Gone Girl (Fincher, 2014)

Hitchcock is cursing out the heavens for not letting him live long enough to direct such a juicy, twisty mystery.

In the vein of the Master of Suspense himself, David Fincher does marvelous work with Gone Girl, one of the best mysteries of recent years. Based on the best-selling novel by Gillian Flynn (who also wrote the screenplay), the film is a startling look at love and marriage, told in the moody atmosphere that Fincher films often adapt.

Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) is the husband of the recently-missing Amy (Rosamund Pike), and he is slowly becoming the lead suspect. As the film progresses, the audience learns how flawed their marriage was, and with each new clue Nick comes closer to being arrested. His twin (Carrie Coon), a dedicated detective (Kim Dickens), and a popular defense attorney (Tyler Perry) are the only friends Nick has in a country captivated by "Amazing Amy"'s disappearance.

Spoilers should be avoided like the plague; the less you know about the plot, the better the suspense is. There's enough twists and turns in the screenplay to circle the planet three times, and there's some really poignant dialogue and powerful symbolism. The movie also plays with narration in really interesting ways, and it's fascinating to watch the story unfold. It's hard not to get swept away in the thrill of the story, and the solid adaptation makes sure of that.

This is arguably the best performance Ben Affleck has ever given. For a man who's won accolades for directing, his acting has never been stellar. However, perhaps due to his own run-ins with the crazed media during "Bennifer", Affleck is totally believable as the questionable Nick. From his controversial smile in front of Amy's poster, to his constant reminders that he did not do anything to his wife, the Oscar-winner proves he is indeed capable of a good performance if the right role appears.

I have been a fan of Rosamund Pike since her first appearance as Bond girl Miranda Frost in the 2002 movie Die Another Day, and I'm so happy she's finally getting the recognition she deserves. She is captivating as Amy Dunne, featured in flashbacks and re-enactments of past diary entries. Amy is easily the most complex and fascinating character in Gone Girl, and fans of the novel will not be disappointed by her depiction on the silver screen. Pike gives my favorite female performance of the year so far, and has a very good shot at being at least nominated for an Academy Award.

Other actors such as Perry, Dickens, and Neil Patrick Harris also do memorable work, though the two leads steal the show. The supporting characters exist in the narrative just to give a moral line between the contrasting views of Nick's reality and Amy's diary. Coon is the only standout performance besides the married couple, as the hilarious yet devoted twin to Nick.

David Fincher has a strong following, and Gone Girl proves that he's one of the greatest directors in the industry today. While he's had some middling box office success in recent years, his work is almost always beloved by critics. His infamous control of actors comes through yet again, and he does not waste a shot. He never reveals too much at any given time, ensuring the maximum amount of suspense possible. Also, pay close attention to the opening credits: they're very short, and each line only appears on the screen for half a second before it disappears. It sets up the tense nature of the film ahead, and makes viewers notice each cut.

If there's one fault with Gone Girl, it's the length. At nearly two-and-a-half hours, the ending especially prattles on without end (grant it, a large Coke will do that to you, and I'm sure with a pause button the movie would seem a lot shorter). Besides that, the editing is fantastic, and there's a deliberate pacing to the story. Not a scene seems unimportant, and you won't want to miss a second.

Some of the themes addressed in the film include the problems with modern marriage, society's obsession with beautiful missing people, economic problems in everyday life, and the lasting effect of parents on humans even as adults. It feels very contemporary in it's ideas, but the story itself is a classic thriller. It's entertaining, fun, and a cultural phenomenon that needs to be experienced and discussed.

The Master himself is lamenting that he will never be able to work with Rosamund Pike- the perfect Hitchcock blonde.

A Walk Among the Tombstones (Frank, 2014)

There's nothing overly original about A Walk Among the Tombstones, and Liam Neeson's character is largely forgettable. But beneath all the cliches about tragic former cops, redemptive drug dealers, and child prodigies as sidekicks, is a modestly entertaining crime saga, taking its cues from film noir and applying it to a modern setting. 

Scott Frank proves capable of bringing his own screenplay to life, but unfortunately, moments of brilliance are underscored by a crop of tired images. There's some real beauty in some of his shots, particularly the opening credits, which turns a loving scene into a sexual nightmare. But for every great scene, there's two bad ones that take its place. It's like the hydra of crime movies. 

A Walk Among the Tombstones is based on the novel by Lawrence Block, and features Liam Neeson as a former cop who moonlights as an unlicensed private detective. He gets involved with a drug dealer named Kenny Kristo (Dan Stevens), who is reeling from his kidnapped wife's murder. Neeson goes on a hunt for her murderers, working with a homeless child (Brian Bradley) to track them down. 

The main protagonist proves a much less interesting character than he ought to be, though that's no fault of Neeson's. In some ways, his lack of a backstory is actually a relief on the part of the viewer, as it doesn't delve into that particular cliche. However, as a popular character in the realm of literature, a little bit of a character history would have been nice. As such, we're stuck with a one-dimensional detective that experiences no real danger in the film.

The story does put an intriguing spin on the crime drama, as Neeson's character works for a drug dealer instead of the victim of one. That being said, we get no real glimpse into Kristo's criminal actions- hindering the narrative's attempts to uniquely victimize his character. TJ, on the other hand, proves more interesting than your average child character because of his sharp chemistry with Neeson. Plus, he has some angles that make him one of the more developed characters in the story.

While the film's pacing is nimble and the scenes are the to-the-point, there's still room for improvement in the director's style of editing. A recurring motif in the film's climax is stretched to infinity, and there's a lot of useless characters and subplots. However, this does feel like a 2014 film noir, and it's a shame the story couldn't be rendered in black and white to really emphasize the grittiness of the plot. As it stands, though, this feels more like Criminal Minds than Se7en. 

Frank has a solid story to work with, and a character that has proven popular among book circles. But the screenwriter/director takes Sam Spade and turns him into Brian Mills. That may translate well for bringing Neeson on to the project, but not for bringing A Walk Among the Tombstones out of the graveyard of film tropes. 

Boyhood (Linklater, 2014)

Over a decade ago, writer and director Richard Linklater began working on his mysterious "twelve-year project". Hoping to gather the same cast and crew a few weeks out of every year to film portions of the story, he wanted to encapsulate childhood in a single film. He hired Patricia Arquette of Medium fame to play the single mother, and brought his own daughter, Lorelei Linklater, onboard to play the older sister to his main protagonist. The director wanted the boy in this film, played by Ellar Coltrane, to literally age before our very eyes on the screen.

Linklater brought these actors back every year to film the next chapter in the life of the boy. It took twelve years to complete, but by the end of the picture, we see Coltrane age from five to eighteen in just a few hours of footage. When the film finally premiered after years of media attention at the Sundance Film Festival, it was met with universal acclaim, and reviews have only gotten better as more and more people see it. 

I finally got the opportunity to see Boyhood a few days ago- and it's all I've been thinking about ever since. Linklater's epic is a life-changing experience, showcasing the power of hard work and the memories of my own generation through the eyes of an aging boy. Not a single frame was wasted, nor a single line of dialogue extraneous- Boyhood is without a doubt one of the most perfect movies I have ever seen.

The commitment required to make Boyhood is staggering. Think about it: where were you twelve years ago? How have times changed since then? How have you changed since then? Each one of these actors made a solemn vow to uphold their part in the project, not because they were legally bound, but because of their strict dedication to their art. It's clear that everyone in this movie wants to be here, wants to show how simple yet infinitely complex a single life remains. 

Boyhood's story comes second to its epic technical scope, but the simplicity of the narrative only adds to the perfection of the picture. Mason is the second child of Olivia (Arquette) and Mason Sr. (Ethan Hawke), a divorced couple who reach far beyond the stereotypes of single working mother and absent father. Mason grows up with new fathers, in new homes, with new friends, yet we're always watching his story unfold. The supporting characters are interesting but not necessarily complicated- unless they pertain directly to Mason's development in his long-term growth.

The film's plot itself doesn't seem very interesting on the surface, but don't misunderstand me- it's intended to be that way, and the film is incredibly entertaining beyond its technical achievements. That's part of the magic of Boyhood, that it doesn't bother with the "easy life cliches" such as marriage or learning how to drive for the first time. Instead, the film focuses on the "little moments", day-to-day stuff that may not mean much in the overall life of Mason, but is fascinating to watch how his life unfolds from one age to the next.

The little details of Boyhood are what make it stand out: from the types of music to the video games Mason is playing, there's clearly a lapse in time that Linklater wanted to address. I also really noticed how the lenses of the shots got cleaner as time went by, as the technology to create a movie got better with time. It shows how far we've come in only the past decade, and it's something fascinating for film buffs to watch carefully.  

Linklater directs the film carefully, so that every question from previous sections is answered, but never directly or easily. It makes you interpret how the times have changed, and make your own judgements on why you think something happens a certain way. There's some clear planning going on here, but on the whole, I feel that a lot of this film is improvised and adapted year after year, to make it fresh and reflective of the times it's trying to convey. 

Linklater's camera shots are wonderful and iconic as well; the first scene of Mason staring at the stars makes you wonder what not only Mason is thinking, but what Linklater himself is imagining for the next several years. There are so many parts that just managed to work perfectly, such as scenes that feature Mason getting his haircut, Mason Sr. and Jr. talking about the future of Star Wars ages before the seventh one was announced, and watching a home run live with the actors at an actual baseball game. 

There's no title cards telling you when Mason ages, or no time indicators to show how much time has past from one scene to the next. It takes about a half hour to get used to this, or to even notice its happening; suddenly, the film will shift from one year to the next. By the end of Boyhood you will finally realize how much time has elapsed in just three hours, simply by looking at the final frame, and then the poster. It's breathtaking and surreal to experience. 

Of course, all of this is anchored by Ellar Coltrane's stunning performance as Mason, every bit as talented, if not more so, with each new year. His aging performance is something we've never seen before in a fictional setting. Sure, we watched Daniel Radcliffe age in the Harry Potter franchise, but not like this, and certainly not for this long (as a side note, the Boy Who Lived makes an appearance in the film as one of the yearly milestones that Mason experiences). 

I was also vastly impressed by Lorelei Linklater, who's casting I originally attributed to nepotism but later realized was a stroke of genius; the director said of his daughter, "I knew where she was going to be for the next twelve years". Both Arquette and Hawke do something completely unexpected with their characters, and it's actually shocking to see what they become by the picture's end. 

What really got me, however, were the supporting actors; while all of the four leads were expected to return every year, there was no guarantee the other people could or even would return. It takes at least one run-through of the picture to realize that most of the characters had to return sometimes years after their simple bit-part a few years earlier. It was a magical moment when a character from one of the earlier sections made an appearance in the later part of the movie, and I realized at that time how special Boyhood remains. 

All four of the main actors are deserving of Academy Award nominations and wins, and the film itself should maintain the stamina to make a major dent come this awards season. It's hard to imagine a film topping this landmark cinematic achievement.  

Boyhood is unlike anything ever seen before, and it's a technical marvel that's epic in scope yet so simplistic in its storytelling. It makes all other films seem rushed in comparison, and it's evidently clear that Richard Linklater took his time to patiently create the movie he set out to make from the beginning. It's intimate in its character study, nearly perfect in it's execution, and full of humor and heart. 

Boyhood is a masterpiece, and shall remain in the pantheon of the greatest films of all time for decades to come.

Guardians of the Galaxy (Gunn, 2014)

If Star Wars and The Avengers had a baby, the result would be Guardians of the Galaxy.

A fun, addicting space opera, Guardians is the most original and fun Marvel movie to date; not necessarily the best of the wildly popular cinematic franchise, but certainly one of the most memorable. Marvel and Disney took a huge chance with a team that has an unusually small Marvel fan base, but now no one will ever question who the Guardians of the Galaxy are ever again.

Combining the comedic and fun elements of the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe movies with the epic nature of being in deep space for 99% of the movie, it is a passionate affair that has a lot of heart and good-natured humor. The film is also non-stop action; even the more talky parts are elevated by the cast's incredible chemistry and a sharp screenplay that includes numerous pop culture references and insanely quotable dialogue. It's clean, family-friendly entertainment that everyone will enjoy. Director James Gunn really nailed this one on the head.

The five members of Guardians of the Galaxy (and major kudos to the marketing team for the film which made these names and faces recognizable long before the film was actually released) are Peter Quill/Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), Gamora (Zoe Saldana), Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista), Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel), and Rocket Racoon (voiced by Bradley Cooper, performance captured by Sean Gunn, James' brother). All of them share equal screen time, and each are developed in a way that's nearly impossible to do. As previously demonstrated with The Avengers, the folks at Marvel are very talented in keeping their large casts on level playing fields with one another, never letting one overtake the other.

The plot follows Quill, a human raised by space bandits, starts the film by looking for a mysterious, high-priced orb on an alien world. Once he gets it, he is hunted by Gamora, who is working for galactic boss Thanos (Josh Brolin, taking over the "big purple guy" role from the end credits of The Avengers), bounty hunters Rocket and Groot, and hitman Korath (Djimon Hounsou). The orb is highly valuable, and incredibly powerful if used properly; the villainous Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace) wants to use the orb to destroy the Nova Corps and their home world. After an unusual sequence of events, and not wanting the orb to fall into enemy hands, the four Guardians, along with Drax, must work together to stop evil from reigning over the galaxy.

The characters are what makes most Marvel films so popular, and Guardians is no exception. Ronan is a singularly menacing bad guy, and is significantly more threatening than the other Phase 2 Marvel baddies. Even the henchman, which also includes Nebula (Karen Gillan), are brutal villains. Oscar favorites John C. Reilly, Benecio Del Toro, and Glenn Close also contribute their own talents to the picture, demonstrating that this project is special in its high potential as a new, original, series. Unlike many other movies, Guardians actually uses its characters equally well, and even the supporting cast is sympathetic and recognizable (thanks in part to the high caliber nature of much of the ensemble).

A ragtag group of heroes, the titular Guardians of the Galaxy are an eclectic group of misfits who have no one to look out for other then themselves. They're orphans of their own species, and each has a secret agenda that haunts them to their core. Each has a tragic backstory, and despite what they say, they each need other to survive in this hectic galaxy. The actor's chemistry is phenomenal, and the scenes of them talking is absolutely hysterical. There's so many little nuances to their comedy that makes each line cause a laugh, and the line following after it to be even funnier.

In addition to the characters, Guardians of the Galaxy succeeds because of the impressive visual effects. It has probably the best use of IMAX 3D since Gravity, and the effects are well developed and expertly used. Groot and Rocket look incredible, and fit in nicely with the real-life actors. The battle sequences are awesome to behold, and it's bone-chilingly choreographed and directed. The makeup looks great, and it's very clear that the production team took time to carefully develop even the side aliens, as well as the unique set design of the various different worlds.

The music, featuring Quill's mix tape "Awesome Mix Vol. 1", elevates this film to the next level of greatness. This summer's films have done a nice job of using classic rock songs effectively, and are finally starting to do away with the god-awful cliche of adding a pop song over the end credits. Older audiences will know and love most or all of the songs on the soundtrack, which include "I Want You Back", "Cherry Bomb", "Come and Get Your Love", and of course "Hooked on a Feeling", which was perfectly used in the film's promotions. The score by Tyler Bates complements the film's many action sequences, but audiences will love the soundtrack songs that evoke Quill's only connection with Earth.

But through all the fun, all the action, all the fantastic comedy, there are five reasons to see Guardians of the Galaxy: Star-Lord, Gamora, Drax the Destroyer, Groot, and Rocket Racoon. Pratt gives a star making performance, Bautista is my new favorite wrestler-turned-actor, Saldana is typically great in sci-fi, Diesel makes the best out of each of his limited character vocabulary, and Cooper steals the show as a talkative yet sensitive talking raccoon. It's an incredibly well-cast ensemble of featured characters that proves the Marvel brand doesn't have to be limited to Earth and the Avengers to tell an entertaining roller coaster of a story. 

I look forward to more Guardians of the Galaxy in the future, because I'm hooked on a feeling that these are the best "new" superheroes we've seen in a long time.

Begin Again (Carney, 2014)

As soon as I walked out of the theater, I bought the soundtrack to Begin Again.

I didn't just get it because the music was really well done. Nor did I get it because Keira Knightley is an exceptional singer, and Adam Levine continues to amaze. And buying it because it encapsulates the mood of the movie so well was, at best, a minor reason.

I bought the soundtrack because I never wanted to forget the mesmerizing experience of watching Begin Again.

From director John Carney, who started into the musical-drama genre with 2006's Once, again delivers an addicting story about life, love, and the influence a song can have on someone's life. Begin Again offers a necessary break in a summer filled with sequels and box office explosions, by giving viewers a romantic drama that features fantastic performances, an escapist screenplay, and a stuck-in-your-head soundtrack.

Keira Knightley and Mark Ruffalo star as the film's protagonists, who meet each other purely by coincidence at a bar in New York City. Knightley's Gretta is having trouble adjusting after her boyfriend of many years (Adam Levine) leaves her for another woman, consumed by the spotlight of his recent rise to stardom. She herself is a talented guitar player, singer, and songwriter, who plays at a bar for one random song that Ruffalo's Dan just happens to hear. He is getting over a bad divorce, and is having to deal with his daughter's (Hailee Steinfeld) rebellious phase and a record company he founded wanting to fire him.

Gretta and Dan decide to team up, and go against the normal music studio system. They find a band made of misfits and bored musicians, and they decide to self-produce their own album. Dan decides to take a unique approach, by recording outside in various places around New York City. The result is a beautiful love letter to the Big Apple, and a look at what's truly important for these characters. It demonstrates that it's more than possible to start over in a world full of second chances.

Keira Knightley does not work nearly enough as she ought to, because in Begin Again she again delivers a startling performance, able to encompass the wide range of realistic emotions her character experiences. Plus, she's one heck of a singer; I highly encourage you to wait to hear her until she performs in the first scene of the movie, because you'll be blown away by what this actress can accomplish.

Mark Ruffalo is finally getting more recognition in his post-Avengers fame, and he brings his diversity to this role. He's not the most handsome man, nor is he anyone's Prince Charming; instead, he brings to the table a true-to-life man that has to overcome more problems than he can handle. His chemistry with Knightley is indelible, and you can see the sparks flying in some of their great scenes together. They argue about the authenticity of artists today, discuss the capitalist music industry, and share an unforgettable walk through New York City at night, listening to their individual playlists together.

Adam Levine, for a singer, is actually a pretty good actor. He provides a believable performance that's part him, and part someone else entirely. His character will surprise you the most throughout the movie. The other actors do some great work here, but the one quality they all have in common is that they seem to be having fun. Their smiles seem real, their work seems authentic, and they just appear to be having the time of their lives. Their infectious bliss puts a smile on your face the whole time.

There's also a very subtle satire in Begin Again, showing the awfulness of most modern music. The scene of Dan listening to some demos in his car is hysterical, and Carney knows it. Gretta's music and lyrics are so much better than what's considered popular, and the director encourages viewers to try and listen to some non-mainstream music, as it may prove more satisfactory than yet another rendition of a four-beat dance. Of course, this brings to question Adam Levine and CeeLo Green's involvement in the picture: are they encouraging better music themselves, or are they apologizing for submitting to what audiences want instead of working for the music? An intriguing set of questions that makes you appreciate Begin Again and its soundtrack even more.

The screenplay and dialogue are quite well done, and even though this is clearly an optimistic outlook on life, it's one certainly grounded in reality. The camerawork is part stedicam, part shaky cam, which makes me think the director wants to evoke the fantasy elements in everyday life, making some parts brutally honest, and others obvious escapism. The ending in particular is not typical of most Hollywood films. It will leave some viewers upset, but others like me will be very satisfied to see someone dare to end a movie differently.

All of this comes through in the music, which features some truly amazing original songs. Here's hoping the Academy recognizes this movie in many categories, but at least mentions "Lost Stars", "Tell Me if You Wanna Go Home", "Like a Fool", "Coming Up Roses", and "A Step You Can't Take Back" in the Best Original Song category. Listen to the work of Keira Knightley for sheer talent, but also pay special attention to the way Adam Levine invokes his character, and not himself, in the album. It's really special for such an established singer to do that.

I had a truly magical time watching the action of Begin Again unfold on screen. It made me smile throughout, and I was very sad to see it end. I enjoyed all the little references to some major films like Casablanca and Jerry Maguire, and appreciated the messages about being yourself without caring what others think. The love elements made me very happy, because they seemed real with the great chemistry between Knightley and Ruffalo. But most of all, this is a fun and joyful celebration of life itself. It shows the power of family, the power of friends, and the power of beginning again.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (Reeves, 2014)

If Rise of the Planet of the Apes was created to make humanity seem cruel, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes takes it one step farther by showing how boring humans really are. The human characters in this sci-fi epic are secondary at best, and none of them have any sort of depth. While this normally connotes laziness on the part of the filmmakers, there remains a second cast in the film, much more interesting, much more rounded, and overall, much more sympathetic. 

People should go see Dawn of the Planet of the Apes solely because of the titular ape characters. The film is a radical improvement of an already surprisingly good film, and does everything a sequel should do. The effects are better, the action is grander, the decisions are more important, and the returning characters are all further developed in fascinating ways.

Set 10 years after Rise, the film opens with a look at the new society the apes have created in the wake of humanity's near extinction. Caesar (Andy Serkis) still leads the ultra-intelligent simians, this time with a family of his own. They have no regard for the humanity that abused them, and most are content with the knowledge that most people are dead- killed by the virus that gave the apes heightened intelligence.

Meanwhile, a small band of human survivors led by Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) are seeking an energy source to power their failing city. They send a team, which includes the morally upstanding Malcolm (Jason Clarke), his girlfriend Ellie (Keri Russell), and his son Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee), to find a power source in the jungles beyond the Golden Gate Bridge- unaware of the apes living there. 

When the humans and apes meet, there is much hostility between them. The only ones able to see through the fog of hatred are Malcolm and Caesar, who allows the humans to access the jungle, much to the dismay of Koba (Toby Kebbell), an ape who was experimented on for years. The fragile alliance is threatened from both sides, and soon Caesar will have to choose between defending his colony from the humans, or putting his trust in the people who have hunted them for so long. 

The screenplay puts much emphasis on the ape portions of the story, so much so that the human sections seem repetitive. By this point, we see the human characters as animals, and the apes as our heroes. It's a weird sort of comparison that would not have been possible without Rise, and the sequel drives home the franchise's points about the dark monstrosity looming inside all of humanity. 

Andy Serkis once again gives an Oscar-worthy performance as Caesar, and even improves upon his near-perfect acting from the first film. There's little details in his role that make all the difference: his quivering lip, his hand gestures, and most importantly, his all-telling eyes. The "windows to his soul" show more about his character than anything, and very few actors have mastered the ability to make their eyes demonstrate not what they feel, but what the character feels. That to me is the trademark of a great actor- the ability to actually transform into another person, or in this case, an ape. Caesar is one of the greatest modern-day characters, and in this film, his story continues in glorious form. 

Kebbell is also a great up-and-coming motion-capture performer, and next to Caesar, his character has the most screen time. Maurice (Karin Konoval) and Rocket (Terry Notary) from Rise are also very believable and convincing as apes. In addition, Caesar's son Blue Eyes (Nick Thurston) represents the new generation of apes in a really interesting way- does he follow his idealistic father, or remain loyal to his ape roots? He symbolizes the ever-widening divide between nature and development, and his physical scars are metaphors for this conflict. 

The human actors give it their all, but all except Clarke have very little with which to work. Oldman in particular gets shafted, with only a few key scenes and little character development. However, Reeves seems to intentionally give the humans little backstory, so that they're harder to sympathize with in comparison to the apes. 

Rise was highly successful because of the groundbreaking way it put motion-capture actors in unpredictable and virtually uncontrollable outdoor environments. In Dawn, almost all the ape scenes are outside, and the detail on their skin and fur is unbelievable. At times it seems like the filmmakers managed to find actual talking apes and orangutans. 

The prologue is very disturbing and evocative of Rise's end credits, setting the tone for the darker nature of this film. There's very little comedic moments, and most of the time viewers will be on the edge of their seats. This is a very dangerous world to live in, and the filmmakers plunge into the uncomfortableness by not holding anything back. It subtly weighs in on the gun debate, and shows the importance of having a place to call home. 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is an action movie with a lot to offer. If you really want to understand its message, however, all you have to do is look into Caesar's green eyes in the first scene, for they tell the whole story in a single shot. Its a look that will haunt you for the rest of the movie, and into the dawn. 

May 2014 Micro-Reviews

Well, folks- I've dropped the ball once again. Even though I've seen tons of movies during the first month of summer, I have failed to review most of them as of late. I promised that I would review every new movie I saw this year, nonetheless, so here is my roundup of all the films I've seen in May of 2014. I hope these micro-reviews will give you a good summary overview of how I felt about these pictures, and in the event you want any of them clarified and/or elaborated, I would be more than happy to discuss them more in depth with you.

So, without further adieu, here is the summer movie season's first month's reviews, presented in chronological order by release date:

Belle (Asante, 2014)

There's a recurring theme with this particular crop of films; no, they don't share the same morals, and certainly are very different from one another. But what combines these movies is there tendencies to just be... ok. A lot of them have really intriguing premises, and end up just falling short of the mark in some way or another. Take Belle for example. It's a wonderful little movie, with the beautiful and talented Gugu Mbatha-Raw playing the titular black character stuck in a whites-only Victorian society. She has to make sacrifices, and risk her inheritance and future marriage, just because of the color of her skin. But something about this film just didn't pop for me. It screams Oscar bait, yet besides the stellar cast, which also includes Tom Wilkinson as Belle's guardian and Sarah Gadon as her sister, there's not much else to this tale. It's a true story, bred for cinematic treatment, but for whatever reason, Belle didn't impress me as much as I wanted it to. Maybe it's because they played it safe, and kept a PG rating that told a story similar to 12 Years a Slave in a much more family-friendly fashion. Or perhaps because it was a costume drama that had little else besides gorgeous costuming and fine actors who wore them. The dialogue was overly cheesy, and should have given its heavy-handed messages in a much more subtle way. In any situation, I was disappointed, because I realize what Belle could have been.

Neighbors (Stoller, 2014)

I'm not the biggest fan of Seth Rogen, or any of the Judd Apatow crew for that matter. Which is why last summer, This is the End surprised me because of how genuinely hilarious these actors can become when given a sharp script and some satirical material with which to work. As such, I was excited to see many of the behind-the-scenes elements in play once again with Neighbors, a frat comedy with Rogen, Rose Byrne, and their baby becoming stuck as the next-door neighbors to Zac Efron's loud, partying fraternity. It seemed to have a lot of the right parts necessary to make a hilarious comedy, and it certainly did entertain in many respects: Neighbors made me genuinely laugh from beginning to end. Rogen and Byrne were great together, and while he still cannot act to save his life, Efron did a decent job as the story's antagonistic frat president. Dave Franco commits a solid performance as the intelligent vice president of the fraternity, and there's a fun little cameo by Lisa Kudrow as the university president. There's some interesting collegiate themes in the movie, about the importance of fraternities in the rest of your life, and learning how to cope once the partying ends and real life begins. The film, however, is largely forgettable; it fails to make any lasting impression on the viewer, and as such, audiences will hardly regret or appreciate their time watching Neighbors. It's just not a very memorable experience, and out of all the movies I've seen this year, this one shocks me with how little I remember it. I have already forgotten all the jokes, which shows how shockingly un-quotable this film remains. Not a good sign for a comedy.


Million Dollar Arm (Gillespie, 2014)

Once again, here's a movie that could have been so much more, if it weren't already so average. Million Dollar Arm is a very Disney-esque sports drama, which means lots of comeback tales and character trait switches, and has a morally upstanding message about following your dreams and being the best person possible. Jon Hamm is good as a sports agent who's office is lacking in the clientele department. He and his friend Aash (Aasif Mandvi, who shares great chemistry with Hamm) come up with an idea to turn two Indian cricket players into American baseball stars, which of course has its share of cultural boundaries and tough times. Of course, the two kids they find (Suraj Sharma and Madhur Mittal) are socially awkward, and have a rough time getting along the isolated Hamm. Oh, and did I mention Hamm has a sexy female neighbor who he doesn't get along with? Yes, it's a good story, but Million Dollar Arm is just one cliche after another. It's retread after retread after retread, and every step forward is two steps back in the plot. It does provide some interesting views of the world of sports agency, but if you want that in a better sense, go watch Jerry Maguire. I found myself bored and not very invested in this particular picture, if only because I feel like I've seen it before dozens of times.

Godzilla (Edwards, 2014)

I went in expecting Jurassic Park, and got The Lost World. Let me clarify: part of the thrill that comes with seeing a monster movie is the payoff one gets when they see the beast for the first time; the reason Jaws and Jurassic Park are so scary is because they take forever to show the shark and the T-Rex. The Lost World, on the other hand, shows the dinosaurs right away, bringing the amount of terror down to a minimalistic level. Godzilla, while surprisingly a really good movie, takes time building up the world's most famous monster, until out of the blue is just sort of appears. This ticked me off at first, but in hindsight, it's a personal preference that just annoyed me while I watched the film. From an objective critical standpoint, however, Godzilla is exactly what you want it to be: a rock 'em, sock 'em monster slugfest that pits the giant lizard against horrific flying bat-things. It's visually spectacular, with the Godzilla effects being used to peak efficiency; I was personally blown away by the sound, as every time Godzilla roared, the theater seats shook. I was also very happy with the wide scope of the whole thing, which features death-defying drops into the clouds and close ups of the monsters. It's some of the best use of 3-D I've seen in a blockbuster, and Gareth Edwards is a great new name in directing. Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen's love story was actually sweet and not typically annoying, Ken Watanabe brings the rightful Japanese vibe to the narrative, and Bryan Cranston pretty much delivers his usual awesomeness in a small but showy role. I saw it in IMAX and was not disappointed; the bigger the screen you see it on, the bigger Godzilla is, and even though he's revealed in the wrong way, isn't that why you'd come to see Godzilla anyways? (Oh, and I guess you'd see it because it doesn't star Mathew Broderick. Let's pretend that disaster doesn't exist, shall we?)

Chef (Favreau, 2014)

Chef is a tasty treat, with just the right amount of ingredients to create a delicious tale about the necessity of trying new things and realizing where your tastes come from. (Ok, no more food metaphors, I promise!) Jon Favreau writes, directs, and stars in an authentic tale about a middle-aged chef who's unhappy with his routine cooking job and struggling family life. He wants to get his passion for cooking once again, and desperately needs to reconnect with his 10-year-old son (Emjay Anthony, who should get every juvenile award thats coming to him). But when his boss (Dustin Hoffman) fires him for trying to do something different, and a food critic (Oliver Platt) pans his latest dish, Carl Casper goes on a downward spiral of madness. His ex-wife (Sofia Vergara) wants to help him, however, and arranges for him to get a food truck, so that he, his sous-chef (John Leguizamo), and his son can rediscover their love of the art and each other. Also starring no less than Robert Downey, Jr. and Scarlett Johansson, this is an ensemble worth seeing at least once together. Friends off the set as well, they each bring their electric chemistry to the forefront here, which makes up for the movie's sometimes slow pace and jumpy editing. It may be a little overcooked in the message oven, but overall it's a juicy concoction of wondrous flavor that proves how mushy life can and should be on the inside (dang it, did it again!).

Maleficent (Stromberg, 2014)

As many of you may know, I'm a huge fan of Disney villains, and Maleficent in particular represents the pinnacle of darkness. In fact, see where I ranked her in my list of Top 10 Movie Villains of All Time and you'll see just how important she is to me. This is why I was so excited when Disney announced they were making a feature film just about her, giving her her own long-overdue solo outing. And I'm happy to report that I wasn't disappointed. While the character may be different from what Disney originally intended, Maleficent is still an incredibly layered character, with intrinsic and sympathetic motivations for every evil deed she commits. The film is beautifully animated, with some of the most realized environments since Avatar represented in the Moors. Elle Fanning plays a much more interesting Aurora than the original film, and Sharlto Copley is a good antagonist as the king of the humans. My biggest issue with the film is that it has zero narrative focus, and can't decide whether it wants to be a retelling of Sleeping Beauty, an original tale, an origin of Maleficent, or something else entirely. It bites off more than it can chew in that department, and I blame the visually-inclinded director for that one. However, everything else about the film shines bright: it's reads like a fairy tale, and it is quite fantastic in terms of epic battles and solid music (including the gleefully creepy end credits cover by Lana Del Ray). However, the real reason to go see Maleficent is because of the evil fairy herself: Angelina Jolie is spectacular in this role. It's the sort of delicious villainy that the actress doesn't often express, and she chews the scenery around her wonderfully. Every line, every movement seems authentic to this great Disney character, and reminds us why Jolie got famous in the first place, before her tabloid-friendly life took center stage for her. No other actress could have played Maleficent, and Jolie looks and acts the part beautifully. It may not be the character you remember, but for what Maleficent is, it works. Come for the character, stay for Jolie, and walk once upon a dream again.

There's my May wrap-up for 2014! Hopefully, I can churn out reviews better than I have been so far. If you want to discuss any of the films above, I'm more than willing to talk about them in the comments below!