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!

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!)