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