My Top 10 Movies of 2014

This year, thanks to an energy-draining work schedule finally taking its toll on me (four 10-hour days in a row each week), I temporarily stopped writing movie reviews. But I couldn't let the year end without a Top 10 essay, which I always enjoy. I haven't written a full review of many of the films listed here, so I instead provide links to their respective IMDB pages. That will change in 2015, as a shift to a five-day, 8-hour work schedule will allow me more time and energy on a basis, and I'll return to enthusiastic movie-reviewing the way I did in 2013.

As we all look back on this particular calendar year, one particular theme always stands out. For me, 2014 was the first year I really started to wonder whether movies' cultural grip was coming to an end, with TV stealing its thunder and then some. After all, most people I talk to on a daily basis, whether in real life or on social media, are far more passionate about TV shows (Game of Thrones, Breaking Bad, House of Cards, etc) than they are about movies. As someone who goes to a theater on a fairly regular basis, not just during the summer but during awards season, I felt at times like part of a dying breed. Movies will never go away, but the game has changed. The theater/delayed home video release business model that has stood firmly for so long is finally showing cracks thanks to the rise of Netflix, TV stepping up its game, and out-of-control blockbuster budgets. For a more detailed look, I direct everyone to online critic James Berardinelli, the man who inspired me to write about movies in the first place, who has a wonderful three-part piece on the subject.

My 2014 list contains some high-profile releases you've heard of and some that debuted in art-house theaters. Some will compete for Oscars while others will not. My tastes are wide-ranging, after all. So what's missing? First of all, this year's best-reviewed movie (Boyhood), which I like and admire but didn't find to be that transcendent experience like seemingly every critic in America did. And then there's Guardians of the Galaxy, 2014's likely Box Office Champion in a weak year. It charmed many but left me cold and mildly irritated. Also, I didn't see some of the year-end, NYC/LA-only releases such as American Sniper, Inherent Vice, and Still Alice. I'll review those when they go wide in January.

Nevertheless, I found plenty of films worth celebrating. Please note that this is not an objective "Best of" list. Who in the world would be arrogant enough to claim something like that? These are simply my favorites of the year. Your Top 10 might look remarkably similar to mine. It's equally possible all ten choices would be different. Most people will be somewhere in between. But subjectivity is what makes list-making and list-reading so enjoyable, and the structure in general helps to explain the immense popularity of sites like Buzzfeed, which delight in presenting their thesis in easily organized chunks.

And so we cap off another year, first with five Runners-Up (in alphabetical order). These are five excellent films that just missed out on the Top 10 but are still well worth watching.

Runners-Up

Foxcatcher

The Imitation Game

The LEGO Movie

Snowpiercer


  

Under the Skin












And the Top 10 in reverse order, saving the best for last.

10. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

A long-dormant series achieves awesome new life with this film, which takes the promises laid by 2010’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes and shifts the story to another level. Thrilling action and stunning visuals abound, but this film’s greatest asset is its even-handed treatment of the human/apes racial conflict and fear-mongering. This film reminds us that even in the context of a blockbuster, social commentary is a welcome addition to, rather than detracting from, the overall experience. 

9. Gone Girl

Franchise-movie fans had plenty to anticipate in 2014, but so too did book lovers with David Fincher’s provocative, mesmerizing adaptation of Gillian Flynn’s bestseller Gone Girl. It is at once a captivating and unpredictable thriller, an exploration of gender roles, and a brutal satire of news media’s sensationalism. Gone Girl is a grim, twisted film, guaranteed to fuel post-movie debate. Whether you think it’s brilliant or trashy, indifference is not an option with this one.    

8. Dear White People

This decade has seen several high profile movies looking at race-relations through a historical lens, but far too few have followed Spike Lee’s lead and taken a modern-day look at the topic. Director Justin Simien’s triumphant debut Dear White People does just that as it delves into the micro-aggressions and stereotyping of people of color that constantly occurs today, especially at the University level. It delivers big laughs but it also boasts a razor-sharp satirical edge that doesn’t always make that laughter comfortable. A special shoutout goes to Tessa Thompson, who deserves (but likely will not receive) an Oscar nomination for her role as a fiery, passionate activist and radio host.

7. Nightcrawler

Like Gone Girl, this movie blends brutal satire of TV news (this time the “if it bleeds, it leads” mentality) with the rhythms of an unpredictable thriller. Led by an unforgettably creepy Jake Gyllenhaal, whose performance (not to mention dedication—he lost 20 pounds for this role) ranks among the best of male acting in 2014, Nightcrawler is gripping cinema that unfortunately didn’t catch on at the box office. Special mention goes to the film’s climax (involving a diner), which is one of the most nail-biting of the year.

6. Birdman

Alejandro Innaritu’s latest film is loud and unsubtle in skewering blockbuster movie culture, overly pretentious artistic types, and critics, but does it ever provoke thought and then some. It’s equally engrossing with its smaller-scale comedy-drama narrative as it is with its large-scale ideas. Filmed in a fascinating form that appears to be one continuous shot, Birdman dazzles visually in addition to stimulating the mind. The film is also a gold mine of acting, particularly from Michael Keaton, who couldn’t have picked a better role for his big comeback. Expect Oscars aplenty with this one. 

5. Whiplash

“There are no two words in the English language more harmful than ‘Good job,’” says drill sergeant-esque music teacher Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons). But even someone with this character’s mentality will be saying “Great job” to what director Damien Chazelle has accomplished with Whiplash. This is primarily a character study involving a music prodigy and his Instructor from Hell, but its trajectory is anything but simple. It’s dramatically hard-hitting, multi-layered, unpredictable, and has much to say about the obsession with achieving greatness. As for J.K. Simmons, if it were up to me, I’d hand him that Best Supporting Actor Oscar right now.

4. X-Men: Days of Future Past

Birdman may have lamented the superhero movie’s dominance of the marketplace, but here is the strongest rebuttal imaginable, the most satisfying superhero film I’ve seen in six years. Days of Future Past’s themes (fear of the Other and choosing military security over liberty for those who are “different”) resonate louder than most movies in its field, and the ensemble cast tops even that of The Avengers. And the ending, brilliantly wiping away the bad aftertaste of 2006’s X-Men: The Last Stand, satisfies in the best possible way. Days of Future Past opened big in the box office before fading quickly into the shuffle, and that’s a shame. This is one superhero franchise whose sequel I’m eagerly anticipating as opposed to just accepting.

3. Selma

Taking a page from Steven Speilberg’s Lincoln in emphasizing a single game-changing political event over the totality of a person’s life, director Ava DuVernay has crafted a superior bio-pic of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It contains sequences of stunning power that only achieve greater resonance because of the way they tie into certain real-life events of the past few months. Selma is primarily about the movement, but it also never loses sight of the man at its center; it’s a “warts-and-all” portrayal as opposed to hero-worship. Yes, the film invents tension between King and President Johnson that didn’t occur in real life, but this isn’t a documentary. But it is powerful narrative cinema that deserves all the accolades it is currently collecting.

2. Life Itself

A little more than a year ago, we lost one of film criticism’s most influential voices in Roger Ebert. If the Afterlife allowed him to watch this powerful documentary, I’m sure he would’ve been thrilled with the result. It is both a celebration of a legendary man’s life and an unflinching exploration of his final years of struggle. Life Itself is the correct title; it beautifully navigates the emotional highs and lows of the man at its center as well as those closest to him. Most importantly, we have Ebert himself to thank most of all. Had he not pressed on during his final years with a single-minded determination to show the truth of his rise and decline, much of this film’s power would be lost. As is, it is an epitaph of the highest order.

1. Interstellar

This one is just too easy, right? Everyone who knows me understands I’m a huge fan of Christopher Nolan, and Interstellar was far and away my most anticipated film of the past year. Critical reaction to the film was more mixed than most of Nolan's films, but for me, it delivered on all fronts, once again captivating us with a wonderfully suspenseful narrative, provocative ideas, and awesome immersion in its world. But this time around, Nolan upped the ante by balancing a deeply emotional core, namely a tale of love and sacrifice between a father and daughter, with the macro concerns of humanity’s role in the universe. Also, in a year with the fewest tickets sold since 1995, Interstellar represents one of those rare movies that demands large-screen viewing, preferably in IMAX format. It represents true, old-school, idea-driven science fiction, and nothing else wowed my senses and my mind in quite the same way this year. I rank Interstellar third in Nolan’s overall resume behind only Memento and The Dark Knight, but as far as 2014 is concerned, I didn't have a moments doubt about ranking it No. 1. 

Halftime Top 10 of 2014

Note: Although I saw every one of the movies I list here, I didn't review all of them. A brutal work schedule, fitness goals, and other activities tend to suck more than its fair share of energy out of me this past month or so. As the year continues, I'll make sure to review every movie I see, especially around Oscar season.

Unlike the first half of 2013, this year provided stronger mainstream movie-going experiences, give or take an Amazing Spiderman 2. There are a lot of sequels present on this list, and while that might indicate a certain degree of creative bankruptcy in Hollywood, let's be honest; that statement is old hat by now. The concept of a sequel has been around for longer than most of us have been alive, and that in and of itself isn't a bad thing at all. There are a few original films sprinkled in here (note Nos. 2-4, all of which have a decent shot at appearing on my list again in December), but for the most part, they're for niche audiences, not "the unwashed masses."

10. Edge of Tomorrow

It may not be thought-provoking science fiction, but it offers a fairly good time with its Groundhog Day-meets-Aliens premise. Edge of Tomorrow is equally effective as both a full-throttle action romp and as a comedy, so it's a little surprising that American audiences haven't latched on to it at the box office. Maybe Tom Cruise's antics from yesteryear have a long-reaching shadow. Whatever the case, Edge of Tomorrow offers fast-paced fun without losing sight of its main characters' humanity. I welcome Cruise continuing to do these movies well into his 60s if he's so inclined.

9. Godzilla

An American studio finally figures out how to do the Big Guy justice. It's a popcorn-munching monster flick, but it's not without its share of art, craftsmanship, and genuinely awe-inspiring moments. Some may complain that it "takes too long" to get to the monster-on-monster throw-downs, but the filmmakers do a solid job developing a few human characters worth caring about. There's also some good acting to be found (especially from Breaking Bad legend Bryan Cranston). With most movie franchises revolving around superheroes and/or toys, it's nice we can give a giant lizard a little room to breathe.

8. Captain America: The Winter Solider

Give Marvel credit for not resting on their laurels and repeating what has come before. Cap 2 is solid escapism, with a variety of action sequences, an intriguing storyline that pushes the Avengers arc into new and interesting directions, and a hero that's easy to get behind. It's not just another appetizer for Avengers 2, but a fun action movie that works on its own terms.

7. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson's movies are an event for art-house audiences, as evidenced by the packed theater I saw this movie in. The Grand Budapest Hotel offers pretty much everything fans have come to expect from the veteran director; quirkiness, a gorgeous visual sense, and a little heart to go along with the zaniness. It also offers Ralph Fiennes, in a turn as far away from his Oscar-ish roles (not to mention Lord Voldemort), an opportunity to flex his comedic muscles, which he does effortlessly.

6. How to Train Your Dragon 2

While not quite reaching the heights of Pixar's Toy Story series, Dreamworks' franchise does an admirable job filling the void of quality animated franchises. It's a surprisingly darker film than the original at times, and all the more memorable because of it. It didn't set the box office aflame, but it performed well enough that a third film is welcome. It has the wit, charm, and character development that makes it a worthy choice for adults to seek out, with or without their offspring in tow.








5. The Raid 2

It's a shame so few saw this; martial arts of this caliber has always impressed me more than anything a computer can create in a Spiderman or Transformers outing. Unlike the first film, The Raid 2 takes longer to find its footing, but when it does, the average action fan's jaw is likely to hit the floor. The final hour of this movie, as the more convoluted story reaches its apex, showcases some of the most brutally awesome fisticuffs one is likely to find. If you can handle the near-NC-17 level of violence, give this a go when it reaches home video.

4. The Lego Movie

Everything is awesome, indeed. Thankfully, Warner Brothers decided to open this movie in the dead of February winter, throwing a bone to moviegoers during what is traditionally reserved as a dumping ground for films studios have little faith in. Like most of Pixar's best work, this is a classic "dual-layered" approach to animation, where kids will enjoy the vivid color and frenetically paced story, and adults will laugh at the many satirical gags as well as take to heart the underlying message involving creativity and thinking outside-the-box. As of right now, we already have the film to beat in the Best Animated Film and Best Original Song for the next Oscars.

3. Locke

The basic story, that of a man on a 90-minute drive as he has several life-altering conversations with people via his phone, may sound dry and tedious. But looks can be deceiving. Locke is one of the more memorable films I've seen this year thanks to two key ingredients; a world-class performance by Tom Hardy and an undeniable ring of truth in the dialogue. It's so easy to relate to the main character's situation that the movie's single setting becomes an asset rather than a detriment.

2. Under the Skin

Bold, trippy, deliberately ambiguous, and unlike anything you'll see all year, Under the Skin is tailor made for adventurous movie-goers. It has plenty to say about humanity, sexuality, and even rape culture, but only those who are willing to read between the lines will discover exactly what that is. Also, while Scarlett Johansson's nudity has been much-publicized, the way she handles this ambiguous lead role as a whole is what makes her so memorable here. Bonus points for the unnerving soundtrack, which I guarantee you won't be able to get out of your head.

1. X-Men: Days of Future Past

It's the crown jewel of the first half of 2014, and my second favorite superhero movie of all time (behind only The Dark Knight). Days of Future Past plays far more like thought-provoking science fiction with superhero flavoring than your standard operating procedure from Marvel. The storyline is wonderfully dense and relentlessly suspenseful, the acting of the ensemble cast is second to none, and the ending satisfies emotionally in the best possible way. The level at which this movie succeeds viscerally, intellectually, and emotionally sends a resounding message to all present and future filmmakers who work in this sub-genre. This is one franchise I truly, eagerly await future installments of, and that's something I can't say about most others.

Review of X-Men: Days of Future Past

Now this is what I'm talking about. In a market over-saturated by superheroes, movie-goers needed something bigger, bolder, and more engrossing than your average good-guys vs bad-guys entry. That's where X-Men: Days of Future Past, easily the best superhero film I've seen in six years, blows all competition out of the water. Yes, it's based on characters movie-goers have come to know and love over the past decade-plus (and even longer for most comic book aficionados), but more importantly, it works singularly as a science fiction film. Elements that seem standard-order in most blockbusters are given real weight due to the ideas and the stakes involved. The best of these types of movies have a three-pronged agenda: tell a captivating story with characters worth caring about, dazzle the senses with action-packed conflict, and use the trappings of a superhero tale to serve up social commentary that transcends the material. Director Bryan Singer, who first brought these characters to screen life 14 years ago, hits a home run in all three.

The basic story involves time travel of the Terminator variety, but the original "Days of Future Past" arc, as told in the comics, pre-dates James Cameron's action classic. This film wastes no time whatsoever getting the ball rolling as we glimpse a war-torn Earth circa 2023. The X-Men face extinction by the Sentinels, machines of war created 50 years ago to wipe out the threat of mutants and all humans who aide them. With powers based on the DNA of shape-shifter Raven aka Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), the Sentinels represent an overwhelming, impossible force to take down and have grown to enslave all civilization. The X-Men are far outmatched as is, so they place their hope in one last effort: send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back in time to stop the creation of the machines. He has a full plate indeed; not only must he convince the 1973 versions of Prof. Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) to put aside their differences and work together, but he also must stop Mystique from killing Sentinel creator Boliver Trask (Peter Dinklage), an event which triggers an irreversible course of action.

Time travel is always an inherently fascinating concept in science fiction. Not only does it require audiences to pay close attention, but the paradoxes and moral quandaries provide endless intellectual food for thought. Days of Future Past, much like 2012's Looper, tills this fertile ground with awesome success. Here's the kicker of them all: the act of embarking on a mission to stop something from happening leads to a chain of events that results in the same outcome anyway. This is no lightweight action outing; a pall of darkness and dread hangs over events, even during some of the film's lighter moments of wordplay. In a vast majority of superhero films, we're certain that no matter what obstacles our heroes face, all will turn out fine in the end. That inevitability is missing here, especially when one considers that previous X-Men films haven't been shy about killing off characters. As a result, Days of Future Past at no point feels like events are going through the motions. The stakes are much, much too high for that.

Unlike most films of its ilk, Days of Future Past doesn't have a singular villain (with the possible exception of the Sentinels in 2023). One might think this to be a weakness, but upon closer examination, it's actually a great strength. One of this movie's major themes is that "good" and "evil" are relative; multiple characters in the 1973 scenes have compelling reasons for how they approach the "mutant problem." For Magneto, it's a growing realization that evolution favors his race. For Mystique, it's revenge for the capture and slaughter of her friends. For Trask, it's matters of National Security and peace among humans (Days of Future Past effectively weaves the Vietnam War and its accompanying controversy into the overall tale). And for Charles, it's freedom from the burden of his powers (shades of Anna Paquin's Rogue in the original film). The X-Men films have always represented a clever allegory for minority rights, but never has it been as potent as it is here. Days of Future Past argues that perhaps the greatest villain of all is our willingness to trade liberty for security.

Days of Future Past is longer (131 minutes) and denser than a majority of superhero films (with the possible exception of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy), but those who desire action and spectacle will certainly earn their money's worth. But this isn't like what movie-goers have seen in Marvel's Avengers arc or the two recent Amazing Spiderman flicks. The first action sequence, a fluidly choreographed skirmish between several X-Men and three sentinels, sets the tone early. Seemingly evenly-matched battles quickly turn into massacres by the superior Sentinels. Singer dazzles us later on with an awe-inspiring sequence involving the lightning-fast Quicksilver (Evan Peters) that, believe it or not, provides extremely effective (and welcome) comic relief. And that bit involving a floating RFK Stadium you've no doubt seen in the trailers? It's there all right, and Singer masterfully cross-cuts between it and the last stand of 2023.

Is there a better superhero ensemble cast than the one Singer has assembled here? Not only are Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan superb in their long-awaited return, but it's a credit to the job of the rest of the cast that we don't miss them when they're away for large stretches. Hugh Jackman's Wolverine is our anchor; many of the film's other key players have motivations painted in shades of grey, but we also need that one character we know is inflexible for all the right reasons. McAvoy is even stronger here than he was in 2011's X-Men: First Class, as well he should be given his character's turmoil. And Fassbender? It should come as no surprise that he's once again (sorry for the pun) magnetic, but you probably knew that already. Meanwhile, Jennifer Lawrence may not have the screen time she does as Katniss, but she's no less impressive in earning our sympathies. And of course, Game of Thrones fans are likely to get a kick out of Peter Dinklage.

With all the things Days of Future Past does right for the casual fan, one could argue it's greatest achievement of all is Singer's brilliant, table-clearing move to heal the wound caused by 2007's disappointing X-Men: The Last Stand. I won't reveal it here, but let me put it this way: if a giant asteroid was on its way to wipe out Earth tomorrow and that meant no more X-Men movies, I couldn't think of a better note for things to conclude on. Obviously we know that won't happen as a short post-credits scene teases X-Men: Apocalypse in 2016 (also to be helmed by Singer). Nevertheless, Singer's masterstroke here might very well nullify even the concerns of continuity nit-pickers (come on, we all know at least one of those people). For the rest of us, one thing is certain; this is top-notch entertainment all around. It satisfies viscerally, intellectually, and emotionally the way greatness should. To date, this is the best film featuring any of Marvel's library of characters. Bravo to all involved.

Rating: **** (out of ****)    

Review of Godzilla

16 years is an awfully long time between movies for one of the world's most recognizable monsters, but for Godzilla as envisioned by director Gareth Edwards, it has been worth the wait. Effectively ignoring Roland Emmerich's widely disliked 1998 version and going back to basics, this is much more along the lines of what we come to expect from a good summer blockbuster. Is the script "smart" and airtight? Of course not, but it offers a thoroughly entertaining two hours of monsters, mayhem, and the humans caught in the middle. Warner Brothers would love to have a franchise on their hands that doesn't involve superheroes (I'm sure we'd all welcome one of those by now), and by the looks of this film, they have one in the bag.

Obeying the long-standing Jaws rule of slowly building to the monster's appearance, the big lizard doesn't make his debut until about halfway through the film. Early on, we're introduced to the Brody family, living in Japan circa 1999. Mysterious tremors are threatening the stability of a nuclear power plant, and scientists Joe and Sandra Brody (Bryan Cranston and Juliette Binoche) lead the investigation. They prevent disaster, but not without a few casualties. Flashing forward 15 years later, the Brodys' now-adult son, Lieutenant Ford Brody (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) finds himself confronting similar demons. His father has been arrested by Japanese Police for trespassing in the same zone quarantined 15 years ago, and after bailing him out, the old man won't stop obsessively rambling about government cover-ups. Joe's theories are proven correct, however, when a giant insect-like creature, mutated by radiation, rises up and stomps its way through Japan and the Pacific Ocean searching for its mate. Meanwhile, a second monster, attracted by the carnage, makes its way toward Hawaii. Guess who......

Obviously, viewers are in the theater for the monsters, but Godzilla takes its time developing a few characters worth caring about. Ford is a good every-man (insofar as a military man can be) with enough qualities of leadership and selflessness for us to latch on to, and Taylor-Johnson does a solid job. He's dwarfed, however, by Bryan Cranston, who ratchets up the intensity appropriately for each emotional scene required of him. His participation alone is guaranteed to draw in a few Breaking Bad fans who might not otherwise be jazzed about seeing a Godzilla movie, and I'm sure he doesn't disappoint on that level. The two "name" women in the cast, Juliette Binoche and Elizabeth Olsen (as a nurse and Ford's wife) make the most of limited screen time, rounding out a cast that is certainly atypical of a monster movie, and all the more welcome.

Director Gareth Edwards turned his fair share of heads with his 2010 sci-fi tale Monsters (currently available on NetFlix streaming), and he proves himself a filmmaker with a clear vision when given $160 million to play with. Godzilla's (yes, they actually call him this in the movie, and let's just say Ken Watanabe is the perfect man to first utter the name on screen) reveal is nothing short of spectacular, and the CGI work on all of the monsters looks suitable to what we would expect in 2014. Ditto for Seamus McGarvey's cinematography. One of the most memorable images in the film involves the tide on a Hawaii beach slowly rolling out before an impending tidal wave. The shot of troopers diving from a plane into downtown San Francisco (seen in the ads) is equally eye-popping. Cynics might note that the only reason for rebooting/updating Godzilla is because we can provide better special effects and higher production values, but for a movie attempting to create an overwhelming "you are there" vibe, isn't that reason enough?

The success of this Godzilla would hopefully mean a long-overdue franchise starter for one of movie-dom's most venerable giants. Admittedly, when most of us hear or read the name Godzilla, we think of campy monster-on-monster throw-downs that dare you not to giggle. Not so here, where Edwards wants to inject a little more art, genuine thrills, and craftsmanship that you can enjoy along with your popcorn. He succeeds, and while this movie won't rock the foundation of Hollywood blockbusters for years to come, it entertains for the entire running length and leaves us open to further adventures. That's all we can really ask for.

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Review of The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Sooner or later, it had to happen: a full-blown dud from Hollywood's uber-aggressive superhero factory. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a technically proficient production all right, but what an unholy mess it is from the areas that really matter: characters and story. The experience of watching a well-put-together superhero film can be a lot of fun, but not this assembly-line product, where director Marc Webb and screenwriters Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, and Jeff Pinker throw everything in the superhero cliche box at us, scatter-shot style. Their ratio of hits-to-misses is alarmingly low. The romance is soap opera-ish, the flow is unfocused, the acting is hammy, and the villains are so poorly presented (with one bordering on offensive) that this outing gives Sam Raimi's Spiderman 3 a serious run for its money as the worst of the series.

Sure, one could argue telling Peter Parker's (Andrew Garfield) "Spider-Man" origin story all over again in 2012's The Amazing Spider-Man was unnecessary, but it improved upon a few aspects of Raimi's 2002 feature that were starting to look a little dated. But this film goes sharply backwards in every way that matters. It picks up right from where we left off, trying to depict the balance Peter struggles to manage between crime-fighting as his alter ego and developing a meaningful relationship with his girlfriend, Gwen Stacey (Emma Stone). Worried that his relationship might mean putting her life in danger, the two eventually part ways as lovers but just....can't....get over...each other, you see. Eventually, Peter has a reunion of sorts with his childhood friend and head of Oscorp, Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan), but friction develops when Harry requires Spider-Man's blood to cure him from a disease (seriously, I'm not making this up). And to add one more ingredient to this already overstuffed pot, we have the nerdy, disgruntled Oscorp employee Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx), who falls prey to an accident involving electric eels and becomes a supervillain named Electro.

At nearly two-and-a-half hours (too long, by the way), it's astounding how many plot points The Amazing Spider-Man 2 whiffs on. Take the relationship between Peter and Harry, for example. The movie tells us these two are long-time friends, but with no scenes between the characters before their first meeting here, we have a hard time buying it, and the actors have nowhere near enough time to sell it. It pales in comparison to that of Captain America and Bucky Barnes from The Winter Solider, which had depth and weight. Ditto for the relationship between Peter and Gwen, where actors Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone at least give it a game try. Sadly, every one of their scenes, from the initial break-up to the reconciliation to the inevitable realization that they truly are right for one another, plays out on about the level of a daytime soap opera. Even the secondary relationships and sub-plots, like that of Aunt May (Sally Field), the and the mystery of what really happened to Peter's parents, are shoved in and resolved perfunctorily. And the social commentary of whether Spiderman is a hero or vigilante, such an important theme in Raimi's Spiderman films, is restricted to a few short, shoehorned-in radio clips.

But the film's biggest misfire, by far, is in its depiction the villains. Harry froths at the mouth like a cheap imitation of the late Heath Ledger's Joker; it's definitely not one of actor Dane DeHaan's (who played this sort of role far, far better in Chronicle) finest moments. It made me yearn for the much, much better repartee between Tobey McGuire and James Franco in Raimi's Spider-Man films. But Electro bears the brunt of the screenplay's wrath. The film paints Max as an extremely geeky, mentally unhinged, constantly crapped-on guy before having him undergo a personality transformation after developing his powers (complete with blue skin and booming bass voice). Fine in theory, but horrible in execution.

Bear with me here and picture the following scene that the filmmakers apparently thought was a good idea: the only Black character in the entire movie, who just so happens to be a misunderstood guy, dressed in a dark hoodie of all things, has a violent stand-off with police in a busy intersection. Certainly that's a great image to evoke in a summer action movie, am I right? What is the movie's attitude toward this character? Is he meant to be a villain with some sympathy, like Doc Ock in 2004's Spider-Man 2? Or is he an unstoppable, heartless beast? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 tries to have it both ways, creating a frustratingly incomplete and downright embarrassing bad guy who's out to..... plunge the city into darkness?

But at least the action scenes deliver the goods, right? Sort of. From a detached perspective, they're well-filmed and never confuse the viewer. But there's a deeper, more fundamental problem here. With such laughable bad guys and such underdeveloped good guys, the action sequences never achieve their true punch. Even the climax, which borrows a key element from Spider-Man lore, doesn't reach the emotional impact it strives for. On some level, I admire the filmmakers for taking this route, but by this point, it's too little too late. It's not worth sitting through the meandering mess that proceeds such a pivotal moment.

There's something depressing about watching what should be fun escapism like The Amazing Spider-Man 2 crash and burn so badly. Spidey deserves better than this. The whole experience feels like film as product, as if viewers are happy merely seeing their favorite characters depicted onscreen (and, sigh.... be accurate to the comics above all else) rather than brought to life with real zest. Again, it's a good-looking movie, but where is its soul? The Amazing Spider-Man 2 ends with an unbelievably awful and manipulative scene involving yet another supervillain and plucky little kid in a Spidey costume. Not to mention another "teaser" scene which hints at the formation of something I believe is called the Sinister Six. These scenes are reminders of what The Amazing Spider-Man 2 really is: just another cog in the cash cow machine.

Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)

Review of Under the Skin

Whoa. For anyone who enjoys taking a trip way, way outside the mainstream and conventional, Under the Skin is the movie for you. It's an adaptation of Michel Faber's 2001 novel, but this vision is entirely director Jonathan Glazer's. Hypnotic and trippy in all the right ways, Under the Skin asks that a viewer exhibit patience and a willingness to think about what's transpiring on screen. Very little is spelled out in this movie; Glazer drops hints and clues here and there, but you have to recognize and connect them yourself, and it goes without saying that there's more than one interpretation. For the first half of this movie's 107-minute running time, I couldn't make heads or tails of where it was headed, but by the end, I at least had some idea. This isn't Weird for the Sake of Being Weird, it's Weird with a Purpose, and it's haunting fascination stays with you.

IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes will tell you that this movie is about an alien (Scarlett Johansson) who takes on a human form and travels around Scotland seducing men into a deadly trap. Indeed, that is correct, but the devil's in the details (or some might argue lack of details in this case). The alien is not given a name nor does the movie supply any backstory of why she's here and what her plan is (the novel goes into much more detail). All we know for sure is that, following her first appearance, she takes the clothes of a dead woman and goes about her business, all while a male helper dressed in motorcycle gear "cleans up" the messes, so to speak. Her methods involve seducing men who no one will likely miss, picking them up for a quickie, and leading them to their doom at her place, which involves a pool of deadly black liquid. But when she lets one victim escape after experiencing sympathy for him, her approach regarding sex and human life undergoes a slow but drastic change.

Does that "plot" description make sense to you? Don't worry about it. In the moment, it's not really meant to. What's perfectly obvious to anyone is that this might be the best performance of Scarlett Johansson's career. You may have heard she's seen fully nude during this movie, and indeed she is on three eye-popping occasions. But none of it is gratuitous; it's all in the service of an abstract, haunting story about an alien coming to grips with the sexuality apparent in the human form she's chosen. Johansson has little dialogue to fall back on and must instead convey a character through body language and facial expressions. She reminds us why, ten years ago (with her stunning performance in Sofia Coppola's Lost in Translation), she was someone to watch for.

Johansson is the only on screen performer with more than token screen time (possibly excepting one of her victims, a shy man with facial deformities), so her real co-stars are Glazer's visuals, the evocative nighttime Scotland setting, and Mica Levi's memorably unnerving score. Glazer employs long, unbroken takes like he's being paid by length-per-shot (except for one chaotically shot car conversation where the alien drives a man back to her "place") . Most of the time, it suits the material perfectly, although there are times when one could argue that single moments last too long. As for Levi's score, it's possible to argue that this element "makes" the movie all by itself. The compositions are simple, but so unnerving that it's hard to imagine this movie being heard any other way. Think Eyes Wide Shut and you get the idea.

So what is this minimalist movie really about? What is it trying to say? I have some ideas, although yours might differ. Early in the film, when the alien ensnares several victims with the promise of sex, slowly undressing as she backpedals away from them while they follow her to their demise, she doesn't actually go through with the deed before they're toast. But what about when she confronts what sexuality really is and how it could benefit her the way it benefits humans, examining her nude body in a mirror and pondering whether it can be used for something besides death? And, while she's the unquestionable predator, could a physically stronger man turn the tables on her?

I can't stress enough that Under the Skin is not popcorn-munching entertainment. If you're looking for that, there's plenty of good options available elsewhere. This movie requires that you enter its trance and see it through. It's a classic "read-between-the-lines" kind of film, one that inspires all manner of post-viewing discussions about what the hell you just saw. Finally, I must note that this is once again an experience that can only work as film; if your thing is lengthy TV shows with clearly defined characters and arcs, you should know that this is about as far away from that as one can imagine. I for one, welcome its boldness any day.

Rating: ***1/2 (out of ****)

Review of Draft Day

It was only a matter of time before America's Obsession (football) scored a business-based sports movie to go along with that of Moneyball for America's Pastime (baseball). I'll admit the premise didn't strike me as very promising: take an actor itching for a comeback in Kevin Costner, put him in what looks like a feature-length commercial for the NFL, and try hard to grab similar results as the 2011 Oscar-nominated film did. Well, surprise surprise. Draft Day turns out to be a solidly entertaining experience for football fans and non-fans alike, and from this die-hard fan's perspective, the film does many more things right than it does wrong. It effectively balances character-based drama with all of the wheelings and dealings in the most pressure-packed day of the life of a GM.

Much like how Steven Speilberg's Lincoln strengthened its focus by limiting the scope of its timeframe, so too does this movie. It chronicles one day of an important event rather than an entire season, and that's an asset. Costner plays Cleveland Browns GM Sonny Weaver, Jr., and as his third year on the job begins following a 6-10 season, he couldn't be in hotter water. Sports talk radio is calling for his head, his girlfriend and co-worker, Ali (Jennifer Garner), informs him she's pregnant, and team owner Anthony Molina (Frank Langella) demands he "make a splash" in this draft. Sonny wants to draft standout linebacker Vontae Mack (Chadwick Boseman) with the 7th pick, but Molina doesn't believe a defensive player will be a good sell for the fans. But along comes a golden opportunity in the person of the Seattle Seahawks' GM, who offers up the #1 pick in the draft in exchange for three first-round picks in consecutive years. Sonny, after some hesitation, agrees to the deal, assuming he can snare a "can't miss" prospect in quarterback Bo Callahan (Josh Pence). The fans and owner are thrilled, but Browns head coach Vince Penn (Denis Leary) is livid over this deal and threatens to quit. But with 8 hours to go before the Draft commences, Sonny ponders whether his gamble will pay off and if there's any other course of action.

Every sports fan has this thought at least once: "Man, our GM is an idiot." That's certainly the case here as Sonny deals with boiling pressure from all sides (including angry fans) while nonetheless keeping his cool. For Kevin Costner, the part fits him like a wide receiver's gloves. Jennifer Garner also excels in a role with a lot more substance than that of the cliched romantic interest (her character, the "cap-ologist" if you will, proves herself very adept and even-handed at dealing with people). Draft Day nails many of the big-picture elements of the NFL business including that of working the salary cap, the coach/GM/owner friction, and the concept of character flaws determining whether a player could be a "bust." One particularly strong confrontation involves the team's current starting quarterback (Tom Welling), fresh off rehabbing a knee injury, engaging in a bitter war of words with Sonny. Yes, the events in this movie are simplified to make it appeal to a wider audience, but it's successful in broad strokes. After all, it doesn't take much of a stretch to find a real-life NFL team with similar levels of dysfunction in its front office (Redskins, Lions, and Browns fans should be raising their hands right now).

Unfortunately, Draft Day misses on a few of its smaller details. One obvious flaw is a nerdy intern character whose awkward antics aren't funny and seems extremely out-of-place in a ship run as tightly as an NFL office. Fortunately, his screen time is limited. Also mildly irritating is a subplot involving Sonny's mother (played by Ellyn Burstyn) with a resolution that feels forced and artificial. One could also argue that the last-minute details on certain prospects dug up by Sonny's scouts are issues that might have been found and covered to death months ago. Also, isn't 42's Chadwick Boseman a little small for a linebacker (he strikes me as more of a safety)? And how come no one boos Commissioner Roger Goodell (playing himself in several mercifully brief appearances) when he steps to the podium?

But I digress. Director Ivan Reitman (best known for Ghostbusters and Stripes) does a solid job presenting the narrative, getting us on Sonny's side, and delivering a strong sense of verisimilitude. For a movie with so much talking via telephone, Reitman takes a creative, fluid split-screen approach to keep the proceedings from becoming stale. The movie as a whole doesn't hit hard or expose corruption in the game America loves so much, but I'd stop short of calling it a commercial for the NFL. Isn't Draft Day obligated to plaster teams' names, reference real-life players from the past, and integrate ESPN and NFL Network personalities for the sake of realism? I'd say so.    

On balance, the story achieves the feel-good impulse it aims for. The final events of the film stretch real-life credulity a little, but it's consistent with the context of this film and the personalities of these particular business people. The business side of sports isn't just about evaluating players and stats; it's a war of personalities, and Draft Day successfully depicts it. The characters and situations held my interest, which is priority No. 1 for any film regardless of its subject matter and audience. Even the Sonny/Ali relationship is strong, thanks in large part to the limited time-frame and strong acting from Coster and Garner. Reitman may not have made a classic sports movie in any sense of the term, but Draft Day represents enjoyable in-the-moment entertainment.

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Review of The Raid 2

If nothing else, THE RAID 2 is living proof that the MPAA will never, ever slap a film with the NC-17 rating for violence alone. Sure, director Gareth Evans' 2012 feature THE RAID: REDEMPTION let the blood flow freely during its various brutal, spectacular martial-arts battles, but he was just taking batting practice with that movie. This time, he and lead actor/choreographer Iko Uwais are swinging for the fences on Opening Day. Like the earlier film, opponents in this movie aren't merely knocked out; they're sliced and skewered in ways that would make slasher movie villains envious. One guy's face even meets the business end of a shotgun at close range, and the movie spares no details. So if this isn't your cup of tea and you sided with the late Roger Ebert on the original film, you're likely done reading here.

That's not to imply that THE RAID 2 is "more of the same," because it is certainly not. Instead of the linear structure of the first film (good guys fight their way to the top of a building), this one broadens the scope significantly and goes for a gangster epic. Rookie Jakarta cop Rama (Iko Uwais), having survived the massacre and taken down the main villain from the first movie, has attracted the attention of the upper echelon of gangs. To protect his family, he agrees to go undercover to climb the criminal hierarchy. First, he must enter a prison and gain the trust of Uco (Arifin Putra), the son of a prominent kingpin named Bangun (Tio Pakusadewo), hoping to join one of the gangs when the pre-arranged jail-term expires. He succeeds and proceeds to join Uco on several "missions" that usually end in violence, but nonetheless impress his superiors. No prizes for guessing that eventually, betrayal and double-dealing will tear these Indonesian and Japanese factions apart, with Rama caught in the middle.

THE RAID 2 is unquestionably more ambitious in its storytelling, but one could argue Evans overplays his hand. This is a long film at 2 hours and 28 minutes, but it doesn't fully earn its running time. Some of the non-violent, dialogue-based scenes are fascinating (especially those involving the manic, multi-lingual Arifin Putra), Uwais proves himself competent at portraying a sympathetic character outside of fighting, and the father-son dynamic between Uco and Bangun is well-developed, albeit predictable. A subplot involving the wayward, bearded Prakoso (Yahan Ruhian) could've been axed entirely and improved the flow. On some level, I admire Evans for shooting for a story of Godfather proportions, but these elements of the film stand in stark contrast to the action scenes, which stop the story dead in its tracks so that we can watch chaos for minutes at a time.

Speaking of the fight scenes, action junkies will unquestionably get their money's worth. Like the first movie, these confrontations are long, brutal, and fluidly, exquisitely choreographed. The prison fights early in the film involve Rama taking on hoards of attackers while trapped within a bathroom stall, and later a melee in a muddy courtyard between prisoners and riot guards. Some of the battles in the movie's mid-section aren't as impressive; they typically involve one man plowing through attackers in one or two moves apiece while they (in time-honored tradition) take him on one-at-a-time rather than rushing him. But as the story escalates, so too does the creativity of the action ratchet up. Late in the movie, we're treated to the bloody exploits of assassins Hammer Girl (Julie Estelle) and Baseball Bat Man (Very Tri Yulisman), and one action scene involving cars doesn't qualify as a Car Chase so much as it does a Car Fight.

THE RAID 2 is worth seeing, especially if you're a martial arts fan, but the only thing keeping me from fully savoring the experience is the length. Indeed, 20 minutes of trimming might have turned this into an action classic. Nonetheless, even as is, Evans' vision is refreshing. This is a martial arts gangster epic, and that means no PG-13-ification of the violence to make it more teen-friendly (and let's not kid ourselves, many of those same teenagers will revel in this too). You'll wince at some of the blows delivered here, yet at the same time you'll be impressed as hell by the choreography and relentless high energy. You'll likely also exclaim "damn!" with a smile on your face, which plenty of people at my screening (evenly divided among men and women, by the way) did several times. Time will tell whether Evans can perfect the mix of action and story with THE RAID 3, because he's certainly getting closer.

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Review of Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Marvel's Cinematic Universe is some kind of Juggernaut (with apologies to the X-Men character, which Disney/Marvel doesn't have the rights to). Whether you allow yourself to be swept along for the ride or turn up your nose at the sheer gigantic-ism of it all, you have to admire what the studio is churning out, at least from a business standpoint. Cinematically speaking, however, they've struck a stronger chord with Captain America: The Winter Soldier than with either Iron Man 3 or Thor: The Dark World. It captures the spirit and escapism of a superhero outing while at the same time taking a big leap forward with the Avengers arc. Casual movie-goers and die-hards alike can enjoy it for 2 hours without feeling the absence of the other members of the quartet.

Winter Soldier provides all the satisfying action, confrontations, and heroism of a tale of its sort, but by emphasizing political/spy machinations in its plot, it actually takes a cue from James Bond movies as well. The movie begins with a mission, led by Cap (Chris Evans) and Natasha (Scarlett Johansson), to rescue hostages from a pirated tanker. They succeed, but once Cap learns that the true purpose of the mission involves protecting confidential SHIELD information rather than saving lives, a schism develops between him and Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson). Fury is later targeted for assassination by SHIELD's own forces, who suspect him of being a traitor. It isn't long before Cap is on the run and Secretary Alexander Pierce (Robert Redford) assumes control of SHIELD in order to further a top secret project. While Cap scrambles to figure out how deep the corruption of his former employer goes, Pierce sends out a Super Solider of his own, codenamed Winter Solider (Sebastian Stan) to eliminate the threat.

The Avengers featured very little of Steve Rogers' adjustment to the modern age after waking from 70 years of cryogenic slumber. But the filmmakers give that element its due here as Cap looks back upon his glory years, ponders how no one else on Earth can possibly relate to his life, and has a heartfelt conversation with a now-elderly Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell in effective old-age makeup). There is indeed something refreshingly old-school about Captain America; he's virtuous and team-oriented but can still kick ass with the best of them. Chris Evans once again shines portraying a hero who provides a compelling antithesis to Robert Downey Jr's sly, sarcastic Tony Stark. And Anthony Mackie's Sam Wilson (aka The Falcon) makes for a superior sidekick.

In some sense, Winter Soldier functions as a slightly smaller-scale Avengers. The action sequences range from fluid, martial-arts inspired combat to full-on gadgetry warfare. Sure, real suspense is limited since we know the Captain will be around for future adventures, but in the context of this movie, it's hard not to be impressed with their scope and energy. As far as I can tell, the movie makes only two in-the-moment missteps. One involves Cap's shield; it's one hell of a weapon that protects his upper body from gunfire, but why don't the bad guys ever aim for his legs? Another involves the main villain's master plan. It's an intriguing one, to be sure, but the film only pays lip-service to the morality involved rather than diving in full-throttle like Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and Zach Snyder's Watchmen did.

The Winter Solider lurches forward with the SHIELD arc as opposed to spinning its wheels. Time will tell how this film's single greatest development will affect not only future Avengers movies, but also Marvel's TV show "Agents of SHIELD." And yes, the usual credit cookies are present, one of which teases next summer's superhero smackdown, but that's the cherry on top of the cake. Marvel has learned from past criticisms here; Winter Soldier tells a self-contained story that scores well in the action, plot, and character interaction departments without feeling like just another appetizer for Avengers 2. 

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Review of Noah

Perhaps because of its religious territory, Darren Aronofsky's Noah sure is an upsetting movie for the purist. Much like an adaptation of a comic book or beloved novel, the director's vision is faithful in broad strokes, but he picks and chooses elements of his own devising to allow his cinematic vision to take on a life of its own. This is what directors and screenwriters should do when handed this kind of material, and while not every addition to the story of Noah in "Genesis" works as intended, the whole is nonetheless a fascinating "updating" of a timeless tale. There is much in Noah for the average viewer to admire and even enjoy, those two chief things being Aronofsky's spectacular visuals and a multi-dimensional portrayal of the lead character.

Noah begins with a brief recap of Adam and Eve's demise in the Garden of Eden, setting the stage for the corrupt and wicked world of where the main characters currently stand. Noah (Russell Crowe) has apocalyptic visions and seeks council from his grandfather, Methuselah (Anthony Hopkins). During the course of this meeting, Noah quickly deduces that since his visions involve water, not fire, "The Creator" (the term "God" is never used in this movie) is planning to wipe the world's slate clean with epic floods. He's convinced that he and his family must build a massive ark to survive and that only animals are allowed to survive the world's transition. Other than his immediate family (which also includes an adopted daughter), humanity is not intended to receive a second chance. Of course, not only must Noah deal with friction within his own family, but that of a rival clan headed by the king of the land, Tubal-Cain (Ray Winstone).

Noah's most outlandish addition to an old tale involves giant rock creatures called The Watchers, who help Noah build the ark after initially distrusting him, then aid him in a LOTR-style battle against Tubel-Cain's army. No, I'm not making this up. One can be forgiven for wondering "what the hell is this shitty special effect?" when first laying eyes on these creatures, but the movie provides a decent enough explanation for them (originally light-beings, The Creator punished them for intervening in Man's affairs by transforming them into awkwardly-built rock-beings). You either accept it in the context of what Aronofsky is trying to do or you keep laughing. The creatures' presence grew on me over time, so I went with the former approach.

Other than these, however, no one will quibble about the film's visual style, which is often breathtaking. Every vista is gorgeously photographed, the sudden growth of a giant forest around a previous barren land is eye-popping, and the various CGI animals are seamlessly integrated. The film's single most awe-inspring moment comes when Noah relates a story to his family about the creation of life, and a stunning time lapse showcases various creatures coming into being over the course of hundreds of split-second shots. If there's a reason to see Noah in a theater, where the spectacle looms large, rather than waiting for home video, it's moments like these.

Even with the epic element, the film's other chief strength lies in Russell Crowe's portrayal of the title character. This is some of the best acting from Crowe we've seen in years; Noah is a hard-nosed, cynical warrior who loves his family but believes humanity is largely disgusting and has earned its comeuppance. The movie's most stirring conflict isn't that of clashing armies, but Noah's war of philosophy with his wife (Jennifer Connelly), his sons, and his adopted daughter Eila (Emma Watson). Even though Eila is of child-bearing age, she is sterile, and Noah firmly believes The Creator intends for humanity's reign to end with his family, not start over. Only the animals are allowed to repopulate. This allows Aronofsky, a confirmed atheist, to openly question Noah's faith and the supposed message. Noah was 100% correct about a flood coming to purge the Earth, but is he truly acting as a responsible messenger, or are his feelings just delusions of an addled mind? Noah pushes more than a few buttons in support of this theme.

Noah, at 138 minutes, contains a scope not fully revealed in the trailers. The movie has plenty of territory to cover after the rains start, and this segment of the film contains the most compelling human drama as well as a few unfortunate screenwriting lapses. Without going into too much detail, I can say that when the movie takes a turn which requires events to hurtle forward several months later, there's an elephant in the room that I can't believe no one stumbles upon until the plot requires the characters to. No, not a literal elephant in the room (in spite of so many animals, which are conveniently put to sleep via a primitive sleeping gas), but you'll see what I mean.  

Biblical epics were once all the rage in Hollywood, but perhaps because of the thorny, controversial subject matter, they're largely considered "niche" pictures with a limited audience in today's ultra-PC climate. Aronofsky is on record stating Noah isn't intended to be a Bliblical film in the truest sense of the term, and I welcome that. It uses the Genesis tale as a jumping-off point for a vision that, while far from flawless, is unique and fearless enough to hold most viewers' interest. You get out of Noah what you're willing to put into it.

Rating: *** (out of ****)

Review of 300: Rise of an Empire

Like many red-blooded males, I have a soft spot for the original 300. Its blend of blood-soaked battles, rah-rah speeches, larger-than-life characters, and lush cinematography holds up extremely well no matter how many times I watch it. But like any movie that generated a truckload of money and internet memes as far as the eye can see, the question of a sequel was not "if" but "when." Every element I've listed has made a return in 300: Rise of an Empire, some triumphantly and some with considerably less fire. And therein lies the problem. This has more the rhythms of a remake than a sequel, and while it's not a bad movie by any stretch, very little of it (with the exception of the main villain, more on her later) inspires and pumps up the viewer the way its predecessor did.

300: Rise of an Empire has a little fun with the timeline. A battle depicting Themistocles of Athens (Sullivan Stapleton) killing King Darrius of Persia takes place before the events of the first movie. This is done so that Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) can be provided with a brief and economical backstory showing his rise to "God King" status. Shifting forward to events running concurrently with 300, he sends his chief naval officer, Artemisia (Eva Green) to deal with Themistocles' band of resistance warriors while he takes on the 300 Spartans from the first film. Themistocles displays superior strategy and wins a few skirmishes, but as the attacks become more brutal and Queen Gorgo of Spara (Lena Headey) refuses to help, he soon discovers his fate may be similar to that of the Spartans.

Many of the best lines from 300 came from Gerard Butler's King Leonidas, and his absence leaves a gaping void requiring Herculean efforts to replace. They're not impossible shoes to fill, but Themistocles doesn't come close to getting the job done here. The character is provided with numerous opportunities to inspire the troops and defy the odds, but actor Sullivan Stapleton handles it perfunctorily rather than with pizzazz. He's boring. This is classic pulp material that demands a commanding screen presence and a larger-than-life approach. When 300: Rise of an Empire depicts battle, it comes close to the original's orgy of blood, dismemberment, slow-motion, and ballet-like combat, but the film is disappointingly dry when the armies aren't clashing.

If there's one area where 300: Rise of an Empire exceeds the first installment, it's in the chief villain. Eva Green is tremendous here, a true man-eater of a warrior who commands our respect in every scene. She relishes every line, no matter how ridiculous, and appears to be the only one among the cast who transcends this material. Even during a hilariously over-the-top sex scene, she's still the one in control. The screenwriters even give her a tragic backstory, but that doesn't do much good since it inevitably focuses a disproportionate amount of the film's energy on the villain, much like Joel Schumaker's two Batman films from the '90s did. During too many scenes, I kept wondering how much more invigorating this conflict would've been with a more charismatic hero. In fact, my dream version (albeit an unconventional one) of this movie would involve making Queen Gorgo the lead and having the awesome sight of two all-male armies led by women. Think about it.

With Zach Snyder focusing on grander projects, director Noam Murro fills the breach and does an adequate job. If there's such a thing as a 300 formula, he follows it to a T. But that's the problem. Big-budget, gorgeous-looking action films are becoming easier to finance, so there has to be some real passion involved for one to stand out from the pack. The R-rating is nice, but it's not enough. Give us some rush-worthy sequences and endlessly quotable lines. Do something unique with some of these characters instead of repeating the first film's structure. With the exception of Artemisia's scenes, 300: Rise of an Empire doesn't rise to the occasion. Given Hollywood's fetish for sequels and franchises, we'll probably see a third installment, but perhaps it's best to let sleeping Spartans lie.

Rating: **1/2 (out of ****)

Oscar Hangover 2014

Like I said last year at this time, live-tweeting and going batshit-crazy with social media during the Oscars is exhausting in the best possible way. Had I simply watched the show without any "distractions" whatsoever, I would've been bored out of my mind.

Unlike her previous hosting gig, Ellen wasn't so bad this time around. She kept her opening monologue brief, and as spontaneous interventions go, that pizza delivery gag was inspired. The late Gene Siskel had a unique litmus test for movies, one where he asks, "Is the movie better than a documentary of the same actors having lunch?" The fact that actors eating pizza was more entertaining than most of what the telecast had to offer is a perfect, and I mean deadly accurate, example of this. As for the other gimmicks, yeah the selfie broke Twitter. Hardy-har-har. Sorry, but maybe because I'm a man, I generally don't find selfies funny or memorable, just irritating. I'd like Seth MacFarlane back, even though it will never happen because he's too offensive, or something like that.

Positive points? The In Memoriam segment for sure, which nearly brought me to tears, and, surprisingly enough, the speeches! The documentary winners and the Best Song winners sang and rhymed their way through acceptance speeches, and that's enough to jolt any bored viewer out of an award-worthy slumber. Lupita Nyong'o's gratitude and emotion felt real and unvarnished, shades of Halle Berry's win for Monster's Ball more than a decade ago. And McConaughey's proclamation of "all right all right all right" tops even that of Kevin Hart. All in all, while the grocery-list-of-thank-yous Syndrome hasn't completely dissipated, we saw a lot less of it than in previous years, and I pray it's only a matter of time before it's out the door for good.

My complaints are the same as usual. I don't care that the show's tone is unabashedly self-congratulatory. Its been that way for decades and just goes with the territory. But why perform the songs (including Pharrell's obnoxiously childish act) at an award show that should be about movies? Why waste time with random montages (this time a look back at animated films)? Who cares about the Shorts? Why can't trained professionals read a damn teleprompter properly? Ultimately, a lot of these gripes, as fun as they are to type up and let out, won't amount to so much as a drop in the ocean if the ratings don't reflect them.

Then there's the sheer, mind-blowing predictability of this year's installment. The NBA Playoffs may have to hand over the crown as Kings of Predictability after what I saw last night. Google "Oscar betting odds" and you'll find that all of the favorites won. Seriously. Every single one of them. My total was indeed an improvement over last year (17/21, or an eyelash under 81%), but considering that many fellow prognosticators set personal bests (including the great James Berardinelli, who got a perfect score), my performance relative to the field was about the same as before. At least 12 Years a Slave, my favorite movie of the bunch, took home Best Picture. And American Hustle, my least favorite of the nominees, walked away empty-handed.

Maybe next year we'll see some surprises. And a shorter show. It's a strange conundrum that most of us who love movies are forced into. We watch the Oscar telecast because it's too big to ignore. Then we gripe about the same things every time out and they take forever to change. But maybe it doesn't need to. Maybe it's the ultimate audience-participation show, where you can watch with one eye on the screen and the other on Twitter/Facebook. When tweeting about celebrities, are we promoting them or are we really promoting ourselves and our opinions, casting our lines for Likes, Comments, Favorites, and Retweets? Hey, I do it too. Perhaps that's the appeal of award shows in general nowadays.

Oscar Predictions

Now that football is far enough in the rear-view mirror, it's time for me to turn my attention to the Super Bowl of movies, aka The Oscars. Once again, I'll be making predictions for every category except the Shorts. Yes, I know, there are theaters which show them (all 5 nominees in a category bundled as a single showtime), but most don't care about them, and frankly, cutting them out of the telecast and awarding them beforehand would do wonders for pace. I'll gladly pick them in someone else's pool, but not here. Last year, I scored 14/21, which is a decent total but nowhere near good enough to win anyone's pool. I'm feeling a little more confident in my choices this time around, but I suppose everyone else says the same thing about theirs.

Best Picture: 12 Years a Slave-- Ever since this movie's big win at the Toronto International Film Festival, I've held firm in my prediction that it would go on to win Best Picture at the Oscars. When the nominations came out, I feared American Hustle might give it a run for its money, but that threat is now thankfully, mercifully gone. If an upset is brewing, it will happen at the hands of Gravity, but I'm still reasonably confident McQueen's film will prevail.

Best Actor: Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyer's Club)-- Chiwetel Ejiofor began as the early favorite before McConaughey started raking in the awards and taking the lead. The former just captured the BAFTA in this category, but I feel the latter will still win here because it makes for an interesting "career turnaround" story. Remember those episodes of Family Guy that made fun of him? Sure seems like an eternity ago.

Best Actress: Cate Blanchett (Blue Jasmine)-- From the day Woody Allen's latest movie debuted in the middle of the summer, Blanchett took the lead in this category and has only lapped the field in the months since. She's so far ahead, in fact, that any anti-momentum from the latest Woody Allen/Dylan Farrow controversy can't catch up.

Best Supporting Actor: Jared Leto (Dallas Buyer's Club)-- Like Blanchett, Leto has bulldozed his way to win after win in the "minor" award shows. One of the most impressive things an actor can accomplish is to bring an underwritten character to life, which he does marvelously in Dallas Buyer's Club.

Best Supporting Actress: Lupita Nyong'o (12 Years a Slave)-- Jennifer Lawrence captured the Golden Globe and the backlash rightfully, deservedly began. I going to be an idiot and trust the Academy will do the right thing here; Nyong'o's role is not only more complex than Lawrence's cartoonish ditz of a character, but required far more bravery of the actress. If AMPAS follows the Globes' lead, I'll be mad. Hulk-Smash-mad. Packers-over-Bears mad.

Best Director: Alfonso Cuaron (Gravity)-- The winner of the Director's Guild award wins the Oscar in this category 95% of the time. In this case, that's Cuaron. In a lot of ways, Gravity is the ultimate director's movie; the setup and story are so simple that the largest burden of success/failure lies with him.

Best Original Screenplay: Her-- This movie ran roughshod in this category through the minor awards, including the Writer's Guild, and virtually everyone (including yours truly) has praised Spike Jonze's film for its originality. Once again, if American Hustle scores an upset, I'll be pissed.

Best Adapted Screenplay: 12 Years a Slave-- Solomon Northrup's story is truly remarkable, and I feel the Academy thinks so too.

Best Foreign Language Film: The Great Beauty-- Unlike last year, where Amour lapped the field ten times over, this race is a little tighter. But The Great Beauty has done well enough in the awards circuit that I crown it the favorite here. Never mind that this category is a joke because of the absence of Blue is the Warmest Color.....

Best Animated Film: Frozen-- Last year, the race was neck-and-neck between Brave and Wreck-it-Ralph, with the former coming out on top. This time, it won't be close. Despicable Me 2 has monster box-office numbers and The Wind Rises has the critical acclaim, but Frozen has the magic combo of both. Put this one on ice.

Best Cinematography: Gravity-- This movie will dominate most, if not all, of the technical categories. Some have argued (and I agree with them) that since the visual style of Gravity was mostly accomplished on a computer, this doesn't truly count as cinematography. Apparently AMPAS doesn't care. Whatever. Next!

Best Film Editing: Captain Phillips-- Time for one of my two upset picks where Gravity is favored. Captain Phillips is close enough to according to various Oscar betting odds sites that I feel okay going out on a bit of limb and picking it.

Best Costume Design: The Great Gatsby-- On the one hand, it pains me to see something as mediocre as this movie walk away with even one minor Oscar when plenty of great films miss out on the awards circuit entirely. But hey, Baz Luhrman's films have a flair for the flashy. It is a pleasing movie to the eye, so perhaps this is an okay award for it to win after all.

Best Production Design: American Hustle-- AMPAS will want to give O. Russell's film something because 0-for-10 would be an embarrassment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if The Great Gatsby took this, but I'm picking a mild upset here.

Best Makeup: Dallas Buyer's Club-- I consider this pure process-of-elimination. The Lone Ranger has achieved legendary status for its beached whale of a box-office flop. And can you imagine the words "...and the Oscar goes to... Bad Grandpa!" coming out of a presenter's mouth? Me neither. Dallas Buyer's Club wins by default.

Best Score: Philomena-- Here is upset pick No. 2. Highbrow period pieces tend to do well here, so I'm taking this over the safer bet of Gravity.

Best Original Song: "Let it Go" (Frozen)-- Take the number of links to this incredibly addictive song you see in social media and compare it to the other nominees. That should tell you all you need to know about its popularity. AMPAS will want to reward the Animated Musical sub-genre for striking back with a vengeance.

Best Documentary: The Act of Killing-- Most of these nominees are actually available on Netflix streaming. I haven't seen any of them as of this writing, but this movie has generated more discussion on my favorite internet forum, reelviews.net, than the others.

Best Sound Mixing: Gravity-- Careful selection of sound was a huge part of Gravity, one of the few movies (alongside 2001 of course) that helpfully reminded us that sound waves cannot travel through a vacuum.

Best Sound Editing: Gravity-- Ditto.

Best Visual Effects: Gravity-- This category is always one of the easiest to predict. Historically, of all the movie which use special effects, the Oscar has always gone to the most critically-acclaimed of the bunch. Check out the last two winners: Life of Pi and Hugo. Superhero flicks don't stand a chance here. Score another for Gravity.