Gone Baby Gone Girl

I read Gone Girl based on my girlfriend Sarah’s recommendation; she was adamant it was one of the best things she’d ever read. I’d just finished an underwhelming detective story - The Cuckoo’s Calling, published under J.K. Rowling’s male pseudonym Robert Galbraith, and was hardly looking forward to starting another novel that seemed to stem from the same genre. Nevertheless, at Sarah's insistence, I decided to pick Gone Girl up and I’m glad I did. From start to finish, it is a riveting read. The twists and turns keep you guessing all the way through its disturbing conclusion, but what really made Gone Girl so special were its spectacular characters and refreshing sense of humor. Gillian Flynn immediately shot to the heights of my favorite authors, (which, in case you’re wondering, should be considered quite an honor for any hardworking author) and Gone Girl became one of my all-time favorite books.

Of course, part of my motivation for reading Gone Girl sooner rather than later was driven by my knowledge of the film adaptation. I knew David Fincher was attached to direct and with him would come his reliable crew, but it’s harder for me to go back and read a book after seeing its cinematic adaptation. I was a bit nervous about how the novel, which alternates back and forth between its two leads' perspectives, would translate. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Gillian Flynn would be penning the screenplay, adapting from her own work. The final product is a superb thriller. If it doesn’t quite reach the heights of its source material, it’s no matter; it’s still masterful filmmaking and one of the year's best films.

Nick and Amy Dunne are your standard, good-looking, hip and happening young married couple. They’ve just reached their fifth anniversary and Nick is gearing up for another one of Amy’s traditional, romantic scavenger hunts. He gets more than he bargained for when he arrives at home to find his wife is missing and evidence of a violent struggle. Naturally, Nick is singled out as the prime suspect in his wife’s disappearance and his life begins a downward spiral that will reveal all kinds of fun goodies about their not-so-perfect relationship.

If you’re worried I’ll reveal any of the shocking developments of Gone Girl’s plot, don’t fret; I would never dare spoil the delightfully disturbed twists and turns that await you. All you need to know is you will have a grand old time falling down this topsy-turvy rabbit hole. The whole concept of marriage and the concept of what makes a successful one is ripped to shreds, its innards examined in intricate detail for all to see. And make no mistake, Nick and Amy Dunne’s relationship is one that demands to be seen.

Everyone involved with this film from cast to crew fire are firing on all cylinders. Flynn’s screenplay is incredibly faithful to her source material, but not too a fault. Flynn has a strong understanding of the nature of cinematic storytelling and adapts her novel to meet those standards in a way that makes the material feel fresh and invigorated. Her twisted sense of humor thankfully remains intact.

Ben Affleck’s performance as Nick Dunne goes down as a career best and one of my favorite performances of 2014. Rosamund Pike is excellent as Amy Dunne, though I did feel a nagging disappointment at her rather disconnected portrayal of the character. There isn’t as much of an element of the fun-loving ‘cool girl’ she was when she and Nick first met each other and it makes her character less empathetic. Still, Pike’s performance is sure to garner some way overdue Oscar favor. The supporting cast is equally superb. Carrie Coon’s performance as Nick’s sister Margo and Tyler Perry’s as celebrity lawyer Tanner Bolt were my particular favorites, and Kim Dickens and Patrick Fugit as the officers first assigned to Amy’s case are fantastic. Also, gotta love Neil Patrick Harris as a creepy ex-boyfriend.

On a technical level Gone Girl is glorious, which shouldn't be much of a surprise when you consider the talent behind the camera. It might not reach the highest ranks of Fincher’s filmography, but that’s not really a complaint considering the sheer breadth of modern masterpieces he’s directed in the past couple decades. (Alien 3 is definitely at the top of that list.…Sorry, I thought that would be funnier than it really is.) Fincher brings his top-notch crew with him as well, which includes the likes of Cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth (Get this man an Oscar already!), Editor Kirk Baxter and the haunting musical stylings of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. Everything meshes splendidly, resulting in a glorious, hypnotizing viewing experience.

It doesn’t matter if you have or haven’t read Gone Girl; David Fincher’s adaptation is going to wow you either way. It’s yet another worthy entry in his filmography and a fine notch on the belts of everyone involved. (Affleck’s career continues its impressive upward swing) Expect to see it on many a top-ten films of 2014 list as the year winds down and to be a front-runner for recognition come awards season. This is thrilling cinematic entertainment at its finest.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

Finding My Way Through The Maze Runner

To be perfectly honest, I wasn’t much looking forward to my viewing of The Maze Runner. Not that I had anything against the source material (I’ve never read the books) or even the trailers for that matter; those had at least stirred my interest. I’m just not usually onboard with the whole Young Adult thang and the recent onslaught of Young Adult adaptations has resulted in a large number of underwhelming films. The Maze Runner seems to fit right in with the genre’s latest trends. Despite the fact that James Dashner’s novel was released a year before Suzanne Collins’ first Hunger Games book was published, the cinematic iteration of his novel can’t help but seem like a B-Side to The Hunger Games film franchise. I was pleasantly surprised to find that The Maze Runner is actually a solid adventure flick, which stands on its own feet moderately well. It was exciting enough to keep my interest through its near two-hour running length thanks to strong direction and solid performances from its young cast and manages to thrill despite the sneaking suspicion that we've already seen everything it has to offer.

The plot follows a boy named Thomas (Dylan O’Brien) who wakes up on an elevator with no memory of who he is. He’s deposited into a community of around 60 or so young men who have experienced the same memory lost. They've adapted and learned to live in their environment – a glade/forest surrounded by enormous concrete walls. Those walls house a sinister maze, which opens up to the boys early in the morning and closes its doors when the sun goes down. The boys believe the way out of their prison lies somewhere within the maze, but no one who has been trapped inside the maze overnight has lived to tell the tale. Plagued by strange dreams of his past, Thomas is determined to conquer the maze in order to free himself and his fellow captives and figure out just why the hell they were imprisoned there in the first place.

The Maze Runner’s story is kind of a hybrid of The Hunger Games and The Lord of the Flies, but without the compelling characters or social commentary of either of those novels. What it lacks in original ideas and characters, though, it certainly makes up for with thrilling, expertly crafted action sequences. Considering this is his first foray into big screen territory, I was very impressed with director Wes Ball’s ability to craft genuinely suspenseful sequences. The first two acts are the strongest. Ball does a great job building tension and the mystery of the maze and when we finally get to see it in all its glory, it doesn't disappoint. There are some really cool set pieces here. Things fall apart in a weaker third act where certain characters unceremoniously bite the dust and certain secrets are revealed in underwhelming fashion in order to prepare for the inevitable sequel.

The performances are strong throughout. Dylan O’Brien makes for a likeable protagonist. He isn’t given much to do in the beginning besides asking your standard audience surrogate questions, but he makes it work and really comes into his own as Thomas’s character grows from being a confused bystander to a courageous leader. The supporting cast is strong too. The only casualty here is Will Poulter and his portrayal of the ‘antagonist’ Gally. Poulter isn't given much to work with, as Gally doesn't get much to do except complain about how Thomas is ruining everything the group has established in the years they've been trapped there. Maybe I’m exaggerating, but the guy has, like, 50 speeches that are practically identical. “Thomas needs to be punished! He broke the rules! He’s ruining everything! We can’t trust him!” And so on and so forth. Poulter does what he can with the limited characterization, but is overwhelmed in the end by the shoddy writing.

I won’t tell you to rush out and see The Maze Runner if you don’t already have some form of interest in the material. Really though, you could do much worse, considering how little there is to see in theaters at the moment – at least until Gone Girl is released on Friday. The Maze Runner is serviceable entertainment that doesn’t quite transcend its lack of originality or its absence of compelling characters, but it manages to get by despite these faults, delivering an exciting, albeit somewhat throwaway piece of entertainment.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

Boyhood - A Review 12 Years in the Making (Minus the 12 Years)

There’s not much I can say about Boyhood that hasn’t already been said ad nauseum. “It’s a modern masterpiece;” “A new American classic;” “One of the greatest films of the 21st century;” and so on and so forth. As I compose this review, it has a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes and a metascore of 100 on Metacritic. Just to put that metascore into perspective, only 11 films have a perfect 100 on Metacritic.com. That list includes The Godfather, Lawrence of Arabia and The Wizard of Oz. Currently, the only other modern film to achieve this high honor is the 2013 documentary Best Kept Secret. Even then, it only has 4 reviews, the bare minimum to qualify for a metascore, as opposed to Boyhood’s 47.

There’s a danger that comes with any film that receives such overwhelming, near unanimous high acclaim. Naturally, any universally praised anything will merit either a ‘hop-on-the-bandwagon’ critical mentality, chock-full-o’ overused hyperboles, or an enormous backlash from those noble few who just ‘don’t get it.’ You’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

(Indiewire recently released an intriguing article about the topic, which you can read here: http://blogs.indiewire.com/criticwire/why-the-unanimous-praise-for-boyhood-is-bad-for-film-criticism-and-for-boyhood-20140804)

Now, those of you who know me (And I’m assuming that’s the majority of my audience) are well aware that I have a particular bias in favor of Richard Linklater. My favorite films of all time are Before Sunrise, Before Sunset and Before Midnight. I’m not so blind in my adoration of the director to not admit that his filmography has its weaknesses (Unlike a large number of people I know, I am not the hugest fan of Slacker or Dazed & Confused and his remake of Bad News Bears is just plain atrocious), but when he’s on point, he’s really on point.

Linklater’s masterpiece, the Before Sunrise trilogy, works so well because it is such an honest, straightforward and accurate portrayal of love and relationships. I’d go so far as to argue that it’s the defining cinematic statement on the subjects. (And I’m sure this is a verbatim quote from my review of Before Midnight, though I’m too lazy to check) They transcend average cinema to achieve a kind of pseudo-realism. Part of this is due to Linklater’s laidback writing/directing approach and his tendency towards accurately portraying life as it really is, including all its ups and downs with no sugar coating. Another key factor in the success of this trilogy is due to the amazing performances of Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy in the lead roles. Their performances are 100% natural (I sound like a health ad), striking not a single false note. I adore this kind of storytelling and am an enormous admirer of anyone who can strike the delicate balance of portraying life as it really is without coming across as boring, mundane or pretentious. Come to think of it, I don’t think there are any others out there that have accomplished something on this level when it comes to this kind of cinematic storytelling. This is no easy feat and in this era of modern filmmaking it is something to be applauded.


So now that you understand my bias (Or have been refreshed on its nature), I hope you’ll appreciate my review all the more when I admit that the first time I saw Boyhood, I wasn’t entirely bowled over. Seriously, if you had asked me right after the movie (As many of you did), my response was a kind of glazed-over, “I don’t know. I think I need to see it again.” I’d been following its progress ever since I fell in love with Before Sunrise and Before Sunset back in 2007 and the enormous praise Boyhood was receiving only served to pique/overwhelm my interest and excitement. I knew I liked it, but I wasn’t sure to what extent I liked it.

Truth be told, it was difficult to connect to Boyhood the first time around. I wanted to see more of my own life on screen. There were so many elements I could relate to: the divorced parents; the love of Harry Potter, the Beatles and Wilco; the desire to turn off social media and have real-life human connections with people. But, overall, I felt that the film held me at arm’s length emotionally. I felt like more of an observer than anything else and I wanted to connect with Mason more. I wanted to see more ME on the screen. That and I wanted to see events I felt were significant in my own life portrayed on screen.

Upon reflecting on my initial reaction, I realized how selfish I was being. Boyhood isn’t supposed to be about me or anyone in particular except for the character whose life it is chronicling. Boyhood helped remind me that the beauty of being alive and relating to one another is that no two people are alike. Even though our experiences may be similar, we all perceive things in different ways. Looking at it in this light, I felt a bit embarrassed about my attitude following the first viewing. Thankfully, I got to see it again the week after with my dad and aunt and it was that second viewing that really sealed the deal for me.

So, enough about me. How ‘bout we get to that there review, eh?

Boyhood is a singularly remarkable cinematic experience. Without fear of resorting to hyperbole, I can honestly say you’ve never seen anything like it. Of course, I don’t think there are many single films out there that were shot over the course of 12 years, so it really has no precedent. What Linklater has crafted here is a powerful meditation on what makes life/growing up so beautiful and painful. It’s not just about being a boy who ages from 6-18 over the course of a brisk 160 minute running time; it’s about being a mother, about being a father, about being a sister; about being a friend, a lover, a human being. Most importantly, it’s about being ALIVE and acknowledging what an extraordinary gift it is to BE alive.

Linklater avoids many of the staple events of growing up: the first kiss, broken arms, homecomings, proms, major holidays, etc. This was initially disappointing for me as a viewer until I realized how overdone and clichéd these events had become in terms of cinematic portrayals. Linklater isn’t interested in these huge moments. He cares more about the little things – the things that, upon first glance, seem mundane and ordinary, but are really, truly, the things that make us who we are.

He is aided by an amazing ensemble, which includes Patricia Arquette as Mason’s mother Olivia, Ethan Hawke as his father Mason Sr. and Linklater’s own daughter Lorelei as Mason’s sister Samantha. Arquette and Hawke’s performances are marvelous, easily ranking amongst the best of their careers. Lorelei is funny and adorably obnoxious as the big sister.

Of course, the star of the show is Ellar Coltrane as Mason. Watching his character come into his own is one of the most unique, moving experiences I’ve ever had at a movie. That Coltrane managed to carry this character from the age of six to eighteen and give such an authentic and fascinating performance is nothing short of an enormous achievement. As great as the supporting cast is (And really, they are superb), the film truly belongs to Coltrane and he should be applauded for his portrayal.

The narrative unfolds naturally, sporting no title cards to inform the audience of when we’ve moved forward in time. You’ll get little hints here and there from the soundtrack (one of the year’s best), the technology and Mason’s ever-evolving haircuts. By the end, you feel like a part of the family and if there’s anything to complain about, it’s that it all goes by so fast. Even after my first viewing, I would have been willing to sit through an additional hour just to spend more time with these people and to watch Mason continue to grow as a person. Alas, just like adolescence itself, all things must come to an end. But when it comes to an end as simple and perfect as Boyhood’s, it’s difficult to be disappointed.

Boyhood does a really special thing by acknowledging and reminding us of the struggles we all face on a daily basis, even if they might not seem significant at the time. It’s not overtly melodramatic and it doesn’t resort to the kinds of ‘meaningful’ moments we’re used to seeing in these kinds of films. It simply reminds us of the beauty of everyday life, of the importance of family and being there for one another. I still give the upper hand to the Before Sunrise trilogy, but there’s no doubt that Boyhood is a monumental achievement and it is well worth your time.

Like it, love it, gotta have it or just plain 'don't get it,' but experience it for yourself. See it and draw your own conclusions. There’s really nothing quite like it...except life itself.

FINAL RATING: 5/5

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes makes a monkey out of its summer competition

The Godfather Part II. The Empire Strikes Back. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. The Dark Knight. Just in case you’re a bit slow on the uptake, these are all sequels that not only managed to meet the expectations of their masterful predecessors; in some cases they even surpassed them. Now, you can add Dawn of the Planet of the Apes to the list; a remarkable sequel, which takes everything that made Rise of the Planet of the Apes such a rollicking surprise and amplifies them by adding new layers of pathos, character development and intensity. Dawn elevates this franchise to a whole new level of awesomeness. Dr. Zaius would be proud.

At the film’s start, a horrible virus has already wiped out most of humanity. In the wake of this catastrophe, Caeser (Andy Serkis, reprising his role as our hero from Rise of the Planet of the Apes), governs a new generation of genetically evolved super-apes. This civilization is cut off from the rest of the world and the apes go about living, learning and loving in peace. When a small band of human survivors stumbles upon the outskirts of their home, it begins a downward spiral, which will ultimately lead to an explosive showdown between humans and apes. Why can’t we all just get along??

Director Matt Reeves has officially cemented himself as one of the most talented working directors of this day and age. I’m a huge fan of his first film Cloverfield and was pleasantly surprised by his remake of the Swedish classic Let the Right One In, but both of those films play like warm-ups to his work here. He takes his time building suspense and his action sequences aren’t just composed of mindless explosions and computer generated trickery; there’s a weight to the proceedings that evokes a real sense of dread. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes uses the morose mood in its favor and in a way that thankfully doesn’t feel like a tacky knockoff of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy. (COUGH*MANOFSTEEL*COUGH*) There are moments of understated beauty here, moments that tend to get overlooked in these kinds of films and I’m so thankful that Reeves included them.

While we’re on the subject of effects, can we just go ahead and give this SFX team all the awards now? They’ve really raised the bar, combining state of the art technology with empathetic animation. And if there is any reason to revisit the ‘Why can’t a computer generated performance qualify for a ‘Best Actor’ Oscar?’ argument, Andy Serkis’ performance as Caeser is it. His capabilities as an actor are truly extraordinary and his performance in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes may be his best this side of Gollum in The Lord of the Rings. Equally strong is Toby Kebbell as the rebellious and dangerous Koba, who spent the majority of his life as a lab experiment and has nothing but contempt for the human race.

The human cast fares about as well as they can in the wake of these two stunning performances. Jason Clarke and Gary Oldman stand at the forefront; the supporting cast featuring Keri Russell, Kodi Smit-Mcphee and Kirk Acevedo give strong performances, despite the limitations of their more simplistic characterizations. The screenplay by Mark Bomback, Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver does an excellent job of fleshing out its characters so they serve a greater purpose than to stand and gape at all the pretty effects, but there’s no question that the apes steal the show here.

Technically, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is flawless. I’ve already given a shout out to the VFX department, but also worth mentioning is Michael Seresin’s stunning cinematography, James Chinlund’s striking production design and the haunting score by Michael Giacchino, who continues to cement himself as one of my favorite working composers. Dawn is a visual feast and Reeves orchestrates it with passion and elegance.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes captivated my attention from its very first shot and never let it go. I don’t think there’s a single wasted moment in the whole 130 minute running time. It’s one of the best films of the summer and, quite frankly, I’d rank it amongst the best films I’ve seen so far this year. It continues to pave the way for what is shaping up to be an incredible ‘rebooted’ franchise. You’ll be hard press to find a blockbuster more emotionally satisfying and thrilling.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

Summer Movie Review Catch-Up, The Final Four: Chef, Edge of Tomorrow, The Fault in Our Stars and How to Train Your Dragon 2

CHEF

God, I love Jon Favreau. Us Marvel fans owe him a great debt for essentially kick-starting the Marvel Studios film franchise in the grandest fashion. And maybe it’s a put-on, but he genuinely seems to be one of the nicest people working in Hollywood today.  In the wake of his big-budget filmmaking debut, Favreau has toned it down tremendously, opting to write, direct and star in what is clearly a major passion project for him. Chef might leave you starving for some a great meal by its conclusion, but your appetite for a great movie should be totally satisfied.

I don’t want to delve too much into its plot; I knew next to nothing about Chef going into it and I’d like to extend the same courtesy to you. All you need to know is that Chef is heartfelt and hilarious, an instant charmer with a great cast and a superb screenplay/direction. It delves dangerously close to sentiment in its conclusion, but by that point you’ll be so invested in the characters you won’t even care. One of the best movies of 2014 thus far.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5 

EDGE OF TOMORROW

It pains me that we live in a world where Transformers: Age of Extinction made more money in its opening weekend than Edge of Tomorrow has in its entire domestic run. While Transformers 4 may mark the age of extinction for cinema, movies like Edge of Tomorrow give me hope for a brighter future. It’s exciting, full of breathtaking action sequences and, to top it all off, it doesn’t take itself too seriously.

Doug Liman, after running into a couple of slumps with Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Jumper, is back in spectacular form. Aided by an intelligent screenplay written by Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth and Christopher McQuarrie and the impeccable talents of Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt, Edge of Tomorrow is basically the sci-fi action movie equivalent of Groundhog’s Day and what’s not to love about that? This is sure to go down as one of the best sci-fi entries of the 21^st century.

In the wake of the upcoming summer release schedule, Edge of Tomorrow will probably be swept aside in the fray, but if you get a chance, make your way to the theater as soon as possible to support this gem. It’s well worth your time.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

THE FAULT IN OUR STARS

I was a bit hesitant to see this one at first. Nothing against the source material, which was very well-received, but it definitely appeared to be catered towards a certain kind of audience. One I very rarely find my views aligning with. After hearing it was written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, the same pair who wrote 500 Days of Summer and The Spectacular Now, my interest was kindled. I’m quite happy to say that The Fault in our Stars is rather wonderful. It’s sweet, genuinely funny and rather moving. It doesn’t quite manage to avoid its sentimental tendencies entirely, but, thankfully it isn’t too cloying.

That’s really its greatest strength - it doesn’t pander to a particular demographic. Sure, the male love interest is a bit too perfect, giving the female audience cause to swoon and dream in the hopes that they might find their own Augustus, but the story does not in any way dress up the pain and suffering that comes with cancer. It keeps the story grounded, even when the love story seems a bit too perfect to be totally realistic. And how about that cast? Shailene Woodley turns in another fantastic performance as Hazel Grace; Ansel Elgort is almost nearly her equal, delivering a charming and, at times, rather heartbreaking performance. They are the heart and soul of this movie and their honest performances make it very easy to invest in their characters’ journeys.

It may not be perfect, but The Fault in Our Stars gets by with strong performances, a solid script and great direction. If you haven’t seen it by now, you probably never will. But, don’t be put off by the target demographic; The Fault in Our Stars is really, really good.

Okay?

Okay.

FINAL RATING: 4/5

HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON 2

How to Train Your Dragon 2 doesn’t quite live up to the lofty standards of its magnificent predecessor, but it gets the job done with great gusto. It’s certainly one of the better sequels out there and a fine continuation of this proposed trilogy. It deepens its characters, darkens the mood and continues to deliver heartfelt animated storytelling of the finest quality.

Taking place five years after the first film, How to Train Your Dragon 2 follows the exploits of Hiccup, now a young adult, and his dragon Toothless. Their village Berk has adapted to life with dragons in the most splendid fashion, integrating them into all their daily activities. Hiccup is next in line to be the village chief, but he’s not quite sure he’s ready for the responsibility or if it’s something he even wants to do. Things become more complicated when Hiccup and his friends get involved in a maniac conqueror's plot to rule the world using a dragon army.

The storyline mimics its predecessor in that it’s essentially about Hiccup re-finding his place in the world. I think there’s a line near the beginning of the movie where Hiccup flatout says, “I might have figured out who I am, but now I have to figure out who I am all over again!” It’s not particularly subtle about its lack of new ideas and despite some really great twists and turns along the way, this sequel doesn’t really push the franchise in any new directions.

Despite retreading a lot of the same character beats as its predecessor, How to Train Your Dragon 2 still manages to entertain, enthrall and stir the emotions. That it feels more calculated is to be expected, but the pleasant surprise is that it manages to rise above its shortcomings, becoming a worthy continuation of this excellent series. Sign me up for #3!

FINAL RATING: 4/5

X-Men: Days of Future Past Gives Me Hope for a Better Future...Past!

Eight years ago my friends and I headed to the local theater for the midnight release of X-Men: The Last Stand. We had been eagerly awaiting its release, reading every scrap of news we could possibly get our hands on. We were disappointed that Bryan Singer was no longer involved with the franchise, but the latest trailer had been pretty great and, hey, Brett Ratner wasn’t so bad, right? I mean, Rush Hour was fun and Red Dragon was pretty good too. So what if X-Men 3 was getting mediocre reviews? My friends and I were determined to have a spectacular time anyway.

Oh, how wrong we were.

To this very day, the midnight showing of X-Men: The Last Stand stands as one of the most appalling, spirit-crushing moviegoing experiences of my entire life. I watched in horror as the franchise director Bryan Singer had so meticulously set up in X-Men (2000) and its superior sequel X2: X-Men United (2003) came crashing down in the worst possible way. Gone was any emotional subtext, character development or anything remotely meaningful. In its place were God-awful special effects, horrendous dialogue, dreadful characterizations and, well, it was just an all-around piece of garbage. Sure, I’ve seen worse films, but in terms of sheer awfulness and disappointment few movies come close to X-Men: The Last Stand. It was the most viscerally negative reaction I’ve ever had to a movie in all my life. That's right, even more so than the dreadful Star Wars prequels.

When the movie ended, my friends and I had a long discussion about whether or not it was worse than the Godfather of awful superhero films: Batman & Robin.

“You expected Batman & Robin to be bad after Batman Forever,” I said. “X-Men 3 is almost worse considering what came before it.”

“But,” my ever-optimistic friend Richie interjected, “What if Bryan Singer could come back? What if he could fix everything X-Men 3 did so horribly wrong and set the franchise right again?”

I told Richie it would never happen.

I am so happy that I was completely wrong.

Eight years after the travesty that was X-Men: The Last Stand, Bryan Singer has returned to revitalize the franchise he so expertly began. And what a revival it is. Watching X-Men: Days of Future Past feels like waking up after an eight-year nightmare. It brings the series back to the former glory of its first two entries and is a spectacular summer blockbuster.

In the ‘not too distant future,’ the earth is a vapid wasteland. Sentinels roam the streets, hunting down and exterminating all of mutant kind. The surviving X-Men are planning a last-ditch effort to save human and mutant-kind alike: travel into the past to change the future. For some odd reason, Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) is now capable of phasing people into their past bodies, even though it doesn’t quite fall in line with her mutant abilities. But, who cares?? It’s fun, just go with it. Naturally, Wolverine is the only one who can survive being sent all the way back to his younger body in the seventies, due to his regenerative abilities and the film producers’ inability to make an X-Men movie that DOESN’T star Wolverine. Once there, he joins up with the younger Charles Xavier aka Professor X (James McAvoy), Erik Lehnsherr aka Magneto (Michael Fassbender) and Hank McCoy aka Beast (Nicholas Hoult) who aid him in his quest to set things right and save the world!

As far as plotting goes, Days of Future Past is a bit convoluted. There are lots of characters, lots of settings and lots and lots of happenings, some of which don't make a lick of sense when logic is applied to them. But, these things are expertly balanced by Singer’s deft hand and an excellent screenplay by Simon Kinberg. (This guy wrote X-Men: The Last Stand too?? How is that possible???) The cast is wonderful. Hugh Jackman leads the way, continuing to play Wolverine as if his whole purpose in life is to do so. James McAvoy reprises his role of Charles Xavier from X-Men: First Class, giving a much deeper, more emotionally satisfying performance than he did in First Class. Michael Fassbender is a marvel to behold - as always - and his take on mutant baddie Magneto continues to be one of the highlights of this franchise. Of course, the true standout performance is Evan Peters as Quicksilver. He’s brilliant beyond all reason and I really wish he’d been able to play a larger part in the film. Maybe next time? Please? Peter Dinklage is also pretty great as Sentinel creator Bolivar Trask, even though his character isn’t given much subtext beyond his primary motivation to develop the mechanical behemoths.

Surprisingly, the weakest link in this strongest of strong ensembles is Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence, who is unquestionably one of the finest young actors working today, phones in her performance, giving dry, emotionless deliveries of all her lines. Somehow, she isn’t even capable of exuding the sexiness that is inherent to the character of Mystique. Hopefully she’ll get her act together by the time the inevitable sequel comes around.

The action sequences in Days of Future Past are astonishing. (Especially the one starring Peters’ Quicksilver) Singer captures the excitement with zest and, most importantly, clarity. I really would have loved to see all our favorite X-Men team up to do battle in the film’s climax as opposed to just a select few. I suppose in the age of Joss Whedon's The Avengers it’s natural to be a bit disappointed when a film like this doesn’t end with an all-out, character-driven explosion fest. I also miss the more subtle character development of the first two X-Men flicks. It feels like in the chaos of the action and the attempt to juggle the ensemble cast, smaller moments are a bit harder to come by. When they do, though, they're pretty great - especially the scene in which McAvoy's Xavier meets his older self. (Played to perfection by Patrick Stewart, another actor born for the part)

And can I just throw in a random aside and mention how thrilled I am that John Ottman returned to score Days of Future Past, utilizing his superb theme from X2: X-Men United? Seriously, I'm 5 minutes into the movie and I'm already squealing in my seat like a Twilight fangirl.

At the end of the day, despite whatever personal qualms I may have, I couldn’t be happier with X-Men: Days of Future Past. It completely washes away the bad taste of X-Men: The Last Stand and sets the whole franchise back on course in the most splendid fashion. With Singer set to return for the sequel, my hopes for this franchise’s future are at an all-time high!!

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5

22 Jump Street - The Best Comedy Sequel of All Time! (?)

Try counting out on your fingers all the great comedy sequels you can think of. And I’m not talking about just ‘decent’ comedy sequels. They need to be able to stand on the same level as their predecessor.

Go ahead, give it a shot. I’ll even let you cheat and use Edgar Wright’s Hot Fuzz, even though it’s not technically a sequel.

Have you thought it out a bit?

Did you get past one hand?

If you did, I’m not sure I trust your instincts on what constitutes a good comedy sequel. The general consensus is that sequels in this genre are doomed to fail long before they’re even out the gate. The main issue is that comedies aren’t typically designed to carry long-running franchises – the jokes become stale, the characters reveal themselves as one-note and dull. What started off as fresh and fun becomes repetitive and lame. Good comedy sequels are a rare breed. So, when I say 22 Jump Street could very well be the very best comedy sequel I’ve ever seen, it may seem like I'm damning it with faint praise.

I assure you, this is not the case.

22 Jump Street is spectacular. I enjoyed it every bit as much as I enjoyed its surprisingly fantastic predecessor. It’s hysterical and intelligent, always a winning combo. The screenplay, penned by the same writer as the first Michael Bacall (This time joined by Oren Uziel and Rodney Rothman), addresses head on the shortcomings of sequels in a fresh and inventive way. I worried it would get a bit smug with its self-aware attitude; it never does. It’s endlessly endearing. Also returning are the first film’s directing duo Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. Hot off the release of what is arguably one of the best films of the year, The Lego Movie, Lord and Miller continue to show they just might be one of the finest directing duos this side of the Coen Brothers.

Of course, punchlines are nothing if you don’t have the right people delivering them and once again Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum prove to be one of the finest on-screen teams in any movie of any genre.  Period. They’re kind of like the modern day Riggs and Murtaugh of Lethal Weapon fame, only a hundred times more insane. Seriously, I love these two and I love their chemistry and I hope we get more and more of these movies as long as the same creative team is involved.

I’m sure the charm will fizzle at some point, but right now that point seems a long-ways off. Bring on 23 Jump Street.

FINAL RATING: 4.5/5