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!

X-Men: Days of Future Past (Singer, 2014)

The X-Men are probably my favorite superhero team, and contain arguably my favorite Marvel characters. Their powers are exciting, them embers and villains are each fleshed out nicely, and the stories are usually much more interesting than other comics.

However, after re-watching the majority of the X-Men films leading up to this summer's Days of Future Past, one thing that really stuck out to me was the amazing allegories the film's make to oppression and accepting who you are- no matter how different from society you remain. Whether you read them as a gay parable, or simply a commentary on racism, the mutants offer something fresh and thought-provoking to the superhero genre. X-Men (2000) and X2: X-Men United (2003) were  each staggeringly well made superhero movies, and much of that can be attributed to both the stellar ensemble cast and sharp direction by Bryan Singer. Nevertheless, as the franchise continued and Singer distanced himself further and further from the franchise, much of that commentary was left to the wayside in favor of bigger spectacle and more unnecessary cameos. With Days of Future Past, however, Singer returns the franchise to invigorating form- all while adding a level of menace the likes of which superhero films have never seen. 

Bryan Singer, with X-Men: Days of Future Past, combines the best elements of the 2000's X-Men Trilogy with 2011's X-Men: First Class to create a smart epic based on a popular X-Men storyline. Using the amazing cast of both portions of the franchise, the director crafts an intricate tale that's probably the darkest superhero film since 2008's The Dark Knight. Days of Future Past is more than just a superhero movie- it's a dire warning to all who hate and fear those who aren't like them. 

It's impossible to give a plot synopsis of the film without clarifying something first: the movie jumps right into the middle of the action, and throughout the 131 minutes of screen time, never more than hints at the road to ruin. I strongly recommend reading through 20th Century Fox's 25 Moments That Shaped Mutant History before seeing the film, as it will allow the future portions to make more sense.  It doesn't spoil anything about the movie, and will only heighten the experience. 

X-Men: Days of Future Past is split into two settings: a dystopian future with the cast of the original X-Men movies, and a series of events in the past starring the cast of X-Men: First Class. The film begins in the future, where humanity is on the verge of extinction thanks to the arrival of the Sentinels- adaptive machines that originally hunted mutants. Now, all of mankind is in danger, as the Sentinels now attack those associated with the mutants in any fashion. Realizing the high probability of failure, once-enemies Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellen) are working together to save as many mutants as they can. With extinction awaiting them around every corner, the two come up with a plan to send the rapid-healing Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back in time to prevent an event that leads to the devastating war. Using Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page)'s phasing ability, Wolverine has only a short window to change the timeline before the Sentinels find where the remaining X-Men are hiding. 

Most of the movie takes place during the 1970's, where Wolverine's consciousness is projected into his younger body. He has to convince the depressed Professor X (James McAvoy) and the protective Beast (Nicholas Hoult) to work with their enemy, Magneto (Michael Fassbender), to find Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) before she causes the events that lead to global war. Meanwhile, technological innovator and mutant-hater Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage) tries to convince the US government to sponsor his Sentinel program, warning them of the potential danger of mutants. It's a race against time itself in the effort to save all of humanity- the biggest challenge the X-Men have ever faced. 

Now, a lot of the complaints about X-Men: The Last Stand were the overabundance of mutant characters. There was way too many to keep track of, so audiences had little emotional connection to any of them (while we're on the subject, Brett Ratner, why would you give Psylocke a total of two lines and none of her powers?!?). X-Men: Days of Future Past, on the other hand, despite having no less than 24 important characters in the movie, manages to balance their developments well, and works in correlation with the other X-Men movies to create a great ensemble gallery of characters.  

Jackman, Stewart, McKellen, McAvoy, Fassbender, Hoult, Dinklage, Page, and of course Lawrence are all fantastic in the final film, with some Oscar-caliber acting coming from these leading characters. In supporting roles, Shawn Ashmore, Daniel Cudmore, and Halle Berry reprise their roles as Iceman, Colossus, and Storm, respectively, and each seems like they never skipped a beat, despite last doing these roles over seven years ago. There's some great cameos from the previous movies, including Toad and Havok, and some fun new characters like teleport-creating Blink (Bingbing Fan) and energy-absorbing Bishop (Omar Sy). 

However, the biggest new character shout-out has to be Evan Peter's Quicksilver, the lightning-fast mutant from the '70's who helps to break Magneto out of his prison. He hams up the dialogue and action with pitch-perfect comedic effect; with so little screen time, we barely get to know him, but what a rush his character is in the picture. One scene in particular has had critics raving- probably because it is a gut-wrenchingly hilarious sequence that breaks the incredibly dark story up a bit. 

The visual effects alone make Days of Future Past worth seeing. Yes, we get some typically cool effects when the mutants use their power, and both actors playing Magneto do a great job at using the scenery around them. Mystique's makeup looks as real as ever, and there's some neat costuming and production design for the 1970's set pieces (though I thought First Class did a better job at capturing the 1960's). Plus, the Blink teleports look pretty sweet. But the biggest selling point for me were the Sentinels- they look astonishing, and interact with the actors in realistic and fascinating ways. We know they're CGI, but they're also so life-like that we forget they're not actually there. They're horrifying and highly-effective antagonists. 

Some of the time-travel stuff was far-fetched, and I take a bit of a problem with the fact that the future fight scenes, as cool as they are, would not happen once Wolverine goes into the past and changes things in even the slightest ways; him simply being in the past is enough to change history forever, no matter how successful he is in his mission. That being said, the editing and camerawork are done very carefully, so that there is a clear correlation between what is going on in either timeline.   This was aided greatly by John Ottman's beautiful score, which also hints at X2's powerful title song. 

In addition, there is some glaring continuity errors in the future segments. How did Wolverine get his adamantium claws back after losing them in The Wolverine? How did Professor X come back to life? And what about the "cure" they used on Magneto? Did it just not work on him, or was it ineffective in everyone? The First Class continuity is spot-on, but why couldn't Bryan Singer get his own work in the continuity correct? In the end, it really doesn't make that big of a difference in the grand scheme of things- Days of Future Past is still a pretty slick work of cinema, but as a die-hard X-Men fan, I would have appreciated some more answers than what the writers were giving me. 

If you go in expecting a sequel to First Class rather than an X-Men Trilogy follow-up, you won't be disappointed- the future segments are only used as a grim aid to the direness of the past's story. It's a ton of fun to see actors like Stewart, Berry, Ashmore, and McKellen in their original roles, but ultimately this is a story about the past. There's nothing wrong with that- the movie is still incredible- but don't go in expecting to see a whole of lot of the original cast. 

X-Men: Days of Future Past is a haunting superhero spectacle, one with several incredible action sequences and lots of well-developed characters. This is storytelling at its highest form, and Singer creates a parable for all who hate themselves because of what society says is "normal". He warns all who speak against those who are different that if we continue to fear one another, humanity will crumble under its own prejudices. It's a dark fantasy, filled with great filmmaking, but also with equally great metaphors and social lessons. The film asks if you want to be like one of the X-Men, and fight to defend all people, whether they are mutant or not; or, do you want to be like Bolivar Trask, and hate those who are different so much that you seek only to eradicate them from existence?

Personally, I'd like to side with the X-Men, and hope all who see this wonderful film agree. 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (Webb, 2014)

Who would have thought the reboot would be better than the original?

I was a fan of the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy in the early 2000s, and it definitely had its cultural advantages: it proved that superhero films could be taken seriously, and allowed the Marvel franchise to flourish into the major blockbuster presence it is today. Without Raimi, who knows if Marvel could have made Iron Man financially feasibly. 

But have you tried to watch those films recently? Since Marvel has taken over the planet with grin-worthy action pictures, the original Spider-Man trilogy has not aged well. In fact, they're so slow that they're barely watchable: when you think about it, the casting is kind of awful, the action is second-rate, and the stories are bogged down by nonsensical excuses to throw in cameos and obvious discoveries. 

And in all its heavy themes, people often overlook a simple fact with Raimi's movies: Spider-Man is not the hero to be taken seriously. Sure, Peter Parker has as many social troubles as Bruce Wayne, but unlike the Batman, Spider-Man takes his superhero gig in a lot more stride. He jokes as he beats bad guys, and always manages to outsmart his rather cool rogues gallery of villains. Plus, no other superhero can talk on his phone while continuing to pound evildoers quite like Spider-Man. 

That's part of the reason I really enjoyed 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man, because it was really a better introduction to the web-slinger than the other three films. This movie had a much more believable (age, intelligence, and awkwardness-wise) Peter Parker, and Andrew Garfield's portrayal of the hero just made more sense. I found myself much more inclined to sympathize with his character, and his emotional struggles were far more relatable, and, as far as I was concerned, far more interesting. Combine this with an awesome love interest and cool villain, and you get a movie that's fun, lighthearted, and overall more entertaining than the first set of pictures. 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 lives up to the positive promise of The Amazing Spider-Man, and ups the game in almost every way. With a shockingly incredible cast and the visual splendor of the best superhero movies, it serves as a solid start to the summer blockbuster season, proving that Spider-Man doesn't need darkness and angst to become critically successful. 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 chronicles the post-high school graduation days of Peter Parker and girlfriend Gwen Stacy, played by Emma Stone, who once again provides a bubbly and charming love interest. (To those of you confused and/or complaining about the lack of Mary Jane Watson, Stacy was Parker's original love interest. It took years for the redhead to come along.) Garfield and Stone have believable chemistry, and they bounce lines off each other with ease and hilarity. However, their love story has a much more constrained path in this picture: after promising her dead father he would keep her safe and away from Spider-Man, Parker faces a moral crisis of how he should proceed. Meanwhile, he struggles to discover the truth behind his parent's disappearance, and soon realizes that his Aunt May (Sally Field, wonderful as always) knows more than she's letting him believe. 

While The Amazing Spider-Man had Spidey facing off against his former mentor Lizard, this sequel has a more popular main antagonist in terms of audience familiarity and comic fandom- Electro, played with live-wire intensity by Jamie Foxx. An obsessed fan of Spider-Man, Foxx's Max Dillion becomes the victim of an experiment by Oscorp, the corrupt corporation led by the Osborne family.  Foxx chews the scenery around him, and makes his oftentimes corny puns not so cheesy by truly embodying a lonely man who just wants to make the world to see him. Electro is probably one of the more sympathetic villains in recent comic book history, because don't we all want a superhero to be our best friend? 

Also introduced in the film is Harry Osborn, Parker's childhood best friend who returns to New York City to help run Oscorp. Dane DeHaan is actually really good in this role, and takes his predecessor James Franco's work one step farther by making Harry incredibly creepy. Much like Electro, Osborn is a relatable character who merely longs for someone not to abandon him for once in his life. He has enormous pressures- and all he wants is someone he can truly trust. 

Now, this may seem like quite a lot going on, with an overabundance of characters and plot lines, but Marc Webb manages to carefully interweave each portion of the story into a cohesive and easy-to-follow web (pun intended). A lot of critics seem to point to this as a complaint, but I would argue just the opposite: Webb gives each character an interesting story and plenty of room to develop. The Spider-Man universe is rich with strong characters, so it was nice to see a director really take the time to introduce and give a wide assortment of characters their day. The only person that's really shafted in the picture is Paul Giamatti's Rhino, who makes more of a cameo appearance in two key scenes at the beginning and end. But even he is fun to watch, despite the fact that he receives so little screen time in this film.

Unlike the original trilogy, which favored an uninteresting and unromantic love story over super-villains and action sequences, The Amazing Spider-Man movies balance out the romance with the fights. Frankly, Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst had zero chemistry, and their story was more whiny than anything else. However, Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone's story is not only fun to watch, but also serves as a nice break from the multitude of action sequences- they keep audiences entertained, but don't detract from the flow of the movie. Everything is related, and all the characters need each other to develop- there's no more of the slow, meandering dribble of the Raimi pictures. 

In addition, The Amazing Spider-Man 2's looks are awe-inspiring, with the IMAX 3-D version showcasing the hero's web-slinging through New York City. It puts a smile on your face just to see the protagonist swing through the city in death-defying stunts, and the advanced CGI makes it look believable and cool. If that was not enough, the Electro effects add a factor of menace to the battle sequences. Jamie Foxx looks pretty terrifying in full makeup, and its hard not to want to dodge the electric bolts that he hurls at Spider-Man. There's about one bullet-time effect too many, but after seeing the movie a second time, it actually does add gravitas to some of the later portions of the film. We get used to seeing them, so much so that seeing them towards the end helps us to focus on the plot instead of the effect. 

Fans of the comic will be pleased with the numerous references in the picture to future story-lines, characters, and cameo appearances. Audiences will gasp when they name-drop certain people, and there's enough going on both in front of and behind the camera for several more Spider-Man pictures. Friendly, spoiler-free hint: Sony Pictures has already announced a Sinister Six film, and the whole lineup is referenced individually at least once in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. Can you find them all? (While there's no J. Jonah Jameson just yet, he is hilariously referenced twice. Here's hoping they cast J.K. Simmons from the original trilogy, as he represents one of the sole good qualities about those films.) 

There's a lot about The Amazing Spider-Man 2 that critics have complained about, but as far as entertaining superhero films go, I find their arguments mostly invalid. This is an amazing way to start the summer season, as it represents a faithful comic-book adaptation that takes a handful of really awesome characters and gives them ample time on the silver screen. The movie is well-cast in terms of great performances and similar looks to their inspirations, and we can sympathize on a deep emotional level with all characters, even the villains. 

If you want an angsty, non-entertaining superhero franchise that wastes its characters and stories, than stick to the Sam Raimi films. However, if you're like me, and want your superhero films to be fun, escapist adventures that put a smile on your face, then head to the movie theaters and see The Amazing Spider-Man 2. You won't regret it. 

(Looking for the stars?? Well, from this point forward, I will no longer be giving my film reviews a star ranking. I've heard a lot of complaints about the inconsistencies of the ratings, and find myself convinced by their arguments. As of right now, my best option is to not include a definitive value to my reviews, and have my writing stand on its own to give readers a sense of how I felt about a particular film. I'm open to comments and suggestions, and look forward to hearing what you think!)

Transcendence (Pfister, 2014)

While a lot of people credit the look of a film to the director, it's actually the cinematographer who deserves a lot more attention. However, the director's unique visual style as an autuer earns rightful praise because of the way the director helps the director of photography (DP) to shoot the picture. Christopher Nolan, for example, always made his films with cinematographer Wally Pfister, the Oscar-winning DP who has filmed most of the director's main projects (including Inception, The Prestige, Memento, and The Dark Knight Trilogy)  I've always wondered what a famous cinematographer would do with his own control of the direction, to see who actually creates the works we all love. Does Wally Pfister's direction of the photography make Nolan movies so incredible and epic, or is it the director's hand that masterfully combines all the elements to create a one-of-a-kind show?

Transcendence, Wally Pfister's directorial debut, proves that it takes more than firm control of the camera to make a movie. 

Overly melodramatic and achingly slow, Pfister's sci-fi tale is neither innovative nor interesting. He takes pre-established fears of technology and tries to say something powerful, but ends up falling flat when he finally gets to the message. Despite looking quite nice, the film suffers from a god-awful screenplay and a painful performance from Johnny Depp. 

Transcendence begins with a technological conference, where Will Caster (Johnny Depp) is the keynote speaker. He's an ingenious programer that dreams of a future filled with highly advanced artificial intelligence. Along with his wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and best friend Max (Paul Bettany),  Will works to create that world. But after the conference, Will is shot by an unnamed terrorist who is part of an organization that seeks to disconnect society's dependence on technology. Fearing life after her husband's death, Evelyn proposes that they upload Will's consciousness into a computer. 

Despite objections from Max, they go through with the plan and give the machine all that Will is. When he dies, they find themselves face-to-face with the machine, who seemingly has the memories and knowledge of their old friend. But (shocking!), things start to go wrong as Will gains power and network access. Transcendence then turns into a technological fable, which teaches us that eventually we will grow so dependent on blah blah blah blah blah. 

Audiences have heard the same song and dance routine before, and there's nothing that makes Transcendence different from, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey, I, Robot, or The Matrix. Those movies all brought something new to the table, which Pfister does not really do here. The plot is beyond cliched, and the crappy dialogue only adds to the writer's nightmare. 

The cast does their best to work with what they're given, and Morgan Freeman, Paul Bettany, Cillian Murphy, and Kate Mara give typically good performances. Rebecca Hall is the only bright star here, showcasing real emotional trauma and the questioning of morals. It's a shame she has about as much chemistry with her screen husband as Padme and Anakin do in the Star Wars prequels.

Johnny Depp gives a hurtfully lackluster acting "job" in Transcendence, literally just going through the motions and reading his lines from one scene to the next. We feel nothing for him- no empathy, no sympathy, no resemblance of a connection whatsoever. It's the type of work viewers expect from a high school theater show. Plus, the chemistry between Will and Evelyn, which is so integral to the understanding of the movie, is so bad it feels worse than fake. We cannot believe a love story where there's more passion between a lawn mower and grass. Depp is plain flat, uninteresting, and most of all disappointing. I'm a huge fan of the actor, but this was the first time I truly disliked his work. 

Visually, the movie looks impressive. There are some really neat shots in the film, and it uproots familiar settings by giving them a dramatic facelift. That being said, there's no reason why Transcendence needed to be shot in IMAX. I saw it in that format, and cannot possibly justify spending the extra money to see it on a larger screen. 

Transcendence looks like a Christopher Nolan movie, with the same devotion and care to visual splendor. But for several reasons, it doesn't feel like one. Nothing against Wally Pfister, he's a brilliant cinematographer, but he still has a lot of kinks to work out if he wants to direct again. He needs a real screenwriter, who can take a story that has a lot of potential and turn it into a workable sci-fi thriller. The concept is here, but this seems like everyone involved in the film's first time working on a movie set. The high caliber actors and producers Nolan and Emma Thomas are just playing along in the sandbox like watchful parents. 

Transcendence should have been a lot more, and I do understand that this was a first-time attempt by Wally Pfister. I hope he does more cinematography work, as he is immensely talented in that field and is becoming a huge driving force in increasing the recognition of DP's. But for this particular project, it just doesn't transcend high expectations. 

Two out of five stars. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (Russo and Russo, 2014)

What happens when Marvel tackles the political thriller? Audiences get a fascinating allegory for the state of governmental conspiracies, complete with a total distrust of the agency that swears to protect the citizens of Earth. All of this is told from the perspective of a soldier, wishing each moment that he was back in simpler times. It just so happens that this super soldier is Captain America, giving the political thriller a super-heroic facelift. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a dark and brooding epic that constitutes the best use of the First Avenger on the silver screen. While The Avengers merely hinted Steve Roger's discomfort with living in modern times, The Winter Soldier fully delves into his shattered psyche. In some ways, he is the only hero that can tell this incredibly moody story: he's an idealistic hero from a clearer time, where the lines of good and evil were not so grey. This picture finally gives diehard Cap fans the hero they've been waiting for, one who does whatever it takes to protect the moral grounds that his country only claims to follow. 

This movie follows the events of The Avengers much more obviously than Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World, with series regulars Col. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and Natasha Romanov/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) as main characters of the film. Steve Rogers/Captain America has become a primary SHIELD operative, completing a string of missions swiftly and successfully. But he distrusts his newfound organization, seeing first-hand how they have no problem breaking the law and keeping secrets from their own members. Eventually, he comes face-to-face with the Winter Solider, a legendary assassin who is as much of a relic as Rogers. But the Winter Soldier's sudden appearance forces Captain America to question SHIELD, plunging him into a conspiracy where no one can be trusted. 

Much like the other films of the Marvel Cinematic Universe's Phase 2, The Winter Soldier starts off slow and uninteresting, but ultimately picks up as the story progresses. The action scenes are loads of fun, and the final battle will make viewers smile in childish joy. Captain America, who seemed sort of lame in comparison to Thor and the Hulk, expertly holds his own in the combat. We are finally reminded why Captain America was such a great superhero to begin with- he beats bad guys to a pulp, and his famous shield is used to masterful effect. 

Plus, audiences are reminded of Scarlett Johansson's immense talents, as she steals the show as Black Widow. And Anthony Mackie is a worthy addition to the canon, playing a friend of Steve Rogers whose character eventually takes flight in his own way.

Much like the first movie used Joe Johnson, The Winter Solider's co-directors Anthony and Joe Russo were hired for their talents in creating a period piece. Instead of a World War II epic, the Russo's crafted a 1970's political thriller, complete with enough twists and turns to make audience's heads spin. All of this '70's appreciation is symbolized by the starring role of Robert Redford, who plays high-ranking SHIELD operative Alexander Pierce. He gives Captain America 2 a gravitas uncommon to the franchise, and the actor's work with the Russo's make this sequel really work.

That being said, the film is predictable as the sunrise. While the twists may shock infrequent filmgoers, regular audiences and most of all superhero fans will see each turn coming a mile away. The screenplay also takes itself way too seriously, which is both a disappointment and a highlight; while the Marvel movies have been known for their lighthearted amusement, The Winter Soldier is much more emotional and brooding. This will work for most adult audiences, but younger groups may find the story hard to follow and too dark. 

For Marvel die-hards, there is plenty to chew on here. There are numerous references, characters, and jokes that are there for fans of the comic books. Just for bonus, there's even a Pulp Fiction reference near the end of the film. And, just in case you dare not stay through the end credits (which is just foolish, as often the best parts of the movie are during that part), there is a sneak preview at a character never before referenced in either the media or the films, and is a major player in the universe. It's worth sticking around just to see that person. 

As far as sequels go, The First Avenger had a lot of problems that The Winter Soldier cleans up. It's a crisper, better story which makes perfect use of the patriotic superhero. With cool villains and some really fun scenes, the movie succeeds more often than it fails. Captain America: The Winter Soldier may be disappointing for some, but for most, it is a worthy entry into the Avengers franchise. 

Four out of five stars. 

(A note should be made about Agents of SHIELD, the ABC television show that takes place inside the Marvel universe. In many ways, Captain America 2 is a game-changer, so massive spoilers are in effect for likely the rest of the season of the program. If you don't see this film, the show will NOT make sense, and will effectively ruin the only real surprises of this movie. You have been warned.)

The Grand Budapest Hotel (Anderson, 2014)

Once you check into The Grand Budapest Hotel, you won't want to leave. 

Like a much-needed vacation, Wes Anderson's latest comedy remains pure escapism. In the time of year wrought with god-awful action flicks and dramas so bad they didn't even want to compete in Oscar season, The Grand Budapest Hotel finds the cult director of Moonrise Kingdom and The Royal Tenenbaums once again in top form, aided by the incomparable Ralph Fiennes. The film remains a master-class in acting, direction, and, of course, screenwriting that will amuse general audiences and enthrall resident cinephiles. 

Told with the loving devotion to characters common in the director/screenwriter's finest achievements, The Grand Budapest Hotel has two central leads (Fiennes and newcomer Tony Revolori), with a multitude of secondary protagonists, antagonists, and everyone else in between. A writer in the 1980's (Tom Wilkinson in the 1980's, Jude Law in flashbacks during the 1950's) reminisces over an encounter he once had with the owner of the infamous Grand Budapest Hotel, Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham), who tells him the story of how he acquired ownership of the franchise. The flashbacks during the 1930's dominate the narrative of the movie, and feature the adventures of the young Zero (Revolori), and his relationship with his boss and the famous manager of the Grand Budapest, Monsieur Gustave H. (Fiennes). He sleeps with old women, loves romantic poetry, and runs his hotel with a demand for perfection. 

The master and apprentice end up becoming involved in the death of an elderly zillionaire (Tilda Swinton), and find themselves on the run from her cuckoo family and a deadly bounty hunter (Willem Dafoe). Along the way, they encounter a plethora of noted actors and actresses, which include no less than: Edward Norton, Adrien Brody, Mathieu Amalric, Harvey Keitel, Owen Wilson, Jeff Goldblum, Saoirse Ronan, Jason Schwartzman, and Wes Anderson-favorite Bill Murray. 

Most of the characters only appear in a few scenes, which puts a lot of pressure on the shoulders of Ralph Fiennes and Tony Revolori, who's chemistry ends up becoming so vital to the success of the picture. With Grand Budapest, Ralph Fiennes proves his versatility as an actor by playing the absolutely hilarious Gustave, stealing every scene with a bizarre charm and wonderful virtuoso. Even though it is only March, he has a very serious chance of stealing a nomination for Best Actor- something he righteously deserves. Revolori's success comes in standing on his own next to the Oscar-nominated Fiennes, and appears to have a promising career ahead of him. Both men enter the Wes Anderson canon as if they've been there the whole time. 

As typical of the auteur's style, everything in The Grand Budapest Hotel is just slightly off. There's something strange about the setting's exaggerated colors and shapes, and the story takes comedic licenses with several plot twists and character interactions. But Anderson has always filmed like the love child of Tim Burton and Quentin Tarantino, with wonderful characters interacting with artistic surroundings that never could exist in the real world. It's a movie's movie. 

The cinematography and directorial style equals the styles of the time periods in which the narrative takes place. Anderson puts the 1930's scenes in a 1.33 aspect ratio, the 1950's in 1.85, and the 1980's in 2.35:1. It's a change that's hardly noticeable if you're not paying attention, but frequent moviegoers will appreciate Anderson's cinematic history knowledge. 

However, The Grand Budapest Hotel, amidst it's bubbly wackiness, gives a striking commentary of strict regimes and racist militaries. Zero, an immigrant with a shockingly depressing backstory, is under the constant guard of Gustave, who understands that humanity has slipped into barbary. While the story is set in the 1930's, and features Nazi-like villains, the film is nevertheless contemporary- almost as if Anderson is noting the troubled tragedy of the world his characters are free from. He has no desire to live in such a conflicted livelihood, so he allows his writing to avoid the world's troubles by placing them in fake paradises and otherworldly cities. Anderson is just merely inviting us to live in his universe for a few hours, and we don't want to leave once the credits begin to roll. 

Last, but certainly not least, Wes Anderson's original screenplay will earn him an Oscar nomination.  With each new movie, the director is able to add more and more characters without compromising each of their qualities; even those who are on the screen for just a few moments seem to have deep, deep backstories, as if the audience can understand their lives completely. This takes immense writing talent, and is something that Anderson just gets better and better at doing. It's an added perk that the wacky writing remains chock-full of jokes, wisecracks, and a meticulous attention to detail. Just a small little gem, to whet your appetite: "What happened, my dear Zero, is I beat the living s**t out of a sniveling little runt called Pinky Bandinski. You should take a long look at his ugly mug this morning. He's actually become a dear friend." 

With The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson manages to create a completely original work of motion picture art, bringing strong characters to the forefront of the action. It's worth the price of admission just to see Ralph Fiennes shine in comedic form, chewing the scenery and looking like he's having the time of his life. A writer's achievement that's only aided but the multitude of powerhouse performers that love working with the auteur, you'll want return to The Grand Budapest Hotel year after year.

Five out of five stars.