The Interview

By now everyone has heard about the controversial leaked data from Sony Studios, allegedly perpetrated by the North Koreans, now seemingly to be an inside job. Just days before the release, there were ominous threats made toward any American movie theater that was going to show the film, and ultimately the studio kowtowed to the terrorist threats. Ultimately, after being chastised by Hollywood and President Obama, Sony decided to brazenly throw caution to the wind, fight the terrorists, and release the movie through various outlets. It just so happens that the film has earned more than initially projected, so there you go. Suck it, North Korea. Now, outraged patriotic Americans want to fly over North Korea and drop DVD's in a guerilla freedom blitzkrieg. Too bad the North Koreans are still watching VHS.

Seriously though, this is a comedy. A true bromantic comedy reuniting the slightly effeminate James Franco, who plays the vapid pop culture talk show host, Dave Skylark and his producer, Seth Rogen, who plays his best friend and confidant, Aaron Rapaport. The two of them score an interview with Kim Jong Un, who they find out is a fan of Skylark's show, and so naturally, the CIA intervenes and asks Dave and Aaron to assassinate the leader for them. That's really about it for the plot. Very simple, but very controversial as the subject of a comedic assassination plot is a currently reigning head of state.

Rife with pop culture references, and a strange obsession with Honeydicking, The Interview doesn't do anything to make North Korea look any worse than the dozens of documentaries that simply show their actual government controlled way of life. In fact, Kim Jong Un (played by Randall Park) is portrayed to be a slightly compassionate, and complex man, although it is done in an obviously sardonic way.

Take away North Korea, and this is a vehicle for James Franco and Seth Rogen to make raunchy jokes, engage in debauchery, and basically have fun making a movie that they know people will want to see. I imagine that they are pretty good friends in real life, and the line of fiction in comedy is continually blurring; not so much with plot or story-lines, but with interpersonal relationships and banter. Take This is the End for example. The movie was ridiculous, but take away the whole apocalypse thing, and it's just a bunch of celebrities hanging out having a good time. The same is true with The Interview. Seth Rogen seems to be acting as himself, and James Franco is trying a bit too hard to be funny. It works from time to time, but his constant identity crisis is baffling to me (comedian, serious thespian, student, teacher, writer, director, etc.) I guess it's good for him that he's so ambitious, but I'm left with the impression that he's just trying too hard to be thought of as more than just a pretty face.

Directed by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (writer - Superbad, Pineapple Express, Green Hornet, This is the End), it's nothing exceptional in really any way. Some of the best humor occurs before North Korea is even mentioned (the whole Eminem sequence), but you have to hand it to the team. They took a clearly controversial film and knocked it out from start to finish, standing by their work and ultimately winning the war on terror and distributing a red, white, and blue slap in the face of the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea. Bravo fellas.

The supporting cast is mostly forgettable except for Lizzy Caplan, whose CIA agent Lacey is a wasted opportunity for a great supporting comedic performance/bromantic love interest. She does a nice job with the role, but isn't fed enough juicy material or given enough screen time to create anything substantial. The supporting cast is mostly fodder for Franco and Rogen to do what they think is funny, which at times actually is. The one missing piece is the cameo of Dennis Rodman - what's up with that?

The Interview isn't nearly as shocking or controversial as expected, and it is on par with the humor of Rogen and Franco's past works, but for some reason the absence of drugs/alcohol diminishes the humor. Hmm. They would do well to stop forcing humor, and letting it evolve, and please, spread the love to the rest of the cast. James Franco, you aren't as funny as you think you are. 6/10 because of the guts to make the movie in the first place.

Nightcrawler

Los Angeles at night. Is there a more sprawled out canvas of "anything can happen" in America? The city itself is a dark and tempting character, with iconic sights from the Hollywood Hills, to Mulholland Drive. Beverly Hills to the Pacific Highway. The bright lights and the dark streets of this flat, urban landscape. It's hard to imagine nearly 4 million people live in the limits, yet there is something that is so attractive. The more movies you've seen, the more tempting she is. It's a magical city, and director Dan Gilroy captures her dark, seedy magic as if it were one of the characters. I haven't been this impressed with LA as a main character since Collateral, or Heat. You might even say that this seems like a low-budget Michael Mann film.

Jake Gyllenhaal is mesmerizing as Lou Bloom. To say he's a bit quirky and creepy would be an understatement, and Jake nails it. Lou is a borderline sociopath looking for some direction in life. He is intelligent, but not educated, and doesn't seem to have any friends, family, or connections. The back story doesn't matter though because Lou is such an interesting character. Gyllenhaal lost a considerable amount of weight to play the gaunt, almost Kafka-esque version of his former self. His bug eyes, greasy hair, and emaciated features create a compelling anti-hero. He becomes entranced by the world of crime photo-journalism, stumbling upon an accident scene and marveling at the adrenaline rush of human misery and society's infatuation with watching. A man with little conscience, this is right up his alley. As a quick study, he discovers that he is actually pretty good at the job and thrives on the carnage besieging the city at night. As he starts to make a decent living, he befriends a news station program director (Rene Russo) more out of the mutual absence of moral integrity and the craving of profitability, and less out of actual friendship. Things begin to spiral out of control when Lou loses himself in his job, not at all motivated by the money as much as the respect of the news station, and the adoration of the public.

Nightcrawler preys on the voyeuristic instinct of all of us, and Tony Gilroy throws us right in the middle of the nasty world of network news. The approach is highly cynical, and you won't leave the film feeling very good about yourself. Or humanity. Or anything really. In fact, that's what Gilroy manages to accomplish; an icky feeling after watching this deplorable and despicable subculture cannibalize themselves and each other. Why would you want to watch a film like this, you ask? Because just like the car wrecks on the highway, you can't look away. That's the catch-22.

Gilroy and his brother hit the scene a few years back with the brilliant Michael Clayton, and Nightcrawler is brilliant in an entirely different way. The way that Network made us look at news dissemination through a cautious lens, Nightcrawler questions the ethics of the industry when ratings are the only true measure of success. It's an unscrupulous industry, and it's people like the entrepreneurial Lou Bloom who keep it moving at a darker and more graphic pace.

The plot isn't anything clever or even unpredictable, but Gilroy captures the essence of the film through his use of rising tension. The music is subtle but effective, and the pacing is sound for a novice filmmaker. What holds the film together however, is the City of Angels at night, and Lou Bloom. Outstanding job for a film with a budget of only $8.5 million. Expect it to be an awards sleeper.

In the end, you get so caught up in this seedy world, that you don't know whether to root for Bloom to achieve success, or root against him and his insatiable appetite for (insert human misery here). Does it make you a bad person if you secretly root for him? Of course, but it's the movies and the best performances are the ones who cause you to sympathize with a character despite his tremendous flaws. For that, Jake Gyllenhaal has accomplished his objective, and I expect he will receive an Oscar nomination in the process. Still one of the more underrated actors around when it comes to talent and potential (his role in Prisoners was amazing), he gets his first Best Oscar nomination for Nightcrawler.

The violent news culture we live in is amplified on screen, and this film isn't for everyone, but for a crime drama/thriller, it's definitely entertaining. Gyllenhaal impresses me once again. 8/10.

John Wick

John Wick is a hitman coming out of retirement seeking revenge on the mob family who stole his car and killed his puppy. It sounds pretty dubious, but it works, and here's why: It doesn't pretend to be anything other than a good old-fashioned action revenge flick. It is short enough to captivate the audience's attention, rarely taking the foot off the accelerator. It's directed by a pair of veteran stuntmen, so the action is somewhere in between a B movie and a top shelf Hollywood action film. And finally, it doesn't attempt to create unnecessary character depth or back story. It knows what it needs to do, and it delivers.

John Wick (Keanu Reeves) is a legendary operator in the community of wet work, and he's respected and feared by everyone. Since retiring and settling down with a family, his wife gets sick and dies, leaving him a puppy as his only remaining link to her memory. A reckless son of a Russian mobster breaks into his house, steals his car, and kills his dog, unleashing the fury and rage that has been building within Wick. What unfurls is a killing spree in a series of action sequences that keeps the momentum and the tone of the film light enough to fully enjoy, but fast enough to appreciate.

Reeves is in his element, and at 50 years old, is showing that he's aging gracefully in the path of Tom Cruise. He seems to get better with age, and I wouldn't be surprised to see Keanu make his presence known in the action arena over the next 10 years. His next project is titled Rain. He plays John Rain, an assassin who makes his victims look like they died of natural causes. Is there a trend developing here? Long thought to be a joke of an actor, with some pretty memorable lines throughout the 80's, 90's, and even through his Matrix trilogy, he is more soft-spoken in John Wick, and delivers a self-knowing, mature performance. Not to be taken seriously, but comfortable and confident where he is. One thing is certain, he is pretty solid at action.

The directors, David Leitch and Chad Stahelski have been around Hollywood for years as stuntmen, so their experience is vast, but their shelf-life as directors is probably going to be limited. They create a pretty cool movie however, and the action sequences are solid. Nothing particularly noteworthy, but definitely popcorn friendly.

A Swede and a Brit play the father/son Russian mobsters, and although convincing, it's nothing that we haven't seen before. Willem Dafoe makes an appearance as a fellow assassin and John's seemingly only friend (although everyone who knows him pays him the respect of a king). Adrianne Palicki is the femme fatale, but doesn't get much screen time, nor are her best assets featured very prominently. It's alright though, because it's not that type of movie. It's about revenge.

John Wick is a surprisingly entertaining movie, and although its body count is pretty high, it's not done gratuitously, which makes it kind of fun. Reeves is a gunfighter, and this is 90 minutes of macho fantasy. Besides, any movie with Lance Reddick as a hotel concierge has to be pretty cool. 7/10.

Interstellar

"Do not go gentle into that good night" Dylan Thomas wrote way back in the mid 20th century, and there's a resounding sense of fatalism and fearless exploration in this villanelle that sums up the essence of Interstellar. Of course, when Michael Caine reads poetry, nearly anything can sound beautiful, haunting, and deep.

Tell me that Christopher Nolan and his brother wrote a sci-fi film that has deep personal meaning to them, and that Christopher is behind the camera, and I'll pay full price anytime. He is the master of modern sci-fi action films (sorry Ridley Scott), and not in the Michael Bay way, I'm talking about the way that is respected among audiences, critics, and frankly, Hollywood.

Interstellar is a film in two parts, the first is the Earthbound character development that seems a bit rushed, but also drags out as anticipation of part two lingers. We are in middle America, in the not so distant future, and it's not so much dystopian as it is a cautionary tale addressing both overpopulation and destruction of the environment. We are entering a 21st Century dust bowl, and life is looking bleak. Corn is the only crop that grows and scientists outlook isn't optimistic. Something drastic needs to be done to save the human race.

Enter Cooper (McConaughey). He's a former NASA test pilot who never got a chance to do what he was trained to do. With the collapse of social services comes the abolition of extra programs like space exploration, so the engineer finds himself out of work, and manning a respectable if not inane life as a farmer. He desperately wants better for both of his kids, nudging them into the sciences, droning on to anyone who will listen about how adventure and exploration are lost arts, and that agriculture is simply boring. Anyhow, he stumbles upon his long, lost brethren and they welcome him back, introducing him to the last bastion of hope for humanity, the Lazarus project. Headed by the indelible Michael Caine, a staple in Nolan's recent films, the Lazarus has the remaining NASA scientists; the best and the brightest, working on breakthrough quantum physics theories since discovering a black hole near Saturn.

Of course it's ridiculous, but Nolan spins a moderately believable yarn. Jumping on the idea that gravity is the only thing keeping humans from leaving Earth in a Star Trek fashion, it is the one theory that Caine's Professor Brand is dangerously close to cracking. In the meantime, they plan to send out brave astronauts through the black hole in search of an inhabitable planet for humans. Pretty grandiose idea.

The four-person crew is led by Cooper, and Brand's daughter, Amelia (Anne Hathaway). I'm not usually a fan, but performance/character is surprisingly likable. The other two are Wes Bentley (where has he been?) and David Gyasi as physicists, engineers, or some other sort of mission specialist. This begins part two. The space sequences are beautiful, and the excitement of the possibility of undiscovered science making science fiction just plain science is both fascinating and captivating. Part two is where the magic happens. The crew races against time (literally) in their search for the brave pioneer astronauts who sent their data out years ago, and as they explore interstellar space, there is a sense of claustrophobia as well as awe, and what unfolds is a very clear combination of Contact, Armageddon (yep, I threw a Bay film in the mix), and 2001: A Space Odyssey.

As the film reaches its inevitable and climactic conclusion, we are reminded that this is nothing short of a Christopher Nolan masterpiece. After pondering my slight disappointment, I realized that Nolan films are larger than life. There is no way that the film could ever meet expectations, and that is what makes it a must-see. He is a genius at his craft, plain and simple. The Dark Knight and Inception were two of the best films of the past decade, not just for content, but for layered thematic story lines and incredible character portrayal. Interstellar's characters aren't quite as memorable as the Joker, or DiCaprio's Cobb, but they are certainly better than Jodie Foster, or Bruce Willis and his crew. I imagine it will draw comparisons to last year's Gravity, but they are different creatures in different genres (I would call Gravity full-on realistic, but I'm not an astronaut, so I can't be quoted). Both hold strengths, and I would say Nolan is channeling his inner Stanley Kubrick more than anything else, and for that, he should be celebrated. 2001 was iconic in so many ways, it set the bar and hasn't been touched. Hell, Kubrick can't be touched in the pantheon of cinema, but Interstellar certainly makes a valiant effort.

There can be flaws noted, particularly nearing the climax and how it explains subtle clues from earlier in the film, but not in the giddy way that Inception demanded a second viewing, even though that's what I was expecting and hoping for. The theme of man's follies in destroying the beautiful planet is a bit heavy, as is the humanist spirit to protect it. And there is a sequence of Red Planet/Mission to Mars inspiration that is somewhat unnecessary, but it's really more of a speed bump than a road block. The music drowned out the dialogue at times, and seemed a bit overbearing, but the music was such an important part of both 2001 and Inception, so I can certainly see why they went that direction.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great film all around. A magically original story with high level science explained as if it were from a State University 101 class. Very smooth. I guess I wish that the 2 1/2 hours had gone on much, much longer. And that's why I'm giving it a 9/10.

Fury

Fury is a hellish look at WWII's final days through the eyes of a battle-hardened tank crew, and a pacifist newbie thrown in to replace a dead crew member before one last run into Germany. It's ugly, dirty, violent. But writer/director David Ayer wouldn't have it any other way. Colin Powell commented "This is really how it is" after watching a screening, and I can't help but agree (speculation, I've never been in war). There is very little glamour, and death is waiting for all of them at any given moment. The unnerving constant is how each of the men deal with the harsh reality of their own mortality.

The crew of Fury, the Sherman tank mobile home for a 5 man crew, is led by Brad Pitt, a man who is stoic and hard in front of his men. Brave and unshakeable. But he has his personal moments of silent insanity when nobody is watching. He knows that a true leader in war needs to be strong and confident, or else his crew will fail. He promises all of them that he will keep them safe if they follow his directions, and they all believe him; with every last ounce of their lives. Michael Pena (End of Watch) plays the driver without much emotion. He's a little bit too calm throughout the fray, but he is assuaged by Pitt's words of wisdom. Jon Bernthal (The Walking Dead) plays the muscled crazy crewman who is the loader. Grimy and dirty, his job is to keep loading hulking shells, one after the other, and he gets a euphoric rush every time one of them is fired. Shia LeBeouf is the gunner, and although he's fallen on some harsh criticism since his Transformers roles, he is the centerpiece of the full emotional spectrum played out on the screen. A great role and great performance.

The focus of the film, however, lies in the heart of Logan Lerman's character. A brand new army typist, drafted right out of innocence, and thrust in to the war as a replacement gunner on Pitt's Fury crew. He's in way over his head, having never been in a tank, and never wanting to fire a weapon. There's a constant look of palpable fear that slowly wears away, like Novocaine subsiding, until the final act when he becomes what he fought so hard to avoid, a war machine.

There is constant tension through the claustrophobia inherent in the idea of a fortified mobile enemy target. Three well executed battle sequences show some of the harrowing faces of death, and Ayer does a nice job creating some dramatic shock value to amp up the tension. The idea that one well-placed rocket can cause an inferno, cooking the 5 men inside is a pulsating fear that slowly grows over the course of the film.

I've never seen a truly well done tank battle scene in the movies. Best I can recall, Patton and Courage Under Fire are the only 2 that come to mind, and their action is muted by the acting and the character studies. Fury's action scenes blow them away, bar none. Four Sherman tanks taking on the massive fortress of a German Tiger Tank is one of the coolest choreographed battle ballets intermixed with violence, blood, and explosions that I've seen in recent film. A truly remarkable achievement.

As the battle-torn Fury finally falls apart (not a spoiler, it's in the trailer), the men are faced with the ultimate decision. Fight or flee. Life or death. The final fight is a bit rushed, and a bit one-sided compared with what might have been the reality, but Fury leaves its mark.

Fury is the type of film that won't get the awards attention that I thought it would before viewing. It has the grittiness and violence of Saving Private Ryan, but it's missing something. Director David Ayer has carved out a Hollywood niche, and as long as there are profits, he'll keep making his movies. The human characters could use a bit more depth, and that's what I've thought since he broke on the scene with Training Day. Every subsequent film he's created has lacked character development.

Terrific action however, and brutally graphic death scenes. Ayer's next film falls in line with his wheelhouse, a remake of the Sam Peckinpah classic The Wild Bunch set in modern day Mexico. That will be a cool movie.

Fury is absolutely not for the timid, not for the masses. If your gut turned watching the violence of Saving Private Ryan, you might want to skip this. For the action film junkie however, Fury is pretty good. Dialogue and character development are certainly the weaknesses, but otherwise it's a very worthwhile use of two hours. I loved it and hated it, a rarity in my experience, but because of its strengths, I have to give it a 7/10.

10 Movies you need to see not titled Hobbit, Hunger, or Horrible

I was trying to come up with a good title, and didn't want to exclude the two blockbusters and one comedy that will likely rule the winter box office. Here are 10 films you need to see between now and January 1st, and why.

Fury - David Ayer is a hit or miss writer/director with such films as End of Watch, Training Day, Harsh Times, Sabotage, SWAT, and Dark Blue under his belt. See a trend? He takes his wheelhouse to a whole new level with the help of what appears to be a stellar cast, led by Brad Pitt. A World War II tank crew find themselves stranded in Nazi Germany and have to fight their way out. His films have a way of killing off main characters/protagonists pretty frequently, so expect the unexpected as it comes to a conclusion. There hasn't been a good tank action film in awhile (ever?), and Pitt was exceptional in Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds, so it should be a very entertaining film.

Whiplash - I'm hearing a lot of buzz about Whiplash. Particularly the acting of Miles Teller as the drumming protege, and JK Simmons as the angry mentor. The director, Damien Chazelle is new, but this is a very intriguing character study and relationship around the pursuit of musical perfection. It's something different, but likely will garner some awards talk.

Birdman - Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is a fantastic director, part of the trio of Hispanics who hit the scene hard in 2006 with his film Babel (Guillermo Del Toro's Pan's Labrynth and Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men were the other 2). Michael Keaton plays an aging former film star whose Birdman hits very close to home in its verisimilitude. Keaton played Batman all those years ago, and although he's had a successful career, there are more than a few parallels from what I hear. The fascinating thing about Birdman however, is Inarritu's decision to film it seamlessly. The sequences are in some cases up to 10 minutes long, and the whole film appears as one long take. It was a big deal when Brian De Palma did an extended opening sequence with Snake Eyes, and it's been attempted in the past, but with technology, it just might work. Either way, I'm excited.

Nightcrawler - Jake Gyllenhaal continues to make great choices, and Nightcrawler just might be a vehicle good enough to get him a Best Actor nomination. He's due, and playing a gaunt, aspiring crime journalist who gets a bit too involved in his scenes, this might be the film to get him into the top 5. The film has potential to lose audiences due to content, and director Dan Gilroy's inexperience (he's married to Rene Russo, also starring in the film). Look for a strong performance nonetheless.

Interstellar - Anything Christopher Nolan touches turns to gold, and this just might be the second coming of 2001. His vision has no limitations, and with an A list cast, good word of mouth, and an astronomical budget, this will be THE sci-fi film of the year. Of course, it's one of the only sci-fi films of the year, but that doesn't matter. It's one of the most difficult genres to do well, but Nolan is the master. This will be a must-see. Probably in IMAX and/or 3D to achieve maximum enjoyment.

Foxcatcher - Oscar nominee Steve Carrell. Yep, it's going to happen. This film has been on the shelf for over a year, but Bennett Miller (Moneyball) is carving a niche as the dramatic sports biopic champion. Carrell, in heavy makeup, plays John DuPont, the millionaire heir who sponsors the Schultz brothers (Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo) to train for Olympic wrestling. There is murder, deception, and the truth is stranger than fiction, but one thing is for certain; Steve will have at minimum a Best Actor Academy Award nomination.

Wild - Who was the biggest snub last year? There are arguments, but I would say Dallas Buyer's Club director Jean Marc-Vallee. He champions two actors to Oscars and isn't nominated himself. Shame. Anyhow, he might be the next David O. Russell, and this time his film follows Reese Witherspoon as a woman on an 1,100 mile solo hiking journey to find herself. Sounds very Kerouac, but reminds me of Krakauer's Sean Penn adaptation Into the Wild (Emile Hirsch was robbed). It seems to be one of the only noticeable strong female performances slated at this point, but we will see.

Inherent Vice - Paul Thomas Anderson films are mesmerizing. They are so deliberate and noir that you are sucked into the setting and just plain captivated by the performances. His use of music, and sucking the best possible characters out of his actors is unmatched in the industry. Joaquin Phoenix headlines his latest concoction, playing a seedy detective in 1970's LA. It's not likely to be accepted by the masses as PT Anderson normally isn't, but it will surely be admired.

American Sniper - Films aren't often moved up into December from January, but American Sniper is gaining some attention for its performance by Bradley Cooper. Clint Eastwood is one of the greatest directors in the game, and this biopic is a little bit Hurt Locker and a little bit Lone Survivor as Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle recounts his tours in Iraq and Afghanistan over a ten year period. He came to be known as "The Devil" by his enemy, and was respected among his military brethren capturing the honor of having the most confirmed combat kills in American history. Heavy stuff, and a great biography. Sadly and ironically, Kyle was killed a few years ago at a gun range in his hometown in Texas. After retirement and documenting his story, he took to helping soldiers deal with their PTSD by taking them to his gun range. One of them turned a gun on him, killing Kyle. Bradley Cooper will certainly receive a nomination for his performance.

Unbroken - The true story of Louis Zamperini, underdog survivor of childhood delinquency, athletic competition, WWII combat, survival at sea, and an extended stay in a Japanese POW camp. Unbroken is based on the novel by Laura Hillenbrand and is directed by Angelina Jolie. The screenplay was written by the Coen Brothers, which is a very exciting prospect for me. They are one of my favorite film making teams. The cast isn't headlined by anyone recognizable, but Jack O'Connell might become the next big thing if everything works out for him. This could be the film to beat for Best Picture, making Angelina Jolie a front-runner for Best Director right off the bat.

Gone Girl

The latest pop-culture darling novel-turned film pairs Gillian Flynn with master adapter, David Fincher. The novel, Gone Girl has been a runaway success and it was only a matter of time until it was made into a film. Much like the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, the book isn't all that captivating. I may ruffle some feathers, but I was disappointed in the ending, and didn't find myself wishing for anything but unhappy endings for the two main characters. Perhaps that is the point. Fincher captures that emotional abyss in a way that only he can; The ominous direction, dark settings, and matter-of-fact characters that are all the hallmark of his craft. It's the brave, first serious contender to foray into awards territory this year, which usually is a curse, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a handful of nominations.

Nick (Ben Affleck) and Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike) are an educated, middle-class married couple transplanted from the busy high life of New York to a slow, Americana-esque town in Missouri. The story follows a short span of time from the day of their 5 year anniversary on a sweltering 4th of July through the summer, in dramatic fashion. Over those long few weeks, Amy mysteriously and under suspicious circumstances disappears. As is customary in missing persons cases, Nick, the husband, is the prime suspect. The story is told in two parts with flashbacks thrown in the mix. It's a he said/she said thriller from start to finish, and the ending is something you might not see coming, but will certainly polarize audiences.

Don't read the book first. If you have, you will be impressed by Fincher's attention to detail and Flynn's seamless adaptation of her own material. If you haven't, you will enjoy a wild psychological thriller that highlights the highs and lows of marriage and showcases the idea that you never really know someone, even if you've been sleeping next to them for years. The book builds to a crescendo, then crawls to the finish line in a lackluster final act. The film makes just enough slight changes at the end to satisfy the viewer in contrast to the written companion. Much like Dragon Tattoo, it's not an ending intended to wrap things up in a nice little bow, but when has Fincher ever shied away from leaving audiences hanging?

David Fincher is the greatest film maker not to have an Academy Award on his mantle. There, I've said it. You might make an argument for Christopher Nolan as a modern day visionary, but Fincher is consistently overlooked in the category best described as dramatic award bait. His two previous nominations are for The Social Network, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and he will likely receive another nomination this year, but unfortunately he won't be celebrated yet again. Here's why. Fincher's films stand alone on a ledge. They are edgy, thrilling, beautifully accompanied by very intentional visuals and sounds, and he teeters on a darkness that is best seen in The Game, Zodiac, and Dragon Tattoo. Hell, Fight Club, Seven, and Alien 3 as well. Gone Girl follows this line moreso than The Social Network or Benjamin Button, and the source material is perfect for his style. His darkness will scare away the awards crowd. He is fearless in where he is willing to go with his films. I liken it to last year's Prisoners. I absolutely loved the film. It was one of the few daring and original films I can recall from 2013, but it got no love because of the graphic and possibly gratuitous nature of the story. Gone Girl and Fincher achieve this level of shock. The film plugs along nicely, a cute thriller about a cute couple, but then it delves into darkness. Not to the extreme of some of his previous films, but there is one particular scene maybe 15-20 minutes from the end that is classic Fincher, and really jumps at the audience out of seemingly nowhere. That scene is what makes this film an R rating, and what will cost him serious consideration. Hollywood loves a rebel, but usually rewards the darling. I think the film is better for it, but it's Fincher's Achilles heel.

Ben Affleck is a good choice for this role mostly because it's not a very complex character. Not to knock Affleck as an actor, but Nick is a bit of an everyman and Affleck fits. He is a more talented director than an actor, but people give him a lot of flack that isn't warranted. As Christian Bale's replacement as Batman in the upcoming Dawn of Justice, and eventually the Justice League, he will make or break his acting career, but with 2016's Live by Night, an epic Dennis Lehane film that may be the next Scarface, Affleck may just move into the directing stratosphere with the greats (if Argo wasn't enough). It's just too bad that he has cast himself as the lead role (should have gone to someone lesser known).

Rosamund Pike is perfectly cast, and steals the show as Amazing Amy. She's a privileged debutante who finds herself miserable despite outward appearances being perfect. Her New Orleans accent could use a little work, but otherwise she gives the performance of her career, and will undoubtedly receive an Oscar nomination, if not a win. It remains to be seen what her competition looks like, but she gets a nomination.

The supporting cast is highlighted by Neil Patrick Harris as the wealthy ex-boyfriend, a spectacular Kim Dickens and understated but very effective Patrick Fugit (where has he been since Almost Famous?) as the police tandem working the case, Tyler Perry as the gregarious and sleazy-chic defense attorney, Tanner Bolt (great sleazeball name), and Carrie Coon as Nick's only supporter, his twin sister Margot Dunne. It's a good choice all around by the casting director, and I was particularly drawn to the police duo's chemistry and banter. I would love to see Patrick Fugit build up his resume as he has grown up since 2000, and has been around Hollywood, but hasn't landed a leading role. He's ripe for something big right now.

The film has its flaws, it isn't perfect, but given the material and my opinion of the book, the production team does an outstanding job. Fincher is amazing as always, and Pike gives the best acting performance by an actress so far this year. Brace yourself for a shocking scene near the end, but otherwise, enjoy the thriller. You might enjoy it more (or less) if you haven't read the book, but it's worth the price of admission. Go see the first award-worthy film of the year. 9/10.

The Maze Runner

The book was better. Or so the old axiom goes. I'm not a book snob, but I do enjoy reading these types of novels before watching the films, and I will say that in this case, the movie was better. Quite a bit better.

Teenager Thomas awakens in an elevator, rising rapidly and opening to bright sunlight and a curious group of teenage boys. He has no memory of how he ended up there, or who he is for that matter. All he knows is that he needs to escape. It turns out that this elevator arrives monthly, and has for the past three years, depositing a single boy into "The Glade". This group of misfits have built a civilization in this over-sized football stadium that is surrounded on all sides by four perfectly squared walls. The only escape is through a doorway that opens every morning, and closes every evening. Brave, athletic boys, dubbed "runners" travel outside the wall through a maze, ever searching for a way out and hopefully, home.

All this is thrown into chaos with the arrival of Thomas, and the subsequent arrival of the first girl, Theresa. Their harmonious community begins to fall apart. Not quite Lord of the Flies apart, but definitely dystopian future sci-fi young adult novel apart as they are forever monitored and chased by giant cyborg spiders called grievers, and they finally decide to invade The Glade.

The book is the first in a series, and a sequel film is in the works. Hollywood is always on the lookout for the next big adaptation. Harry Potter did pretty well at the box office, as did Twilight and The Hunger Games (a hint of sarcasm. They killed the box office). Ender's Game and most recently, Divergent fared well enough, while the Lois Lowry classic The Giver didn't do as well. The point is, where there's young adult material, there will be adaptations. Maze Runner may not be as popular a novel (maybe it is, I'm not totally sure) and in reality, it isn't very good. There are too many extraneous story lines that don't find any resolution at all. That's where the film does right. It passes by the material that is irrelevant and goes straight to the heart of the story; the mystery of the maze. It is suspenseful, and is certainly an interesting idea up until you see what's at the end of the maze. I kept thinking of a recent film that I loved, but the mention of it might be too much of a spoiler. Needless to say, the story isn't original and is a bit of a letdown.

Director Wes Ball is a novice and gets a pretty nice debut film to direct. Writers Noah Oppenheimer and Grant Pierce Myers do a nice job with the script, particularly with streamlining the final fight, modifying the ending, and eliminating some of the more unnecessary sequences. The pace only drags a few times, but it's only for a few minutes at a time. The film makers deserve the credit for making that happen.

Thomas is played by Dylan O'Brien, who does his best Logan Lerman impression through the whole two hours. He's a young, good-looking kid who might make something of himself depending on how far the Maze Runner series continues. The rest of the cast is mostly unknown actors who have experience, and may be recognizable if you follow a particular television series. Most notably, Thomas Brodie-Sangster as Newt, the likeable veteran who befriends Thomas. He was the kid in Love Actually, and is on Game of Thrones (I knew I recognized him!). Will Poulter is probably the biggest name as the villainous leader of the boys, Gally. His foray into physically intimidating is a bit of a head-scratch-er as he was the doofus, Kenny in We're the Millers last summer. It doesn't really fit. The story isn't about any of the characters though, so it doesn't matter. The real star is the Maze, which underwhelms in its potential magnitude. The runners spend entire days scouring its nooks and crannies, yet it's portrayed in a pretty boring manner. Bleak, slate gray walls and ivy adorning the insides and outsides. Narrow channels where they run around.

I went and saw the film with a group of 6th graders, and they were impressed, so I am clearly not the target audience. I left with two distinct questions: Did they have a lawnmower in The Glade? Because the grass was beautifully trimmed. And why didn't they climb the walls, and cross the channels with wooden ladders until they found a way out? I guess I would have been the first one to escape if it was me.

Great film for the target audience, and fans of the book will be impressed. Not so great for the adult crowd. 5/10.

Guardians of the Galaxy

The second to last installment of Marvel's "Phase Two" is quite possibly the best by the film studio yet. Drawing from inspiration ranging from Star Wars, Star Trek, The Fifth Element, and yes, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy digs deep into the bag of comic book creativity and throws a motley crew of anti-heroes together into the galactic fray, yet together they are able to defeat the powerful forces of evil that threaten to destroy the known universe.

We start on Earth in 1988, where 10 year old Peter Quill says goodbye to his dying mother before being abducted by a UFO. 26 years later, we find him on a distant planet in a distant galaxy, scavenging to the tunes of his walkman and his awesome mix tape. He shows us more in those few minutes about his character than we could have discovered in twice the dialogue. It's a perfect introduction to a character who is certain to appear again soon, and will no doubt be legendary in the sci-fi nerd realm (G of the G 2 is already in the works). He is a "Ravager", a scoundrel who capitalizes on using his dirty, beaten up ship to take him from job to job, dealing with seedy beings like "The Broker" or "The Collector". I know, not very original, but it keeps it simple. Anyhow, he finds himself caught up in drama with Ronan the Accuser tracking a powerful object (The Orb), and finds himself working with a rag-tag group of self-pronounced "A-Holes" to stop him from destroying everything that they all love and loathe.

Chris Pratt is the reincarnation of Han Solo for the 21st Century. He's cool, carefree, quick with a snarky line, and uses his natural charm and humor to nicely lead the band of misfits in perfect sync with the tone of the film. He's been on the rise for years, and is so much more than just the doofus Andy on Parks and Recreation (although that particular character is hilarious). He has impressed me with his choice of films over the past few years, with roles in Moneyball, Zero Dark Thirty, Her, and The Lego Movie. He'll next be seen in next summer's Jurassic World, is already lined up for Guardians 2, and is rumored to take on the iconic role of David Hasselhoff in the big screen adaptation of Knight Rider. Who says Hollywood has run out of new ideas? He has physically transformed himself into a fit action star, and his personality and wit will ensure that he'll be around for a long, long time.

The supporting cast has Zoey Saldana as the green-skinned adopted daughter of Thanos (we caught a glimpse of him at the end of The Avengers). She is a bitter assassin with some trust issues, but uses facial expressions expertly to inject levity to the action. WWE superstar Dave Bautista is my favorite, Drax the Destroyer. He is hellbent on revenge after Ronan killed his family. He has the best lines of the film, delivers them with precision and timing, and is simply a mammoth of a man. No doubt the CGI/make up didn't need to add much to his frame other than coloring and some cool red tribal tattoos covering his body. Rounding out the cast are the voices of Bradley Cooper as Rocket Raccoon, and Vin Diesel as Groot, a giant tree beast whose only lines are "I am Groot". They are buddies that reminisce of R2-D2 and C-3PO, but a little more effective in a fight, and a little more fun.

The great thing about the ensemble is that these five are so different, yet so perfect together. I marvel at the creativity of the writers. A tree? A genetically engineered raccoon? Awesome. They all do their jobs with aplomb, and the story is a bit weak and recycled, but it doesn't matter. This film is a character driven vehicle and they could really do anything as long as they banter. It's the formula that has made so many of the other sci-fi films successful (the ones with alien creatures). Unlikely allies. Various skill sets. Great costumes and makeup. Guardians of the Galaxy is the closest thing to the Star Wars or Star Trek franchises since Firefly/Serenity, which never gained enough mainstream traction, but could certainly happen once Joss Whedon is done with his Avengers gig.

James Gunn puts some pressure on JJ Abrams with this one. Despite Abrams' recent epic Star Trek reboots (OK, maybe just the first one) the field becomes a bit more crowded with quality directors and films. With Abrams rolling out Star Wars next year, Guardians raises the sci-fi action bar above what Abrams himself has set. Not straight sci-fi, that's reserved for Christopher Nolan in the upcoming Interstellar (which just might be a game-changer). Gunn brings his writing and directing talents into the spotlight after a few lesser seen, but extremely entertaining projects (if you haven't seen the 2004 remake of Dawn of the Dead, you're missing out). He announced his intent to write and direct Guardians 2, and just might break out with one more solid effort. He's a relatively young filmmaker (44), and represents a generation of filmmakers taking over Hollywood. I'm excited to see what he creates over the next few years.

Marvel outdoes themselves. With a $94 opening weekend, Guardians is the most successful domestic opening in August ever. Kudos Marvel, it is truly deserved. Going forward, Marvel has a timeline laid out for what seems like the next decade, and with their astronomical box office success, why not? They have done an unprecedented job thus far in destroying the competition and wisely choosing projects (and directors) since the first Iron Man back in 2008. "Phase Two" will wrap up with next summer's Avengers: Age of Ultron and Ant-Man, and will then move on to "Phase Three" in 2016. My sources are rumored at this point, but upcoming projects start with 2016's Captain America: The Fallen Son, and Doctor Strange (Joaquin Phoenix and Benedict Cumberbatch are the rumored actors). 2017 has Thor: Ragnarok, Guardians of the Galaxy: War of Kings, and Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman is the leading candidate). 2018 would hold Avengers: Civil War, World War Hulk (YES!!!) and The Inhumans (think a group of alien superheroes with infinite spinoff potential).www.lightlybuzzed.com/2014/08/04/marvels-phase-3-movie-titles-leaked-legit/.

I love the Marvel films, and Guardians of the Galaxy epitomizes why. It is fun, fast-paced, cutting edge effects, makeup, and costumes, it is filled with humor, and excellent character development and non-conformist casting decisions that tend to work out perfectly. Guardians is far and away the most fun action film of the summer. And just in time to salvage what was the weakest summer in recent memory. If you see one film to end the summer, make sure it is Guardians of the Galaxy. 10/10.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Three years after the surprise hit (and surprisingly good) Rise of the Planet of the Apes, we are treated to another serving of simian special effects-laden action. This time, Cloverfield director Matt Reeves takes over from Rupert Wyatt, and delivers more of what was great about its predecessor. Namely, Andy Serkis and the astounding motion-capture and visual effects.

Ten years after the battle on the Golden Gate Bridge, Caesar and his army of apes have created a home in what I can only guess are the North Coast mountains. A deadly epidemic called "Simian Flu" has wiped out the majority of the human population on Earth, and only a few pockets of survivors inhabit a desolate and powerless planet. After a less than desirable encounter, the humans and apes begin to interact in what can only be described as increasingly hostile meetings where a few bad apples spoil the relationship, inevitably leading to all-out war. There are power struggles, morality, glimpses of the follies of man, and a glimpse of a dystopic future that is grim, but not altogether far out (except for the genetically engineered apes who can talk). I can't say that the story isn't predictable, but that's alright. What fills the screen is sheer movie magic, and with an accompanying score that is nostalgic of thrillers and action films of the 80's and 90's, it's just a fun time at the theatre. Just what movie-goers needed.

The characters are very basic, and although Jason Clarke and Keri Russell do their darnedest to put on a good show, and Gary Oldman is wasted as the shallow and undeveloped leader of the humans, the apes are the reason we bought tickets, and they are presented front and center for almost the entire film, which is the best thing about it. Andy Serkis gets top billing, and rightfully so. I still think he has been snubbed by the awards ceremonies for years, with his previous portrayal of Caesar and Gollum. He is truly a master of his craft, and with the announcement that he has a role in the new Star Wars film, at least he's paying the bills if nothing else. I'm hopeful that he will get some recognition for the emotional and physical genius that he puts into his characters, but I'm doubtful as he would have to be in the Best Actor category based on the billing and his screen time, and not the Supporting Actor that he might have a shot at a nomination for.

This summer has been lackluster in its presentation of quality action films. Edge of Tomorrow was the lone impressive movie-going experience, but Apes is great. Summer popcorn at its best. I'm excited for August's Guardians of the Galaxy, and think Expendables 3 will be fun, but that pretty much concludes our gargantuan movie season. Studios seem to be pushing off their big guns to the fall and winter, and nobody can seem to compete with superheroes these days, but those who try are either disastrous or mega-successful. Apes brought in $73 million its opening weekend, which well exceeded expectations. Consider this opening the green light for the next installment in 2016.

This fall and winter are packed to the gills with potentially great films. The Independent festival circuit has captured the attention of studios due to their relatively risk-free returns on investment, and film makers and actors are seemingly becoming more interested in quality over paychecks. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the impression I am getting. Maybe Hollywood is entering a recession. Partially pushed by the death of the DVD (yep, I said it here first) and partially by the overseas potential with more unimaginative fare (cough...Transformers). Last year's box office numbers are much higher as a comparison. I heard 20% and 25% from two different sources through 4th of July weekend. However, there were big films opening just about every weekend last summer, so per blockbuster, I imagine that this summer is doing better. Besides, technology is getting better and better. Films are getting more and more expensive, and budgets are ballooning every year. Remember in 1997 when Titanic surpassed the $200 million mark for production budget and people thought it was crazy? Three films this year have surpassed the $200 million mark, with four more nearly hitting that amount. And we are only in July. In fact, since Titanic, there have been 35 films with budgets over $200 million. This may also be why so many studios collaborate now as well.

I'm done with my rant. Back to Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. There isn't much more to say about the film. Andy Serkis and his team do an exceptional job, as usual. The apes are emotional, masterfully rendered, and their seamless integration to the sets and interactions with the humans are commendable to say the least. This is a fun movie, plain and simple. A few minor oversights (how can an orangutan ride a horse?) but altogether it's a fitting film just in time to save July. Go see it, there's nothing else worth seeing right now. 9/10.

Transformers: Age of Extinction

With an ominous moniker, Transformers 4 takes the same formula as its 3 predecessors, mixes it up a bit with some new actors and robots, and serves it to audiences in a jumbo-sized container of summer popcorn action blockbuster. Unfortunately, it just doesn't have the same excitement as the previous 3 (the first one at least). This is an interesting franchise. Even Michael Bay has publicly stated that he doesn't care what people think of the movies because he knows they will see them anyway. That sentiment comes across in the latest installment. Sloppy direction, incoherent plot lines, shallow and cliche characters, and worst of all, a truly deflated story. Written by Ehren Kruger, I would expect a bit more. I loved his work on Arlington Road and The Ring, but since taking the primary screenwriting role on the Transformers series, he hasn't impressed me despite a gargantuan budget, arguably the best special effects director in the game, and a fan base that proves Bay right, we will see the movie no matter what. It seems like a no-brainer opportunity to do something epic. He does not. He's already working on Transformers 5, and it's a shame. I'd like to see some new blood behind the franchise.

Set a few years after the Dark of the Moon blowout that devastated Chicago, now there is a new Black-Ops team of humans led by a perfectly cast Kelsey Grammer, and they call themselves Cemetary Wind. I would expect nothing less from Michael Bay. I was half expecting Will Smith and Martin Lawrence to get out of a car in slow motion and take their sunglasses off, but we'll have to wait a bit for Bad Boys 3. This shadowy government agency has found a way to not only find, but also defeat any and all Transformers that are still hiding out on Earth. Need I say more? What humans could beat a transforming robot? So, they are hunting and exterminating Autobots and Decepticons alike, using a pretty cool bounty hunter named Lockdown who is helping them until he gets his hands on the prize; Optimus Prime.

Meanwhile, the story gets boring as we're introduced to the new Shia LeBeouf and Megan Fox, who this time are a father/daughter duo played by Mark Wahlberg and Nicola Peltz (fun fact - she's only 19 and her dad's a billionaire courtesy of Snapple). They never gain traction or believability in their characters, and it left me just waiting for the special effects to start. Mark Wahlberg can't play a scientist or a Texan (except in Lone Survivor) and the daisy dukes, heels, and tank tops although fun to look at, aren't typical of teens anywhere outside of Michael Bay's fantasy world. It was like Michael Bay took all of the pensive gazes toward the sunset from Armageddon, The Rock, Pearl Harbor, and Bad Boys and rolled them all together into a long sequence that doesn't really have a place in the film. In case you haven't noticed, the 2 hours 45 minutes is way too long.

Cemetary Wind discovers that Wahlberg has found Optimus Prime and tries to get him to appease Lockdown by turning him over to him. Throw in a shady corporate businessman, a few battle scenes, yada yada yada, international travel to a hip film consuming locale (China), Dinobots (out of pretty much nowhere), and roll credits with another Linkin Park song.

The thing about Michael Bay movies is that there are supposed to be cool explosions, improbable situations that require very elaborate chases or escapes, and the special effects are supposed to be top notch. I felt the way I did while watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The effects were so much more sloppy and cheap than the previous film in the series, I truly felt cheated. The production team must be getting tired, which makes me wonder why they are working on a 5th film (oh, right, $300 million opening weekend worldwide).

I think I've said my piece about the direction. The acting, although not unexpected for an action film, was a bit disappointing. No fault of their own, it's the dialogue and characters created by the writing team. Kelsey Grammer, Stanley Tucci, and Titus Welliver are really the only respectable players in the whole film. Everyone else is just expected to make magic out of a turd. We do get treated to some new voice talent in John Goodman and Ken Watanabe (an attempt to bridge the Asian market? Definitely paying off as T4 is the biggest opening in China's history). And yes, I know Ken Watanabe is Japanese. You can't mistake that in the film either as his character, Drift is a samurai when he's not a Bugatti.

I still love Transformers. And despite this one (and the previous 2...), Michael Bay is right, as long as these movies keep coming out, I will keep seeing them. Damn you, Michael Bay! I don't suppose I ever tire of the summer blockbuster season, and the bar is clearly being raised each and every year. I've griped before about the lack of originality in popcorn flicks, and this summer seems to be a bit weak (Planet of the Apes, Guardians of the Galaxy, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Expendables 3 being really the only ones left). There will be some good entertainment this summer though as the Indy films make a bit of a stronger than normal showing. Maybe that's the big studio entrance into the Independent Film market a little stronger, or maybe there is just a void of quality films to fill the summer weekend slots. Whatever it is, you know you will probably see Transformers 4, but if you do, prepare for disappointment. 4/10.

All You Need is Kill

Lots of people have been comparing Edge of Tomorrow to Groundhog's Day, The Matrix, I would venture a little bit of Saving Private Ryan, and some old-school Mech-Warrior, a feel of Aliens thrown in with last year's Oblivion. It's really a new spin on the science fiction genre, and it's definitely the best sci-fi film in recent memory; maybe since Looper. It is the second best film of 2014 (Lone Survivor), and it is two hours of sheer Hollywood entertainment.

Based on the Japanese novel All You Need is Kill, Christopher McQuarrie (Usual Suspects) and Jez Butterworth pen a great sci-fi time travel loop story that is both original, and thoroughly entertaining. Say what you will about Tom Cruise, but he's still the best action star in Hollywood, even at 52 years old. He's found the fountain of youth. Maybe it's Scientology, maybe it's using twenty-something women as beards, or maybe he's just that good at his craft. I don't care, but he's in his element in this film for sure.

Cruise's Major Bill Cage is a military PR guy who is thrown into the front lines, actually Shanghai'd, for the D-Day of the alien invasion. Europe has been taken over by the "mimics", an alien race that look like metallic spiders, or the sentinels from The Matrix. They move faster than humans can follow, and as a result, the humans have turned to a sort of hydraulic exo-skeletal suit. It increases their strength, has loads of weapons attached, and may be a bit cumbersome, but are actually pretty cool. The all-out assault on the French coast is the human's last chance to defeat the alien invaders, and Cage finds himself living the day over, and over, and over again until he gets it right. He starts out as a combat coward, but builds confidence each time he faces them, and through a few twists and turns, he meets a warrior nicknamed "full metal bitch" played by Emily Blunt. She's the hero of Verdun, a battle in which she slew over a hundred of the mimics. Turns out, she was trapped in a time loop just like Cage is, and she helps him learn how to fight and learn how to attempt to defeat the alien horde.

Emily Blunt is great as the full metal bitch, Rita Vrataski, a symbol of hope and courage to the men and women who are fighting across Europe. Her poster is plastered all over the operating bases, and she carries a sword as opposed to the various projectile options chosen by the other fighters. She makes a pretty mean action star, although the traces of sexual chemistry seem forced with the elderly Cruise (21 years older). She is convincing in her toughness, which isn't always the case with female leads in these types of films, but I was impressed, and she was clearly up for the challenge.

Doug Limon is an experienced action director, having been behind the original Bourne trilogy (directing, producing) as well as the brilliant Mr. and Mrs. Smith. He's had a couple of duds lately, but he does an outstanding job with this film. It's the story, with its sharpness, not too serious but not too light that makes it so entertaining.

Bill Paxton steps into the supporting role as the Master Sergeant who drills Cage, and he clearly enjoys the role. Maybe it's his presence that reminded me of Aliens, or maybe it was the meaningless banter before the fight. The tough-talking troops who you know minutes later will be alien fodder. There's something fun and sadistic about rooting for the demise of the annoying supporting characters. Whatever the case, Paxton is a great choice for the third member of the cast. There are a handful of other supporting figures, but they aren't very relevant.

The aliens are very well done. Usually it's the creature that makes or breaks a film of this nature, and most of the time it's the latter. Although the close-ups are a bit cheesy, the idea of their composition and hive mentality is frightening. So often there is a lack of fear of the invading species, and that leads to a bit of a disillusioned letdown, but these ones inspire a heightened tension. They are fast, spidery, and merciless. There is no apparent weakness without giving away a main point of the plot, but they make the Germans look like chumps as the mechanized troops storm the French beach. It gives off an eery WWII vibe, but a clearly futuristic approach. Limon does it with a building suspense, but without taking it too far. The deaths are done tastefully, and Cruise goes through the motions time and time again with a building confidence like the great actor he is.

The exo-skeleton suits are probably the scene-stealers of the film. Clearly a lot of thought went into their role within the story, and the combination of special effects and costume designers do a fantastic job. Think Pacific Rim robots, then shrink it down. Then think about Avatar robots, then shrink it down. Think about the hydraulic lift suit from Aliens, and you're on the right track. The cool thing about them is that they are these clunky, slow moving metallic bodies, but once the user has mastered them, they are incredibly effective. I wish there was just a tad more time spent with the various weapons and ways in which they could be used. Cruise's Cage starts off not knowing how to take the safety off, to literally running circles around the enemy. The suits are cool, and although there is some realistic applications, they won't be like this in the future.

Living the same day over and over bothers me in one regard - you would have to remember exactly what you said, did, etc. and each time you go farther and die, you need to start over. I kept thinking that it is like a video game from the 80's, before there were save points along the way. He always goes back to the beginning. It's great because it raises the stakes each time through. The farther you get, the more you have to lose, but it also gets a little help from the time travel angle because the story gets to decide if he's "been there before" or if it's a fresh experience.

This is the type of movie-going experience that will satisfy your thirst for a fresh sci-fi action film. It's not perfect, but for the genre, it's pretty close. If only they had stuck with the original title, Edge of Tomorrow is too boring for this film. Great way to kick off the summer after a slightly disappointing spring. 9/10.

Neighbors

Director Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) takes on the unicorn of comedy sub-genres; Frats. It's been tried many times, with very few truly successful films. Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds, Van Wilder (not really a frat movie, but more college party life in general), Old School. There have been significantly more misses than hits, but Neighbors captures the feel-good attitude of the carefree, hard partying lifestyle and throws in a competing young family storyline. The balance by writers Brendan O'Brien and Andrew Cohen strikes a nice chord, and with a great cast, it delivers a very entertaining comedy.

A young family discovers a fraternity moving in next door, and although they initially try to win them over with smiles and coolness, a noise complaint starts a feud that escalates to the absurd (but not as mean as we've seen before). There are no horses in the Dean's office, or naked videos of sorority girls. No, here we have a new generation of quick pranks that aren't the stars of the show as much as the reaction by the pranked. Besides, Punk'd and Jackass kind of created a new type of prank.

Maybe it's where I'm at in my own life, but the memories of the fraternity twisted with the upcoming (very rapidly approaching) birth of my first child blend a sort of resonance with both of the main characters. Mac (Seth Rogen) is a child at heart, and is living the young family dream with a wife he loves, a new baby that he has no idea how to take care of, a job he hates, and a new home he can barely afford. It hits pretty close to home. Teddy (Zach Efron) is the fraternity president who moves in next door and parties like Belushi, without the alcohol poisoning. He's a little too cool to be in college and shows off the new breed of frat guy; sophisticated, suave and carefree, but still hopelessly devoted to the brotherhood and the tradition. His only dream is to make it onto the wall of fame one day (a hilarious cameo-laden montage of frat lore).

Mac's wife, Kelly (Rose Byrne) is as immature as he is, tossing aside the cliche uptight wife to the clown, or the hot wife to the funny guy. The two of them share a beautiful chemistry that maintains its authenticity from start to finish, and that is what has been missing from other attempts at this type of film.

Then there's the frat guys.

Zach Efron is the double-threat as chiseled heartthrob comedian, and he stands his ground against Seth Rogen in what might be his best performance yet. Like Channing Tatum's comic explosion with 21 Jump Street, Zach has a future in comedy as well. His character has slightly more depth than others from films of the past, and is much more Tim Matheson than Louis Skolnick, and I mean that with all respect, nerds. The writers pull no punches in his development however, and that's what really satisfies. He has his flaws, but it is displayed lightly enough that we as an audience love it.

Enough over-analyzing, yes? The writers hit the nail on the head with their pacing, dialogue, and supporting characters. True, many of the funniest sequences are seen in the previews, and Rogen goes to his wheelhouse as the self-deprecating funny man. OK, Seth, you're chubby and unattractive. Blah, blah, blah. He owns it though, and that confidence is funny.

After the two initially hit it off in a great party scene, they declare war on each other, but it isn't mean-spirited (at least it's not portrayed in that way), and yes, Chris Nashawaty, the rest of the neighbors ignoring the massive parties is a bit unrealistic, but this film has a laser focus, and the rest of the neighborhood (or the school apparently) isn't a part of the story. Neighbors is light-hearted comedy, just as it's supposed to be.

It's brilliant when you think about it, merging two comedies into one. Frat and young immature family. I was thoroughly impressed with the performances all around, including Dave Franco, Ike Barinholtz, and the scene-stealing baby Stella, played by Elise and Zoey Vargas. Of course, maybe I'm biased. A little bit nostalgic, a little bit hopeful of the future. There is a happy middle ground between young family and frat life. 8/10.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Marvel's latest entry in the superhero action ring is the darker, more formulaic The Amazing Spider-Man: The Rise of Electro. It's one of the more anticipated films of the spring, with ads running on virtually every channel and marketing tie-ins ranging from the US Postal Service to Dr. Pepper, Kellog's, Evian, and of course, the fast food giant McDonalds, there are billions of dollars at stake. Director Marc Webb helms the sequel (could there be a better name for a director of Spiderman?) and with it, plans for a Spiderman 3, 4, and the introduction of the Sinister Six are already being discussed. Why wouldn't they? The Amazing Spiderman pulled in a whopping $750 million worldwide in 2012, with a production budget of only $230 million. Expectations are high for TASM2:TROE.

We follow the story of Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), the conflicted high school graduate who moonlights administering justice on the seedy criminals of New York City. The police have embraced him as an ally, as have the citizens, but after making a promise to Gwen Stacy's dad on his death bed, Peter must stay away from Gwen (his real life love Emma Stone) despite their passionate love for each other. Everything is going great until he gets tangled up with a trio of villains du jour, Electro (Jamie Foxx), Green Goblin (Dane DeHaan), and Rhino (Paul Giamatti). There are hints of future bad guys, with appearances by Dr. Kafka and Alistair Smythe (look them up if you're interested) and a short sequence of The Gentleman walking past convincing images of Dr. Octopus and The Vulture suit prototypes, and some mentions of Venom, J. Jonah Jameson, and more Easter eggs. It is a bit overwhelming, even for someone who has some knowledge of the universe. The secret club of recognition will be lost on most of the moviegoers, and that is a real shame and a lost opportunity for the film makers. They are too ambitious and comic book nerdy.

One thing that stands out with this film is that it is considerably more dark than its predecessor. This is not unforeseen (I predicted it) as there must be some sort of trilogy arc that requires the second act to be despondent and hopeless with a third act that brings the fanfare and excitement of real conclusion. This is true with TASM2, but Spiderman never really seems to be in danger, unlike the first Sam Raimi trilogy where they nailed Spider-man 2 and the protagonist's flaws and weaknesses. TASM2 follows a fairly predictable Dark Knight approach, and you can't blame them as it is still the gold standard of superhero sequels, and may continue to be so for a long time. There are multiple bad guys, and some difficult decisions that need to be made by our hero. Andrew Garfield does a fine job, but there is too much time spent ruminating and not enough with him fighting crime. He is never happier than when he's in his suit, yet he's so reluctant to don it to protect those close to him. It doesn't translate well to the screen.

Another is that more focus is on the building of the Spider-Man universe than living in the two hour film itself. We have seen the rise of the Green Goblin before, but this time around it is lackluster with the odd looking and poorly executed Dane DeHaan. His Harry Osborn is fine, but his Green Goblin takes about an hour and 45 minutes to appear, and then lasts a mere couple of minutes. Jamie Foxx overacts as Max Dillon who has an accident that transforms him into an electrical storm of a bad guy. Spider-man dispatches him with too much ease in what are admittedly some pretty cool action scenes, but lacking any real tension or excitement. Finally, Paul Giamatti is completely wasted as the boneheaded bank robber Aleksei Sytsevich, AKA Rhino. He's too stupid to be taken seriously, and the mechanical Rhino contraption is about the coolest thing about the film, but unfortunately it doesn't get the screen time it deserves either.

The special effects are the highlight, and the star of the show. Unfortunately there are just too many scenes of intermission, and the bag of tricks is getting old very quickly. I am dubious how Spider-Man 3 or 4 will contribute to the legacy in any way other than a money-making blockbuster. There is no possibility of critical acclaim with this franchise from this point on. I actually liked The Amazing Spider-Man because it was different, but TASM2 is unoriginal and unrealistically ambitious.

I don't blame Webb, Garfield, or Stone, but the villains just plain suck. The writers should have brought Venom or the Vulture in for this one. There is so much material to choose from, and they are going in this direction anyway (Sinister Six), so why hold back any of the cool villains for the 3rd or 4th film? It just doesn't make all that much sense to me, but what do I know, I'm just the target demographic.

Don't get your hopes up too high as you walk into the theatre, you can expect some very average action, and some predictable story arcs, but you won't leave the movie satisfied. It just isn't what I was hoping for. 5/10.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Marvel's latest is the last Avengers film before the much anticipated Avengers: Age of Ultron that will drop next summer. With the tremendous success of the Iron Man, Thor, and Avengers films, Chris Evans could don his uniform and recite Shakespeare and people would still go see it. Fortunately for us, first time action film directors Joe and Anthony Russo treat us to much more than that. I've been hearing things like "Best Marvel movie yet!" and "Better than Avengers!" but it's not that good. Better than the first Captain America? I'm not entirely sure. I was more impressed with the first than I thought I would be, and this time around has much more hype and expectation. It is however, more dark with sharper political undercurrents, and a more ominous setup for what's to come down the road. It's a trend that really started with Iron Man 3, continued with Star Trek 2, Thor 2, and now Captain America 2. Darkness. The hero's plight and struggle in the face of an overpowering adversity, and I'm guessing The Amazing Spiderman 2 will continue that current trending as well. Maybe the next round will bring us something new and original. At least here's hoping. The dark superhero films are depressing. But entertaining as hell, so the theatres will still keep getting my money. Maybe Guardians of the Galaxy or Superman vs. Batman will be a shift in a new direction. Here's hoping.

Captain America appropriately finds himself in Washington, DC, still recovering from his 75 year slumber. He's trying to catch up to modern society, but there's something that just keeps him in the past. Honor, chivalry, and bravery. It's a beautiful character trait, that he's still living during WWII and doesn't seem to understand the corruption in society. He's a natural leader, flawless in every way except for naivete. We meet some new characters, and some old. Anthony Mackie joins the cast as Falcon, a retired para-rescue jumper who links up with Rogers quickly. Scarlett Johannson's Black Widow is back, as is Sam Jackson's Nick Fury. Robert Redford brings some heavy acting credentials in the role of Alexander Pierce, a government executive who has his own agenda, and Sebastian Stan is back as Bucky Barnes, aka the Winter Soldier. Bucky was saved by Hydra after falling off the train in the first Captain America, and creates an extra layer of inner-struggle to Steve Rogers as he tries to save his friend while fighting him at the same time.

The plot delves into government conspiracy and scope of power issues as SHIELD is creating a new weapon system that can proactively prevent crime by eliminating threats from a Star Wars type set of ships. Pretty cool, but also creates the moral dilemma that Captain America finds himself in the middle of. Allies and enemies are not so clear, and as the weapons system gets closer and closer to its launch date, Captain must decide who to trust.

Filled with little Easter Eggs, subtle clues that reveal what's coming down the Marvel pipeline, the universe expands even more. I find the magic starting to wear off, and am wondering how long people will continue to be enthralled by superhero movies. I've mentioned before the natural attraction by humans to the idea of heroes, but I'm glad that Marvel is starting to add new, lesser known characters to its universe. This summer's Guardians of the Galaxy will be awesome, as will Paul Rudd as Ant-Man next year.

The fight scenes are choreographed masterfully. Captain America is a hand to hand fighter, unlike so many of the other superheroes with special weapons or powers. Sure, he has his shield, but it's mostly for defense and he has the courage to take anyone on, even without an offensive weapon. There are a few scenes of special effects laden mayhem, and lingering is the age old question of "who pays for these intricate secret government construction projects?" I first thought that when I saw the Death Star, and continue to wonder with each film that has literally hundreds if not thousands of workers building something that is top secret and completely evil. But then again, I suppose realism doesn't jive with Marvel.

That's fine, because Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a pretty fun film. Chris Evans is as good in the lead as Chris Hemsworth is as Thor. They were both made for their respective roles, and are getting more than their share of time in the gym. Evans has long been a favorite of mine for pure action, and he's certainly made some questionable decisions in his career (see Snowpiercer. Better yet, don't see it). He's an All-American hero type, and fits the character to a T.

This is the first true blockbuster of 2014, and it's fun. Redford hasn't been in a role like this since... ever. His last fun mainstream hit was 2001's Spy Game, so he's been out of the action game for quite awhile, but it's nice to see him lighten up a little and do something a little against his usual actor archetype.

Scarlet Johansson is given quite a bit more screentime, but considering her pricetag, I suppose you would want to use her as much as possible ($20 million for Avengers 2). She's nothing more than tight pants and some clever one-liners, but that's her schtick, and it works. Sam Jackson gets a more meaty role, but I'm not sure it's warranted. I've always been a little leery of his credibility as Nick Fury. He hasn't impressed me much at all.

Unfortunately, Scarlet and Sam are all that Steve Rogers has. There's nobody else who can help him. And that's the weakness of the film. On the eve of destruction, with calamity all around, who does Captain America call? Not any of the Avengers, that's for sure. Maybe it's wishful thinking to keep blending the heroes from film to film, and it's fun to have cameos here and there, but there can't be this sense of isolation when it boils down to it. That's my biggest gripe.

Fun action, great fight choreography and special effects. The story is entertaining enough, and Chris Evans is great as Captain America. What more can you ask for? How about Mark Ruffalo? 8/10.

Draft Day

Kevin Costner returns to his wheelhouse as the general manager of the Cleveland Browns on draft day. Director Ivan Reitman, 1980's and early 90's champion of successful box office comedy (Ghostbusters, Kindergarten Cop) follows up the surprisingly good No Strings Attached with another solid outing. Maybe he's been taking some pointers from his son lately, but he's become relevant again after a nearly two decade absence. On a side note, his next project re-teams him with Schwarzenegger and De Vito with the addition of Eddie Murphy in Triplets. No further explanation necessary. Yes!

The film takes place on one particular NFL draft day where there's a confluence of stressful events in Sonny Weaver, Jr.'s (Costner) life. His relationship with his girlfriend (Jennifer Garner) is tenuous, his father just passed away, there's a new head coach second guessing his decisions, the owner has him on the hot seat, and he has some big decisions to make that may or may not shape the future of the Browns organization. No pressure, right?

Draft Day is shot and acted with a very lighthearted tone, and doesn't stray too far into either the romantic, or the serious. It sticks in the precise spot where it needs to, which is an easily accessible sports film with just enough suspense and curveballs (slow curves mind you), that we are mindlessly entertained and end up rooting for the Cleveland Browns and the troubled GM. The NFL Draft is a pivotal time for teams to make improvements, changes, or in some cases, terrible decisions and after an impulsive and emotional decision with the Seahawks, Sonny finds himself with the number one pick in the draft, having paid dearly for it. What happens next is his battling of conscience, conformity, and morality. And he's trying to make his recently deceased dad proud.

We are introduced to a variety of anxious athletes hoping to hear their names read ranging from the star quarterback who is the no-brainer number one pick (Josh Pence), to the troubled running back with a heart of gold (Houston Texan RB Arian Foster) and a linebacker who plays the underdog role (Chadwick Boseman). Then there is the veteran quarterback coming back from an injury (Tom Welling). Sonny must choose between what he believes in, and what the rest of the city of Cleveland believes to be the future of the team. Throw into the mix a coach (played beautifully by Dennis Leary) who doesn't hide his disdain for Sonny, and an owner who is your stereotypical antagonist type (Frank Langella going through the motions).

There's a lot going on in Draft Day, but fortunately we are given the "NFL for Dummies" treatment. There are a lot of cameos from the sports world, lots of ticking clock drama, and some great impromptu phone negotiations, a la Moneyball. Draft Day isn't Moneyball however, but that's OK. Reitman creates a film that's quite a bit of fun, and not just because I'm a fantasy football fan and the Seahawks play a prominent role. The acting isn't that great and the dialogue is often contrived, but it's forgivable. The pace is quick and Reitman uses clever split screen camerawork to show both sides of the phone conversations with lots of levity and good natured characters.

One of the things that makes it truly entertaining is that it's a happy movie. Every character has a heart of gold and there's no real villain, with the exception of the ornery owner, but even he comes around in the end. Usually there is something bringing the protagonist down. Some sort of trial or challenge that is presented by an antagonist. Some tragedy that our main character needs to overcome, but that just doesn't exist. Sonny's challenge is to make football decisions, and the film is better for it. Sure, he's up against odds with his father's passing and his relationship drama, but neither of those are put in the spotlight more than necessary, and they really just add to the chaos of the day.

Aside from the Ryan Leaf barb, I was impressed. OK, Ryan Leaf barbs are warranted, but you have to believe me, he was amazing at WSU. Writers Rajiv Joseph and Scott Rothman are both novices, but they put together a really fun movie. Predictable and transparent, but fun nonetheless. If you're a football fan, this is a must-see. For everyone else, I would recommend it for a fun couple of hours. 8/10.

Sabotage

David Ayer had as bright a future as M. Night Shyamalan once did after Training Day came out in 2001, and he's continued to dominate his genre of gritty, corrupt cops walking the thin blue line, with often tragic (or deserved) endings. His hallmark is realism and bad-assery. Maybe inspired by Vic Mackey and the astounding Shield series created by Shawn Ryan, his passion for law enforcement bleeds through onto the screen. That's exactly why I was disappointed. In his passion and success with Training Day and End of Watch, you would think that he would maintain the fidelity of realism that audiences can't seem to get enough of. That is not at all the case with Sabotage.

It's amateur hour for Ayer and action dud writer Skip Woods as they create a story that goes nowhere, characters that are so unbelievably dull that it's almost cringe-inspiring, and dialogue that is both unnecessary and offensive. The acting becomes so robotic that you forget you're watching a film with some truly excellent players.

Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn't been the same action star since his foray into politics (I'm still scratching my head at the decision that the California voters made). He's too old, and the Austrian accent isn't cute anymore. I hate to say it, but it's time to hang up the cigar and sunglasses. I reached this decision during a gunfight in a seedy bar where it was a laborious task for him to stand up, climb up on the bar, grunt and groan in getting his full weight onto it, and swivel around and plop off on the other side like a sack of potatoes.

The rest of the cast probably jumped at the idea of doing a fun, gritty cop movie; Sam Worthington, Terrence Howard, Joe Manganiello, Josh Holloway, Max Martini, Kevin Vance, and Mireille Enos (World War Z). Great cast on paper, but each one is given a ridiculous call sign, and for a DEA special operations team, they are beyond dysfunctional and inept. They go through training motions as if we're supposed to be impressed at their lack of professionalism and bumbling choices devoid of organization or structure. They banter with each other as if it's canned (which it is), and they disregard any sense of honor or respect for their positions.

The film starts with the back story that haunts their fearless and demigod leader, Breacher (Ahnold). He is forced to watch a video of his wife and son being tortured and killed by a Mexican drug cartel, and for some reason, he returns to watch the video multiple times throughout the film, presumably to give him the strength and resolve to keep up the good fight.

The team conducts a raid on a mansion, and we are given a glimpse at their "skills". I use quotations because there is no semblance of protocol in their movement or chatter. It's almost insulting. They are a bunch of amateurs. Anyhow, they plan the theft of $10 million, and after completing their mission and going back to pick up the money, it has mysteriously vanished. The rest of the film casts suspicion on the crew, as if it really matters who took the money at this point. They are picked off one by one, and their only hope is to find out who took the money, and stop the person orchestrating the assassinations. Sounds like a fun plot, but it's full of holes.

Let me tell you what I didn't like about the film. There is a husband and wife duo on this particular ten person SWAT team. What? In what world would this be acceptable? Additionally, they are all crooked, which worked for The Shield, but at least there would be some group dynamic drama if one of them weren't dirty. Thirdly, they never really seem to be on the job. They sort of do what they want when they want without having to report to any authority higher than Schwarzenegger. And they never do paperwork. And they never have inquiries when they kill dozens of people.

I also didn't like that they made each of the characters extremely shallow and beyond unqualified. Most of them were made to be unstable, which I suppose fits the profile of federal law enforcement special operations teams to some extent (adrenaline junkies), but one had a drug addiction (that everyone knew about), and the cool factor just dropped significantly when this band of cretins ran amok. There's no sympathy when they start falling one by one.

The killings were unnecessarily gruesome. Maybe it was to show realism, but some of them defied logic, and meshed with the laughable dialogue and choices by the characters, it just didn't jive with me. Finally, the story. The outcome was unexpected, but disappointing and without much suspense. While watching the final shootouts, I was just waiting for it to be over.

What did I like about it? I still love the genre. I like many of the actors in the film (although a bit less now). That's really about it. The film itself was awful. I'm not entirely sure how it passed the studio screenings without someone raising their hand and saying "umm, do you guys think maybe..." It had moments of entertaining action, but that was truly it. Worst film of 2014 so far that I've seen. 3/10.