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.

Noah

Director Darren Aronofsky is a visionary of the highest order in the film-making world, and the biblical epic Noah is a behemoth task for anyone, but he definitely brings his unique style to the screen through fantastic visual effects, desolate landscapes, and a somewhat creative interpretation of a story that is commonly known to anyone who has any Christian background.

Let's start with the good, and move to the bad, shall we? Russell Crowe was a pretty good choice considering the magnitude of the role. He was a subtle bad-ass evoking a bit of his inner Maximus. A true manly man. The visual effects and computer generated images are astounding. You think about what might be the most daunting aspect of filming Noah's Ark, and the answer is obvious; the animals. The team tackling this feat did an incredible job. It's a logistical nightmare to think about two of each species crammed into a wooden boat (pardon the bluntness) but the filmmakers make sense of the whole thing by bringing in the birds, then the reptiles, and finally the mammals. Convenient as it is, the caretakers create an herbal mix as a sort of anesthesia that puts all of the animals into a deep slumber when burned as incense. It's ridiculous and frank, but I found it somewhat comforting in answering the questions that blow holes in the logic of the story. The best thing about the film however, is Aronofsky's story played out on the screen with trademark visceral dream sequences and stop-motion camerawork. The growth of plantlife, or progression of time happening right before the audience's eyes is captivating. It's almost as if watching a Terry Gilliam or Terrence Malik sequence. Pretty cool stuff, definitely an indicator of his directorial skills.

Now the bad. Firstly, the women were too beautiful for the setting. Jennifer Connelly? Having three children and living in squalor as a Bedouin would not allow a woman to look as clean and radiant. Same with Emma Watson. She's a good looking young woman, but not believable for a biblical nomad in a desert wasteland. Not that I'm complaining at the Hollywood eye candy, but it just doesn't fit for the time. Secondly, although Russell Crowe can't help being an alpha male, his invincibility in combat, although magnificent in the protector role, is a bit too much. I always envisioned Noah being a bit more meek and humble, not as intimidating and violent. He battles evil men who have little or no godliness in their souls, and he crushes every one of them. Maybe I was hoping for a bit more competition. Thirdly, the Watchers, as they are so simply called are out of place. Fallen angels who have been sentenced to live out existence shackled to a craggy rock shell. It's cool for a Lord of the Rings character, or something in the sci-fi genre, but for a biblical story, certain liberties should be avoided. Giant rock monsters being one of them. Also a bit unbelievable is the depravity of men. No matter how bad the sons of Cain might have been, I refuse to believe that civilization ever got to Lord of the Flies status. People cannibalizing, raping, pillaging, etc. It makes for a great action story arc, but consider the source.

I can't imagine a better blend of mainstream Hollywood action and Old Testament lore. That said, it's a stretch to say it was a great film because it was trying so hard to please both. Kudos to Aronofsky for taking on this daunting project, and his ability to fill in the gaps is commendable. Vision from God. Build a boat. Flood the world. He manages to make it look pretty cool.

Besides Russell Crowe, we have a supporting cast of weak-minded and helpless people, including the wasted role on Anthony Hopkins as Methuselah, the prophet on the mountain. The only one who stands toe to toe with Crowe is Ray Winstone (The Departed, Beowolf, Sexy Beast) as the evil antagonist, King of the Cain descendants who seeks to commandeer the giant wooden vessel to survive. Winstone's gravelly voice sends chills down the spine, and he's given a pretty malevolent role.

Full of symbolism and beauty, Noah is a great allegory for the folly of man. It's a rendering of a story that hasn't been tackled before, and although Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ opened the floodgates for deep biblical films a decade ago, not every story needs to have a cinematic counterpart. Noah is a blockbuster. It's wildly entertaining, whether you know the story or not, and it's the first really cool film of 2014. I'm really curious how Ridley Scott's Exodus will turn out (Christian Bale as Moses). I'm guessing not as well as he intends.

It's a wide crevasse between Christianity and Hollywood entertainment, and Darren Aronofsky straddles it as best he can, but the chasm is just too wide and he is forced to jump toward Hollywood. Fun action blockbuster, not for kids. And what's up with the rock monsters? 7/10.