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.

If I were in charge of the Oscars

With the awards set to commence tonight, I thought I would weigh in on how it should have gone down. I'm mostly satisfied with the nominees this year, but there are some glaring omissions as well as some relatively undeserving (in my opinion) performances that have been nominated. If I were an Academy Member (and I'm still working on getting my card) here are the nominees and winners for the big 8 categories.

Best Picture There is leeway on this one, but I've only come up with 8 instead of the 9 nominated this year. The current rule is that between 5-10 films can be nominated as long as they each receive a certain minimum number of votes. Disclaimer: I haven't yet seen Philomena, but I feel confident leaving it off this list, although I've heard rave reviews of the performance by Judi Dench, so I'm leaving her on the ballot.

Gravity
Captain Phillips
Rush
World War Z
Prisoners
Lone Survivor
Dallas Buyer's Club
The Way, Way Back

Winner: Captain Phillips. It was the best film of the year. Full of suspense, action, incredible individual performances, and smartly directed.

Best Director

Alfonso Cuaron
Paul Greengrass (Captain Phillips)
Ron Howard (Rush)
Marc Forster (World War Z)
Steve McQueen

Winner: Alfonso Cuaron. Fantastic direction, cinematography, visual effects. Nothing else like it in 2013.

Best Actor

Tom Hanks (Captain Phillips)
Leonardo DiCaprio
Matthew McConaughey
Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis)
Robert Redford (All is Lost)

Winner: Tom Hanks. The final 5 minutes alone wins him this award. It's a travesty that he wasn't nominated. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Forest Whitaker are the next two on this list, but there can only be five.

Best Supporting Actor

Jared Leto
Michael Fassbender
Barkhad Abdi
Ben Foster (Lone Survivor)
Sam Rockwell (The Way, Way Back)

Winner: Jared Leto. This is a tough one because both Jonah Hill and Jake Gyllenhaal (Prisoners) deserve nominations as well, but Ben Foster and Sam Rockwell did more of what a supporting actor is supposed to do; bring life to the film beyond their role.

Best Actress

Amy Adams
Cate Blanchett
Sandra Bullock
Judi Dench
Meryl Streep

Winner: Sandra Bullock. Her performance was the most demanding of any nominees, and although Cate Blanchett did a nice job, Woody Allen pitches lobs to actresses. Bullock deserves it.

Best Supporting Actress

Jennifer Lawrence
Lupita Nyong'o
Daniella Kertesz (WWZ)
Scarlett Johannson (Her)
Sally Hawkins

Winner: Lupita Nyong'o. The strongest performance in a supporting role this year.

Best Writing - Original

Her
Inside Llewyn Davis
Dallas Buyer's Club
Nebraska
Prisoners

Winner: Her. The winner of this should be exactly what the category calls for; originality. Her was far and away the quirkiest film of the year.

Best Writing - Adapted

Captain Phillips
12 Years a Slave
The Wolf of Wall Street
Lone Survivor
Rush

Winner: Captain Phillips. All of the films in this category deserve recognition for a job well done, but that's what the nomination is for. Captain Phillips was the best all-around film from top to bottom.

There you have it. The Oscars according to Adam, but it's not my show, so enjoy Hollywood's tonight.

The Monuments Men

George Clooney assembles an all-star cast in one of the most anticipated films of 2013. However, its bump back to 2014 deflated all awards hopes, and maybe there is more to the delay story than just "visual effects setbacks". To say that the film disappoints is not entirely accurate because that would imply lofty expectation and failure to follow through. There is a very lofty expectation for this film on my part, but the general expectation has fizzled after being shelved for nearly two months, ultimately getting a dreaded "early February" release. It is a WWII historical biopic headlined by George Clooney, Matt Damon, John Goodman, Bill Murray, Cate Blanchett, Jean Dujardin, Bob Balaban, and Hugh Bonneville. Among them there are 5 Oscars, 12 Oscar nominations, and another pending win (Cate Blanchett - Best Actress for Blue Jasmine). On paper, this is a no-brainer for Best Picture of the year, not an after-the-fact no-brainer like Argo, but truly a front-runner in any awards season.

What unfolds on the screen however, is a poorly executed, genre-confused film full of dead ends and potential. There is too much humor for it to be a drama, too much violence for it to be a comedy, too much suspense for it to be action, not enough "actual" suspense for it to be a thriller, not enough character development for it to be a character study, and too much art for it to be interesting. I left the theatre not knowing how to describe the film other than a mediocre storytelling experience by Clooney where he takes the best lines and the lead role in a historically important cultural adventure through Europe at the end of the great war and there is danger and a race against time. Not a glowing review? No, it is not.

We start out near the tail end of the war as Frank Stokes, an art historian, convinces the US Army to commission a team of engineers, sculptors, art historians, painters, and other culturally highbrow experts to make a run through Europe, saving priceless pieces of art before Nazi Germany can destroy them. They target two in particular that I'm a bit embarrassed to say I haven't really heard of, and the sculpture and painting become the emotional driving force for the team as they encounter British, American, French, Russian, and even Germans during one of the darkest times in history. As they work to figure out where Hitler has hidden all of the seized pieces of art, the war is coming to an end, and the audience is left to wonder if they will in fact save the day.

I think that Bill Murray and John Goodman are amazing actors, plain and simple. Balaban is entertaining, Dujardin is a bit overrated, and Bonneville is a seasoned veteran Brit. Clooney and Damon are almost too big of names for a film to be successful anymore, and Blanchett is one of the most talented women on the planet. This particular combination is exactly what it is intending to be, but in a bad way. It's a mish-mash of personalities meant to dazzle in their esotericism, but nobody gets the point. They just don't go together very well. It's as if Daniel Day-Lewis and Adam Sandler were ironically cast in a buddy dramedy and everyone was supposed to get it. Nobody gets it, although it could be an amazing experiment. Anyhow, I'm digging too deeply. It's an amazing cast of characters, but they just don't go together on this one. .

The characters themselves are never given time or development for us to care about them properly. they are dropped in Normandy together, and we don't even really know who is who and what they specialize in. I suppose Clooney wanted to get on with the story and get to the good stuff, but he inadvertently skipped some really important pieces of foundation. Subsequently, when key characters die (sorry - spoiler...) and the film takes on a tone of grievance, I didn't feel anything because I simply didn't know the characters in the way that Clooney did in his mind. Not sure if that makes total sense.

The writing is dull, and Clooney and his buddy Grant Heslov adapted the screenplay from the book by Robert Edsel and Bret Witter. It is the kind of story that I'm sure jumps out and says "Ooh! Pick me! Pick Me!" in the adaptation world, but where Clooney blew it was in not sticking to a specific tone. Humor, action, suspense, drama, intrigue, and rich historical fodder. It's a bit too much. I admire the hell out of Clooney's ambition to be a great director. He has chosen biopic projects for most of his previous films (Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, Leatherheads, Good Night and Good Luck) and he has told a great story in each of them. Well done and high quality they are not, however. What's missing is the dramatic patience. Let the scenes linger a little, and don't be so rushed to put so much and so many people on the screen. Scenes don't have to come and go according to a stopwatch.

Anyway, I respect George Clooney tremendously and love his choice of projects and am always first in line to see a film that he's involved in. His next acting gig, Tomorrowland, is Brad Bird's first directing job since the awesomely entertaining MI: Ghost Protocol. It's a sci-fi film about a man and a kid who share some sort of intellectual genius and scientific curiosity. Very mysterious, but could be cool.

This film gets a 10 for cast, and a solid 9 for story, but when it all played out, it just wasn't very good. 6/10.

Nebraska

Alexander Payne's return to the screen is a remarkable independent film about nothing more than the dysfunction of family and a son's futile attempt to bond with his ailing father before it's too late. Nominated for 6 Oscars, including Best Actor, Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress, Best Original Story, and Best Cinematography, Nebraska is hands-down the surprise of the awards season. It is the last film to check off my list, so my seasonal film spree ends on a happy note.

This is Payne's first film since the critically acclaimed The Descendants in 2011, which won him his second Best Writing of an Adapted Screenplay Oscar. Although Nebraska likely won't win any of the awards it is nominated for, it is a refreshingly simple story, shot in black and white with some truly beautiful middle-America scenery and delightfully quirky musical accompaniment.

Bruce Dern plays Woody, a retired alcoholic mechanic in the early stages of Alzheimer's. He receives a sweepstakes letter in the mail, and he adamantly insists that he is going from his home in Billings, Montana to Lincoln, Nebraska to claim his million dollar prize. Inevitably, his two frustrated sons and his nagging wife humor him and a family adventure ensues, including a stop in a sleepy little town where his long forgotten past and his brothers still live. Along the way, his son (Will Forte) learns a lot more about his dad than he bargained for, and receives some of the bonding that he desperately wanted before his father's health declines beyond the point of no return.

Dern's performance as a cantankerous old codger is right up the alley of an almost 80 year old veteran. Grow his hair out, don't shave for awhile, and shuffle around and play forgetful and careless. At a glance, he's the perfect role, and he handles it like a pro. Is he worthy of a Best Actor Oscar nomination? Maybe not. I would take him off the board first, replacing him with either Tom Hanks, Joaquin Phoenix (Her), or Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis). It's a ripe role, and he does fine, but it could have been better.

Will Forte isn't given enough credit for his role in this film. The Saturday Night Live alumni has come a long way since MacGruber. He's picked up a couple of nominations throughout the awards season, but has mostly flown under the radar. Certainly an odd pick for the role, but he shows that he's more than just a joker. He conveys his love for his dad and his sadness and frustration in the helplessness of the situation simultaneously, and he is really the glue that holds the film together.

June Squib is the loud, blunt nagging wife who drives Woody to his last hurrah of an adventure. She is annoying, rude, and simply despicable. It adds a layer of viewer compassion for Woody and makes his crankiness seem almost justified.

Stacy Keach is the hometown rival of Woody, and Keach is a perfect fit for a good old boy who puts on the nice face, but deep down is just a mean-spirited country bumpkin. Old and battered, they rekindle their rivalry nearly sixty years later, and bring up secrets and grudges that should have been long ago put to bed. It's entertaining, but there is something quite depressing about their interactions. But, I suppose that's Alexander Payne's wheelhouse.

The writing is pretty standard in the realm of family dramedies. There is an arc to the story that builds around family relationship and some growth and bonding, with a sad resolution that doesn't shy away from the reality of the characters. There is a bit of satisfaction in the end however, in that the characters experienced something adventurous, even if they are slightly damaged in the end. Payne is no stranger to this approach, and audiences eat it up. He did it with Sideways and The Descendants, and does it again with Nebraska. Audiences want to see flawed individuals in uncomfortably familiar situations, and dialogue that pokes and prods at social conformity. Payne accomplishes this with the help of writer Bob Nelson. Much of the dialogue seems staged, but it doesn't really matter because it is so simple in its delivery. This film wouldn't have been the same had it not been shot in black and white, I honestly believe this. The cinematography and direction would be average in the eyes of critics, and the actors would be lost in a sea of better than average performances. It was a brilliant move spearheaded by a critical darling in Alexander Payne.

Nebraska is something different that is set in nostalgia while being real and reflective of truth at the same time. Everyone has to deal with aging parents someday, and I just hope when my time comes, that mine aren't anything like Woody and Kate Grant. 7/10.

45 Must See Films of 2014 - Part 4

The fourth and final installation outlining the 45 must-see films of 2014 is what I call the "wildcard" films. Twelve in all, these are mostly going to be late 2014 releases, if not 2015 or not at all. Most of them look extremely good on paper either because of cast, crew, or story. Here they are, with no release dates attached because it's purely speculation at this point.

The Gunman. Idris Elba, Sean Penn, and Javier Bardem in a spy thriller. Need I say more? Directed by Pierre Morel, one of the minds behind the Transporter and Taken franchises, and director of 2010's awful From Paris with Love. Could go either way, but with that cast, I'm hedging my bets for a strong action film.

Feed the Tree. I don't know much about this one except for the setting, and it hits close to home. "A group of close high school friends make their way through tragedy and a coming of age in 1990's Seattle, WA" (IMDB). If nothing else, might be a trip down memory lane. Except for the tragedy part.

Knight of Cups. Terrence Malick's mysterious next project featuring Christian Bale and Natalie Portman. Described only as "A man, temptations, celebrity, and excess" (IMDB). Might be an ethereal Tree of Life type film, or might be more mainstream like The Thin Red Line (mainstream being loosely used here - nothing Malick is mainstream). The strange thing is that if you look up this combination of cast/crew, there is another project titled "untitled Terrence Malik Project" that also has Bale and Portman, but also Ryan Gosling, Michael Fassbender, Rooney Mara, Benicio Del Toro, and Cate Blanchett. Either way, I'm intersted.

Carol. This Todd Haynes period piece finds Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett in a 1950's New York City department store love story. That's all.

Voyage of Time. Also Terrence Malick, so either this one makes it to the cinema, or Knight of Cups does. I'm betting that one will be pushed back quite a ways, maybe even to 2016. Anyhow, this one has Brad Pitt and Emma Thompson taking an existential look at the universe, and time, and space and everything in the universe. Sounds fascinating. Didn't we already see this in the Tree of Life? Maybe see this one in IMAX?

Inherent Vice. Paul Thomas Anderson is back after confusing and polarizing audiences with 2012's The Master. He brings Joaquin Phoenix back (I love him as an actor - so much emotion) to the 1970's as a drug-addicted detective investigating the disappearance of his girlfriend. Based on the novel by Thomas Pynchon, last time PT Anderson adapted a novel, it got him an Oscar nomination for writing, film, and a win for Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis). This will be in the awards discussions in the fall.

Foxcatcher. Bennett Miller's follow-up to Moneyball featuring the outstanding cast of Mark Ruffalo, Channing Tatum, and Steve Carell in the biopic of the Schultz brothers and the US Olympic wrestling murder scandal from 1996. Will be interesting to see how Tatum and Carell handle this type of film as it's going to test both of their limits. I have faith though, and think this could be an audience favorite.

Into the Woods. I'm not usually a big fan of the dark Disney fantasy spinoffs, but this one has some real star-power. Directed by Rob Marshall, who has some experience adapting from stage to screen with Chicago and Nine, it stars Johnny Depp, Meryl Streep, Chris Pine, Anna Kendrick, and Emily Blunt. Intrigued?

The Homesman. I like Tommy Lee Jones despite some of his obvious mistakes. I also like Hillary Swank in her 3 good film roles and 1 good made for TV film role. Put them together in pioneer times and surround them with some quality actors (John Lithgow, Tim Blake Nelson, William Fichtner, James Spader, Hailee Steinfeld, Meryl Streep, Jesse Plemons) and you have the makings of something that might be a home run. Or a routine pop-fly. We'll have to wait and see.

Untitled Cameron Crowe Project. I cried at We Bought a Zoo. So sue me. I love Cameron Crowe movies (except Vanilla Sky and Elizabethtown, but those don't count). This one might be much more in line with his lighthearted fare. Bradley Cooper, Rachel McAdams, Emma Stone, Bill Murray, John Krasinski, Alec Baldwin, and Danny McBride lead this love story surrounding a military contractor and his Air Force chaperone. At least it's something different.

Creed of Violence. I read this book a few years back when it first came out and it's pretty fun. Christian Bale leads Todd Field's charge toward gold statues in a story set in 1910 Mexico where an FBI agent enlists the help of a veteran assassin with a secret as they look to take down an arms cartel. Leo DiCaprio initially expressed interest in the role, but backed out to film Gatsby and Wolf of Wall Street.

Third Person. Three couples, three love stories, Rome, Paris, New York. Paul Haggis returns to behind the camera after a few years of making exceptionally average work. He wrote and directed Third Person, so let's hope it returns to the realm of magic that Crash inspired, and which catapulted his name to fame. He wrote Million Dollar Baby as well, and that was fantastic. Mila Kunis, Olivia Wilde, James Franco, Liam Neeson, Kim Basinger, Adrien Brody, and Maria Bello are the big names. I'm not expecting much to come of this, but you never know with Haggis.

And, the bonus film which is almost a lock to be America's darling in 2014, Nailed. I mentioned it in my Golden Globes recap, but it's David O. Russell's next film and will be on the Academy's radar, particularly Jessica Biel, Jake Gyllenhaal, Catherine Keener, and James Marsden. Or, Russell's luck could run out with American Hustle. We'll find out next year.

While we're dreaming of the future, my most anticipated, yet unlikely to be adapted film remains Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. Ridley Scott, Todd Field, and most recently James Franco have expressed interest in the challenge of adapting the novel, but it just doesn't seem feasible. Ridley Scott, a longtime fan of McCarthy and collaborator on The Counselor this past year, when asked if he would be able to make the film with an NC-17 rating, said "It would have been rated double-X." That seems to be the problem. The novel is so visceral in its graphic description of violence that to do it justice would essentially ostracize 99% of audiences. It's not a profitable move, and won't ever see the silver screen, but I get excited when I hear that a director is thinking about giving it a try. Except James Franco. My challenge is for one of our better film makers to buck the system and make the film the way it is meant to be made. Be a trailblazer. Be like Kubrick. My dream writer/director would probably be Paul Thomas Anderson. With Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Matt Lauria, Jackie Earl Haley, Tom Hardy, and Michael Shannon in the lead roles. A boy can dream, can't he?

Anyway, I hope you enjoy the 2014 preview - there are some good ones for sure. Until next time...

45 Must See Films of 2014 - Part 3

Part 3 of 4 - the "Mainstream Fillers". Some of these films may bleed into the blockbuster category, but it will be a pleasant surprise for the studios, stars, and producers. Others may end up on my awards short list, but these are the films that will fill theatre seats throughout the year when people aren't clamoring to see the superhero flicks on the docket. These are the 14 films of part 3.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit. Tom Clancy's franchise returns with an origins story. Directed by Thor's Kenneth Branaugh (who also plays the Russian badguy - he loves the accent), Chris Pine takes the titular role, and depending on the success (box office, critics), we may see a resurgence of Jack Ryan in the near future. January 17.

Labor Day. Jason Reitman is one of my favorite young dramedy directors (Up in the Air, Juno, Thank you for Smoking, Young Adult) and this one may be a bit too heavy-handed. A one-time Oscar hopeful for 2013, Labor Day missed its mark and is now opening in the dreaded month of January. I'm still interested though. Should be the best thing out at the time. Ironically, opens on January 31.

The Monuments Men. Written, directed, starring George Clooney. This film was dubbed the "Argo" of 2013, and had Academy Awards written all over it, then it was pushed back to 2014 because they couldn't get the visual effects completed by year's end. The good news is that it might be a better film than anything that came out in 2013, and you get to see that during what is typically the calm before the spring season. This is a must-see. February 7.

Need for Speed. Aaron Paul gets a shot to headline a big budget video game adaptation, and from the few previews and screenshots, it might be a quieter, more artful Fast and Furious. With better cars. There is a slew of video game films coming down the pipe, Warcraft, Halo, Assassin's Creed. But this is one that is less ambitious and will likely be a lot of fun without taking itself too seriously. This is Paul's big break into film, but even if this is a bust, he can ride the Breaking Bad wave for another year or two. He will be fine either way. March 14.

Noah. Russell Crowe teams up with director Darren Aronofsky on the ambitious biblical tale of the end and rebirth of the world. Expect beautiful imagery and masterful camerawork. March 28.

Sabotage. Arnold Schwarzenegger's still got it. He leads a team of DEA special forces cops as they are taken out one by one, Agatha Christie Ten Little Indians style. Will be a lot of testosterone and explosions. Pure fun. April 11.

Transcendence. Johnny Depp lends his name to a wildcard Sci-Fi endeavor. Longtime Chris Nolan cinematographer, Wally Pfister (won an Oscar for Inception) makes his directorial debut in a film where a dying man essentially transcends death by uploading his personality into a computer. This film could be brilliant or terrible, but I'm not sensing a middle ground. April 18.

The Giver. That's right, Lois Lowry's classic young adult dystopian novel finally gets a home in film. An eyebrow-raising cast with Meryl Streep, Jeff Bridges, and Taylor Swift (yes, that Taylor Swift) will follow the lead of last fall's Ender's Game and give us something familiar but different than the rest of what's being made these days. I'm excited as I am a fan of the book. August 15.

Gone Girl. One of the more anticipated releases of 2014, Ben Affleck plays the lead in the David Fincher film. I don't know what the big deal is, so I'm picking up the book. October 3.

The Judge. Robert Downey Jr. ditches his Iron Man suit to play a lawyer coming home for his mom's funeral only to find out that his dad is the prime suspect. This could be a powerful legal drama, or a dark comedy. Director David Dobkin has a history of comedy, so don't get your hopes up too much. Downey is a very funny actor, and Robert Duvall plays his dad. However it turns out, it should be a fairly entertaining film. October 10.

Fury. Brad Pitt drives a tank during WWII in what will likely be another Inglorious Basterds war/revenge type film. Brad Pitt has chosen pretty wisely lately, so this has potential on his name alone. November 14.

Exodus. The third biblical interpretation of the year, this one finds Christian Bale as Moses, leading the Israelites out of Egypt. It's directed by Ridley Scott, so it is a bit of an odd match. Must be a passion project. December 12.

Everest. Not to be confused with the Doug Liman/Benedict Cumberbatch George Mallory biopic, the one I'm referring to is the thriller that finds Jake Gyllenhaal, Jason Clarke, Josh Brolin, and John Hawkes stranded during a severe snow storm. Has some serious potential for greatness with that cast. December 19.

Unbroken. There's a lot of buzz already about the Angelina Jolie film based on the biography of an Olympic athlete and WWII POW. The Coen Brothers wrote the screenplay and my favorite cinematographer, Roger Deakins (10 Oscar nominations, 0 wins) is behind the camera. December 25.

There are 12 more films that I am excited to see, I'll call them the "Wildcards" and they will be featured in part 4. Enjoy!