REVIEW: Tammy

MOVIE
Tammy

CAST
Melissa McCarthy,
Susan Surandon

RATING
R

RELEASE
July 2, 2014

DIRECTOR
Ben Falcone

STUDIO(S)
Warner Bros. Pictures,
New Line Cinema

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 37 minutes






STARS
***1/2








REVIEW:

Melissa McCarthy has gone from getting nominated for an Academy Award thanks to her breakout role in "Bridesmaids," to a slew of hits in 2013 that were "Identity Thief" and "The Heat."  Now she, along with her husband/collaborator Ben Falcone, have written the screenplay for the newest R rated comedy "Tammy."  McCarthy stars as the titular character, while Falcone takes his turn in the director's chair.  Bring in a stellar supporting cast including Susan Surandon and Kathy Bates, and have Will Ferrell and Adam McKay producing the film, and the overall result is something I didn't expect upon walking in.  While I got the comedy that was advertised in the numerous trailers and TV spots, I also got a lot of heart added into the mix, particularly between Melissa McCarthy and Susan Sarandon's characters.  And through this heart, we the audience got to see an emotional side of McCarthy that we only got a little snippet of in "Identity Thief."  However while her emotions and her presence were wasted in "Thief," they're not wasted whatsoever in "Tammy."  For that alone, I can't help but recommend this movie with a big smile on my face.

If you've ever had a day where nothing goes right for you, then you'll relate to the opening 10 minutes of "Tammy."  Tammy has her car break down thanks to a deer, is fired from her job at a fast food joint, and finds her husband cheating on her with another woman.  (That last thing is more implied, as we don't actually see anyone in physical embrace)  Tammy can do only one thing in order to cope with her horrendous day, and that is to get out of town for a little while, which her mother does not approve of.  Tammy's grandmother, on the other hand, sees this as her sole opportunity to leave the clutches of her overbearing daughter.  So the grandmother and granddaughter embark on a wacky trip all eventually ending up at Niagara Falls.  That is, if their actions and shenanigans don't prevent them from doing so.

I applaud Melissa McCarthy for not only embracing her weight and using it in her comedy, but also being able to write a story with her husband that is as sweet and heartfelt as it is funny.  When the jokes hit in this movie, they really hit hard.  When the drama of the film came on screen, it was believable and brought sympathy out of me for this unlucky but quirky character.  Not only was the script really solid, apart from its scattered subpar jokes and its cliched formulas, but Melissa McCarthy also gave a great performance.  In fact, I'd say that this is the best performance of her career thus far.  Not only does she give some of her funniest work to date, but she also shows how capable she is to be a serious actress.

Equally as good as McCarthy in the film is Susan Sarandon as Tammy's alcoholic grandmother.  Sarandon shows here how hilarious she can be while still giving a committed and full-out performance, which works really well in the more dramatic moments of the film.  Not to mention, her chemistry with McCarthy is great, showing how great they get along together and how much they get on each others nerves.  Other performances that shine in the film include Mark Duplass, Gary Cole, and Kathy Bates in a rather small but hilarious role.  Actors that are top-billed on the poster but are only in the film for 5, maybe 10 minutes tops, include the likes of Toni Collette, Dan Aykroyd, and Allison Janney.  Their presences didn't really add to the film whatsoever, which made me question why they were here in the first place.  Oh well, McCarthy and Sarandon stole the film, and Mark Duplass and Gary Cole had some very funny and touching moments with them as well.

Overall, I enjoyed "Tammy" a lot more than I thought I was going to.  Not only is is very funny for the most part, but it also has a really strong heart in it that's elevated by the performances from Melissa McCarthy and Susan Sarandon.  Sure the movie is predictable, some jokes don't work as well as others, and certain stars in the film aren't used as much as you'd think, but this is a summer comedy that is well worth your time.  It's not as meta as something like "22 Jump Street," nor is it as funny as "Neighbors," but its heart really makes up for all of that.  I really hope that Melissa McCarthy and her husband Ben Falcone continue to work together on writing and directing films in the future, because it seems like they know how to write a fun but sweet dramady that people can relate to.





PREVIEW YOU WILL SEE:

Horrible Bosses 2

MINI-REVIEW: Earth to Echo

MOVIE
Earth to Echo

CAST
Teo Halm, Brian "Astro" Bradley

RATING
PG

RELEASE
July 2, 2014

DIRECTOR
Dave Green

STUDIO
Relativity Media

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 31 minutes





STARS
***








REVIEW:

On the outside, "Earth to Echo" looks like just some modern knockoff of "E.T." and "Super 8" combined, which in a way it actually is.  What the trailers don't show you is that the movie also kind of knocks off "The Goonies" and "The Sandlot" in some ways.  As someone who wasn't particularly looking forward to this movie, though, I have to say that it was a lot more enjoyable than the trailers make it out to be.  Now to be fair, the movie isn't perfect by any means.  Like seriously, did the movie really need to be shown using the "found-footage" method that's been done so many times already?  Despite the flaws present in the movie, though, "Earth to Echo" is an enjoyable family movie that kids will definitely enjoy, as well as some parents depending on your taste in film.

While the kid actors are really good in here and the story is fun and engaging, I felt what drove this film down was the script and the whole "found-footage" angle this movie uses.  There is really no reason to have this film shown in the found footage angle, as it doesn't enhance the movie whatsoever.  As for the script of the film, it's hard to believe that this entire movie, apart from the opening, takes place over the course of one night.  I didn't really buy the kids having this strong and incredible connection with Echo after only one evening of running and hiding.  Had this taken place over the course of a week, or even a month, I feel that the story would have been more impactful and the relationship these kids have with the alien would have been more believable.  I understand why the film took place in one night, but this overall journey and the impact this had on the kids was not believable to me.

Even though there were things that annoyed me about the film, I still found "Earth to Echo" to be very enjoyable.  The kid actors were solid, the story was fine, and the design of Echo is so adorable that it's hard to look away.  Even though the film taking place over the course of one night doesn't work due to the fact that these kids end up getting so attached to the alien they literally just met, and the found footage angle used isn't necessary in the slightest, I still had fun with this movie.  It's definitely not as bad as it could have been, and it will definitely please kids looking for something out there if something like "Maleficent" is sold out.  I even feel like the innocent and whimsical value this movie has will allow parents to enjoy it almost as much as their children.  It's not as good as the more recent sci-fi homage flick "Super 8," but that didn't stop me from having a good time.  If this is the result of a homage to classic 80s and 90s sci-fi family flicks, then I am perfectly ok with that.

REVIEW: Premature

MOVIE
Premature

CAST
John Karna, Katie Findlay

RATING
R

RELEASE
July 1, 2014 (VOD)
July 2, 2014 (LIMITED)

DIRECTOR
Dan Beers

STUDIO
IFC Midnight

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 34 minutes






STARS
***1/2







REVIEW:

Well, the trailer and poster for this film say what need to be said about this little indie flick.  "Premature" basically takes the time-loop premise used in "Groundhog Day" and most recently "Edge of Tomorrow," and combines the raunchiness of "Superbad" and "American Pie" with it to tell the story of a boy who relives the same day over and over when he, well, prematurely "releases" from his nether-region.  Kids, if you're reading this, please don't ask your parents what being a "premature" teenager is, because then you might get in trouble, I might get in trouble, this will all be a sticky situation. (No pun intended)  For a movie that has a concept as far-fetched as this, I have to say that director Dan Beers and his screenwriting partner Mathew Harawitz have made a raunchy, super hard-R comedy that is just as funny as it is charming and smart.

John Karna is a very likable lead as Rob, and he manages to be the type of character that any teenage boy can put themselves in to.  Katie Findlay plays his best friend, and she is also very likable while at the same time plays a real teenage girl friend that a guy in high school would have.  Then we have Craig Roberts from "Submarine" here as Rob's best friend, and most of the raunchy jokes spew from his mouth.  And then there's Alan Tudyk and Carlson Young among the many supporting characters present here, and both are very funny here as well.  Nobody in this film is even bad here, and everyone seemed to be enjoying themselves overall.

Even though the sexual humor is through the roof and super awkward to watch with a parent, which is why I suggest all to watch this either by themselves or with friends, the film manages to have a solid heart to it.  The characters are not only charming, but super relatable, as one could easily put themselves in the shoes of the film's protagonist Rob.  The humor surprisingly works really well, and the movie made me laugh out loud several times, making me even question my maturity in terms of humor.  Overall, I really enjoyed "Premature" a lot more than I thought I was going to.  It might be predictable and clichéd, but everyone seemed to be having a good time making this movie, and I had an even better time watching it.

As a teen going into his senior year of high school, getting ready for college and trying to manage friends and schoolwork as well as potential relationships, this movie really struck a chord with me.  Dan Beers shows much potential as a director and screenwriter, as he successfully shows that he understands the mindset of teenagers and the angst they go through with puberty and going into adulthood. Mathew Harawitz also shows much potential as a screenwriter as well, and I credit both men for making a teen comedy that is as raunchy as the "American Pie" series and also as sweet and relatable as something like "Sixteen Candles."  There's a reason why this film was deemed the surprise hit of SXSW, and I honestly cannot wait to check this film out again when the opportunity presents itself.  And hopefully, this becomes one of those movies that teens share with their friends and watch on repeat over the next few years.

REVIEW: Transformers: Age of Extinction: An IMAX 3D Experience

MOVIE
Transformers: Age of Extinction

CAST
Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
June 27, 2014

DIRECTOR
Michael Bay

STUDIO
Paramount Pictures

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 46 minutes





STARS
**






REVIEW:

I've been supporting the "Transformers" series ever since the first one came out in 2007.  The idea of intergalactic robots fighting each other here on Planet Earth while taking the disguise of everyday vehicles was a titillating idea for my 10 year old mind.  This idea must have carried over for the next four years as I enjoyed both "Revenge of the Fallen" (a film I loathe now) and "Dark of the Moon." (A guilty pleasure, not gonna lie)  But now, director Michael Bay has gotten rid of the entire human cast from the first three films, and now has brought in Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, and many other well-known names to round out the slew of actors present in "Age of Extinction.  Recently, in response to the constant backlash fans dish over the quality of the last two "Transformers" films, Michael Bay told MTV "Let them hate; They’re still going to see the movie!"  As saddening as this may be, he's 100% right about this.  People WILL still pay to see these movies regardless of the quality.  But still, that doesn't change the fact that Michael Bay is still making bad movies, and "Age of Extinction" is just further proof of that.

I admire the fact that this movie takes place 5 years after the events of the last film, and I like how we are introduced to a whole new set of characters, including Mark Wahlberg as an inventor/strict-father and Nicola Peltz as his sexy, scantily-clad daughter.  However, that doesn't change the fact that screenwriter Ehren Kruger still doesn't understand that having human characters, shockingly racist stereotypes, and lots of exposition does not constitute a good film.  When people go to see a movie about alien robots fighting each other, and in this case alien robots fighting on huge-ass dinosaurs, I don't think they want to hear about a father trying to save his daughter while at the same time keep a tight leash on her from her Irish boyfriend.  That's just me talking though; maybe there ARE people out there who look forward to this stuff in a movie with the name "Transformers" stamped on it.  In the case of this film, this scenario does not apply to me whatsoever.

Michael Bay has much potential as a director, and has shown this in previous films of his like the first "Transformers" and even in "Pain & Gain," though the latter film is one I don't particularly care for.  In fact, some sequences here and some of the performances are directed decently on his part.  Having said that, Bay knows that he can throw anything at the screen and it will still make money, which is something that makes me disappointed in him.  We might have paid to see robots fighting each other, and boy do we get a lot of that here, but I don't think people want to see robots fight each other for 3 hours.  Well, 2 hours and 46 minutes to be exact, but that's still really long compared to other summer movies we've gotten so far this year.  If this movie had been 50 minutes shorter and took out a good chunk of the exposition, I think we might have had a decent, if not pretty solid action film.  Also, using shaky cam in a film with giant alien robots fighting each other isn't the best choice, considering how most of the robots are spotting grey colors, making it hard to make out one from the other.

Seeing the film in IMAX is a solid choice to see it as a whole, but in terms of the use of the IMAX cameras, Bay clearly shows that he doesn't know how to use them correctly.  I'm going to guess about 75-80% of the film filled up the entire IMAX screen, which I consider to be impressive for a big summer tentpole like this.  Having said that, there are many instances, particularly during some of the action sequences, where the aspect ratio (black bars on the top and bottom of the screen) appear, making me question why these certain shots weren't filmed with the IMAX cameras.  That wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that many of the scenes, with just characters talking to each other, are unnecessarily shot with the IMAX cameras.

This constantly made me question what Bay's motive for shooting with IMAX cameras even was in the first place.  It didn't help either that the 3D was piss-poor and looked pretty flat when it had the potential to be fully immersive and really cool to look at.  It's strange that the 3D is so bad since the cameras used by Bay were equipped with IMAX 3D technology that usually make films all the more immersive.  Here, that is most certainly not the case.  Bottom line, see this movie if you really want to on the largest 2D screen you can find.  I would say check this out in IMAX, but the only version out now to my knowledge is the IMAX 3D version, so just skip it entirely and go see it regularly if you're so keen to see this movie.

I could honestly tell that Mark Wahlberg and Stanley Tucci were really trying to do the best they could do with the material they were given.  Unfortunately, both actors were trying so hard that their performances became goofy, if not a little over the top for the movie's sake.  Wahlberg was fine, I guess, for playing a protective father trying to help save the world.  Stanley Tucci, though, resulted in being merely a replacement for John Turturro's character from the first three films, despite have some moments of good serious acting here and there. Kelsey Grammer's talent is really wasted here as, I guess, the main "bad guy" of the human story. His character was fine, I guess, until he randomly started popping up during the film's climax for remotely no apparent reason other than to use Grammer more. And then there was his henchman, played by Titus Welliver, whose presence in the movie made me constantly squirm and cringe due to how poorly his character was written and how awful of a performance it was.

Other actors like John Goodman, TJ Miller, and and Ken Watanabe are also wasted here, which is a true shame seeing talented people getting reduced to shockingly racist, obscene, and stupid roles like the ones they play in this movie.  The only two actors who actually weren't that terrible, which isn't exactly saying much, were Nicola Peltz and Jack Reynor.  Though they were a little hammy at times, they seemed to be the only actors in the movie who gave a crap to what they were doing and they seemed to be the only believable characters in the entire movie, which is saying something considering the amount of A-list talent present here.  Overall, the acting isn't really anything special here, and while it's not as terrible as other actors in the previous "Transformers" films, it still felt as if Bay was trying to make new versions of other characters and use his talent to their lowest potential.

I don't think there's ever been a summer blockbuster movie before "Transformers: Age of Extinction" that made me yawn five times in the theater during all of the crazy commotion being thrown at the screen.  I've been defending these movies for quite a while, but now I simply cannot anymore.  Just like how the odd-numbered "Star Trek" films seemed to be the most hated on by the fans of the series's, the same mindset can be said about the even-numbered "Transformers" films in my eyes.  In the case of "Age of Extinction," this movie is a mess.  The screenplay relies too much on its human characters and its over-abundance of exposition, so much so that we end up wasting time waiting to see what we paid to see: robots fighting each other and kicking some serious ass.  The stranger thing about the film is that even the action gets tiring and boring after a while.  Not to mention, the actors were trying their best with this mediocre material, but overall suffered from a bad screenplay and bad direction from Michael Bay.

There are more flaws present here that I could go into, like the constant plot-holes, the horrible dialogue, and the overabundance of product placement.  However, it's very possible that this review would go on much longer if I kept pointing out every gaping flaw present in this 166 minute hodgepodge of a film.  I didn't hate the movie, in fact I actually enjoyed some things about it.  There was just a lot to say about this movie, hence why this review is so damn long.  Bay said that he could put anything into the form of a movie and people would still pay for it.  As someone who is aspiring to one day be a filmmaker, I see this as a greedy man who would rather throw an overabundance of explosions and human characters at the screen than telling a good story with good action and a fast-paced feel to it.  If I were in charge of creating the next "Transformers" movie, here's how I would make things go down:

I would remove any human characters that someone would write just so audience members can have some way of "relating"to the situation at hand.  I would remove any subplots that might be added for no apparent reason.  I would make everything in the film plausible, at least in the standards for a movie about fighting robots.  And finally, and this is the most important thing, I would keep everything under 135 minutes and keep the film at a fast pace rather than drag things out with pure exposition.  If Michael Bay and the corporate executives at Paramount did this, then I think fans would welcome the live action "Transformers" films back with open arms.  But for now, we have to live with this mediocre mess of a movie, and there's nothing we can do to stop the film from making money.  After all, we live in a world where pieces of crap like this make more money on their opening weekends than smart and fun summer blockbusters like "Edge of Tomorrow" do in their entire runs.  So, I guess there's only one last thing I can say to all of us who willingly give up our hard earned money to go see these films and let smarter and better films fall folly to financial failure: shame on us.




PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Dracula Untold

The Equalizer

Interstellar

Guardians of the Galaxy

Hercules

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

REVIEW: Ping Pong Summer

MOVIE
Ping Pong Summer

CAST
Marcello Conte, Myles Massey

RATING
NR

RELEASE
June 6, 2014 (VOD/LIMITED)

DIRECTOR
Michael Tully

STUDIO
Gravitas Ventures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 31 minutes






STARS
**1/4







REVIEW:

If you can imagine a three-way combination of "The Karate Kid," "Balls of Fury," and "The Way, Way Back," but take out about half of the heart and entertainment present in these films, then you would basically have "Ping Pong Summer."  The film takes place in 1985, and the story is about a kid going to Ocean City, MD during the summer and plans to fight against a local bully in a game of ping pong while juggling friends, crushes, and summer fun at the same time.  There were times in this movie where I did smile and was having a nice time watching it.  However, there were more times where I was just thinking "Wow, this is so stupid and predictable."

The kid actors in the film, for the most part, is incredibly subpar.  Marcello Conte, playing the film's protagonist, is not only a remotely uninteresting character, but the performance overall felt flat and is pretty mediocre when compared to other kid actors in coming-of-age summer movies out and about.  In fact, most of the performances in this film felt uninspired and really bland aside from Susan Surandon, who really was doing her best with the material she was given.  It's a shame because if the filmmakers behind this movie actually tried to make a film with clever humor and an original story, then maybe this could have been great.  This is the type of movie that will mostly be appreciated by the kids of the 1980s, though that's only because of the nostalgia factor that this film has.

Speaking as a child of the late 90s/early 2000s, I have to say that not much hit for me in "Ping Pong Summer."  Sure there were some funny jokes and a decent performance from Susan Surandon, but everything felt so generic and forced that it took me out of the film entirely.  The kid actors, though it seemed like they were trying, did not do a good job with this material, and as first time actors in an indie film like this, show that they're not up to par with other child actors working today.  Not to mention, the film as a whole felt so dumb and stupid, making me wonder what the director's motive was to make the film.

If you're a kid who grew up in the 1980s, chances are you will enjoy this for the nostalgia factor.  If you're anyone who was born after the 80s, then chances are that, like me, you won't relate to the characters or the story and instead see the film as a generic movie with generic characters and dumb humor, despite some of it getting a couple of chuckles out.  Movies like "Hot Tub Time Machine" have shown how to make a film that not only makes fun of the 80s, but also pays homage to it in the best sense.  This one lacked the making fun of it factor, which overall made me not enjoy "Ping Pong Summer" as a whole.

REWIND REVIEW: Non-Stop

MOVIE
Non-Stop

CAST
Liam Nesson, Julianne Moore

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
February 28, 2014

DIRECTOR
Jaume Collet-Serra

STUDIO
Universal Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 47 minutes






STARS
***1/4






REVIEW:

Ever since the events of 9/11, the government has been more cautious and prone to heavy security when it comes to the safety of their passengers on planes.  "Non-Stop" plays along with that idea, showing what could happen if an Air Marshall is threatened by an unknown terrorist at 20,000 feet in the air on an aircraft with 150 passengers and crew members.  Liam Nesson, of course, plays the emotionally damaged Air Marshall trying to save the people on the plane from impending doom.  While the trailer might suggest a generic action thriller with lots of predictability, "Non-Stop" instead dances with our expectations and becomes a lot more unpredictable, and a lot more thrilling, than one would expect.

The movie runs a little slow at times, and some of the characters in this film are written poorly, but all of that can be counted as minor flaws as this film is surprisingly really good.  Liam Nesson gives it his all here, and he's really solid overall.  Julianne Moore is also quite good here playing the person who happens to be sitting next to Nesson on the flight.  If you think she's the terrorist behind the whole plane takeover, well, you're gonna want to think again.  In fact, the whole buildup to who the terrorist really is is actually engaging and keeps you guessing.  And when the villain is eventually revealed, you can understand why he or she is doing what they're doing.  And that alone makes me recommend this film.  "Non-Stop" is action-packed, thrilling, and, well, full of non-stop fun.  Definitely check this movie out if it's at a local Redbox or On Demand, and watch it with a bunch of buddies.

REVIEW: Snowpiercer

MOVIE
Snowpiercer

CAST
Chris Evans, Song Kang Ho

RATING
R

RELEASE
June 27, 2014 (VOD/LIMITED)

DIRECTOR
Bong Joon Ho

STUDIO
Radius-TWC

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 6 minutes





STARS
***3/4










REVIEW:

As more dystopian future-themed films come and go, one has to wonder how many more movies will studios try to make using this unique but overused idea.  Well, we have one here right now, and it comes to us from South Korean director Bong Joon-Ho, whose work includes the 2006 monster movie "The Host." (Don't confuse it for the Stephanie Meyer movie of the same name from last year) Probably what people have heard most about "Snowpiercer," aside from the stellar cast that this film features, is the legal dispute between Joon-Ho and notorious film distributor Harvey "Scissorhands" Weinstein.  They were battling for several months over which version of the movie should be released in America, despite the director's cut receiving nothing but outstanding praise overseas.  Long story short, the director's cut is getting released.  The only catch, unfortunately, is that the movie shall be receiving a small limited release from Weinstein's indie distribution brand Radius, giving it little to no hope of actually making a solid amount of cash at the box office.  The true shame about the whole situation is that, unless people really seek this out and the release is strong enough, then not enough people will be able to catch this, dare I say, incredible movie.  That's right, "Snowpiercer" is an incredible, deep, and thrilling movie that deserves to be seen by everyone who loves the art of storytelling.

In about 20 years from now, the world will be frozen over without the ability to sustain life anymore, and the last surviving race of humans will be living on a mile-long train that's speeding along all over the planet 24/7, 365 days a year.  The front end of the train is reserved for the rich and higher class, and the back end keeps the poor refugees, some of which don't feel they deserve to be there in the first place.  Curtis is one of the many people who has just had enough with being treated like waste, so he manages to plan an uprising, with the help of an elderly mentor of his.  Together with a few allies at his side, Curtis travels all throughout the train to get the justice that he believes he deserves.  What results for the next two hours is violence, sadness, and pure cruelty that represents many of the hardships Americans have dealt with all throughout history.

The biggest compliment I can give the film is that Bong Joon Ho's direction and his screenplay, co-written with Kelly Masterson, are stunning.  I admire someone who can take the idea of a dystopian future and put his own spin on it, and that's exactly what Joon Ho has done here.  He and Masterson have made a sci-fi blockbuster that also is smart, engaging, and extremely unpredictable, which is something that's not seen that much today in the average summer movie.  Not to mention, Joon Ho manages to get some great performances out of his actors, as well as show a version of the future that hasn't been seen before.  It's a shame that this movie is going the limited release route, because this movie I bet would be openly received by all wide audiences out there, as long as they are willing to think during a film.

Chris Evans is the star of the film, and he is really good here.  His performance is badass, emotional, and some of the best work to come out of his career.  Song Kang Ho, Jamie Bell, John Hurt, and Octavia Spencer are also really good in the film, though they're basically playing the supporting characters helping Evans out on his journey.  The most memorable actor in the film without a doubt is Tilda Swinton, as her performance is gritty, irritatingly great, and just downright unbelievable.  It might just be the false teeth that she has in, but for the most part Swinton loses herself in the role, further proving how she is one of the most talented actresses in Hollywood.  And then there's Ed Harris, playing the type of part that got him nominated for an Oscar back in the 90s for "The Truman Show."  He pops up in the film's fourth quarter, and he is quiet, subtle, and yet very commanding in his presence.  Having not seen the film's marketing upon seeing the film, his presence came as a pleasant surprise to me.  Everyone overall is great in the film, though it's most likely Chris Evans and Tilda Swinton you'll be thinking about when looking back on the film's actors.

"Snowpiercer" is a movie that not only works as an awesome, action-packed blockbuster, but also as a smart, thought-provoking thriller.  It can be compared to "Inception" in that sense, and we all know that people accepted that film with open arms.  It's a shame that Weinstein couldn't see the true potential that this movie had to be a box office success story, but he thought America was too dumb for the cut being released now, so what are you gonna do?  My suggestion: go see this movie.  Whether it's seeing it in a theater or paying to watch it On Demand when it eventually gets a VOD/rental release, this is a film that deserves all the success it will receive in the future.  The acting is great, the story is thought-provoking, and Bong Joon Ho shows that he understands how to make a fun action movie with intelligence thrown in as well.  If you're able to check this film out, then please do.  Unless you hate thinking during a summer flick, I highly doubt you will regret seeing this movie when you do.

MINI-REVIEW: Jersey Boys

MOVIE
Jersey Boys

CAST
John Lloyd Young,
Erich Bergen

RATING
R

RELEASE
June 20, 2014

DIRECTOR
Clint Eastwood

STUDIO
Warner Bros. Pictures

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 14 minutes






STARS
**3/4






REVIEW:

As someone who has had the privilege of seeing the Broadway version of "Jersey Boys," I gotta say, this movie could have been a lot worse.  Considering that the musical itself was really just one set and was basically a non-stop song, (one that I loved, as a matter of fact) I will give credit and say that director Clint Eastwood did a solid job bringing "Jersey Boys" to the big screen.  Having said that, there are things he could have done to have made the movie more lively and much more powerful.  The story of Jersey Boys, both the film and the musical, is basically the forming, the success, and the downfall of Frankie Valli and the Four Seasons.  Where the musical is lively, upbeat, and just so fun to watch, the movie itself is gloomy, muted in color, and isn't even really a musical, rather just a film with music thrown into it.  In fact, the only thing that remotely resembles a musical is a little thing that plays during the end credits.

The way they incorporated the music in the movie here, however, was actually pretty decent.  Not to mention, the acting particularly from John Lloyd Young, who plays Frankie, and Erich Bergen, who plays Bob Gaudio, is quite good.  In fact, I'd say they're two of the best things about this movie.  However, the other characters present in the movie are either there for a paycheck, trying to hard, or are barely even there at all.  Seriously, there is one particular character (if you've seen the musical and/or the film you should know who I'm talking about) who is in this movie for two, maybe three scenes total, and is then axed off just to the hell of it.  When this plot element was done in the musical, it was done so we could get to know this person and feel sorry when this person died.  In the movie, you never get that feeling of caring at all.  It doesn't help much either that the character most affected by this loss is feeling better and dandy within the 10 minutes that follow this tragic occurrence.

If a filmmaker wants to adapt a musical, that's all good and fine, but you have to understand how to find a way to not only tell a great story with the great music used to your advantage, and you also have to find a way to appeal not only to yourself, but to general moviegoers and the fans of the musical as well.  Though I enjoyed myself in the theater for the 134 minutes this movie ran, I don't think back on the film with fondness; rather with disappointment.  As a movie, it's decent enough to see, and should appeal to the general masses.  As an adaptation of an incredible musical, though, this is a huge letdown considering the talent behind this.  If a director like Jon Favreau or Rob Marshall had had their hands on this project, I think they might have put more passion into this than Eastwood did.  I saw this at my local movie theater and I'm pretty sure everyone in there, who didn't really respond to the film that much, were all from South Jersey.  That's saying something if you're making a movie about four musicians from New Jersey.




PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Begin Again

America

Get On Up

When The Game Stands Tall

Gone Girl

The Judge

This Is Where I Leave You

The Good Lie

REVIEW: 22 Jump Street

MOVIE
22 Jump Street

CAST
Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum

RATING
R

RELEASE
June 13, 2014

DIRECTOR(S)
Phil Lord, Christopher Miller

STUDIO
Columbia Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 52 minutes





STARS
***1/2







REVIEW:

Frequently it's been seen that movie studios think that making a sequel to a hit film by using the same type of formula guarantees a good film on their hands.  "22 Jump Street" cleverly lets us know this literally 10 minutes in.  Jenko and Schmidt have been assigned to do the same exact stuff from the first film, find the supplier of a series of drugs that has killed a student, only this time in a college setting, and throughout the movie it keeps being mentioned that this is basically the same case that the partners covered in the first film.  Unfortunately for the movie, it seemed as if they relied on this self aware joke like a crutch, which made certain sequences, especially during the end credits, feel repetitive and tired.  Having said that, that didn't take anything away from my personal enjoyment from the film itself.  In terms of comedy sequels, this one ranks amongst some of the best and funniest around.  As a comedy in 2014, though, there are several films that I found a lot funnier than this.  But still, "22 Jump Street" doesn't disappoint, as it is hilarious, smart, and really entertaining throughout.

Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum's chemistry has only grown stronger between movies, because they are better than ever together in this film.  Tatum, believe it or not, actually manages to be funnier than Jonah overall, as he is given a lot more to do and is able to generate a lot more laughs just by simple reactions he has to certain things.  I feel that he has found his sweet spot in movies as this comedic lead because he just nails it all around.  Hill is still funny and really good in the movie, don't get me wrong, but Tatum steals so many more scenes than Hill does overall.  Having said that, these two couldn't even compare to how laugh-out-loud hilarious Ice Cube is in this movie.

Ice Cube is given a lot more to do in this movie than in the first film.  He still plays the angry black captain here, but his role is extended in ways that I cannot say without spoiling possibly the funniest thing about the movie.  His reaction to something in the film literally had me dying in laughter from how flat out funny it was.  If there's any thing everyone will most likely take away from this film, it's Ice Cube's performance.  Someone who also manages to steal her scenes with flying colors is Jillian Bell.  This girl, best known for her work on the show "Workacholics," plays someone who constantly points out how old Jonah Hill looks to her every time she interacts with him.  This might sound like something that would get very old very fast, but her delivery is what makes each old remark quite funny.  This girl should be in a lot more films, maybe one day even getting a lead role in something.  These four people are really the only four actors you'll think about in the overall film, aside from the hilarious cameos, though everyone was good overall.

Phil Lord and Christopher Miller are really on a roll with their careers thus far.  They have successfully been able to go from PG-friendly animated films to R-rated raunchy films and back with no hiccups so far.  Their style of filmmaking is so fast and spot on that it's easy to see that they share a similar mindset in terms of their cinematic creations.  They are so good that they're able to translate their styles of filmmaking onto a screenplay they didn't even write, which I feel is something that is quite challenging to do.  Michael Bacall, Oren Uziel, and Rodney Rothman all understand the fact that sequels do the same thing as the first film almost every time, and they clearly show that in this film's screenplay.  Having said that, I felt that they tried to use that joke as a bit of a crutch for a good portion of the movie, and some of it got a bit repetitive and stupid to a point where I was like "Ok guys, you can stop now."  But still, they made one hell of an entertaining script for an entertaining sequel, so I'm quite happy at least about that.

"22 Jump Street" had me laughing from start to finish, more so in the second half than in the first half though.  This movie was not as funny, sweet, or engaging as "21 Jump Street," but then again, most sequels are like that, and that's always been the norm with a couple of notable exceptions.  Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill share some great chemistry together, and overall are really good in the film.  Ice Cube, though, steals the show, and Jillian Bell may be the true breakout star of this movie.  Phil Lord and Christopher Miller share an incredible talent and together, with the help of the film's screenwriters, have managed to make an entertaining and hilarious, though a little too self aware, movie sequel.  The whole joke about this sequel being the same as the first film might go on a little too much at times, particularly in the movie's end credits, but when the jokes hit hard, they really do hit HARD.  Definitely check out this sequel if you enjoyed the original "21 Jump Street" and you can't stand it when Hollywood repeats itself in the sequels to good/great movies.

PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

The Expendables 3

Transformers: Age of Extinction

Dumb and Dumber To

Jersey Boys

Let's Be Cops

The Interview

Sex Tape

REVIEW: Maleficent

MOVIE
Maleficent

CAST
Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning

RATING
PG

RELEASE
May 30, 2014

DIRECTOR
Robert Stromberg

STUDIO
Disney

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 37 minutes








STARS
***








REVIEW:

Gotta love Disney rehashing their old products in order to churn in a few dollars at the box office, right?  In 2010 they let Tim Burton put his own spin on "Alice in Wonderland," next year they're bringing a live-action adaptation of "Cinderella" to the big screen, and now we have a new spin on the story of "Sleeping Beauty" called "Maleficent."  Basically if you know the story of "Sleeping Beauty," then this is pretty much the same story, just from the perspective of possibly Disney's most iconic villain.  The titular character is played by renowned actress Angelina Jolie, who hasn't been in a movie in almost four years.  This apparently was a passion project of hers, so I give her credit for sticking to this and putting all of her energy into this one film.  However, the movie itself could have and should have been a lot better than it was.

Here's the easiest way to summarize the movie as a whole: Angelina Jolie is great as Maleficent.  Aside from a couple of laughable moments from her, Jolie emulates the damaged, the caring, and the sinister sides of Maleficent really well.  As someone who isn't the biggest fan of her work, I have to say that she fit the part quite well, and it was also kind of nice to see her in another movie after four years or so.  Elle Fanning is also quite delightful as Aurora, aka "Sleeping Beauty."  Yeah, I'm going to guess that at least 20% of you reading this had no idea what Sleeping Beauty's actual name is.  Anyways, Fanning is really good here, and she just has one of those smiles that's pretty hard to resist. Jolie and Fanning in my eyes share the best scenes of the movie together, with their chemistry being nice and pretty touching.  Shartlo Copley of "District 9" fame plays King Stefon, and he for the most part is good in the film as well, though there's not much else to say about that.  There are other performances in this movie, good performances in fact, that could be mentioned, but honestly, this movie is primarily Jolie and Fanning's show, so I'm just going to leave it at that.

The visuals in this movie are absolutely gorgeous, I must say.  I didn't see the film in 3D, but honestly, there isn't really much here that's necessary to shell out the extra money charged for the goofy glasses.  As for the special effects themselves, they all look colorful, vibrant, and very pleasing to the eyes, even if some of the effects look better than others.  Also, I really enjoyed the design and the scope of the film as a whole.  The design of Maleficent's forest kingdom is both haunting and quite beautiful to look at, and it just looks even more magnificent when it's during the day and the characters are exploring the wonders of the woods.  The cinematography helps to make the movie feel big and grand, which is what movies with $100 million budgets should be doing anyways.  Whether you see the movie in 3D or not, it's hard to deny how incredible the visual effects are in this movie.

The main thing that takes me out of this movie is the screenplay.  Linda Woolverton, best known for writing "The Lion King" and most recently "Alice in Wonderland," fails to make the movie as engaging as it could have been.  I understand this is a Disney movie, but I felt that this was more childish and whimsical than it should have been, which to me is a missed opportunity.  The "Narnia" films and the "Pirates of the Caribbean" films were never afraid to be dark while still being family friendly, so why couldn't this one being grim, dark and on the borderline between PG and PG-13?  Not only was that a problem for me, but also certain characters, particularly the "Prince Charming" character here, is given barely anything to do and is just there to move the story along.  This movie could have potentially been great, but Woolverton's script made the movie more child-friendly and more formulaic than it should have been.

Overall, I was surprised that I enjoyed "Maleficent."  The trailers didn't really do much for me, and I wasn't even that excited to see it in the first place.  Guess my family choosing to see this over "How To Train Your Dragon 2" actually wasn't the worst decision they could have made.  Having yet to see "Dragon 2" still, I guess I'll have to judge that when I eventually see that film.  As for this movie, the chemistry between Angelina Jolie and Elle Fanning was great, the visuals were quite pleasing to look at, and the whole scope of the film is grand and, well, magnificent.  If Linda Woolverton hadn't added characters into the story for no reason and made a darker, borderline PG-13 film like the "Narnia" movies, then I think this could have been something truly great.  I have no regrets seeing this movie, and if it was on TV at a convenient time in the future, I might choose to sit down and relive the 97 minutes this movie lasts.  And even if you yourself doesn't enjoy the movie, at least Lana Del Ray's take on the song "Once Upon A Dream" plays over the credits.




PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Earth to Echo

Get on Up

Step Up All In

Planes: Fire and Rescue

Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, 
No Good, Very Bad Day

Big Hero 6

Cinderella

REVIEW: The Normal Heart

MOVIE
The Normal Heart

CAST
Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer

RATING
TV-MA

RELEASE
May 25, 2014

DIRECTOR
Ryan Murphy

STUDIO
HBO Films

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 13 minutes





STARS
***1/4









REVIEW:

Ryan Murphy, being gay, likes to explore homosexuality and the history of homosexuality in numerous projects of his. Not only has this been shown as a plot device on "Glee," but it's also part of the central focus for his HBO directorial effort "The Normal Heart."  This film, in case you didn't know, focuses on a group of homosexual men in the 1980s who are trying to get government support for the virus AIDS, which nobody wanted to do because it was known back then as a "homo disease."  Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer, and Julia Roberts help to make up this film's impressive cast, but the question still remains: Is "The Normal Heart" any good?  In short, yes it is.  However, considering the talent both in front and behind the camera, as well as the subject of AIDS being a great thing to cover in movies in general, this could have been a lot better than it was.

Let's get this right off the bat: the acting in this movie is terrific.  Mark Ruffalo gives an emotional and commanding performance here as Ned Weeks, a proudly gay man who uses his overbearing and in-your-face type of presence to do what he thinks is right.  Matt Bomer plays his boyfriend Felix Turner, and his performance here is both sweet to watch and hard to watch as well, for his character doesn't exactly have the whole world on a nice silver platter.  Jim Parsons of "The Big Bang Theory" surprised me at how well he can act in drama.  Seeing him as this self-centered, obnoxious nerd on his TV show and then see him here shows how capable he is at being a talented actor for the books.  Alfred Molina, Taylor Kitsch, and Julia Roberts also give solid performances as Ben Weeks, Dr. Emma Brookner, and Bruce Niles respectively.  There really aren't any bad performances present here, though some are more memorable than others.

Ryan Murphy's direction is solid, as he manages to capture the effects that AIDS had not only on the bodies of homosexual men, but also in the lives of homosexual men in general.  He lets us see past two men in love dealing with the deadly disease, and rather lets us see them as people in love who are trying to fight a common enemy together.  Having said that, I felt that there were times when Larry Kramer's script was trying to overemphasize the gay factor present in the movie.  I understand if he's gay and this is exactly how he portrayed it in his stage version of this story, but there were bits here of gay loving that felt overbearing and a little too "in your face."  Less of that would have made the story more effective and powerful in my eyes.

Overall, "The Normal Heart" is a powerful and moving film that is important to see, especially in this day and age.  Mark Ruffalo, Matt Bomer, and Jim Parsons are among the performances here that truly stand out here.  Ryan Murphy's direction is solid and lets us get invested in the lives of these men.  Despite the script feeling a little overbearing at times with its emphasis on homosexual loving, and some performances shining more than others, I still enjoyed the film and wouldn't mind checking it out again.  An HBO film that I felt did a better job at showing the gay lifestyle of a couple is Steven Soderbergh's "Behind The Candelabra," which had great performances and told a great story without going too far with its gay-characters, despite some gratuitous scenes present in there.  I admire filmmakers exploring the discrimination that gay men faced in the past with movies like this, and I hope one day Hollywood can accept this and maybe put these types of movies onto the big screen rather than on HBO.

REVIEW: Edge of Tomorrow 3D

MOVIE
Edge of Tomorrow

CAST
Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
June 6, 2014

DIRECTOR
Doug Liman

STUDIO
Warner Bros. Pictures

RUNNING TIME
1 hour 54 minutes






STARS
***3/4






REVIEW:

Don't think you're having Déjà vu when you watch the trailer for "Edge of Tomorrow," because I can assure you that the concept of this movie has been done before.  The idea of someone repeating the same day over and over has been done before in films like the comedy classic "Groundhog Day" and the overlooked sci-fi spectacle "Source Code."  However with "Edge of Tomorrow," director Doug Liman surprisingly manages to squeeze some more originality out of this relatively overused concept.  In this movie we have Tom Cruise's character, a demoted general in the Army, who finds himself in an ongoing loop as the world is fighting against alien beings trying to destroy all of humanity.  Emily Blunt's character, a top-tier warrior in the Army who has had Cruise's ability once before, helps to train Cruise day in and day out as the time is ticking on the survival of the human race.

I believe what elevated the movie so much for me was the story and the script. Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, and John-Henry Butterworth not only created a movie that was smart and a lot of fun, but they also made a sci-fi that had a good sense of humor.  There are certain, I guess you can call them "montages," that show Tom Cruise's numerous deaths, and for the most part it made me laugh a lot.  It's nice to have a film that knows when to take a break from all of the action and give the audience some time to breathe a little bit before the action kicks into full throttle once again.  Not to mention, I loved the ideas that the writers of this film presented, as well as all of the inner connections that certain characters have with Cruise's ability.  The movie itself never felt tired, overlong, or even repetitive, and I give credit to these filmmakers for making something old feel new once again.

Doug Liman has directed both great films, like "The Bourne Identity," and not so great movies, like "Jumper."  This is one of his great movies in my eyes.  The way he shoots many of the action scenes is well-executed and allows the viewer to feel immersed in the battlefield.  Plus, he manages to get great performances out of his actors as well.  Liman even manages to use the post converted 3D well by actually allowing the 3D to feel like an open window into this futuristic world rather than just feeling like we're watching a 3D movie in general.  While it's not the best 3D conversion, it's still better than most these days.  Overall, Liman manages to get solid performances from his actors, tell a really awesome story thanks to the script, and directs the action sequences in this film incredibly well.

What made Tom Cruise so great for me in this movie was that, well, he wasn't exactly being Tom Cruise.  When he gets demoted and wakes up on the naval ship for the first time, he is absolutely baffled and acts clueless, unlike recent Cruise characters.  The character himself is really easy to sympathize with, thus making him a more engaging lead.  Emily Blunt, I guess, is playing the "Cruise" role in the film as the warrior who knows what is going on with Cruise and manages to help him.  I've always enjoyed Blunt as an actress, and here she finally manages to show off her tough, badass side, managing to make Tom Cruise look puny in comparison.  Their chemistry together was also really good, even if they did argue a lot for the most part.  This film also features entertaining side performances from Brendan Gleeson and Bill Paxton, the ladder who hasn't really been in a great movie in a long time.  Everyone in the film is good overall, though everyone else is practically standing in the shadows of Cruise and Blunt by comparison.

If the superhero films of this year are getting a little too overwhelming, and you want to see a summer movie that is more than just explosions and things of that matter, then "Edge of Tomorrow" is your ideal option.  Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt are really good in the movie, showing that they can have fun with their performances along with giving really good performances in general.  The script and story are original, brisk, and lots of fun, though the whole concept of a "reliving the whole day" scenario has been done a good amount before.  Doug Liman manages to give audiences a fun summer blockbuster that never feels too long and is always investing in terms of the action and the story.  It's a shame this movie didn't do so well at the box office opening weekend, because this seems like a movie that lots of people would really enjoy.  But then again, that's what cult-followings are for, right?  Overall, "Edge of Tomorrow" is a sleek, funny, smart, and awesome summer blockbuster that, aside from its rather quick ending, is a non-stop blast in the movie theater.





PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Transformers: Age of Extinction

The Expendables 3

Get On Up

Sex Tape

Into The Storm

Jersey Boys

Guardians of the Galaxy

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

REVIEW: The Fault in Our Stars

MOVIE
The Fault in Our Stars

CAST
Shailene Woodley, Ansel Elgort

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
June 6, 2014

DIRECTOR
Josh Boone

STUDIO
20th Century Fox

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 6 minutes





STARS
****







REVIEW:

As my junior year of high school was approaching last September, I was tasked with reading a required book chosen by the students of my school as a part of a summer reading program.  The book was called "The Fault in Our Stars" by John Green.  I didn't expect to connect and get as invested as I did when I read it, but that's exactly what happened to me.  Fast forward to today, just a mere week and a half until my junior year of high school comes to a close, and I fittingly get to help finish off the year with the movie adaptation of John Green's book.  So after two hours of sitting in a dark room with the sound of sniffling girls all around, my little sister included, I emerged out from the film in absolute satisfaction. Not only did director Josh Boone and screenwriters Michael H. Weber and Scott Neustadter do absolute justice to John Green's book, but they also managed to make a movie that reminded me why the book was so great in the first place.  It's easy to call this movie a "chick flick" due to the fact that every teenage girl and their mothers are seeing this movie as I speak, but let me tell you this: this movie even got into the hearts of the men who were in the theater when I saw it, including myself.

Hazel Grace Lancaster is 17 years old, kind of depressed, and has been cancer-struck for over four years.  She hates going to a Cancer Support Group every week, but it is at this group where Hazel will meet Augustus Waters.  He is 18 years old, has a genuine sense of humor, and has been in remission for over a year after having his leg amputated as a result to cancer.  These two instantly spark a connection together, and pretty soon fall in love with one another.  Even when bad things happen in their lives, they're still there for one another for emotional support and to show how affectionate they can be to the other.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Shailene Woodley is one of Hollywood's most talented young starlets.  With each movie she's in, this fact is just further proven, and her performance as Hazel is no exception.  Not only is her character sweet and bubbly, but Woodley also manages to show the adult, mature side of this character and make it believable and effectively real, so to speak.  Equally as fantastic in this movie is Ansel Elgort as Hazel's lover Augustus.  Elgort not only delivers a touching, funny, and great performance, but he also manages to stay true to the essence of Augustus from the book.  Nearly every scene with him and Woodley gave me such a huge smile on my face, and their chemistry together sucked me in from the moment they met.  There are plenty of other great performances in the movie, including but not limited to Nat Wolff as Hazel and Augustus' friend Isaac, Laura Dern as Hazel's mom, and Willem Dafoe as a literary idol of the two main characters, but Woodley and Elgort own this movie and make their chemistry together feel genuine and real.

Major props are given to director Josh Boone and screenwriters Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber for bringing John Green's book to the big screen with ease.  Neustadter and Weber, best known for writing "(500) Days of Summer" and last year's "The Spectacular Now," have taken Green's book and, while they took out a couple of things that would have been nice to see in the movie, effectively brought it to the big screen without really changing much dialogue or the overall impact that the book has had on so many people thus far.  As for Boone, he effectively captures everything about the book pretty dead on, and even adds a couple of cool touches into the movie, including the way text conversations are shown.  Boone, Neustadter, and Weber have made the most accurate and dead on adaptation of this book that could be made, and the fact that John Green worked with them to make his vision transition well onto the big screen helps a great deal as well.

This film is to 2014 what "The Perks of Being A Wallflower" was for 2012. Everything about this movie worked for me, and I was emotionally invested in it throughout. The characters are relatable and feel like people that I would personally know, aside from the whole cancer thing. I applaud Josh Boone for directing this movie incredibly well and for giving people young and old the movie adaptation of this book that they wanted. I also applaud Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber for taking John Green's book and adapting it to the big screen really well, despite cutting out a couple of things that would have been nice to see on the big screen. Every performance in this movie is spot on, and Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort are simply sublime. "The Fault in Our Stars" is funny, emotionally heartbreaking, genuinely sweet, and one of the summer's highlights thus far.



PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Transformers: Age of Extinction

What If

Step Up All In

Ouija

If I Stay

When The Game Stands Tall

The Book of Life

The Best of Me

REVIEW: X-Men: Days of Future Past 3D

MOVIE
X-Men: Days of Future Past

CAST
Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy

RATING
PG-13

RELEASE
May 23, 2014

DIRECTOR
Bryan Singer

STUDIO
20th Century Fox

RUNNING TIME
2 hours 11 minutes






STARS
***3/4






REVIEW:

I think the main concern I had with "X-Men: Days of Future Past" going into it was how they were going to make certain things from the other films seem plausible here.  For example, the character of Beast in "First Class" becomes this blue, monstrous creature with no chance of turning back.  And then in the trailer for this movie, he's a normal human again.  Things like that made me question how things were going to turn out and how things were going to explained.  Luckily, all of my speculation was thrown out the window within the film's first 25 minutes, as this movie not only explained why things were the way they were, but it also managed to tell an incredibly awesome story along the way.  Exciting, awesome, deep, and fun are just some of the words that perfectly describe this incredible superhero film.  It's not my favorite one of the year at this moment, but that might all change upon repeated viewings.

In case you haven't seen any of the other "X-Men" movies, this is pretty heavy on spoilers for the previous films.  So, the year is 2023, and the X-Men are living in an apocalyptic future that is run by artificially programmed robot known as The Sentinels.  Professor X and Magneto, having now teamed up after years of hatred, decide that the only way to make the future right again for the Mutants is to send Wolverine, who can heal easily from any type of harm that the travel might cause to his brain, back into the 70s and warn the younger versions of the X-Men team about the impending future that will happen.  When Wolverine gets to the 70s, though, he sees that Professor X has given up on life, Magneto is in a highly guarded prison in the Pentagon, and Mystique is a loner whose actions towards the creator of the Sentinels cause the apocalyptic future in the first place.  The only way to stop this from happening is to gather up the X-Men and team up enemies in order to fight a common enemy.

To start off, all of the acting in this movie is great.  Hugh Jackman is better than ever as Wolverine, and it's incredibly easy to tell that this is the role he was born to play.  Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan, Ellen Page, and all of the returning cast members from the original trilogy are all really good in their roles, despite having smaller roles than one may expect.  James McAvoy, Jennifer Lawrence, and Michael Fassbender are among the returning cast members from "X-Men: First Class," and all of them are great in the movie.  Though the younger version of Magneto, played by Fassbender, is a little overbearing at times, everyone gives it their all and in return give performances that surely help to elevate the movie entirely.

I admire the fact that Fox decided to bring back Bryan Singer to the helm.  In a way, the "X-Men" films are his babies, so to see the original director come back to combine the old cast and the new cast together is something kind of extraordinary.  And believe it or not, Singer returns to the directors chair in style and makes it feel as if he never left to tackle other projects.  He showcases the action beautifully, manages to tell a great story without feeling bombarded and overstuffed, and even throws in a few comedic gags that work really well.  Singer, along with screenwriter Simon Kinberg and the help from Jane Goldman and  Matthew Vaughn, (both were heavily involved with "First Class," as well as "Kick-Ass") have managed to make a superhero that may very well represent the entire "X-Men" franchise as a whole in the coming years.

While "X-Men: First Class" still holds the title as my favorite "X-Men" movie at the moment, this one stands at a very close second.  The action is brisk and lots of fun to watch, the acting is superb all over the board, and Singer's direction is spot on and makes the movie feel both old and new, if that makes any sense.  Not to mention, the entire section of the film with the character Quicksilver, played by Evan Peters, is both entertaining and quite hilarious.  This is the type of character who deserves his own spin-off film, if I say so myself.  I didn't enjoy this as much as I enjoyed "The Amazing Spider-Man 2," but I can definitely say that this is the smartest film of the two in terms of its story and its scope. The ending might be a little confusing and there are some little things that don't quite work as well as other things, but regardless, this is the "X-Men" movie fans could have only dreamed of.






PREVIEWS YOU MAY SEE:

Let's Be Cops

Lucy

Sex Tape

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Kingsman: The Secret Service

The Boxtrolls

Edge of Tomorrow

Guardians of the Galaxy