cool alpha male. He is a raconteur in space, cracking jokes and telling stories as he floats around in a jet pack trying to break the space-walk record. It actually alleviates some of the natural tension that the film builds with the environment and the realism with oxygen and gravity fighting against the main characters. I love Clooney as much as the rest of the country (maybe world), and his roles in Syriana, Michael Clayton, Up in the Air, and The Descendants are the hallmarks of his potential, but Matt Kowalski was written too much like George Clooney for George Clooney to make it a meaty role. Unfortunately, for me, it deflated the film a bit.

Bullock on the other hand, is fantastic. The film focuses on her, and there are numerous scenes where she is in solitude, floating through space or in another gravity-free environment, and she delivers the emotional urgency of the role. The only knock I have doesn't directly go against her, but instead is the writing of dialogue. Some of her monologues as she's trying to either distract herself from the situation, or try to make levity of her dilemma is a bit bland and maybe even out of place. Even some of the conversations between Clooney and Bullock seem a bit blanched. Lots of opportunity for emotional enrichment, but it's dropped a bit.

Cuaron is outstanding in his recreation of the environment and his attention to detail. This film to date is the most sincere look at outer space that we've ever seen. There is just one scene that I can recall that seems a bit unrealistic, and even that can be forgiven because of the following events. The destruction of satellites is brilliantly done in silence, and the visual effects that he oversees are majestic. Aurora Borealis, cloud patterns over recognizable landmasses, meteors and splintered metal careening toward the atmosphere, it's all done beautifully. He is a master of his craft and has outdone himself in what is his best work to date. Ironically, his IMDB blurb states that he had ambitions of being an astronaut when he was younger, and he has come about as close as you possibly can without traveling to space with Gravity.

The music, or lack of music when the time demands it is terrific. Building crescendos reaching a zenith at suspenseful moments resulting in sheer silence. After all, there is no oxygen to carry sound in space. Until the film's climax, the music is great, but then the tribal artsy chanting ruins it. It's unfortunate, but I'm sure Cuaron has his reasons. It's beyond me though, and didn't fit the tone of the rest of the film. The visual effects are top-notch with meticulous attention to detail and realism. It truly raises the bar for all future sci-fi films (that don't involve aliens). I'm curious to see how Chris Nolan's 2014 potential juggernaut Interstellar portrays space. No doubt he will take a lesson from Cuaron and make it as realistic as possible. (here's hoping at least).

Gravity is another one of the plethora titles recently that have a fun and fitting double entendre, like my favorite film title, Cast Away (2000). Bullock and Clooney are battling the force of nature that we so easily take for granted for better or worse, but the seriousness of their dire situation keeps getting more and more suffocating. It's truly a great title. The film goes from unfortunate to improbable as events unfold placing our cosmonauts in deeper and more hopeless peril. It's a thriller, a character study, a survival tale, and has just enough explosions to make it somewhat of an action film. It's hard to say where the film fits, but one thing is for sure, there will be at least 4 Oscar nominations, with one likely winner to this point. Bullock gets a nomination, the film will end up on the Best Picture ballot, and the special effects will get at least one nod while Alfonso Cuaron will likely pull an Ang Lee and win Best Director this year. This is the type of film that is awe-inspiring and showcases the genius of the man behind the lens. I'm excited to see the next big thing that he attaches himself to, but unfortunately it might be another 7 years. Great thrill ride with a beautiful view. 8/10.

Rush

The competitive drive of two polar opposite enemies in a relentlessly dangerous sport is always entertaining, but add to that the high-octane adrenaline of Formula One racing in the safety-devoid 1970's, and you've got something pretty cool. The sport compared with Nascar is like the global soccer fan-base compared with American football. F1 racing is huge. Or was huge. I'm not sure, in fact, I didn't really know the full scope of the sport's appeal, but these guys are the International Jeff Gordons and Dale Earnhardts of the 70's. If that makes any sense.

Austrian Niki Lauda (Played by Daniel Bruhl) and Brit James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) jockey for speed supremacy through the 1975-76 international racing season, during a time when the sport was undergoing a sort of renaissance and entering a technological revolution that pushed the limits of man and machine. As the season progresses, we find these two divergent personalities atop the leader boards, each bringing a flair for the dramatic, but in two wildly different ways. We find that their relationship as a rivalry is endearing and has more depth it probably should, and impacted the sport more than we can possibly know.

Ron Howard returns to directing in his first solid outing since 2009's Frost/Nixon. He's the king of obscure biopic, and Lauda/Hunt is no exception. I had never heard of either of these guys, but Howard portrays them on the screen as if they were Thor and Schwarzenegger (OK, Thor's not technically British, but Lauda and Hunt are larger than life in Rush). You begin to develop a real sense of concern for them every time they get on the track and the suspense of knowing how the final act will turn out is absurd considering the obscurity of both of these racing legends. As the film comes to an end, there is an authentic feel of legitimacy to the film that only Ron Howard could create.

Hemsworth is perfectly cast as the playboy lothario James Hunt. He's from a successful family and has turned his privileged back on law and medicine for an opportunity to go fast and bed women. It looks like quite the party, but below the surface there is more than just an opportunist. There is a competitor. He proves himself on the track, and is true to his nature through all of his ups and downs, and Hemsworth conveys his passion through his ridiculous blue eyes and shaggy locks. He does a really nice acting job, but it's not much of a stretch if we're being honest. I like Hemsworth and I hope he gets some good, dramatic roles down the road, but he's still in his breakout/action star stage of his career. Playing James Hunt might be the first peek through that door. It's almost like the Brad Pitt curse though. He's too good looking to be taken seriously, so we might just have to wait until he's in his late 40's before we get a ripe, award-worthy role. Let's hope not.

Bruhl is fantastic as the subdued and reserved, depressed and meticulous Lauda who has a natural instinct for the sport and mechanics of automobiles, but just can't quite let go of the rigid and serious demeanor that ostracizes him from the other drivers. Of course, it's that same demeanor that garners him the respect of his peers as well, but Bruhl plays it very well from the moment he enters the sport, until he reflects back on his life. It's a modest change of heart through the process, but it's noticeable. His respect for the sport carries the seriousness that is diminished by Hemsworth's loose, playful attitude. It's Bruhl that keeps the film on track and maintains the serious tone, even though he's somewhat of a supporting member.

All in all, it's a two man show that is about so much more than just racing. It's passion, tension, regret, and a magical era captured in a time capsule and released to race cars, the visionary eye of Ron Howard, and the backdrop of the best score of the year so far (Oscar winner Hans Zimmer - Lion King). For the record, Zimmer also scored Gladiator, the recent Batman films, and Inception, which received a handful of nominations, but should have won awards.

Rush is a well done film. A bit of a head-scratcher if you think about it; a competitive duo racing cars in 1976, and there isn't a miracle moment, or any narrative describing the impact on the sport at the end. But, Ron Howard does that well. The scenes in the rain evoke a palpable tension and are remarkably executed. It's a great film with two great, perfectly cast lead performers. Ron Howard is back, ladies and gentlemen. 8/10.

Prisoners

With a catchy and ambiguous title that takes on more meaning the more you think about it and the deeper you go, Prisoners is a heart-wrenching, manipulative child abduction story with a twist. It's as original as anything that's come out lately, and is full of suspense, thrills, and classic cinematic sequences devoid of dialogue with just the score to keep you on the edge of your seat. Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman) and his wife, Grace (Maria Bello) are enjoying a picturesque Thanksgiving afternoon with their neighbors, Franklin Birch (Terrence Howard) and his wife, Nancy (Viola Davis) when their two little girls go missing during a walk between houses. The disappearance puts the families and the town into a panic, and Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) begins his work to put the pieces together before it's too late. And after a series of red herrings, close calls, and suspenseful events transpire, we discover that the little girls aren't in fact the only prisoners in that sleepy Pennsylvania town.

It's a bold move by Warner Brothers and Denis Villaneuve (2010's Incendies). The subject of this film teeters on socially unpalatable as if suspended above Niagara Falls on a tightrope. It devolves into such a dark place, and leaves the viewer both filled with hope, and utterly enraged and powerless. It's a shock to me that it has received both the box office results and the critical acclaim that it has, because it has such potential to be polarizing. It's an A-list cast and a Tarantino spawned story (not really, but could be), but somehow Villaneuve makes it toe the line just this side of appropriate, even with the blood, death, and sheer vile subject matter.

Villaneuve is brilliant in his choice of camera angle, and use of setting to grow and shrink the characters. Watching the icy rain fall, I was riveted to my chair, shivering not knowing if it was nerves or temperature. It's very rare and infrequent that a director can make the climate seem so much a part of the cast of characters, and I may use this reference again, but I felt a lot like the first time I saw Se7en (1995). Prisoners is not of course, quite as gruesome and visceral. It's more of a cerebral game of cat and mouse, and the director was wise to manipulatively leave various pieces of the story to the imagination.

Jackman plays one of the fathers in an intensifying crescendo while Howard plays the other with a lackluster, emotionally deflating subtlety. They complement each other as two men sharing a pain, clearly reacting in different ways as men do, but I couldn't ever get behind Jackman's unyielding aggression. The women are kept mostly in the background, although Viola Davis is given a few powerful scenes in which a few contrived tears are shed. If I'm making one criticism, it's that Jackman is over exposed, and therefore not believable in the every-man's role. He's Jean Valjean or Wolverine, but he's not convincing as anyone in between. It's not his fault, and he's clearly a fantastic actor, but I kept waiting for those Adamantium claws to extend out of his knuckles every time he raised his fist in rage.

Paul Dano is in spectacularly creepy mode as the prime suspect who happens to have the intellect of a ten year old. His high pitched voice and terrified movements add to the suspense, and he continues to prove that he is a terrific actor, despite his unconventional look. If you haven't seen him before, check out There Will be Blood in his dual role as the Sunday brothers. He's next up in 12 Years a Slave in what is certain to be a memorable role. Anyhow, he nails the part. Builds suspense with every silent moment, and unflinchingly captivates the audience.

Jake Gyllenhaal is the other piece of the puzzle, and for my money, he gets a Best Supporting Actor nomination. He portrays Detective Loki without any fanfare, background, or build up. You immediately get a sense of who he is as a cop, and there is no trickery, no typical back story about a man with a shady past. There's no case that broke him, no secret drug addiction, no corruption, and no bravado. Just a cop with a sharp mind who desperately wants to find the girls. It must have been a difficult role to get into, but he shows the confidence of a true thespian, even adopting a nervous tick that adds more to the role than I can say. It's the little details that make an actor memorable, and his performance was certainly that. Loki works around the clock, turning over every possible lead despite the uncooperative brass back at the precinct. Jake Gyllenhaal is building a resume that is difficult to overlook. He's choosing roles that fall all around the cinematic tree, and he consistently comes through.

At nearly two and a half hours, Prisoners seems almost epic. It is in fact, with acts that drag out leading from one thoroughly explored corner to another. The best way to describe it is thorough, but I never got bored. It keeps the audience's attention by always rearing the ugly truth back into the picture just when things seem to slow down, and the anticipation of finding out what happened makes all of the slow moments well worth it. With about twenty minutes to go, the facts fall into place and the audience is given a glimpse beyond even that of the actors, and the fun is watching them catch up. The ending is unexpected, although I wouldn't necessarily put it in the shock/twist category. Instead, it is pleasantly surprising. Much the way I felt about last year's Looper, I felt about Prisoners. I intentionally didn't read the spoilers, and found myself very satisfied, even with the Sopranos-inspired ending.

The film's screenplay was written by Aaron Guzikowski, who's new to the business. He wrote the terrible Contraband (2012) and has a TV series called The Red Road coming out next year. He's got talent, that is for sure and I won't hold Contraband against him at all. Prisoners is sharp, fresh, and just dark enough to be jarring without leaving nightmares. It's one of the best films I've seen this year so far, but unfortunately, that won't hold up in mid-September. The good ones are coming out soon. Next week: Rush and Gravity.

Go see Prisoners if you have the stomach. It's intense and brutal, but incredibly well done and will keep you glued to your seat. Definitely not for everyone, but worth the price of admission. 8/10.

Sharknado

People, we need to talk about a very serious problem. Blame global warming, but this could really happen. Sharks raining down from water spouts if hurricane force storms develop over the ocean. It makes perfect sense, and might do well as a science lesson (7th grade catastrophic events unit?). Arm yourselves with flares, chainsaws, bar stools, and baseball bats. It's the only way to survive. You're not safe at the beach. you're not safe in your house. And you sure as hell aren't safe in the Hollywood Hills. Wait, what?

Steven Spielberg wishes he had thought of this. Herman Melville would be shaking in his boots. "Enough Said." That's the tagline for the SyFy original brainchild, and for all of the obvious surface flaws, this film is pure genius. It's the critical hit of the summer in much the way that Tommy Wiseau's gem, The Room has built a cult following. In the pantheon of bad films, Sharknado has chomped out its niche. With a budget of somewhere between one and two million (and that includes Ian Ziering and Tara Reid's salaries), it is a no-brainer for the network. Although the short-lived theatrical release only grossed $200,000, SyFy had viewership of 1.4 million, 1.9 million, and 2.1 million people during its three televised runs. It's spawned so much buzz that a sequel is in the works, but how can you possibly top Sharknado? Sharknado Soup? Or Sharkicane? Maybe Sharkcano or Sharknami? I personally like Sharkphoon, but the SyFy people have gone with Sharknado 2: The Second One. What? For a bunch of Sci-Fi nerds who threw sharks in a tornado, they truly lack imagination.

Chuck Norris has officially been dethroned. Ian Ziering, aka Steve Sanders from the original Beverly Hills 90210 (I'm not ashamed - I was like 12) shows the most extreme case of badassery in film history as he literally makes a flying jump, enters a shark with a chainsaw, and cuts his way out rescuing his friend in the process. WHAT? Eat your heart out, Jonah.

Anyway, the film begins as all great ones do. A foreboding and entirely irrelevant shady deal on a black market shark fishing vessel. Five minutes later, you'll be scratching your head in utter confusion, but that's just the beginning. We're introduced to Fin (Ziering), who's a local surfing legend and caring father who just made the mistake of marrying Tara Reid. He's thrown into hero mode as the storm of the century rocks Santa Monica, dropping Selichimorpha all over the beach, and inland as far as... Hollywood. Or downtown LA, whichever is farther East. Anyway, the storm turns into a series of water spouts and it's up to Fin and his sidekicks to save humanity from this frightening phenomenon.

The writer's name is Thunder Levin. No joke, and he's written and directed a handful of winners including this year's AE: Apocalypse Earth, and Atlantic Rim. He also happened to be the brains behind the C. Thomas Howell 2008 classic Mutant Vampire Zombies from the 'Hood! The man probably makes twice what I make, and makes steaming pile after steaming pile. C'est la vie. Not much better is the director, Anthony Ferrante, who has some obscure work on his resume, most notably para-homeless activity. Stay classy Anthony.

The good news is that colleges around the country now have a new drinking game available. Anytime you spot a continuity error in Sharknado, you drink. I'm not condoning this activity because it will likely lead to alcohol poisoning, but it almost becomes expected for there to be, oh I don't know, maybe a shiver of sharks swimming down the LA Aquaduct in stock footage as Fin drives a Land Cruiser through it. Wardrobe changes, wet and dry shots, and pure nonsense like a house full of water when it's dry outside. It's truly a remarkable feat to have the brazen vision that defies both logic and physics. Cars just explode for no reason, right? Shoot a shark in mid-air with a shotgun and it will fly backwards. Climb a rope above water and a shark will likely jump up and get himself tangled in the rope. Silly shark. The best however is another Fin moment of Chuck Norrisdom. He sets a swimming pool on fire. And then it explodes. Yessss!

Some filmmakers say that making a movie with animals or water are the two most difficult variables of a production, so it's no wonder that Thunder and Anthony decided on both. Why not? There's plenty of flood stock footage out there, and sharks in a feeding frenzy. The Discover Channel has Shark Week every year after all. Intersperse that footage with dry roads and clear skies, and the audiences won't even know the difference.

I'm not saying Sharknado is a bad movie. Sharknado is an epically bad movie that will stay with you long after it's over. But, alas, it's worth a viewing if you're feeling chippy. Check it out on Netflix or next time you're surfing channels and you come across SyFy. They have a ton of golden turds. 2/10.

Lee Daniels' The Butler

Let the Oscar buzz begin. Just four years after directing the award-winning Precious, Lee Daniels has catapulted his name in front of a film that has far greater names attached. The Butler is one of those films that finds the heart of the audience and grabs hold. It's a story ripe for emotion with its racial sensitivity and historical perspective spanning from the 1920's to the present. Like so many films today, it is inspired by a true story, and without much warning, it has hit the big screen as the first Oscar horse out of the gate. We all know that the first horse usually falls behind by the end of the race, but I am just filled with metaphors tonight, so horse racing it is. The Butler is a thoroughbred. With a cast chock full of past winners and nominees, it is so well executed that it is much more Forrest Gump, and less Tyler Perry than you might expect.

The Butler follows a young African-American from Georgia as he grows up in the 1920's in the heart of racist America. He learns to be a good, respectful domestic helper, and finds himself serving Presidents in the White House before long. He continues to serve under the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations and finds that he is more influential on the powerful men in control of the politics of the nation than he ever thought he could be.

It's a bit of an underdog tale, but really it's more of glimpse at how unsuspecting patience and genuine kindness can truly cause social change. Lee Daniels does a tremendous job maintaining the authenticity while keeping the entertainment value high. It's a truly difficult balance when films about racial injustice typically are disheartening and somber, but like this year's 42, the protagonist is strong and the outcome makes you really want to cheer and cry at the same time.

Forest Whitaker is outstanding as the quiet, submissive Cecil Gaines. He says all the right things to get himself a job working as a butler, and none of it seems contrived or with any ulterior motive. He is an affable guy with a strong set of values and wants to work hard to make a living and raise a family away from trouble. It's a heartbreaking portrayal to see a character with a perception of the Old South (not even really that old) parlay to the way he lives in a more progressive city like Washington, DC. Over the decades, he rarely wavers from his ideology, and even with changes in Civil Rights, he maintains his position with his family and his friends. He knows that speaking up, or acting out is just asking for trouble, because he saw it on the Georgia plantation where he was raised. But, as time marches on, his perspective of America begins to change, and the transformation is nothing short of beautiful.

Oprah Winfrey makes a rare film appearance for the first time in 15 years, and it is a tremendous performance. Playing Cecil's wife, Gloria, she follows her husband through thick and thin and raises her two children best she knows how. The depth of her devotion while knowing that her husband is following the tune of a time gone by is captured through her eyes, and although her actions in the beginning lead you to dislike her, thinking she doesn't deserve Cecil, she redeems herself possibly more than any other character in an explosive dinner conversation.

Cuba Gooding Jr., Terrence Howard, and Lenny Kravitz play the friends and co-workers that Cecil makes along the way, and they bring what little levity and comic relief that there is, but more importantly, they show the camaraderie that develops within the community. Men facing the same injustices as each other, but living the same lives as white folks. Working, raising families, having parties with friends on weekends, etc. It shows that sense of normalcy within a racially divided country.

Robin Williams, Alan Rickman, Liev Schrieber, James Marsden, and John Cusack play Presidents, each with his own take on the role (and in some cases pretty heavy makeup). With the exception of Cusack, they are believable, but it might have been nice to have lesser known actors play the Commander-in-Chiefs. I'm not exactly sure what the intention was in casting them, all I can think is that it lends a sense of familiarity and trust with the audience. Whatever it was, by the Kennedy administration, I was excited to see who the other Presidents were going to be played by.

Mariah Carey, Alex Pettyfer, Vanessa Redgrave, Jane Fonda, and Minka Kelly also make brief appearances, which leads me to believe that Lee Daniels has much more clout in Hollywood than people (I) think. The cast as a whole is a who's who of actors. This may be the strongest ensemble of the year to this point. Watch out for Daniels over the next few years, he's going to make more films that will get plenty of attention from actors and actresses. After directing Precious in 2009, he is definitely a rising star, even if he's in his 50's.

David Oyelowo is the one actor that I thought deserves special mention. Among a cast of stars, he shines the brightest as Louis Gaines, the eldest son of Cecil. Last seen in Jack Reacher and Lincoln, Oyelowo will be in Chris Nolan's upcoming box office grenade Interstellar. If you don't recognize him now, you will next year. He is the emotional focus of the film. The angst and sense of unfairness that is boiling under the surface. Forest Whitaker's Cecil is the protagonist, but he rarely outwardly loses his cool. His son Louis however, shares the Forrest Gump of the story. Cecil meets the Presidents, but Louis sees injustice and gets involved with the Freedom Riders, the Woolworth sit-ins, Martin Luther King, Jr., the Black Panthers and Malcolm X, and eventually wins back the affection of his father.

Danny Strong wrote an incredible screenplay based on an article by Wil Haygood. I had the privilege of meeting the man at a hotel in California a few years back, and he was working on a script at the time. I gave him some advice and was on my way. I like to think that meeting me was the stroke of luck and inspiration that he needed to catapult himself to massive screenwriting success. The project he was working on was called Game Change, which won him two Emmys. The Butler may add to his collection of gold, but if not, he has the two Mockingjay films in the pipeline, and will work with Ron Howard and Tom Hanks on The Lost Symbol after that. Impressive, and it's all because of me.

The Butler is an amazing lesson in American history, and Lee Daniels and Danny Strong don't lay it on too thick. They highlight major events that are glamorous and memorable for good or bad, but they also do so in a way that is endearing and relatable. I teach American History to middle school kids, and I'm going to find a way to use this film to show a 2 hour look at how critical the Civil Rights Movement really was during the 1960's. I think a lot of other films gloss over the humanity and focus on the violence or the injustice, but The Butler blends the two nicely. It is a remarkable story of one man's journey through life, and I for one am glad it had a happy ending. 9/10.

Elysium

Neill Blomkampt's visionary follow-up to 2009's District 9 offers a hyperbolic look at the social injustices associated with the class system. It's an interesting shift from the xenophobic Apartheid theme of D9. Set in the future, it's a look at how devastating the population overload might become and the way that the affluent might separate themselves from the impoverished.

The film begins quickly with the rundown of the setting. It would be nice if there was a bit more explanation through action, but the year is 2154, and the rich live on the space station Elysium. It's a massive artificial utopia, and everyone who lives there is happy, healthy, and wealthy. The billions living on Earth are destitute and dirty, which is where the majority of the action takes place. Enter Max. Played by Matt Damon, he's a recovering criminal on parole, trying to live a straight life working in a factory putting together drones who patrol Earth and keep order. There is an ominous tone from the start. A sense of hopelessness that can only be attributed to the class divide.

Max finds himself in a precarious position where he needs to get to Elysium quickly, and he is in a position to help out an old friend. He is given an exoskeleton suit in a gritty and cringe-worthy surgical scene, and he starts his journey. The Secretary of Defense for Elysium, played by Jodie Foster, uses the black ops at her disposal to keep the people safe from the dirty Earthlings, who try to immigrate illegally, much like Cuban refugees trying to get to Miami (not the best analogy, but whatever). Sharlto Copley, who has been a Blomkampt favorite since D9, is frightening as the psychopath, Kruger, who is tasked with tracking and killing Max. The film climaxes with the big showdown, and as a viewer, we are left in an unsettling place philosophically. It's emotionally evocative as intended, but in the end the execution is a bit weak.

When I say the execution is weak, I don't mean the visual effects, or the fantastic imagination of Blomkampt (from here out, I'll just call him Neill). I mean that the way that the story unfolded was a bit unexpected. The violence and graphic nature of Neill's storytelling is definitely his calling card, and Elysium is simply much more graphic than most moviegoers might enjoy. The intention is commendable; Neill wants to show the realism and plight of the people of Earth, and just how indiscriminate those in power can be when their economic advantage is being threatened.

Damon is a great actor, and this is a departure from his usual types of role. It's a bold choice, and one that must have been really fun for him to film. He's a really strong action star, and was a great choice as the everyman Max. He's broadening his horizons in the upcoming Terry Gilliam flick, The Zero Theorum, and will be in the Oscar caliber Monuments Men with George Clooney.

Neill is working on his next project, a Sci-Fi comedy called Chappie starring... you guessed it, Sharlto Copley. I haven't heard anything about it, but expect a strong story with a political motivation. He's a brilliant young filmmaker and will likely continue to toe the line with intriguing and controversial science fiction.

I was expecting a bit more from Elysium. It had such a strong idea, and is as original a Sci-Fi film as I've seen since Moon (Duncan Jones, 2009). The problem was that the violence near the end of the film wasn't commensurate with the vibe from the start. Damon's Max finds himself caught up in a more important fight than he could have predicted, but he's supposed to be the anti-hero, and he becomes larger than life, and virtually indestructible. I would have liked to have seen a little more humanity from him. Additionally, the film climaxed and ended pretty abruptly. There are so many untended questions that could have been addressed, but I suppose the pondering is what Neill intended.

I don't know why I thought Elysium would be so much more than what it was. Maybe it was the magic of District 9, or the idea of a fresh film in the genre when so much is stale, remakes, or sequels. Whatever the case may be, I just wasn't impressed as much as I had hoped. It's an interesting film, but not as interesting as it should be. 6/10.

We're the Millers

We're the Millers follows an affable small-time drug dealer named David (Jason Sudeikis) who doesn't really fit the typical profile. He's in his mid-30's, is well-spoken with quick wit and humor, and is realizing how sad his life has become. He's likable and handsome, and clever and successful in his approach to dealing marijuana. He does live by a credo though, which makes him that much more respectable; don't sell to kids. Through an unfortunate encounter, he is coerced into doing an international smuggling job for his ridiculous dealer (Ed Helms) when he owes him $40,000, so he reluctantly agrees and makes his plan. Enter Rose (Jennifer Aniston), Casey (Emma Roberts), and the hilarious Kenny (Will Poulter). They are recruited to play his wife and two kids, although their real identities are much more interesting. Aniston is a jaded, aging stripper, Roberts is a hardened street teen, and Poulter is a naive virgin who is really just a nice guy. Together, they make their trek to Mexico as The Millers.

Their journey is not without its obstacles. David isn't accustomed to playing house, and when you're taking a giant RV filled with 4000 pounds of pot from Mexico with strangers, things are likely to get a bit crazy. They piss off the drug cartel, have problems with the border patrol, meet a gangsta wannabe named Scotty P; you know what I'm sayin? and finally, link up with a good, Christian couple and their daughter on a road trip played perfectly by Nick Offerman and Kathryn Hahn. The best moments are the interactions with the Fitzgeralds and the best lines are given by Hahn. In the end, the Millers develop an unlikely respect and bond for each other, but the real fun is the burgeoning relationship from the start.

Unfortunately, many of the best lines are spoiled in the previews. You know the entire story before you sit down in the theatre, but there is still plenty to love. Sudeikis has a comedic confidence that is so refreshing. You can tell that a lot of the lines are improvised (see the outtakes at the end) and he's building a body of work like Will Ferrell more and more with each film/show he stars in. His selection of work for TV is amazing, having been in Children's Hospital, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia, 30 Rock, Portlandia, and of course SNL. His star is on the rise, and with more films like Horrible Bosses, or Millers, he'll be around for a long time.

Jennifer Aniston is in full "look how hot I am at 45, Brad Pitt" mode, and dances and jiggles like a real stripper (or how I imagine a stripper would dance and jiggle...) She is pretty funny and is shirking her wholesome image with every raunchy comedy that she makes, but she's doing it nicely and shamelessly. I've never been a big fan of her work, but she plays Rose with swagger, and you can tell she loves showing her body off, a la Demi Moore in Striptease, but without the actual nudity (or paycheck). Ken Marino makes a quick appearance as the strip club manager, and he fits that role perfectly, you can tell that he's enjoying himself. The nickname of one of the other strippers is comedy gold, and little details like that are what make this film fun.

The real heart of the movie comes from the teenage kids. Julia Roberts' niece is making a name for herself in her own right, and has some lines that make you double take that she actually said it. It's my kind of humor, and it's fun to see her take on roles that aren't too Disney, or too wholesome. My favorite part of the movie however, is Will Poulter as the clueless Kenny with a heart of gold. The Brit will break out with this role, but is going to gain a whole new audience in next year's young adult adaptation of Maze Runner (think a poor man's Hunger Games). The only way I can describe his character is as a grade A doofus. I mean that endearingly.

Ed Helms is a bit wasted, and overacts in what could have been a scene-stealing role. Ripe for lines and a charismatic persona, he just comes off as an unlikely kingpin who doesn't really own his importance.

Written by a couple of teams that were behind Wedding Crashers and Hot Tub Time Machine (and others), We're the Millers is a pretty original, sharp, and satisfying comedy. Director Rawson Marshall Thurber has been puttering around Hollywood since his 2004 home run Dodgeball: A True Underdog's Story, which he wrote and directed, but he's back on track now.

Ultimately, We're the Millers is a well-executed comedy. Since my only real complaint is that the previews spoil a lot of the comedy, there isn't really anything to complain about at all. Great cast, great story, great dialogue. Better than any of the other mainstream summer comedies. 8/10.

2 Guns

Duplicity, shootouts, and male bonding. It's not Lethal Weapon 5, but it's pretty close. Mark Wahlberg and Denzel Washington buddy up for this far-fetched tale of two federal agents who are tricked into robbing a bank together, only to find that they stole too much money... and from the wrong person. The traditional paradigm of buddy flicks runs rampant throughout this one with Wahlberg as the Riggs (Mel Gibson); a bit of a wild card who gives out one liners and is just way too cool even when he's facing the barrel of a gun. Denzel isn't quite Murtaugh (Danny Glover), but he is the more serious of the two and less of a shoot from the hip type. It doesn't end there. The two of them are forced into collusion, and although they hate each other once they discover the truth, they grow to become the best of friends. Pretty standard, but also pretty fun. It's based on a graphic novel of the same name by Steven Grant, and a sequel is already in the works. It's made roughly half of its $60 million budget in the first week, and hasn't been released overseas yet. This is the kind of non-superhero movie that should do well internationally, so it has big return potential.

The film follows two men who have no idea that one is an undercover DEA agent and the other is an undercover Navy SEAL. They are both trying to bring down a Mexican drug lord and are both willing to throw each other under the bus to do so. Once they discover each other's identity, it's too late. They are already in over their heads, ostracized by their own people, and being hunted by both the Mexicans and the CIA. Their only hope is to work together to bring down corruption and save their own lives. There's a lot of gunplay, great one-liners, Bill Paxton as we haven't seen him before, and a topless Paula Patton. What's not to like?

We haven't seen Denzel loosen up in quite some time. It's nice to see him crack jokes and have a little fun with his role. No bad-ass crook, cop, or alcoholic pilot here; just an actor having a good time. Wahlberg has a great natural sense of humor that is starting to shine more and more. His work in The Other Guys and Ted were truly funny, and he's showing that he's more than just a CK model who thinks he can rap. In my mind, he's shedding the 1990's image and becoming one of the better actors around for action or comedy. Don't put him in the Oscar category yet (although his role in The Departed was incredible), but he could get there. Next year he's playing the titular role in Lone Survivor, and will take over where Shia LeBeouf left off in Transformers 4. It's good to see him having some fun.

The supporting cast is mostly irrelevant as the focal point is on the 2 guns. The two that stand out however, are Bill Paxton and Edward James Olmos, who play the bad guys. I've been a fan of Paxton for a long time, but he's never been quite so cold and ruthless. It's fun to see this side of him, even if it's a bit out of character. Olmos is a bit harder to take seriously. I'm in the middle of Dexter season 4, and it's hard to not see him as a joke of a serial killer. He's just too nice of a guy to believe that he's a kingpin. Personal feelings aside, they each bring some added flair and tension to the mix, and are just enough levity and entertainment to make it work. Patton is eye candy as the hottest bitch in the room (little Robin Thicke reference - he's her husband) and James Marsden shows off some muscle in a wasted role. The rest of the cast is just there to shoot and get shot at, and that's totally fine.

Baltasar Kormakur is an Icelandic director best known for the Wahlberg bust Contraband, but also has some foreign work on his resume. Lucky break for such an industry outsider to nab a graphic novel action flick with two Hollywood A-listers. His next film should be epic as well, pitting Josh Brolin, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Jason Clarke against the elements in Everest.

2 Guns isn't without its plot holes, but its OK. Believability isn't at the crux of the film; two A-list action stars is. At just under 2 hours, we get to know the two and are given the action that we are craving. With a couple of rudimentary twists and an open ending, there is definitely room for a sequel. The chemistry between Washington and Wahlberg is pretty good, as they have such different personalities, and they are exaggerated to create that contrast. They shine when together as there is natural banter and I would pay to see them again. 7.5/10.

The To Do List

The crude humor indie comedy of the summer has hit, and with it, deadpan specialist Aubrey Plaza. A terrific cast in the vein of Superbad, but a more chick-centric approach to the debauchery that high school age kids experiment with, The To Do List is surprisingly fun.

The year is 1993. Not so long ago that it seems different, but writer and director Maggie Carey hits the cultural trends on the head. Trapper Keepers, Grunge, VCR's, Parker Lewis Can't Lose button up shirts (that's right, I went there), Skorts, etc. They are all ideas typically associated with the era that is unarguably a time of bad fashion and waiting for the next big thing.

Aubrey Plaza is Brandy Klark, a goody-two-shoes that is too successful for her own good. Creator of every academic club, published, accomplished, she is finishing high school and getting ready to head off to college to a world of maturity and seriousness. The only problem is that she hasn't had any of the fun experimentation that goes with being an irresponsible teenager, and she's worried that college will be overwhelming. Enter the To Do List. Ever the organized young woman, she creates a sexual bucket list of all of the raunchy things that she can come up with. She's inspired by her unexplainable newfound cravings for the college-aged Rusty Waters, played by Scott Porter. Her two best friends, Fiona and Wendy, played by Alia Shawkat and Sarah Steele are the perfect complements to her rigid and rule-abiding uptight debutante. They push her and prod her to loosen up, without being overly aggressive. The three of them are young, inexperienced, and talk like the girls from Fast Times at Ridgemont High.

Brandy's friends help her along her journey, navigating obstacles like her conservative, yet very realistic parents (Connie Britton and Clark Gregg), her slutty older sister and her constant put downs (Rachel Bilson), and the high school boy who has loved her forever but has never had the guts to say so (Johnny Simmons). Bill Hader and Andy Samberg add comedic depth to the ensemble, and the overall tone is light and airy. Complete with an embarrassing song number at the end (Bridesmaids, This is the End, yada yada yada) The To Do List is a well-rounded, fresh, red band comedy that brings you back to the early 90's, but without the awkward realism.

To keep herself occupied during her summer, Brandy gets a job as a lifeguard at the local public pool, and that is where the film anchors. She works with both her crush and crushee (not sure how to say that) and her friends visit her often as she slowly realizes that it's OK to just have fun sometimes.

Aubrey Plaza, who is so good as Parks and Recreation's April, delivers comic gold. She embraces all of the uncomfortable scenes and sequences with a nonchalant attitude and is virtually fearless as she tackles the taboo. The artful success is that it is borderline crude, but stays just on the right side of offensive. It tiptoes, but doesn't quite cross it, much like Something About Mary. Lots of semen jokes, but tastefully done of course. She's quickly becoming the next Parker Posey; an indie icon. Let's just hope she sticks to picking good roles while the iron's hot.

Connie Britton and Clark Gregg are a great match as the parents who have a little sexual tension themselves. They follow in the long line of strict, high expectant cinematic parents who raise a great kid, but reluctantly let her spread her wings (or legs) and become an adult. Connie Britton just has a way about her that is Southern charm and "hey y'all" smiles all the way. She is just so happy all the time. Her matter-of-fact sex talks evoke the discomfort of her kids, and Clark Gregg seems almost more uncomfortable than the kids, but it's entertaining. Rachel Bilson is the best part of this film though. She typically plays such good-girl parts, it's fun to see her let loose with the insults and 90's verbiage.

Writer/Director Maggie Carey, who has been flying under the radar since 2001, most notably as a part of the Funny or Die vignettes, is climbing the ranks. As a comedy writer, she might be the next Diablo Cody, or Lena Dunham. OK, maybe not either, but she definitely has a future in the writer's room, and will be hanging around Hollywood for awhile. Did I mention she's Bill Hader's wife? That doesn't hurt either, to be in that circle.

The To Do List isn't anything new or even great, but it is fun. Raunchy teen comedy fun. The biggest difference being that it's from the female perspective in an otherwise male dominated genre. If you're a child of the 90's, as I was, you'll enjoy the references and subtleties. 8/10.