BIRDMAN OR (THE UNEXPECTED VIRTUE OF IGNORANCE) REVIEW

From the opening drum riff and the very first image of a comet burning bright in the sky, director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu makes it clear that you will be using your brain throughout Birdman. The Mexican director establishes from the get-go that his story of a former Hollywood star grappling to put together a Broadway production will be an "ideas movie."

True to his word, Birdman is rife with ideas, both thematically and in technical experimentation, that throw caution to the wind and just go for it. As one might expect, some ideas stick and some do not, but among the best of them is the decision to bring in both Michael Keaton and Edward Norton to really show us what they've got.

In an effort to escape his image as an aging celebrity, Riggan Thompson (Michael Keaton) is writing, producing, directing and starring in a Broadway adaptation of Raymond Carver's What We Talk About When We Talk About Love. Apparently the universe has other plans, as Riggan is pushed to his wits end by the antics of a new, difficult costar (Edward Norton), who has set his sights on Riggan's troubled daughter/assistant, Sam (Emma Stone). If that's not enough, Riggan also must ward off a venomous theatre critic intent on sinking the show, as well as his own impending mental collapse, brought on by the less-than-helpful disembodied voice of the character he made famous, Birdman. Oh, did I mention he may also be developing telekinesis?

At the core of things, Birdman is about Riggan's descent into madness, and on that level, the film is well done. It can not be stated enough how much Keaton's performance adds to the pathos of the movie, with the veteran actor expertly carrying the film. It's Keaton's comeback show but Norton, Stone, Naomi Watts and Amy Ryan all make their presences known. Horrible as it sounds, the plot points of Riggin's downfall are delightful to watch in that special, dark comedy type of way.

It's in how Inarritu goes about showing that story that things become a mixed bag. Some gimmicks are actually really cool and others show that the director is too preoccupied with making "art" that the natural intrigue gets lost in favor of manufactured intellectualism. Much as I hate calling things pretentious, this fits the bill in more than one area.

In the camp of things that are awesome, Antonio Sanchez's 100 percent drum kit score (barring just a few classical soundtrack interludes) pays off, flooding the film with improvisational street beats that marry the film's spastic psyche with the rhythms of New York City.

Perhaps the biggest trick Innaritu tries to pull off is the illusion that Birdman is one long, continuous camera take. While it sounds awesome in theory (especially considering Gravity's Emmanuel Lubezki handles the cinematography), the trick works amazingly for scenes with a lot going on, bobbing and weaving in between different character actions, then often fails in the slower sections of the story, leaving in the vacuums of momentum that editing could have rightfully done away with. By the end, most of the film's pacing is shot.

Outside the main dilemma of Riggan's fall from grace, Innaritu and his co-writers have a lot to say on the state of film vs. theatre, criticism, relevancy in the modern age, etc., but it too often feels just like a superficial look at these ideas (better than nothing, I guess). Character nuances are spelled out plainly in monologues, rather than shown naturally -- again blurring the line between cinema and theatre for the worst.

And where would the film be without a helping of magical realism, highlighted beautifully by Riggan's zany hallucination of Birdman himself, taunting the actor to abandon his quest for artistic integrity with lots of 'splosions, which audiences apparently eat up. It's a fun sequence and the most bombastic moment of an otherwise downplayed area of the movie.

Birdman is worth the price of admission alone in watching Keaton and his fellow co-stars do their thing. And while some of Innaritu's artistic nuances definitely work -- weird as it sounds -- it's hard not imagine what the film could have been if the filmmakers had played things just ever-so-slightly more straight.

7/10 

AMERICAN HORROR STORY: FREAKSHOW EPISODES 1-3

When it debuted in 2011, the most profound thing about FX's American Horror Story wasn't its blend of psycho-sexual horror, rather its ability to make the kitchen sink route work, throwing as many horror plots and nods out there as they can and still bringing it all together nicely.

This ambitious approach worked really well for showrunners Ryan Murphy and Brad Fulchuck for a while, giving us two stellar seasons of the anthology series: Murder House and Asylum.

But after a lackluster third season, Coven, and the first three episodes of the hotly anticipated fourth season, Freakshow, in the bag, the major flaw of the series' design is starting to show. Simply put, diminishing returns are catching up fast.

Freakshow takes us to Jupiter, FL, circa 1952, as conjoined twins Bette and Dot (Sarah Paulson in a dual role) are forced to join one of the last remaining freakshows in the country after they are implicated in some suspicious criminal activity. Run by Mistress Elsa Mars (Jessica Lange), a limelight-hungry German ex-pat, the community houses such mistreated "freaks" such as Jimmy, the Lobster Boy (Evan Peters), Ethel, the Bearded Lady (Kathy Bates, sporting the most confounding accent this side of Baltimore) and Meep the Geek, who makes his living biting the heads off chickens.

Things quickly go from crazy to mental breakdown with the arrival of strongman Dell (Michael Chiklis), whose history with Ethel and ambitions to assume control of the show over Elsa cause sparks to fly. Not only that, the Jupiter police are dead set on punishing the freaks, while a shifty conman and his assistant (Dennis O'Hare and Emma Roberts) are plotting on getting their hands on the twins for reasons that might be described as museum related.

Lest we forget, there is also a murder clown making the rounds in the Jupiter area doing exactly what you would expect murder clowns to do.

This synopsis is only referring to the first three episodes and only covers about half of the story arcs already established.

It's a lot to keep track of, and while there will always be plotlines that are more interesting than others, everything this season just feels like the air has been let out. There's no shortage of great visuals going on, with Paulson's performance as Bette and Dot providing a fascinating look at acting, while Twisty the Clown Killer is every bit as terrifying as people may lead you to believe.

And yet, the show hasn't yet tapped back into that magic that kept you tuning back in, week after week. Characters, despicable as they usually are in this show, haven't shown the type of charisma that past years have, with the mute clown assuming the role of most intriguing character over the usually terrific Lange, who is saddled here with her least interesting role on the show to date.

AHS certainly isn't known for pulling its pieces together early on (mystery, people) but the current plotlines they have going don't seem to demand any continued investment. Here we go with another love triangle, only this time it's with the conjoined twins, the lobster boy and the faux fortune teller (sounds awesome on paper, we'll see how it goes on film). Meanwhile the strongman is a jerk because he's impotent, because sympathy. Even the appearance of a ghostly freak legend (Wes Bentley) on Halloween hasn't reached its potential thanks to him being overly conversational.

Part of the problem early on might be the fact that each early episode runs upwards of an hour, as opposed to the standard 43 minutes, without much justification. If there was an abundance of cool things going on, this would be awesome; as is, it just feels like we're getting less for more.

[At least part of this problem could be solved if someone just sat Ryan Murphy down and screamed into his face that "THIS IS NOT GLEE." Every episode thus far this season has featured a hackneyed musical number, owing to the fact that somehow this freak show is focused around singing. This was a cute, inventive turn that one time they used it in Asylum; it then became questionable when they kept bringing in Stevie Nicks in Coven; now the tired gimmick needs to be retired. Forever.]

Freakshow still has plenty of time to pick itself up, starting with this week's concluding chapter to the annual Halloween episode, so who knows, maybe this season can pull off the hat trick and get back to greatness. But just going by these first few episodes, it simply looks like they've hit that point with all great TV shows and are running on a definite lack of steam.

DRACULA UNTOLD REVIEW

Like the main man himself, the mythology of Dracula has been around for a long, long time.

With Dracula Untold, we have an attempt to go back to how it all started with the Prince of Darkness receiving an origin tale that screams "Game of Thrones meets gritty superhero reboot origin." -- Dracula Begins, if you will.

While it may be a pretty derivative way of handling the material, and the film certainly isn't high art when it comes to story or characterization, Dracula Untold overcomes its roadblocks by putting stake (get it) into simply being a fun, energetic time at the movies.

When the Sultan demands his son as an offering for his army, Vlad Dracula (Luke Evans), known once as The Impaler, strikes a deal with an ancient evil and is granted three days to eradicate his enemies with all the powers of darkness at his disposal. However, if he gives in to his unrelenting thirst for human blood within those three days, then he is cursed to roam the Earth forever as a creature of the night.

It has not been a good year for revisionist action films based on literary characters (maybe it's due to the whole "revisionist action film based on literary characters" part). This summer's Maleficent was an abscess of wonderment while this past winter's I, Frankenstein was a bigger abomination than its title creature.

Really, it's not like Dracula Untold is the Dark Knight of the unfortunate subgenre, either. First-time director Gary Shore and screenwriters Burk Sharpless and Matt Sazama play the story out in completely routine fashion -- gee, I wonder if Dracula will ultimately become Dracula? -- with a lot of the main cast, like Sarah Gadon and Dominic Cooper, just there to be necessary pieces in the puzzle. The film's story is nothing if not straightforward and predictable, with a healthy dash of unintentional dopiness thrown in, just for good measure.

However, the deciding factor here, above all else, is that the film is largely really entertaining. While not big on dramatic depth, Shore tries many inventive visual ideas in showcasing Dracula and his powers, a large majority of which pay off. For an action-horror movie, the blend between the two is surprisingly fun to watch, as visual representations of Drac's nocturnal POV and his ability to transform into and control bats are slickly rendered on screen.

Although the film has some blood let out of it by the PG-13 rating, which keeps things from getting too graphically sloppy, the mood and efforts to adhere to mythology are spot on here. It makes no bones about going for a GOT feel, but Untold's moody visual aesthetic -- shot in atmospheric Nothern Ireland -- feels genuine, while its depiction of both vampire lore and the Dracula legend is a nice callback to the classic days of horror. Ramin Djawadi's score also carries a lot of weight to it, excellently mixing the Gothic tones of Dracula, as well as the medieval action heft of GOT.

To its credit, it's also not a terribly long film, whizzing by at around 90 minutes, giving us just the bloody meat of things.

Evans has natural star charisma, and unlike many of his previous roles, he actually gets to put it to good use here. As a torn warrior, fighting against his own urges and past life (as well as the obvious invading army), Evans has the act down. As the undead nocturnal predator of nightmare lore... not quite there yet. That particular creature is embodied here by Charles Dance's elder vampire, an eye-catching mustache twirler who could have an interesting role to play in future films in this franchise.

And yes, it's quite possible this could be the first in Universal's new monster series, picking back up with Alex Kurtzman's Mummy remake. In that case, starting off as a medieval actioner is fine, but the series will benefit much more going forward by abandoning the war approach in favor of atmospheric horror and a much better script.

The good casting choices, strong tone and impressive visuals, however, can live on.

6.5/10

GONE GIRL REVIEW

Appearances can be deceiving.

At face value, Gone Girl, the film adaptation of the 2012 novel by Gillian Flynn, presents itself as a mystery thriller, not terribly unlike any other. But as events unfurl in this tale of the aftermath from a wife disappearing, everything you think you know gets thrown up in the air and the film becomes something else entirely.

Something sinister; something you won't see coming; something that will knock you flat on your butt, time and time again, then consistently draw you back in before pulling the rug out again.

Any project of director David Fincher has some guaranteed level of quality but Gone Girl isn't just quality -- it's superiority.

On the day of their five-year anniversary, struggling bar owner Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) comes home to find his wife, Amy (Rosamund Pike), has vanished, leaving behind only a series of anniversary riddles and a broken coffee table. What starts off as a community search for the missing Amy eventually starts to cast doubt on Nick's side of the story. Is this really a kidnapping or is murder the more likely rationale?

[As a general disclaimer, so much of the surprise of Gone Girl comes from the, well, surprises. It doesn't take long at all before a slew of amazing twists make their way into the story, blowing minds and bladders. I'll do my part to keep them from you if you do your part to avoid them at all cost before the movie. Deal?]

It's not hard to see Gone Girl as a very unique type of flower. On the outside, Fincher has constructed a very technically detailed, perfectly designed blossom. Shots are composed to the brink of perfection -- very much in line with Fincher's compulsive eye for detail -- while the shifting perspectives in the plot paint an idyllic picture, lulling you into a false sense of security.

Then the pedals start getting peeled back and the thorns spear through. Flynn's story (which she adapted into screenplay format for the film) continues to top itself in depravity after a point, while the author's acerbic wit shines through in a number of terrific monologues and interactions, throughout which there is a whip-smart sense of humor despite every subsequent moment of the movie pushing into sicker territory.

Ever since the book was first released, there has been the question of whether Flynn's story is feminist or misogynist. Sorry to say, but it doesn't seem likely that the movie will put that debate to rest (I'm inclined to think it's a bit of both, for reasons better left unspoiled.) But trust me, this isn't the only thing the movie will have you thinking about. Gone Girl is nothing if not an intellectual farmers market of ideas on psychological motivations, media coverage in personal crisis' and what 's really at the heart of a marriage. It's hard-hitting stuff that's presented in a masterful way.

It's no coincidence that Gone Girl is out right at the beginning of awards season because the film has the potential for some serious gold. Fincher cements himself at the top of the directorial achievement roster for the year with this moody Rubik's cube, even though the only problem the film has comes from his not being able to power through to the end, similar to his remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Similarly, Flynn's brilliant writing sucks you in from moment one and deserves any and all acclaim that comes its way.

Affleck does well in his role as the embattled husband (all worries about Battfleck are pretty much gone), and The Leftovers' Carrie Coon steals scenes as Nick's sardonic sister Margo, but this is Rosamund Pike's show. Embodying the visage of classic film noir actresses, Pike is stunning in her role and makes the movie just as much as Flynn's writing.

Gone Girl is the anti-date movie. It takes the concepts of love and marriage and blows them all to hell. Fincher and Flynn's work is intelligent and finely crafted and the cast performances are impeccable. Like a great piece of art, it enters your psyche with its profound observations and refuses to leave. On that level alone, there may not be a better film this year.

10/10

BOYHOOD REVIEW

When we say a movie has an epic scope, it's easy to flash to the image of battling pirate ships or massive space worlds. Richard Linklater's Boyhood has just such a scope but for no reason that could match any of the aforementioned.

Decades in the making, Boyhood is an ambitious film experiment dedicated to showing the passage of time in the most naturalistic way possible. Not only is there an excellent, if difficult idea at hand, the finished result is just excellent filmmaking.

Told over a 12-year stretch of time, the film follows young Mason Evans, Jr. from the first grade in 2002 all the way to finishing high school and heading to college and how the ups and downs of life with divorced parents shaped his upbringing.

It's a big undertaking to have a story that actively takes place over 12 years; it's a completely innovative one to eschew makeup and multiple actors in favor of filming the same actors for more than a decade. There's a feeling of genuineness throughout Boyhood, much of it coming from us watching the same group of people over the years. Call it schmaltzy, but there's a real warmth in watching this kid grow up and go through all the triumphs and pitfalls many of us go through during those formative years.

Then again, Linklater has a talent for conveying his stories as naturally as possible. The director leaves no question as to what place in time we're watching thanks to some comprehensive pop culture nods, granted he didn't need to rely on hindsight as they were happening (one scene even features a Harry Potter book premiere, reminding us all that people used to line up for hours at midnight for five pounds of paper.)

But much like the director's Before series, the thing that drives home Boyhood's naturalism rests largely in conversation. Whether it be early discussions between Mason, his sister and their divorced father about politics, marriage and bowling or talks in Mason's later years as a disillusioned, uncertain teenager, the heart of the film lies in the simple exchanges between characters that reveal just a little bit more about us as people. More often than not, it shows itself to be an introspective, beautiful heart indeed.

Now, it's understandable that some people may hear of a film running almost three hours made up mostly of conversation and turn the other way. It's not completely invalid either since the film takes a while to sink in in the beginning and is made up of segments rather than one pointed story throughout. As an extensive, intimate indie film, it goes without saying that not everyone will have the tolerance needed for Boyhood.

At the same time, that's sort of Boyhood's charm. A film chronicling 12 years of life is probably going to be a bit lengthy and to even hit some iota of emotional truth the movie should be tender. The things that make the movie unappealing to some are what make it unique for most.

And that's ok because at the end of the day, Boyhood is simply one of those rare films where you feel like you know more about life upon viewing. There will likely never be another film to match the remarkable technical achievement of Boyhood but at the same time there may never be another film that captures the emotions and questions of growing up as intimately and truthfully as this.

8.5/10

FRANK REVIEW

Sometimes creative people can be a bit crazy. Or perhaps crazy people just have a leg up on being pretty creative. Frank has plenty of both going on, as the film, chronicling the adventures of a mysterious musician, goes through a whirlwind of bizarre comic situations and deeply emotional moments.

At worst, it can feel like you're going a bit loopy yourself, what with all the ups and downs. But far more often, Frank feels like a genuinely creative being, brimming with out-of-the-norm humor and moments of emotional truth, strange as they may be.

Jon (Domhnall Gleeson) is a young, struggling songwriter looking for his moment of inspiration to help make his music not quite so terrible. After a chance encounter, Jon gets the opportunity to substitute on keyboards for a show with a traveling avant-garde band, The Soronprfbs (don't worry, not even they know how to pronounce it). There, he makes an impression on Frank (Michael Fassbender), the musical genius behind the group who wears a giant fake head at all times, and is invited to participate in the group's insane writing process. All the while, Jon's chronicling of the band on social media stirs up tension among his fellow members, especially the hate-filled theremin player Clara (Maggie Gyllenhaal), culminating in a trip to Texas where everything unravels.

Anyone who has even vaguely heard of Frank should know by now that Michael Fassbender's performance wearing the giant head is the eye-catching aspect of the pic and deservedly so. If it's not clear yet that Fassbender is one of the most magnetic (yes, pun intended), versatile actors around, then a) what's wrong with you and b) this movie is the latest proof. It doesn't matter that he's wearing five pounds of paper mache on his head; the guy projects oodles of nuance into a character that could be just a one-note joke.

But there's so much more to Frank than just a movie about a guy with a funny head. Director Lenny Abrahamson's dramedy touches upon themes like the toll of being truly creative, artists' relationship with fame and social media and bending to the expectations of others. It's a movie with subtle but thoughtful messages and sweet, sometimes heartbreaking moments.

The danger with Frank was that it could become another precious, hollow indie flick. However, the film's genuine emotional core proves it's certainly not hollow, while the humor of the flick shows it's anything but precious. Frank's overall sweetness and naiveté results in some unforgettable gags (announcing his facial expressions and the creation of his "most likable song ever") but it also sets you up to not expect all the considerably darker, more messed up stuff that comes from his band mates. 

There's a consistently funny effect in going back and forth between the big headed band leader finding inspiration in everything to a sudden stabbing or the depressed band manager's trouble with mannequins. The music itself can also be quite good despite being, ya know... out there.

Though the effect of it is understood, the tone of the film can be manic. Slack pacing in the beginning is something of a chore, as is having patience with the somewhat self-righteous Jon, but it ultimately helps once we dive headlong into Frank's weird world and start pogoing between silly neuroticism and unfortunate happenings.

Frank is nothing if not unique. Its strange subject matter doesn't leave many mysteries for why it isn't playing in many locations, but it's well worth the effort to find. Everyone should be able to find enjoyment from a wacky musician with an oversized head. However, if you've ever felt like you're going to mind-splitting extremes to get your creative juices flowing, whatever your craft may be, or changing your behavior so your anonymous Twitter followers are satisfied, Frank should hit a deeper chord than just "funny head-guy movie."

8/10

Frank is now available on iTunes and Video On Demand services, and is currently playing at the Lagoon Cinema in Minneapolis.

SUPERHERO MOVIE SCORECARD

DC/Warner Bros.

The white flag has been thrown. After months of both Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice and the untitled Captain America threequel sitting tight on the same May 6, 2016 release date, the World's Finest have yielded (♪ to Captain America's mighty shield ♪...ed).

DC's flagship film will now release six weeks earlier on March 25.

Before we all assume Marvel was the only one to show a little muscle-flexing here, the announcement did come with a big second half: Warner Bros. has slated nine movies based on DC properties following Bats vs Supes, one as soon as that August. Titles for these announced films are expected to be revealed within the next month.

While everyone on Twitter seemed to jump all this as strictly a victory for Marvel, this is really a win for everyone. What part of "we get Batman vs Superman six weeks early" is a bad thing? By the time March rolls around we're already dying for an event movie, as the earnings on films like Captain America: The Winter Soldier -- an early April release -- have shown. With any hope, this could be the beginning of studios bucking the traditional summer flustercluck model and releasing big movies regardless of month.


Marvel Studios

Marvel Studios is doing pretty good now. Scratch that; Marvel Studios has never been better. Having just released Guardians of the Galaxy, perhaps their trickiest property yet, the studio has come into another smash hit in what will likely be the top domestic earner of the summer.

Meanwhile, spring was also pretty great for them, as Captain America: The Winter Soldier (on blu-ray soon) did gangbusters. The Avengers sequel is on the horizon for next summer and the studio just showed enough muscle to win the game of chicken with DC and keep Cap 3 on the summer opener date.

Gawrsh, all this good will going around and you start to forget all the shitty things that are happening with them right now too. Like, remember that little film Ant-Man and that one director guy who left because fuck artists who want creative control? Yeah, add him to the long list of people scorned by the studio. [By the way, Mickey Rourke is still talking about his displeasure with Marvel, four years later.]

Or how about the fact that Guardians of the Galaxy co-writer Nicole Perlman, the first credited female writer on a Marvel film, is getting continually discredited in interviews by Guardians director and general POS James Gunn? Classy stuff here.

And all you guys and gals wondering when the studio will finally take the big leap and make a female-starring superhero flick? Don't worry because Marvel head guru Kevin Feige "won't be swayed" into doing that.

Look, I like what Marvel's doing, mostly, but there's an awful lot of worship going on that is simply not justified when looking at how blatantly skeevy they can be. I mean, there has to be a point where... oh look, S.H.I.E.L.D. characters may appear in Ant-Man (goes back to sleep).

Sony/Spider-Man

And yet, it could always be worse.

Back at Comic-Con it was announced that The Amazing Spider-Man 3 is getting pushed to an undetermined 2018 date, while Drew Goddard's villain team-up, The Sinister Six, will be out November 11, 2016.

Naturally, this shakeup didn't inspire a lot of confidence in the idea that Sony knows what it's doing, especially among the crowd that naively thinks the movie rights to Spider-Man can and will go back to Marvel within the next five years.

Since then, Sony has beat Marvel to the punch by announcing a female-led Spider-Man spinoff flick coming in 2017. No further details were announced, but special features on the upcoming Amazing Spider-Man 2 blu-ray reportedly confirm that Felicity Jones' character in the film is Felicia Hardy/Black Cat, seemingly putting her as the top contender to headline the project.

First, yay for Sony in being the first out of the gate to do the female-led superhero thing. Clearly, they sensed the could get some leeway on Marvel in this area and went for it. Not to mention there's kind of a growing demand for it.

But at this point, it's hard to imagine that this will amount to anything more than bragging rights. You can only muster so much enthusiasm for a Black Cat movie when Sony hasn't made a truly great film starring Spider-Man for almost a decade. And this is coming from the guy who liked The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

All is not well in Spidey-land as the franchise's toxic producer Avi Arad seems to be more preoccupied with churning out as many Spider-Man related films as possible to keep the rights away from Marvel rather than put the work in to make something amazing. For that, he would have to keep his nose out of the director and screenwriter's business and let them make a coherent movie -- something he clearly will not do. Producer/studio interference is this franchise's biggest enemy right now.

In other news, the proposed Venom film is reportedly now going by the title Venom/Carnage. Might be reading into this a bit much, but I think Carnage might show up in this movie. The symbiote spinoff, headed by Alex Kurtzman (ouch), is also set to land sometime in 2017.

Fox/X-Men/Fantastic Four

Lastly, things are also going quite well for Fox's Marvel properties and without all the wildly objectionable stuff to cover up that Marvel has. Seriously, they're doing good for now, plain and simple.

X-Men: Days of Future Past was a smash hit -- the biggest earner in the franchise so far. X-Men has never been more primed for big time franchise possibilities, with or without Bryan Singer (still no word on whether Fox has officially asked him back for X-Men: Apocalypse. Those underage sexual abuse allegations have been cleared but still leave an understandably bad taste.)

On the other end of the coin, Fox's Fantastic Four reboot, for now going by The Fantastic Four, recently finished shooting in Louisiana. As of yet, almost nothing has been revealed about the project, aside from the origin being reportedly different.

The film had no presence at this year's Comic Con, but a photo was recently released showing what could be our first look at Ben Grimm/The Thing, played by Jamie Bell.

The Josh Trank helmed reboot is set to open June 19, 2015, with its sequel already scheduled for the ever popular 2017.

FIVE FAVORITES OF SUMMER '14

5. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 / Guardians of the Galaxy

"What?! How dare you even put these two in range of each other, much less tie them. Hack!"

Oh sorry, just having imaginary, displaced fanboy screeches in my head again.

Yes, this is a pairing you won't likely find on any similar lists, as the general consensus seems to be that everything about Guardians of the Galaxy needs to be worshiped while, conversely, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 deserves nothing less than to be shit upon.

All that is sort of weird to me because, by and large, both movies have more similarities than differences. They're both colorful, jaunty, visual effects-filled comic book adaptions; they both rely on a good bit of humor; both have villains that don't live up to their potential; you'll likely roll your eyes at some point during both; and both have a significant use of music throughout.

In fact, the only real place the two films diverge the most is in each one's respective shortcomings. Spider-Man, while definitely having some good ideas, is a studio hatchet job that never becomes one coherent story. On the opposite end, Guardians is stitched together well but can thank its willingness to stick to formula for that.

But whether messy or tame, each film lives up to its promise of summer blockbuster fun and is a blast in its own respective way.

4. Edge of Tomorrow

Not only is Edge of Tomorrow a bunch of fun, it's a wholly surprising bunch of fun. Like finding $10 in a pile of leaves. Seriously, my interest in this one went from low beforehand to very high after.

The joy in watching Edge of Tomorrow is in seeing Tom Cruise adjust his decisions each time the day resets to either better or more disastrous results. And hey, Tom Cruise is pretty fun to watch too, as he goes from milquetoast figurehead to badass warrior. It's action-y, funny(-y), and pretty dern clever(-y).

The ending could have used a little bit of work but by that point the film has gotten way too much mileage out of the premise to care all that much.

It's a shame this one didn't catch on with audiences the way it really should have, actually not sucking and all, but home video has a talent for giving new life to under-appreciated films.

Color me impressed.

3. X-Men: Days of Future Past

X-Men: Days of Future Past, like its signature letter, is a bit of a crossroads. Old meets new. Established story meets artistic interpretation. Somber meets humor. Story momentum meets character introspection.

Thankfully, DOFP is one of those movies that can pull this blend off in a very focused way. It has many memorable moments but none of them seem to demand more focus than they're worth. Not to mention it's kind of a blast to see this cast interact, most of all McAvoy and Fassbender again.

My personal hope is that, for the sequel, director Bryan Singer (or whoever picks up director's duties for next time) brings more of a tangible visual style to X-Men: Apocalypse, more in line with what Matthew Vaughn did with First Class. But if that story is as good as this films is, then they will at least still have their priorities straight.  

2. Snowpiercer

When Hollywood fails, look elsewhere. What's remarkable about Snowpiercer is that, as a foreign film, it actually manages to beat Hollywood at its own game.

There's no shortage of sci-fi action thrillers out there. There are, however, not that many that can pull off a film as thoughtful, gritty and memorable as this one. Anyone inclined to think a bit during their gun fights should find reward in Snowpiercer as the pointed commentary keeps things perpetually interesting.

And lookey here, you don't even have to leave the house to watch the film. It's still available to rent on most on-demand services (good luck finding one of the, like, seven theaters it's still playing at).

1. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

There were many good sci-fi films out this summer and a refreshing amount of movies that didn't treat the audience like complete idiots. This film is the best in both categories.

It's hard to talk about Dawn of the Planet of the Apes outside the context of squeeing about every little thing in it. But this is my favorites list so I'm allowed, dammit!

Where to start? The stunning motion capture performances by the hero and villain? The four or five times where Planet of the Apes iconography seemed on the verge of bursting through? Gary Oldman's archetype-defying character? Maybe the emotional intensity that starts right away and just does. not. let. up.?

If all that sounds good, it's because it is. It so, positively, is.

UPCOMING HOME VIDEO CALENDAR -- MAY 2014 EDITION

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (August 19)

Good news: The latest Spider-Man sequel is hitting the shelves earlier than anticipated. 

Bad news: it's because it under-performed in almost every way it could have.

Yes, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 had high hopes dropped on its shoulders from the start and couldn't live up to it all. But despite its glaring problems, it's still one of the most fun movies this summer, mess and all. If you can push past the fragmented scripting, mishandled villains and clear evidence of studio/producer meddling, there are many moments of pure elation in the Marc Webb-helmed follow up.

Stars Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are more electric together on screen than the villain of the piece and every single Spider-Man sequence visually hits it out of the park. Never before has the fun and energy of being Spider-Man been better conveyed. And, even if it wasn't properly built up to, the last 20 minutes of the movie are a gut punch the likes of which we normally don't see in blockbuster entertainment.

While Sony hasn't scrapped all future plans by any means (Sinister Six is now on for November 2016, with ASM 3 releasing in 2018), that doesn't mean this franchise isn't in trouble and they know it. If there was any listening to reason, the head honchos would keep their nose out of the editing room, let Marc Webb do his thing, and cut loose a certain producer who has led these movies astray for some time.

Luckily, each edition of ASM 2 comes with a better than average amount of special features, including featurettes on the awesome visual effects of the film and filmmaker commentary. But the big daddy among them, and perhaps key in shifting perception of the film, is the 13 deleted scenes from the film, many of which include scrapped plotlines that could have fleshed the film out more. The same thing happened with the first movie and this one look to be no exception.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is available for pre-order now at $19.99.

Buy It

Godzilla (September 16)

Speaking of films that had a lot of hopes and anticipation riding on them, Gareth Edwards' update on the king of monsters also didn't get quite the welcome wagon they were expecting. 

But rather than decry it as a bad movie, most people were left scratching their heads, wondering "when does the big guy show up?"

Devoted superfans (or maybe just time-savvy individuals) have clocked the estimated screen time of Godzilla in this latest movie at nine minutes and 49 seconds. That's a surprisingly short amount of time for a two hour film named after the character. It's easy to see Edwards trying to emulate the restraint of films like Jaws and Jurassic Park in revealing the monster.

However, you need something to keep the interest up in between all the monster business. That's where this film falters a bit. All 10 minutes of Godzilla are pretty darn cool but the human characters are largely flat, joyless archetypes and are more serviceable than endearing.

What keeps the film's head above water is that Edwards knows how to get just the right tone out of the film and crafts some suspenseful set pieces with the rampaging M.U.T.Os and their fearsome EMP blasts. Where payoff is sparing, tension and scale are left to carry the piece.

It's honestly hard to predict how new viewers will react to this one, whether it be them appreciating the tone and risks the movie takes or just continually checking their watches. As such, it's better to recommend a rental first for newbs, just to make sure. If you dig it, the blu-ray editions have the requisite Warner Bros. amount of special features and should hold enough hi-def glory to make it worth while.

Godzilla is available for pre-order now at $22.99.

Rent first, buy later

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY REVIEW

We said they were crazy. We said that it could never happen. Yet here we are two years later and a movie based on the Guardians of the Galaxy, Marvel's cosmic D-list heroes, exists. So how did Marvel, at the height of their success, take one daring step further and deliver a movie where a talking raccoon and tree seem right at home?

Simple: milk the Marvel formula for all it's worth and make the film as fluffy as possible. Some audiences clearly dig that; this is a case from the other side that sees all the so-called "fun" as misplaced priority if done wrong.

After Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), a space-junk scrounger from Earth calling himself Star Lord, comes into possession of a magical MacGuffin orb, he's the most popular guy in the galaxy. Mainly because everyone wants to forcefully take it off his hands, most of all the alien religious fanatic Ronan the Accuser (Lee Pace). To escape prison -- eventually keep the orb from evildoers -- Quill teams up with a band of misfits, consisting of Gamora (Zoe Saldana), a hated assassin desperate to escape her master; Rocket Raccoon (Bradley Cooper) and Groot (Vin Diesel), misfit bounty hunters; and Drax (Dave Bautista), a revenge-driven psychopath. Together they become... you know.

I like fun. No really, I do. That's what Guardians of the Galaxy sets out to be, for which it largely succeeds. Everything you've come to expect from Marvel is here -- crazy superhero action, snarky one-liners, stunning production values and end-credit zingers. The world of GOTG is solidly established (in what doesn't completely feel like a flurry of exposition) and finds a nice visual blend between many sci-fi space epics, while singling itself out from it's peers with it's sheer Marvel attitude.

Pratt has enough natural charisma to be believable, both in the comedy and drama sectors, while Saldana gets to be at least a little bit more than "action girl". Cooper and Diesel steal the show more than once, thanks to their vocal performance and some playful animation work, respectively. And Dave Bautista, well, he's trying, so I guess that helps.

Pace, meanwhile, does his best mean-mugging and lands somewhere between Thor 2 and Iron Man 3 in Marvel's one-dimensional villains spectrum. But he sure looks cool.

There was a feeling way back in the beginning of this whole saga that a Guardians of the Galaxy movie would be too foreign and off-putting for regular audiences to enjoy. Looking at it now, it's clear this is as familiar a movie as Marvel will ever make, story-wise. Not only is the MacGuffin set-up a time-worn, rote plot, it's one we've seen in Marvel movies more than enough times already. It's not so much that it's a story that doesn't work (clearly it does), but it's an obvious compromise to make the movie more widely appealing.

That might just be the heart of why this movie is so frustrating: it's consistently compromised to make it as accessible as it possibly could be.

And all that might have been ok if they didn't decide to throw the picture's intelligence out the window too.

James Gunn's script --and subsequent directing -- holds blame. Humor is a staple of all Marvel movies and it's normally in good taste. Here, the dialogue and quips are nothing short of grating, relying more on profanity than anything (the kids will love it!). High school improv shows are the closest parallel to use in describing the movie's juvenile exchanges (Exhibit A: The "I have a plan" scene) and even then, a high schooler might have come up with better lines. It's all part of the movie's "too cool for school" tone that comes off as more annoying than clever; more tiresome than invigorating.

Unfortunately that also translates over to the film's soundtrack, hand picked by Gunn, that almost prides itself in how much attention it can siphon away from the movie. Sorry, but Joan Jett and Blue Swede have no place in this space epic, no matter how much reasoning they give it. Even if the tunes are supposed to keep us grounded in humanity, it never comes off as anything more than a producer's half-cocked plan to sell more mp3s because "PEOPLE KNOW AND LIKE THESE SONGS."

Furthermore, the less said about the film's embarrassing dance numbers, the better.

Each lame joke and misplaced song choice brings the movie down a notch, but every stellar action piece, performance tick or sudden emotional moment brings things back up, making for a roller coaster experience of mixed emotions. It's another case of moments making and breaking the movie.

By the time the underwhelming post-credits stinger wraps, Guardians does end up on top, evening itself out to be a weightless, mostly entertaining summer popcorn flick that should float most people's boats. But Marvel's best it is not, though they'll obviously keep telling you that. With the basic concept sold, here's hoping that Gunn and the Marvel team straighten their priorities for next time, leave the mix tape at home and shoot for the stars a bit more.

6.5/10