The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - 2nd Verse, just a tiny bit better than the 1st

Did you ever watch the documentaries featured on The Lord of the Rings extended editions? They might very well be the best supplemental materials I've ever seen. It's such a joy to watch director Peter Jackson and his co-writers Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens discuss how they approached the daunting task of adapting such massive novels. The Lord of the Rings books overflow with gorgeous imagery, stories and characters. Streamlining those books into three-hour films was clearly no easy task. In these documentaries, the filmmakers discuss the difficult choices made when adapting the material to film and the approach they took when deciding what things stayed in the film versions and what things had to be cut. Sure, Tom Bombadil was beloved by the books' fans, but his inclusion in the films would have slowed things down and his storyline didn't really move the plot forward in any way. And yes, even though the Scouring of the Shire is a pretty cool scene in the novel The Return of the King, it seems more like a fun side story than an actual part of the main quest. (So many people complain about the multiple endings of the film iteration of The Return of the King but imagine if the Scouring of the Shire had actually been included; there really would have been something to complain about.)

Those are just a couple examples of wise omissions that Jackson and co. made when adapting The Lord of the Rings. They understood that you couldn't carry everything over and decided to focus solely on what was absolutely integral to telling the story of Frodo and the Fellowship's quest to destroy the One Ring. It baffles me that the same filmmakers are adapting The Hobbit because it seems as if they're making the exact opposite decisions this time around. I sincerely miss the days when these filmmakers were wiser and made actual movies as opposed to cash machines.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a dreadful bore. I couldn't bother hating it because I was so indifferent to its overblown, unfocused narrative and video game style settings and characters. The book itself is simple enough as it is, but stretching it out into an epic length and splitting it across three 3-hour long movies definitely took its toll on this first meandering entry. Throughout the course of the film, Bilbo Baggins and his Dwarven companions ran, hacked and slashed their way through various scenes and then ran, hacked and slashed some more with little to no driving story or character motivations. It was just one video game sequence after another, some taken from the book - most invented for the sake of padding out the running time. In adapting this beloved and unassuming adventure story, Jackson and his team have shown little to no reverence for Tolkien's text, opting instead to compete with their masterful Lord of the Rings films.

So now we come to The Hobbit Part 2 of 3: The Desolation of Smaug and the realization that we may never get a film adaptation that honors the text on which it is based hangs heavy over the proceedings. That being said, Part 2 is actually an improvement over Part 1 in that, at the very least, it is more entertaining and even contains sequences that thrill in ways that An Unexpected Journey didn't come remotely close to doing. Overall, though, it's still a middling entry and suffers from the filmmakers' misguided decision to stretch this simple tale far more than necessary, accentuating its flaws all the more.

Poor Bilbo Baggins, the character who's supposed to be the main protagonist of this story, is shoved to the sidelines and spends most of his time staring on as other characters take the spotlight. Martin Freeman is still as charming as ever and I couldn't help but wish that, as the title character of the movie, he would get to do a bit more. Maybe that's too much to ask, though. Instead of focusing on the Hobbit in a movie called The Hobbit, we get more nonsense about Thorin and the dwarves' quest to reclaim the Lonely Mountain and all their silly gold. There's also an extended subplot in Laketown, a location that was featured in the book for a grand total of maybe 10-15 pages, and another plotline involving Gandalf's quest to discover more about the mysterious Necromancer. (A.K.A. Sauron, the big baddie from The Lord of the Rings) In the midst of all this chaos, there is a painfully unnecessary love triangle involving Legolas of the original trilogy, Tauriel, an invention of Jackson and his screenwriters, and Kili, the hunkiest dwarf of all. (Since when did the dwarves start looking like really hot bearded men instead of, you know, dwarves?) I was expecting to be more annoyed with Legolas' inclusion here, but was pleasantly surprised. Seeing him felt like seeing an old friend and served as another sad reminder that these new movies don't hold a candle to The Lord of the Rings. Evangeline Lily is actually a welcome inclusion as well. As Tauriel, she flips about, slaying orcs left and right and she manages to do all this while keeping her hair in place. This is no easy feat and I know from experience. What a babe

The Desolation of Smaug benefits from a number of superb action sequences, the best of which is a barrel escape sequence on a river which features the dwarves defending themselves while Orcs and Elves alike hop to and fro, shooting arrows, slashing about and being generally more acrobatic than the laws of physics could feasibly allow. It's just plain great moviemaking and it reminded me of how awesome Peter Jackson can be when he's firing on all cylinders. The extended sequence in Smaug's layer is also thrilling. Benedict Cumberbatch is an inspired choice for the dragon and the effects work that brings him to life is some of the best you'll see all year. (Though nothing quite matches the groundbreaking work done on Gollum) The scenes at Laketown offer a new shade to the Middle-Earth mythos without being entirely necessary and Bard (Luke Evans), a new addition to the already sprawling character roster, is a nice attempt at filling the Aragorn-sized void of this trilogy. (As if Thorin wasn't enough...) There are still far too many meandering side quests, but there's a sense of momentum to the story this time around which makes the slower scenes much more bearable. And then, right as the movie seems to be building to a thrilling climax, it abruptly ends. Actually, saying that it 'ends' is a bit misleading. It doesn't have an actual ending so much as it just stops and cuts to the credits. It's a big Middle-Earth sized middle finger reminding us we'll have to pay three separate times to see a story that could easily have been told within a single film's running time.

So, yes, The Desolation of Smaug is an improvement over An Unexpected Journey and it gives me some hope for the final chapter of this trilogy, but it isn't good enough to stop every single moment in these two films from dragging on and on. There has yet to be any justification for stretching such a simple book out into a nine-hour saga. The Hobbit has lost much of the charm and entertainment value of the original story simply because Peter Jackson feels this inexplicable need to compete with his Lord of the Rings trilogy. At the end of the day, The Hobbit should not be treated as a prequel to The Lord of the Rings; it should be treated as its own story and it's a damn shame that Jackson and co. didn't treat it with the same reverence that was on display in The Lord of the Rings. I can only hope that someday someone will come along and cut together all three of these massive Hobbit movies into a single film. I'm sure that effort would do Tolkien proud. Until then, this is what we're stuck with.

CONCLUSION: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is less painful to sit through than An Unexpected Journey, but it still suffers from the same issues: it's butter scraped over too much bread. It does, however, benefit from some rousing action sequences and improved pacing, but this is still not enough to justify bloating the original story.

FINAL RATING: 3/5

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire leaves me hungry for more!! (Get it?? Hungry?? Yay!!)

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire caught me completely off guard with its awesomeness. Featuring the superb cast of the first film combined with the assured direction of Francis Lawrence, it's not only an improvement over its cinematic predecessor, it's arguably a big improvement on its source material as well. Fans of the book will be totally engrossed and emerge from the theater immensely satisfied and general audiences won't be at a loss as to why the source material is so enormously popular.

When we last left Katniss Everdeen and her glorious ponytail, she and her kinda/sorta boyfriend Peeta had just emerged victorious from the 74th Hunger Games by not so subtly defying the all-powerful Capitol. Well, President Snow just won't stand for this treachery and has decided to make Katniss' life as miserable as possible. He starts by paying her a visit in her home district and threatening the lives of her friend and family, including that hunk of a man Gale who secretly steals kisses from Katniss when he thinks no one else is watching. (Tsk, tsk) In order to appease President Snow and convince him that she wants nothing more than to avoid sparking a rebellion that could cost countless lives, Katniss and Peeta embark on the traditional Victors tour, visiting the eleven additional districts to deliver prewritten speeches that expound on the glory of the Capitol. Unfortunately, the Districts are already riled up beyond belief and ready to overthrow the Capitol at a moment's notice. To counter these uprisings, President Snow and his new Gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee decide that the 75th Hunger Games will bring together all the surviving victors of the previous Hunger Games, including Katniss and Peeta, and have them battle it out in the arena. To the death. Again.

I'll come clean, folks - I wasn't a huge fan of the book Catching Fire. It presented some interesting ideas and suggested intriguing directions for the story to go in and then promptly pulled an about face and became a retread of the first Hunger Games story. Once again, we had to pay witness to more training, talk show interviews, judge presentations, fashion shows and all the other nonsense that comes with preparations for the Hunger Games. There were little twists to each event that helped keep it fresh, but it wasn't enough to hide the lack of new ideas. I enjoyed the book overall, but couldn't help but feel a slight twinge of underwhelmed-itis, a serious affliction in this day and age.

I went into the film adaptation of Catching Fire expecting to have the same lukewarm reaction, but ended up being pleasantly surprised. Chalk it up to the direction of Francis Lawrence (Water for Elephants; I Am Legend) who, with the aid of an excellent screenplay coined by Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionare; 127 Hours) and Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine; Toy Story 3), has crafted a suspenseful, emotionally resonant sequel that ups the excitement and drama to even greater heights. Lawrence also eschews the obnoxious shaky-cam format of the previous film, replacing it with a steady hand that allows the excitement to come from the action sequences themselves as opposed to the ADD-ridden camera work. The weaknesses of the book are still present - the lame love triangle; the repetitive nature of the story. But in the wake of such exhilarating moviemaking, these flaws can easily be forgiven.

I've already mentioned that bringing in Lawrence as a director was a great choice, but it would all be for naught if he didn't have a cast as strong as the one here. Easily one of the finest ensembles in big budget filmmaking since Harry Potter, Catching Fire's cast features the likes of Jennifer Lawrence reprising her role as Katniss Everdeen, instilling the character with strong emotion and humanity in addition to being a total badass. Additionally Josh Hutcherson as Peeta is noble and kindhearted as always. And did I mention he's oh so charming? Seriously, how is it even a competition between Peeta and Gale? Peeta's got this thing in the bag. But, speaking of Gale, poor Liam Hemsworth is still stuck on the sidelines as the third part of this lame love triangle. At least he's got a bit more to do this time around than sit and pout while he waits for Katniss to return from battle. Returning cast members Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, Donald Sutherland as President Snow and Stanley Tucci as flamboyant talk show host Caesar are all wonderful in their respective roles and new castmates Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Gamemaker Heavensbee, Sam Claflin as the charming Aquaman-esque Finnick and Jena Malone as the ruthless Johanna Mason are welcome additions to the superb cast.

Catching Fire works splendidly for the most part. Its biggest weakness other than the 'been there, done that' vibe may be its ending. Though it stays faithful to the story it's based on, many of my friends who were unfamiliar with the source material felt baffled by the abrupt ending and understandably so. The quality of what precedes it is so strong that it's easy to feel disappointed when it comes to its inevitable sequel teasing cliffhanger ending. Either way, despite my general dislike of the final book in the series, I'm excited for the film iterations of Mockingjay. I'm annoyed that it's being split into two films instead of standing strong as a single entry, but I have faith in this cast and crew. We're halfway there and they have yet to let me down.

CONCLUSION: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is one of the most exciting and enjoyable films of the year. It's emotionally sound and relentlessly entertaining. Keep your fingers crossed that the final chapters follow suit.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

Thor: The Dark World

(Oh me, oh my, here I am slacking on reviews again. Forgive me while I play catch up.)

I don't much care for Thor and his 2011 debut feature did nothing to change my feelings for the character. Actually, with the exception of Iron Man, I wasn't really a huge fan of any of the Marvel Studios films prior to The Avengers. I just don't get why some people go gaga for the Thunder God, but I think it has something to do with a few factors: First, he's super hot, so you've got your female audience in the bag. Second, he's got an awesome hammer, so fanboys can geek out whenever he brings an almighty smackdown on his enemies. Third. Um, well, he has a cape. It's red....And he has a beard. And gorgeous, golden locks. Other than that, I don't really get it. He doesn't have much of a personality and he's kind of invincible, so suspense is hard to come by.

Suffice it to say, I didn't have a lot of stake in his second cinematic outing. If it had been awful, I'd just heave an exuberant sigh and carry on with my life. If it was a pleasant moviegoing experience, I'd be pleasantly surprised and then carry on with my life. I'm happy to say that Thor: The Dark World manages to fall on the latter end of the spectrum. It's serviceable entertainment and its second half is a whole lot of fun. With Alan Taylor, director of numerous Game of Thrones episodes, at the helm, we also get some more impressive visuals than those of its predecessor.

Its plot is nonsensical, as these kinds of plots tend to be, involving a dark elf played by none other than the 9th Doctor himself (Christopher Eccleston in yet another thankless role that does very little to showcase his talents as an actor) who wants to gain control of a mystical object known as the Aether so he can destroy the universe. Why does he want to destroy the universe? I haven't the foggiest. You'd think that in the interest of self-preservation the bad guys in these movies would be a little more concerned with their well-being. Either way, the motivations of the villain don't matter too much because we never really find out enough about him to care. Somehow, Natalie Portman's character Jane Foster gets infected by the Aether and the 9th Doctor will stop at nothing to kill Jane to obtain it! Naturally, it's up to our hero Thor to save the day!

Okay, yes, it's all a bit silly and the first half is bogged down by mind-numbing exposition. But, once Loki gets more involved with the story in the second half, the movie really takes off. It's actually fun enough that it makes up for the dullness/confusion of the first half. Even though Thor is kind of a lame character, Chris Hemsworth is a charming lad and he instills this part with a great deal of charisma. Natalie Portman does her due diligence as Jane Foster and Kat Dennings is here, unfortunately, still playing the Jar-Jar Binks of the franchise. But, let's not kid ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Loki show and I sincerely wish Tom Hiddleston had even more screentime. His character is far more interesting than Thor's.

CONCLUSION: Thor: The Dark World isn't a genre-bending revelation, but it's better than its predecessor and a rollicking good time at the movies. Another solid base hit for Marvel Studios!

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

And Everything is Going to the Beat: Reviews for Big Sur and Kill Your Darlings

BIG SUR

Jack Kerouac is without question one of the greatest authors of all time. You don't absorb his writings so much as they absorb you. I can't even count the number of times I've read passages of his, gotten to the end of a long stream-of-consciousness rant and realized I couldn't recall whatever it was I'd just read. And yet, despite this, I was utterly captivated as I read it.

The main issue with adapting a writer like Kerouac to film is that it's not so much about the images as it is about the words themselves. Without the power of Kerouac's words, words which reflect the thought process that runs through his head as he analyzes life and those caught up in his story, you lose a great deal of what makes Kerouac so special. This was one of the primary issues with Walter Salles' recent adaptation of what is arguably Kerouac's best work On the Road. That film, totally drained of the enormous spirit which inhabits the novel, was a miscalculated disappointment. What Michael Polish's brilliant adaptation of On the Road's spiritual sequel Big Sur understands is that the beauty lies in the words themselves. The images come as a natural response.

Written at the tail-end of his life, Big Sur is Kerouac's personal account of his frustration with the popularity of On the Road and the Beat Generation wannabes it spawned. It also examines his personal struggles with alcoholism, an affliction which would ultimately bring about his untimely death. His clear, level-headed descriptions of his binge-drinking and the hallucinations that result from a particularly dark evening at a friend's cabin in Big Sur, California are haunting and fascinating. Even more disturbing is how matter of factly Kerouac describes his addictions with a knowing tone, as if he was well-aware that he was slowly but surely killing himself and there could be no escape.

The film adaptation of Big Sur has a great deal of voiceover narration, a cinematic tool that, when used inappropriately, can end up distancing you from the subject matter on display. Here it does precisely the opposite. It actually serves as the bridge between us and the story being told. Utilizing a large number of verbatim passages from the text itself is a stroke of genius and by viewing the world through Jack's words, we develop a keen understanding of how he viewed life, pain, love, friendship and all the other subjects that come into play over the course of the film.

Jean-Marc Barr seems an unlikely choice to play Kerouac, but he embodies the role effectively. His performance reflects the cool madness of a desperate man pushed beyond his psychological limits to discover unsettling truths about himself and humanity. Barr lends a great deal of humanity to the role with a sympathetic and moving performance. The supporting cast is strong - Josh Lucas is boyish and charming as Neal Cassidy and Kate Bosworth is quite good as Kerouac's brief romantic interest Billie.

Director Michael Polish typically works with his brother Mark and I believe this is the first project he developed on his own. I haven't seen the work he did with his brother, so I don't have a point of comparison, but it's not too much of a stretch to say that Polish is immensely talented as a writer and a director. With the aid of M. David Mullen's gorgeous cinematography, he has a beautiful, hypnotizing visual aesthetic that pulls us right into the head of Kerouac in his darkest moments. The images are evocative and unforgettable.

CONCLUSION: Big Sur may work better for those who are fans of the novel and its author, but one cannot deny its effectiveness as a moving examination of alcoholism and the crushing effects it can have on one's soul

FINAL RATING: 4/5 

KILL YOUR DARLINGS

Kill Your Darlings tells the story of a young Allen Ginsberg who has just been accepted to Columbia University. During his first year, he met and fell in love with a charming, mischievous lad named Lucien Carr. Carr would introduce Ginsberg to Jack Kerouac and William Burroughs, the authors with whom he would pave a new pathway in literature. And while this film does feature some enjoyable sequences in which these legendary artists goof off and encourage each other to create, its main focus is on Ginsberg's coming-of-age and his relationship with Carr. It also concentrates on a particularly disturbing chapter in these young writers' lives - the murder of a troubled individual at the hands of Carr.

Writer/Director John Krokidas, with the assistance of his writing partner and old college roommate Austin Bunn, has crafted a rather entertaining tale. It's got some great moments, particularly when it focuses on the relationship between Allen and Lucien and the young Beat Generation's interactions with each other. The melodrama involving the murder of David Kammerer (Played quite well by Michael C. Hall) seems a bit tacked on in some ways, even though it played a major part in the lives of these individuals. I found myself more involved with the characters and their relationships with each other than with the standard plot that ends up taking over about halfway through.

Performances all across the board are strong with Daniel Radcliffe being the particular standout as Allen Ginsberg. I've always admired Radcliffe as an actor and he continues to prove his skills, making Ginsberg relatable and quite likable. Dane Dehaan is Radcliffe's equal as Lucien Carr. He is charming and immensely attractive. Ben Foster nails Burroughs and Jack Huston is a serviceable Kerouac (Though, as an enormous Kerouac fan, I'm a bit bummed that they portrayed him as more of a hunky lunkhead than the thoughtful, shy individual that he was). The cast is easily the strongest part of the film. The screenplay leaves a bit to be desired, but as a first time effort, it's admirable and Krokidas has a steady hand as a director that promises an intriguing career.

CONCLUSION: Kill Your Darlings can't be considered a rousing success, but it's a modest one and it is very much worth your time thanks to excellent performances from Radcliffe and Dehaan. Give it a looksee and then I highly recommend rushing out to grab some of the Beats' literary works to see what these crazy kids would produce.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

Playing Catch Up: Mini-Reviews for Blue Jasmine, Don Jon, The World's End and World War Z

BLUE JASMINE
I confess, I've never really understood the appeal of Woody Allen. I enjoyed Annie Hall, but I only got about halfway through Manhattan before deciding I'd rather do anything else. I did get a chance to see Midnight in Paris a couple years back, but found it underwhelming and dull. I had a similar reaction to Allen's latest Blue Jasmine, which is only a marginal improvement. Sure, Cate Blanchett gives a great performance, but she's about the only great thing in this movie. The scattershot plot is frustrating and unsatisfying and the characters come across as shallow and pompous. Allen keeps the viewer at arm's length with his pretentious sensibilities and annoying self-aware dialogue. I'm so busy being frustrated with his inane attempts to come across as 'intelligent' that I can't even bother to invest in this sorry excuse for storytelling.

FINAL RATING: 2/5

DON JON
Is there anything Joseph Gordon-Levitt can't do? His feature film debut as a writer/director is bursting with creativity and boundless energy. Don Jon is funny, sweet and features great performances from an excellent cast. It's not without its fair amount of flaws, though. It feels as if it was two acts of a story in desperate need of a strong third act and its final thirty minutes feel a bit uncharacteristic considering everything that precedes it. Regardless, the film is a modest success and Mr. Gordon-Levitt shows great promise as a writer and director. Count me in for his next feature.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

THE WORLD'S END
The World's End is, if nothing else, a whole lot of fun. Sure, it's missing the manic energy and zaniness of its superior predecessors Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, but this final entry of the superb Wright/Pegg/Frost Cornetto Trilogy is still a worthwhile trip to the movies. It takes quite a bit of its precious time getting warmed up in the first act, but once it gets going, the laughs and excitement rarely let up. One of the best trilogies around!

FINAL RATING: 4/5

WORLD WAR Z
WWZ could go down in history as the blandest zombie movie ever made. Actually, calling it a movie is giving it way too much credit; it's barely even that. The whole enterprise gives the impression that someone had a half-assed idea for an identityless, boring zombie movie and Brad Pitt, desperately wanting to star in an adaptation of the worldwide bestseller World War Z, snagged the screenplay and plastered the novel's title all over it in the hopes that it might make a buck or two. It looks like the plan worked, but any smidgen of creativity ends there. I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but I can only presume you're better off checking that out or watching The Walking Dead than you are wasting your money on this nonsense.

FINAL RATING: 1.5/5


 

Gravity, a stunning and emotional masterpiece

I wanted to start this review with something cliched along the lines of, "I have seen the future of cinema and it is Gravity," but that term 'future of cinema' is tossed around so casually, it feels as if it's lost much of its significance. Besides, simply referring to Gravity as 'the future of cinema' does it a bit of an injustice, like it's an achievement that could possibly be repeated in a future age. This is a once-in-a-lifetime moviegoing experience and I don't think the 'future of cinema' will spawn many movies quite like it. I wish I could adequately describe in words just how captivating, thrilling and genuinely moving this latest masterpiece from Alfonso Cuaron is, but I find myself incapable of doing so. Besides, a picture says a thousand words and Gravity is chock-full-o' some of the best you'll ever see on a movie screen, so I'll just let the film itself do the talking.

The main plot of Gravity is about as straightforward as they come: Two astronauts (George Clooney and Sandra Bullock) get stranded in outer space after satellite debris disables their ship. Over the course of 91 minutes, we pay witness to their desperate attempts to survive and get back to earth in one piece. The simplicity of the story is refreshing in the wake of so many convoluted plotlines that big budget fare seem to demand these days. Alfonso Cuaron and his son Jonas have crafted a screenplay that trims anything extraneous, focusing on the primary journeys of these characters and their struggles. This is a survival story pure and simple and while the images that Cuaron, his cinematographer Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki and the visual effects team have crafted are thrilling and groundbreaking in every which way, a large amount of Gravity's beauty is due in no small part to its intimate look at the nature of humanity and our will to survive.

Sandra Bullock may deserve all the mockery this side of the Mississippi in regards to the Oscar she was awarded for her obnoxious performance in The Blind Side, but her performance as astronaut Ryan Stone in Gravity is no laughing matter. She gives would could arguably be the finest performance of her career and one of the best of 2013. Watching her struggles and her pain as she fights for her life is just as mesmerizing as the visuals on display. Likewise, George Clooney is fantastic, bringing all his trademark charm and humor to his performance as veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski.

Gravity has no precedent. It's been compared to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the comparison kind of ends with the fact that they both take place in outer space. I assure you, you've never seen anything like this before and unless you actually decide to take a trip to outer space in the near future, I sincerely doubt anything will come close to the experience of watching this film. Cuaron crafts images so spectacular they'll bring tears to your eyes and with Bullock's performance providing an emotional anchor for the visual splendor and endless thrills, you'll find both your brain and your heart totally engaged and overwhelmed. This is visual storytelling at its finest and it not only belongs near the top of any list of 2013's best films, it belongs amongst the ranks of the greatest films ever made. Let's keep our fingers crossed that Cuaron doesn't opt to wait another seven years before releasing his next feature.

CONCLUSION: A glorious cinematic achievement in every sense of the word, Gravity is an experience like no other. You aren't just watching these astronauts in space; you're right there with them, participating in their struggles. See it. See it on the biggest IMAX screen you can find. See it in 3D. Whatever you do, just SEE IT. This is a game-changer in every conceivable fashion.

FINAL RATING: 5/5

The Spectacular Now - Not Spectacular, but Solid

Does anyone else feel like this summer has been dominated by the coming-of-age genre? Seriously, people complain about the superheroes taking over, but I'm pretty sure we've had just as many coming-of-age tales as comic book flicks in 2013. First you've got Mud, which is easily one of the best films of the year; there's also The Way Way Back, which isn't quite as amazing, but still heartwarming and showcases a knockout performance from Sam Rockwell. You've also got The Kings of Summer, which I still haven't seen, but hear good things about. I should probably get on that.

Finally, we have The Spectacular Now, the latest release in this overflowing category. I'm a fan of the genre though, so I'm not complaining. At its best, these kinds of stories remind us of the bittersweetness of being young and uncertain. At its worst, the genre is middling, hazy, nostalgia-fueled reminiscing that can be both obnoxious and sappy - A deadly combination. The Spectacular Now falls firmly in the middle of these two extremes, leaning more towards the good side. It's neither a revelation as some reviews might lead you to believe, nor is it a schlock-filled failure. Not even close. It's touching and heartbreaking - a tale of romance and the effect it can have on young people finding their way through the treacherous, winding roads of life. It also throws in an examination of alcoholism for good measure, which causes the story to lose focus, dimming its overall effectiveness. But even with this sudden turn, The Spectacular Now is largely successful thanks to its honest look at teenage love and the superb performances of its two main leads.

The story follows Sutter Keely (Miles Teller), a high school senior who's as charismatic as he is self-obsessed. He and his girlfriend Cassidy (Brie Larson) are super popular and dominate every social gathering they attend. Things take a turn for the worse when Cassidy dumps him after an unfortunate misunderstanding. He presumes they'll get back together like they always do, but this time she's firm in her resolve and ends up dating someone else. After discovering this, Sutter proceeds to get drunk and pass out on someone's lawn. This random lawn belongs to one of his classmates Aimme Finnecky (Shailene Woodley), an adorable girl-next-door type who loves reading sci-fi and manga who hasn't had a boyfriend in all her life. Sutter takes to her immediately and the two strike up a friendship that eventually leads to romance. Of course, things grow more and more complicated as graduation looms on the horizon and Sutter shows no signs of pursuing anything remotely resembling a future outside of his hometown. He also manages to sneak conversations with his ex into his daily routine, not-so-subtly attempting to win her back. He tries to brush off his relationship with Aimme as a passing thing (His friend keeps labeling it as a rebound which, initially, seems to be the case), but as their relationship continues to grow and Aimee's affection for Sutter deepens, things become more complicated.

For much of its running time, The Spectacular Now is pretty darn spectacular. James Ponsoldt's direction is on point and unobtrusive. The screenplay, written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber of 500 Days of Summer fame, is earnest, funny and totally genuine. These two guys are becoming quite a force to be reckoned with in the writing world. (Not too shabby for a pair that broke into Hollywood by penning the screenplay for The Pink Panther 2 starring Steve Martin) Of course, the natural dialogue would be nothing if the two leads weren't capable of delivering strong performances, but, thankfully, both Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley are revelations. The supporting cast, featuring the likes of Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kyle Chandler, and Brie Larson, is also strong, but this is the Teller/Woodley show and they are easily two of the finest young actors I've ever seen.

Teller has the more difficult challenge of making a slightly unlikable protagonist on the verge of flat-out alcoholism charming and relatable. His performance is a success in every way, reminiscent of a young John Cusack. It's not too hard to understand why everyone would find Sutter to be such an awesome guy. Woodley brings her a-game as sweetheart Aimme and it's heartwrenching to watch her fall for someone like Sutter, knowing full well what kind of guy he is. Their chemistry is natural and flawless. It's so refreshing to see two such well-drawn characters played so well by two talented actors in a genre so often plagued with insincerity. The development of Sutter and Aimme's friendship and eventual romance feels real and it's so fascinating to watch that when the plot suddenly takes a jarring sharp turn into contrived melodrama focusing on Sutter's alcoholism, it very nearly derails the whole experience. Thankfully, the performances, dialogue and direction are strong enough to keep things on track even as The Spectacular Now stumbles across the finish line.

CONCLUSION: The Spectacular Now may not be the rousing success I was hoping for, but it's a strong effort from Ponsoldt and gets by on some excellent writing and wonderful performances from Teller and Woodley. If the plot had kept its focus on their relationship, it would have been a strong effort. As is, it's still worth seeing and one of the better coming-of-age tales to be released this year.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

Apparently, Wolverine's Healing Factor Can't Save Him from Sucking

Oh boy, here we go.

It is taking every bit of writing commitment I have to compose a review for The Wolverine, because, quite frankly, it's so unbelievably dull and idiotic I can barely muster the energy to write about it. It's not even particularly awful; it's just boring and unfailingly stupid. The characters aren't compelling and the plot is nothing more than an excuse for uninspired action sequences. For most of its running time, I was longing for the sweet release of sleep so I wouldn't have to put up with it any longer. At certain points, I actually wished I was watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the sheer laugh factor it elicits. This is pretty insane, considering that under normal circumstances, I would NEVER elect to watch that travesty. And sure, when it comes down to it, The Wolverine doesn't reach X-Men Origins levels of awfulness. It's not even as terrible as X-Men: The Last Stand, but it's only a marginal improvement over those two and being the best of the worst is nothing to be proud of.

So, what exactly is The Wolverine about? Apparently, Wolverine saved a Japanese soldier's life during World War II and now that soldier wants to repay Wolverine by scooping up the mutant's infamous healing factor in order to save his own life. In exchange, Wolverine will get the mortality he's always longed for and a chance to die and be reunited with his one true love Jean Grey. (Who appears in various dream sequences throughout the movie) Through some convoluted plot developments, Wolverine ends up becoming a bodyguard for this guy's granddaughter and gets involved in some sort of scheme to...I don't know...take over the world or something. Along the way, our hero engages in some PG-13 slashing, which equates to shaky-cam action sequences shot in close up. He also gets to sit around and stare at the vastly uninteresting supporting characters who seem to desire nothing more than to deliver exposition and backstories in the most mundane way possible. Seriously, I can't even count how many times a character would say, "I remember when..." and go off recounting some overlong, dreadfully dull story about their past while Wolverine looked on, listening intently, as my eyes glazed over.

Oh, and in some odd attempt to fabricate suspense, the screenwriters see fit to rob Wolverine of his regenerative powers for most of the film's running time. This isn't so much an exciting story development as an excuse to shoot slow-motion close-ups of Hugh Jackman looking constipated while the bad guys beat away at him with baseball bats. Poor Jackman performs admirably in the role that made him a star back in 2000's vastly superior X-Men, (God I miss Bryan Singer...) but he just doesn't have a story or much of a character arc to work with. I suppose it's too much to ask to actually care about the people occupying your standard summer blockbuster, but it sure would have made this slog a bit more enjoyable to watch.

Director James Manigold also does the best with the nonsensical screenplay he's given. I'll give him credit for trying to avoid standard superhero film pratfalls and turning up the exotic factor by filming in Tokyo and other exciting locations. At times, it feels more like You Only Live Twice than a comic book inspired flick. That's both a good and bad thing. Manigold also manages to craft The Wolverine's one exciting action sequence - A fight atop a speeding bullet train. The only thrills the movie has are to be found in this scene, which takes place early in the film, leaving you with another hour and a half of non-stop boringness.

But maybe the issue isn't really Manigold's direction or the lackluster screenwriting. Maybe the real problem is that Wolverine just isn't a very interesting character. Yeah, okay, I get it - He looks cool on the comic book page and, let's face it, who doesn't love the concept of a total badass who goes into berserker rages and slices up his enemies with metal claws that extend from his knuckles? But beyond these ideas, Wolverine just doesn't work well as a story-driving device. He's most effective in a team environment, working with other characters who have ideals that stand in stark contrast with his own. This allows for actual genuine character conflict, something that is sorely missing here. On his own, Wolverine is just a guy who doesn't go much deeper than his growling, slicing and dicing and re-healing just to do it all over again. What little character development he has comes from a mysterious past that haunts every moment of his waking life, but I can only take so much of a guy running around saying, "Who am I???"; "What have they done to me?" before I begin to desire an adamantium bullet to the brain.

Look at the six X-Men movies that have been made. Out of all these, only one has not focused on Wolverine as the central character. (The refreshing, if not entirely successful, X-Men First Class) Whatever slimmer of character development existed within him has been exhausted twenty times over. Give me a pulpit and I'll preach it loud and clear: We don't need anymore Wolverine-centric entries in this series. There are far more interesting characters to dissect in this canon; let's get on with it.

It's disappointing that the X-Men franchise is now nothing more than another money-grubbing series with nothing to prove. Under Bryan Singer's guiding hand, these movies paved the way for the whole superhero genre to make a huge comeback and, more importantly, his heroes had heart to match their astonishing abilities. I can only hope Singer's return to the series with Days of Future Past will bring the franchise back to its former glory. For now, we'll have to suffer through this nonsense.

CONCLUSION: The Wolverine, with its total lack of engaging story or interesting characters, is a lackluster mess of a flick. It's not only one of the worst films in the X-Men movie series, it's one of the lamest movies of 2013.

FINAL RATING: 2/5

The Way Way Back is Way Way Charming

If you were to go down a checklist of all the standard characteristics of a coming-of-age story, you'd discover that nearly every single one applies to The Way Way Back. It adheres to a rigid formula and manages to hit just about every one of the genre's obligatory story beats before it reaches its conclusion. You've got your main protagonist: the awkward teenage boy searching for his identity; you've got the mean 'stepfather' who tries to bully him into submission; you've got the cute girl next door who said protagonist pines over and who, for some explicable reason, seems to take a liking to him; you've got the zany, outgoing friend who helps him overcome his awkwardness and the summer job they work at together, which will contribute to the main character building his confidence. The list goes on and on and on. And yet, almost despite itself, The Way Way Back succeeds at overcoming its more generic tendencies and ends up being a rather poignant little tale thanks to its first-rate performances and some solid writing/direction.

The story involves a 14-year-old social outcast named Duncan (Liam James) who is stuck with his mom (Toni Collette), her overbearing bully of a boyfriend Trent (Steve Carell) and Trent's daughter (Zoe Levin) at a beach house for a summer excursion. The excursion is mainly an excuse for Trent to meet up with some old buddies and get drunk and high on a regular basis. Duncan's mom reluctantly joins him for these activities, leaving Duncan to fend for himself. Seeing as how he doesn't have much of a place amongst the group (A fact he is reminded of constantly by everyone around him), he spends most of his time alone listening to music and belting out REO Speedwagon tunes like it's nobody's business. The closest thing he has to a friend is his next door neighbor's very pretty daughter Susanna (AnnaSophia Robb), but his attempts to converse with her are more embarrassing than anything else. After he finds a bicycle in the garage and takes an extended ride, he stumbles upon a water park and its goofy, fun-loving manager Owen (Sam Rockwell) befriends him, offering a job at the park and helping Duncan discover his self-confidence in the process.

The Way Way Back starts off rather awkwardly, taking far too much of its time setting up the situations and characters before the plot actually progresses. But, not unlike Duncan himself, it overcomes its initial gawkiness and manages to come into its own. The script, penned by Nat Faxon and Jim Rash and directed by the pair as well, is simple and entertaining even as it's plagued with the more common pratfalls that regularly infest this genre. It's unfortunate that Faxon and Rash all-too-often resort to contrived sequences in order to elicit an emotional response from the audience. (Typically right as whatever song is playing over the soundtrack reaches its most celebratory point) They are both clearly very invested in the material, so one wishes they had spent some more time developing its story structure. Regardless, its heartwarming nature and excellent cast help it get over these little bumps in the road.

The performances are especially to thank for The Way Way Back's overall success. Liam James does a superb job playing the troubled teen Duncan. On paper, the character is practically a blank slate, doing little to make him appealing in any way, but James' sincere performance makes him empathetic and even charming. Carell is surprisingly good at playing the total jackass that is Duncan's mom's boyfriend Trent; AnnaSophia Robb is delightful as Duncan's crush and she's super cute to boot. Everyone plays their parts with great gusto, but the real standout is Sam Rockwell as Duncan's friend Owen. Sure, it's easy for Rockwell to be the standout seeing as how his character is the most inherently energetic of the bunch, spouting hysterical one-liners as if it's a regular pastime. But Rockwell keeps his performance grounded and makes the character totally believable with a passionate, thoughtful performance.

Jim Rash has stated that The Way Way Back is very autobiographical and it's clearly a passion project of his. It may not reach the heights it so frequently aims for, but its heart is in the right place and it has enough going for it to make it an endearing moviegoing experience. Your life might not be changed, but you'll certainly walk out of the theater with a smile on your face.

CONCLUSION: The Way Way Back doesn't revolutionize the coming-of-age genre due to its over reliance on familiar story beats and characterizations, but thanks to a decent script and some excellent performances, from Sam Rockwell in particular, it manages to charm its way out of its conventions.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

Pacific Rim is Monster Mashing Mayhem at its finest!!

May I ask a personal query? How badly do you want to see building-sized robots beat the living crap out of even bigger monsters? If the mere notion of this is enough to send you into fits of nerd-fueled frenzy, then Pacific Rim will be a filmgoing experience sent straight from the heavens. If you're seeking anything more than that, you may want to sit this one out. I wouldn't recommend it though because despite its generally shallow story and characterizations, Pacific Rim is a visual marvel and an absolute blast at the movies. IMAX 3D was practically invented for this kind of madness.

So what's the movie about, you ask? (If you're actually asking, that is) If you haven't already gathered from the previews, mankind is facing its biggest (Pun intended) threat yet: The Kaiju, ginormous, ferocious beasts who have broken into our world using a dimensional rift in the Pacific Ocean. The sole purpose of these monsters is to ensure the total annihilation of mankind. In order to combat this colossal threat, humanity has united to create gargantuan, humanoid fighting machines known as Jaegers. Two pilots connect via a neural link, a process known as 'The Drift', in order to control these giant metal contraptions and perform all kinds of cool wrestling moves. The stronger the bond between pilots, the better they'll do in battle. The Jaeger program is the only thing standing between the Kaiju and the obliteration of the human species and our last hope.

If the bare bones plot description I've offered you seems like nothing more than an excuse to get giant robots and monsters bashing the crap out of each other in $200 million form, then you wouldn't be too far off. Pacific Rim's storyline is about as rudimentary as you can get and its characters can't quite transcend their generic stereotypes to become anything particularly memorable. But, good Lord, those robot/monster showdowns are insane! As Charlie Day's character Dr. Newt Geiszler would say, 'It's pretty cool.' It certainly doesn't hurt when you have a visionary director like Guillermo del Toro at the helm. del Toro is a spectacular filmmaker and one of my personal all-time favorites. He's the kind of director who can go from making low-budget, critically acclaimed fare such as Cronos, The Devil's Backbone, or Pan's Labyrinth to the fanboy pleasing splendor of Blade II and the vastly underappreciated Hellboy films.

Regardless of what the subject matter may be, del Toro instills each and every one of his films with an extraordinary amount of passion, making exactly the kind of movie he wants to make, critics be damned. There's something incredibly admirable about his total lack of ego and love for whatever subject matter he takes on. His full devotion to making the biggest, baddest Robots vs. Monsters movie, embracing the story's simplicity with zeal, is both the movie's greatest strength and its greatness weakness. Even with its flaws though, the visuals are stunning beyond all reason (The colorful Hong Kong footage is particularly impressive) and the epic battles deliver in spades. It's exactly what I was hoping the original Transformers movie would be before the reality of Michael Bay's travesty brought my expectations crashing down. del Toro fills each and every frame with childlike joy and ensures that we are consistently captivated by all the spectacular visuals without totally losing focus on the humanity at the heart of the thing. Mr. Beaks of Ain't It Cool News described it best:

"Bay's the kind of hyperactive brat who'd come to your house and break all of your toys; del Toro is the good-hearted dreamer with boundless imagination who'd spin out some crazily expansive narrative incorporating every action figure at your disposal, no matter how disparate. You have fun with del Toro; you get grounded because of Bay."

This is the primary reason why del Toro's Pacific Rim succeeds where Bay's Transformers franchise has failed. It also might have something to do with the fact that del Toro is actually talented. That certainly helps a bit.

But enough Bay bashing. On to the rest of the review!

The cast does well with the limited amount of material they have to work with. Charlie Hunnam as Jaeger pilot Raleigh Becket makes for a fitting lead hero (As do his abs) and Rinko Kikuchi is adorably badass as Mako Mori, a Japanese girl with a tragic past and excellent fighting skills. You've got Idris Elba giving a spirited performance as Becket's commanding officer Stacker Pentecost and Charlie Day to offer some levity as a zany Kaiju-obsessed scientist. Even del Toro regular Ron Perlman makes an appearance as a shady black market operator who specializes in selling Kaiju organs and body parts. (And, let's be honest, what's not to love about Ron Perlman?) With such an outstanding cast, it really is a shame that del Toro and co-writer Travis Beachem couldn't have invested the amount of time they spent designing the monsters and robots into developing a more involving story or more interesting characters. Still, there's something resembling an emotional core here and the characters are likable enough to keep you interested in what's going on even if you aren't totally invested.

So, sure, Pacific Rim might not live up to the loftiest of expectations and with del Toro at the helm it's a bit natural to be disappointed by that. But, despite this, it succeeds as wildly entertaining blockbuster escapism and in the wake of Man of Steel's slightly exhausting self-seriousness, a big summer movie that isn't ashamed of its roots is wholly refreshing. Pacific Rim knows just how goofy it is and it's proud of it. del Toro has designed this picture to appeal first and foremost to the twelve-year-old soul buried deep beneath our cynical adult outlooks and that is something to be applauded.

CONCLUSION: Pacific Rim won't wow anyone with its simple story or hackneyed characterizations, but it's got enough rock 'em sock 'em robots and monster mashing action to ensure you'll walk away feeling satisfied.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

This is the End is nonstop madness in the best way possible

Oh goodness, I've been slacking again. This much-delayed review is long overdue, but I wanted to get it out of the way before Pacific Rim rears its glorious, monster-bashing head. Enjoy!!

I'll keep this short and sweet: I will be truly shocked if we see a comedy this year that's more hysterical, outrageous, or insane than This is the End. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed for Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg, and Nick Frost's alien invasion sure-to-be-masterpiece The World's End and I'm sure Anchorman 2 will provide us with some end-of-the-year laughs; but honestly, I don't think anything could measure up to Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg's take on horror/comedy. Seriously. This movie is so funny that my body hurt from laughing so hard. I'm already a fan of the Apatow crew, but this is above and beyond anything I could have possibly imagined. (And yes, I know Judd Apatow wasn't actually involved, but practically everyone in this cast has been educated in his comedy school for gifted youngsters)

The plot is simple enough. Jay Baruchel is visiting his good buddy Seth Rogen in Los Angeles, hoping for some quality bro-time. (Yes, the actors are playing themselves. I'm sure you knew this already) Much to Jay's dismay, Seth decides the two should attend a raucous house party at James Franco's new pad. Jay isn't a huge fan of Franco, nor the crowd he runs with. Nevertheless, he obliges Seth's request and they head over. The next fifteen minutes or so features one of the most absurd celebrity parties that has ever graced the silver screen. I won't reveal all the cameos or what makes them so funny, but I will mention that the standout is probably Michael Cera who spends most of his time blowing cocaine in people's faces and getting all sorts of inappropriate favors from babes in guest bathrooms.

Before long, strange events start to occur: People get sucked into the sky by bright beams of light; huge sinkholes leading straight into the depths of hell appear all over the city; monsters begin prowling the streets, picking off people left and right. The survivors - Jay & Seth joined by James Franco, Craig Robinson, Jonah Hill, and Danny McBride - hole up in Franco's concrete fortress and non-stop hilarity and madness ensues as they face the coming apocalypse.

I would be doing you a disservice if I were to attempt to lay out all the jokes and surprises that await you in This is the End. Simply know this:

You will laugh your ass off.

The cast lends themselves to all manner of embarrassing acts and self-deprecation. The chemistry everyone has with each other is flawless and the improvisational tirades they frequently go on are consistently gut-busting. There are plenty of cameos from people you'd expect to be in this movie and plenty from those you couldn't possibly imagine. Whatever you do, don't let ANYONE ruin these surprises for you. No matter what!!

Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg have crafted plenty of screenplays, but as far as I'm aware this is the first time they've actually directed one. I would never have guessed. They have such a natural sense of pace and timing and expertly balance comedy and scares to create a unique and endlessly enjoyable moviegoing experience. I can only hope they continue to challenge themselves with such inspired material. Sure, it may be a vanity project and an excuse to get all their friends together to act like idiots, but if every vanity project was this entertaining, I wouldn't say no to seeing a few more.

CONCLUSION: If you are a fan of comedy in any form, you can't afford to miss this one. Do yourself a favor and rush to the nearest theater with a large group of friends and get ready to laugh forever and ever and ever. Amen.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

Man of Steel may not be super, but it's still pretty sexy

When Superman Returns was released in 2006 (Has it really been seven years??), it opened to decent box office numbers and a largely positive critical response. Kind of funny to think of that now, seeing as how it's gotten so derided over the years, you'd think we were talking about one of the Star Wars prequels. I really enjoyed Returns though. Heck, I even saw it in theaters ten times when it was first released (I'm a big Superman fan. So sue me) Despite my outspoken love for the movie, I understand why the general moviegoing public didn't really take to it. It didn't give anyone who wasn't already a fan of the character any good reasons to become one. It didn't help that it follows Richard Donner's template for his classic, genre defining marvel of a movie Superman (1978) almost to a T, mimicking plot points beat for beat without quite developing an identity of its own. Even with these flaws though, Returns is by no means a low point in superhero cinema. Especially when you measure it up against the likes of travesties such as X-Men: The Last Stand, Batman & Robin, Fantastic Four, Daredevil, and even Superman III & IV. Regardless, the lukewarm reaction and underwhelming box office numbers proved too much for even the Man of Tomorrow to handle and Warner Bros., in their infinite wisdom, saw no other option but to hit the handy dandy reboot button and start from scratch.

Enter Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer who had been developing ideas for their own take on the Superman mythos during a particularly frustrating bout of writer's block while crafting the screenplay for The Dark Knight Rises. Nolan was so taken with Goyer's ideas that he immediately phoned Warner Bros. and told them what was up. Warner Bros. didn't even blink as they handed the franchise reigns over. (One of the perks of making the first superhero movie to gross a billion dollars is that people don't tend to second guess your thought process) Zack Snyder of 300 and Watchmen fame was hired to helm the picture not long after, a choice that initially seemed to be misguided. I've got nothing against Snyder himself; he seems like a pretty hip and happening guy and he has a genuine love of cinema and the skills to deliver high-octane comic book action the likes of which the world has never seen. The problem is, he hadn't quite developed the ability to make me care about what was happening in his movies. Blame the shallow screenplays he was working with, or the mediocre talent he hired (I'm looking at you, Malin Ackerman), but there's a definite lack of humanity to all of his work and if there's one thing a Superman movie needs, it's humanity.

I was a bit discouraged by the choice to hire Snyder, but the trailers for Man of Steel gave me hope. My expecations soared, but I did my best to keep them at bay. After all, I didn't just want a great trailer, I wanted a great Superman movie.

Man of Steel is not that great Superman movie.

It is, however, a good one. A very good one, actually, flaws and all. And maybe the fact that it's not the Second Coming will be disappointing to some, but the overall package works well enough that Man of Steel ends up being quite a solid outing for our hero.

Man of Steel takes it upon itself to retell the origin story. Again. Synder/Goyer take us all the way back to the moment our hero is born on Krypton. Somehow, shockingly, the sequences on Krypton are both fast-paced and drawn out. Not sure how you manage that, but I suppose that's one of this film's great mysteries. Russell Crowe plays Superman's father Jor-El in an admirable performance and, thanks to the magic of visual effects, Krypton itself is a rather breathtaking world. We've never really gotten to see the planet displayed in all its glory before, so it's kind of a nice little treat. But, don't get too attached because it's not long before the planet goes and gets all blowed up and baby Kal-El is rocketed to Earth. The film flashes forward and we see Kal-El, now all grown up, named Clark Kent, and sporting a beard, a grimace, and a remarkable six-pack that'll make men weep and women swoon. We're treated to a number of flashbacks involving Clark's childhood, learning valuable life lessons from Ma and Pa Kent. (Diane Lane and Kevin Costner respectively) But, it's clear that he's out of place in the world. He longs to discover where he comes from and what his true purpose is. This mission is put into overdrive when General Zod (Michael Shannon) arrives to threaten the people of earth, forcing Clark to rise to the challenge and become the Superman we all know and love.

Well, maybe not quite the one we know and love. Not yet, anyway...

Man of Steel takes an intriguing approach to the Superman mythos by jettisoning a lot of the innocence and 'gee-whiz!' charm that makes this character so wonderful in favor of a more somber, grounded tone. It's not nearly as dark as some critics are complaining, but it is a bit disconcerting. The gloomier mood doesn't quite fit Superman, but the movie gets more things right than wrong and, when it works, the final product is an explosively satisyfing blockbuster extravaganza. If the storytelling elements had gelled more cohesively, we might have the quintessential take on the Superman origin story on our hands, but the film as it is still works overall.

Snyder's direction is much more understated than usual. (Thank God) He trades his trademark over-stylized nature for a more grounded, handheld approach that serves the story surprisingly well. He crafts his action sequences with a level of skill that ensures that even as they bludgeon us into submission, we are still thoroughly entertained by Snyder's craft. It's too bad Goyer's script isn't quite up to par. It almost feels like two separate films: The more thoughtful first half that focuses on developing its characters, and the more explosive second half to satisfy summer blockbuster standards. It never quite manages to find the balance between satisfying emotional moments and the gloriously mind-numbing action sequences. Additionally, some controversial story beats probably would have been more effective if the build up to them had been a bit more cohesive.

Honestly, I didn't take too much issue with the *big moments* that have caused so much controversy, as you no doubt have seen on the Internet. No, the issue I have with Man of Steel is that Superman isn't quite as selfless as I would have hoped. He's supposed to be our great protector, but he spends more time punching things than actually protecting/saving people. At a certain point in the movie, I sort of accepted that the movie was going in a less thoughful direction simply because I'd never seen this level of action in a Superman movie before and it was immensely satisfying to finally see him hit someone. Still, I really hope that come sequel time, Snyder and Goyer take a bit more time to develop a more meaningful emotional connection to the chaos. Bring some meaning to the mayhem!!

This film is not without its level of humanity though. A lot of this is due to the excellent performance of Henry Cavill as Clark/Superman. He may not have a lot to work with, but he is very clearly the right man for the job, striking the perfect balance of confidence and charisma. I truly believe that if Cavill is given the right material to work with he could end up being the best Superman since Christopher Reeve and, when it comes to playing Superman, praise doesn't get much higher than that. The other key player that contributes to this film's success is Hans Zimmer who has crafted a superb score that manages to pave its own path without making you long for the days of the iconic John Williams theme. (And that's no easy feat)

The rest of the cast is effective in their roles. Amy Adams makes a great Lois Lane. She's more directly involved in the action and, for the first time, it felt like there was a reason for Superman to be attracted to her besides her good looks and fiesty personality. I've already mentioned that Crowe was great as Superman's real father, but Kevin Costner and Diane Lane give the most touching performances as Jonathan and Martha Kent. (Wish they had more screen time, though) Laurence Fishburne as Daily Planet editor Perry White is an inspired choice as well. The biggest disappointment of the whole bunch is actually Michael Shannon as General Zod. He's one of the finest actors working today, but his performance here is a bit stiff and the screenplay never develops his character quite as much as it should have.

Overall, Man of Steel may not be the triumphant return of the world's most iconic superhero, but it's a solid outing that stands strong amongst the summer competition. Honestly, I think it's better than both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness. (At least it takes itself seriously and doesn't replay scenes from previous movies in its series) I'm a bit baffled by the mediocre critical response it's received. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's satisfying big budget entertainment and fans of Superman should get a kick out of seeing their hero in action. Now that the groundwork is set, I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the filmmakers involved will make an effort to remember that Superman is not only a Man of Steel, but a Man of Heart as well.

CONCLUSION: Man of Steel offers enough high-flying action to make up at least three other movies and Henry Cavill in the title role gives us the emotional connection we need even if Goyer's screenplay doesn't. It's not perfect, but it's definitely the best blockbuster of the summer thus far and one of the better films in the Superman franchise.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

Mud - A Classic Coming-of-Age Story

Mud, the latest film from the mind of the highly talented writer/director Jeff Nichols, is one of 2013's under-the-radar treasures. It tells the tale of a kind-hearted boy named Ellis who lives in a house stationed on a river in Arkansas. His home life is a bit of a mess; his mom and dad don't seem to be getting along very well, but despite this Ellis has deveoted himself to the ideals of true love and the belief that it really exists. At the film's start, he and his best friend Neckbone discover a motorboat suspended in a tree on a small island in the Mississippi River. Before too long, the two of them discover the boat is occupied by a grungy, mysterious character named Mud who promises them the boat in exchange for food. Very quickly, Ellis strikes up a friendship with Mud and continues to assist him in whatever way possible. But Mud's mysterious past threatens to upend no only his own life, but that of Ellis' as well.

As far as the plot goes, I will say no more. The less you know going in the better. I will say that I'm a sucker for a good coming-of-age story and Mud is a great one. It perfectly emulates the spirit and tone of living in a small, rural area with little to entertain you except your friends and the great outdoors. It's also much more than just a simple coming-of-age tale. It's a thriller, a romance, and a drama as well and it works on every one of these levels. Jeff Nichols had already won me over with his excellent 2011 psychological thriller Take Shelter (Featuring Michael Shannon in what was arguably the best performance of that year) and with Mud he has cemented himself as one of my favorite filmmakers. His take on small-town America is lush and believable without slipping into dreaded cliche, as is all too common where southern accents are involved. He directs with immaculate skill, showcasing an eye for small details: The ripples of a lake as a boat rushes through the water; the ephemeral beauty of sunlight passing through the treetops. He appreciates the beauty of being 'in the moment' and with the superb natural lighting of Adam Stone, Mud's cinematography has a definite aura of magic that blankets the proceedings. The production design of Richard A. Wright seamlessly depects country living in all its rustic glory.

Fantastic visuals aside, Mud is just a delightful story. Its screenplay is excellent - Funny at all the right moments, occasionally heartbreaking, and deeply affecting. Nichols has a knack for crafting fairy tales totally grounded in the real world. Mud is fashioned with fascinating, well-drawn characters in realisitc settings and Nichols' dialogue is natural and totally on point. Even when you fear the plot might be delving too closely to all-too familiar contrivances, Nichols quickly pulls at the reigns and knocks you off your seat with his unique twists and turns.

Performances are outstanding across the board too. Nichols directs his young cast flawlessly. Tye Sheridan as Ellis gives one of the most convincing and natural child performances I've ever seen and Jack Lofland as Ellis' friend Neckbone is equally as effective in his role. Matthe McConaughey as the title character is irresitbly charming and mysterious; Reese Witherspoon as Juniper, the love of Mud's life, gives a vulnerable and touching performance and Sam Shepard as Ellis' mysterious neighbor Tom Blankenship is wonderful. Even Michael Shannon drops in, making a welcome appearance as Neckbone's treasure-diving, womanizing uncle and, goodness, I wish he could be in every movie.

CONCLUSION: Without a doubt, Mud is one of 2013's very best films. It's funny, touching, emotional, and exciting without feeling trite or contrived in any way. It's a definite crowd pleaser and serves as further confirmation that Jeff Nichols is one of the most talented filmmakers of this generation. I can't wait to see what else he has up his sleeve.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

Before Midnight: The Best Film of 2013...So Far...

It's been eighteen years since Before Sunrise graced cinemas, introducing audiences to Jesse and Celine: two young twenty-somethings who spent an unforgettable evening together in Vienna, Austria. During their brief time together, they discussed anything and everything that crossed their minds and fell madly in love. Before parting ways, they agreed to meet again in six months' time, but life has a fiendish way of upsetting even the best-laid plans and their next meeting would not take place for nine years...

In 2004, Before Sunset was released, reuniting the beloved characters after a long absence. Jesse, now a published author of a best-selling book based on his and Celine's Vienna exploits, was reunited with her in Paris and the spark between them was immediately rekindled. They strolled through the city streets, caught a ride on a tour boat, and finally had their long overdue emotional breakdowns during a car ride in which all their pent up feelings for each other finally came to the surface. Like Sunrise, Sunset ends on an ambiguous note, leaving the question of whether or not Jesse decided to abandon his loveless marriage to pursue a relationship with his long, lost soulmate up in the air.

That is, until now!!

Before we go any further, let me just say that I love, love, love Before Sunrise and Before Sunset. They are, in fact, my personal favorite films of all time. So few romances come close to portraying relationships or love this honestly, which makes them in my not so humble opinion very special movies. So, it should come as no surprise that I've been awaiting the release of Before Midnight with great anticipation and I am thrilled beyond reason to be able to say that I was not let down in the least. It is a masterful film, passionately made, funny and, at times, utterly heartbreaking. At all times, it is never anything short of being a completely engrossing work of art.

Almost immediately, Before Midnight reveals that Jesse chose to stay with Celine in France following the events of Before Sunset nine years prior and they now have adorable twin daughters. He is an accomplished author and she is doing the work she loves for different activist groups. Not all is well in the world of Jesse and Celine, though. You see, Jesse's decision to stay with Celine came at the cost of developing a meaningful relationship with his son Hank, who is currently living with Jesse's ex-wife in the US. At the start of the film, Jesse is walking Hank to his flight back to the States. Despite Hank's insistence that he's had the best summer of his life with Jesse and Celine in Greece, the strain in their relationship is evident and Jesse is harboring an enormous amount of guilt over not being there for his son's development into a young man. During a long car ride, Jesse hints at the possibility of moving back to Chicago where Hank is living with his mother, but Celine is none-too-thrilled by this prospect as she has just received a very promising job opportunity which would keep her in Europe for the foreseeable future. Their brilliant conversation is captured in 15 minutes of real time (A single take broken only by a brief cutaway). In it, they voice their concerns and engage in the witty, enchanting banter that has made watching them such an enjoyable experience.

It's astonishing to think that a scene in which two people do nothing but drive and talk for 15 minutes straight could be so fascinating, but when it comes to Jesse and Celine, no amount of action could possibly be more mesmerizing than their conversations. The dialogue is flawless and the performances are so effortless, you'd swear someone was beaming live footage of a real couple into your theater. This is due in no small part to the immaculate talents of writer/director Richard Linklater and his leads/co-writers Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy. They crafted the first two films together as well (Screenplay co-credit for Before Sunrise went to Kim Krizan, but apparently Hawke and Delpy had a lot more involvement than you would think) and their understanding of these characters and their love for them is evident from the very first frame. Linklater's direction is expertly unobtrusive, allowing the conversations to flow and breathe as real conversations do. Hawke and Delpy wear these roles like second skins, transcending mere performances to become something so much more.

But, even from Before Midnight's first conversation, it's clear that the hopeful optimism that graced their conversations in Before Sunrise and Before Sunset is now undercut by a world-weariness that can only come with the knowledge that the reality of 'true love' is not quite as fairy tale-esque as one would hope. Jesse and Celine's love for each other is still present as evidenced by their playful banter and interactions, but a subtle bitterness creeps into every one of their exchanges now - A bitterness that comes boiling to the surface in a hotel room showdown where the two exchange verbal blows that will make you chuckle and cringe in equal measure. Make no mistake, of the trilogy Before Midnight is easily the most painful to watch, and yet it is also a strangely cathartic experience.

But no matter what way you look at it, Before Midnight, like its predecessors, is incredibly refreshing in its honest portrayal of the trials and tribulations of love and its authentic analysis of relationships in general. So few films have taken it upon themselves to examine love in such a straightforward, realistic way and it makes this series something to cherish. These films make up what could very well be the definitive love story of our time.

In some odd way, the Before Sunrise series could actually serve as a cautionary tale for any relationship, warning young lovers of the trials and tribulations that await them, whilst providing a great deal of hope for those who are willing to stick together through the good times and the bad.  Let's hope Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy reunite in another nine years to continue sharing this story with us. It'll give me hope for the future of movies and mankind as well.

CONCLUSION: Before Midnight not only cements itself as the best film of 2013 so far, it cements the Before Sunrise series as one of the finest film trilogies of all time.

FINAL RATING: 5/5