The Hunger Games, Mockingjay Part 1: thoughts

Dear Movie Moguls,

If you're going to split a single book into two or more (i.e. The Hobbit) films, you better make them ALL amazing.  Harry Potter & co. got it right with The Deathly Hallows parts 1 & 2: the first was effective tension that nicely set up an action-packed capper to the series.  The latest addition to The Hunger Games was a huge disappointment following two excellent film adaptations.  If we are presented 4 films on 3 books (or the insane Peter Jackson approach 3 films for 1 book), you can't have the first of the final two be mediocre set-up for the final chapter.  That's a cop out.  Instead, make one film that kicks butt even if it ends up clocking in at 3+ hours.  The counter argument to those who insist on proclaiming "the book is better than the movie" has always been to make a better movie.  Not to give audiences 1.5 OK movies from a single novel.  Interestingly, the author of Fight Club has gone on record stating that he felt the film adaptation beat out his own novel.  Filmgoers deserve better if they're going to line up at the movie theaters and continue to support the industry.  I'm definitely not asking for non-stop action, but some level of suspense and tension would be much appreciated.  This FEELS like half of a story, an unfinished entry, not one that could stand alone and succeed like the Potter films.  At the end of the day, Mockingjay part 1 is a forgettable entry that stands alongside two exceptional films that preceded it.  Here's hoping the final chapter doesn't disappoint.

Sincerely,
Citizen J.Kane

2.5 out of 5 stars (I mean, it wasn't the worst movie in the world either)

October 2014 at the movies

All three of the following films are compelling examples of modern cinema and fully worth the trip to the theater.  I'd recommend each of them.









Gone Girl: Without a doubt the biggest "water cooler" film of the year.  Once you see it, you'll immediately know what all the buzz is about.  One of the things that interested me most is the above image.  We see this at two key points in the film: the opening and the closing.  How we react to this image is dramatically influenced by everything revealed between those two points.  The image is the same, but our knowledge of the characters and their motives are vastly different.  Is she guilty, surprised, deceitful, afraid, malicious, victimized, or some combination?  This is the type of film in which you can't even trust the cat.  Everyone is under the microscope, and director David Fincher is behind the oculars.  He's a master of creating atmosphere and tension.  Gone Girl is a carefully crafted and expertly directed whodunnit with plenty of play on point of view and the ambiguous nature of an investigation.

Fury: If you thought a movie that was about a crew of five men in a tank could be anything less than riveting, think again.  Fury enters into a long list of WW2 films and features all of the usual archetypal soldiers: the war wearied leader, the God-fearing religious man, the new kid (whose experience introduces the audience to war), the foreigner, and the grunt.  Fortunately, each of these characters is brought to life by outstanding actors who blend together and play off each other perfectly.  The tank scenes in the belly of the beast suggest that each man is totally dependent on the next to "do your job - do what you're here for", no matter how gruesome.  Director David Ayer extracts tension from every frame of the film and warns you never to let your guard down.  However, one standout scene took place off the battlefield - the encounter with the two German girls in a worn-torn city.  The scene is still fraught with tension which shifts from one character to the next as the main characters cycle through the frames.  Not to worry - the battle sequences do not disappoint, nor do they feel tired or old hat.  Anchored by Brad Pitt, Fury is a fantastic WW2 film that stands among the best of them.

Birdman:  Wow.  A stunning example of intricately designed filmmaking, bursting with originality and technical prowess.  The entire cast and crew are at the top of their games and have successfully created a truly phenomenal cinematic masterpiece.  Birdman is a departure from director Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu's typically morose yet gripping films (Babel, 21 Grams, etc.).  Rather, the film is enveloped in the world of the theater, with flights of fancy at every corner.   The film works on many levels: as a reaction to the recent influx/excess of superhero blockbusters that have been dominating cinemas as of late; a psychological character study of its protagonist (pictured above and portrayed by Michael Keaton, who is sure to earn deserved recognition for his performance); a genre-bending filmmaking experiment in which the director pushes the limits of the long take;  a multi-layered original film that tackles the very nature of creativity/acting/fiction all while juggling multiple, interconnected story lines.  It's a dizzying experience that's wholly one-of-a-kind.

 
Image sources: 
Birdman = http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2014/06/birdman_a.jpg
Fury = http://imageserver.moviepilot.com/fury-slice-five-new-fury-clips-brad-pitt-michael-pena-and-shia-lebouf-look-intense-in-war-flick.jpeg?width=600&height=360
Gone Girl = http://img2.timeinc.net/ew/i/2014/09/11/gone-girl-01_1485x612.jpg

Lucy vs. Hercules (2014)

Lucy vs. Hercules!  Since neither film is all that great, I decided to break down various aspects of each and declare a "winner".  Though they're not exactly the same type of movie (science fiction vs. action epic), I thought it might be an interesting exercise.  Happy reading!

    

Image source, Lucy: http://images.fandango.com/images/fandangoblog/Lucy-Scarlett-Johansson.jpg

Image source, Hercules: http://i57.tinypic.com/29ykthz.jpg

Plot: tie!

• The plot of Lucy is far more original, but it almost completely collapses in the ridiculous final act.  The film starts off promising, but around the halfway point the scale tips in favor of the absurd.  Whatever messages the film is trying to convey (is it pro-cell phones or anti-cell phones?  I couldn't tell), gets lost in the shuffle.  It's messy.
• Hercules isn't breaking any new ground in terms of storytelling, but the film does take a few unexpected turns (i.e. mainly, the fact that it isn't completely engrossed with Hercules' labors and rather portrays the titular hero as a vulnerable team player).

Hero: Lucy

• Scarlett Johansson has the chops to carry a film.  As Lucy, she represents a formidable hero who has both the brains and the brawn to kick some serious butt.  As mentioned previously, she is let down by an abysmal final act in which she (SPOILER ALERT) devolves into an emotionless computer.  Not exactly riveting.
• Hercules features a fine performance from Dwayne Johnson.  However, he doesn't get any classic action hero lines (i.e. think of Gerard Butler in 300 or Brad Pitt as Achilles in Troy), so he loses points for that reason if nothing else.

Director: Lucy

• Luc Besson has created several great films, my favorite being Leon (The Professional).  Here, he maintains his typical sense of humor throughout.  The short vignettes and montage sequences are used well in the first & second acts.
• Brett Ratner has yet to create a truly outstanding action film.  His crowning achievement is Rush Hour.  

Supporting characters: Hercules

• Lucy has Morgan Freeman.  Literally, the rest of the cast is a waste.  There are about 2 total female characters (one being Lucy; the other being her "friend" whose screen time totals less than 1 minute as she represents the stereotypical "dumb girl roommate").  The males in the world of Lucy mainly serve to get in the way and really serve no purpose.  Morgan Freeman is a narrator "disguised" as a character in the film.  He simply explains the events that are unfolding.  
• Hercules has a collection of supporting characters, who all get their day in the sun.  We get a view of Hercules that is almost the stuff of ancient urban legend.  Hercules and his crew go into battle together, and the friends he does battle with are just as vital to the victory as he is.  It's an interesting deconstruction of the Herculean mythology.  The film also scores points by crafting a world in which women fight alongside men and intellect is rewarded as is brawn.  The colorful crew makes the fight sequences more entertaining and takes some of the pressure off of Dwayne Johnson to carry the film... though that wouldn't be all that difficult on his massive shoulders.  The dude is jacked.

Villain: tie!

• This one is a tie, because Lucy's key villain (a particularly angry Asian mob boss) is menacing but almost absent from the film.  He makes a memorable impression in his opening moments, but then fades into the background as the film devolves.
• Hercules doesn't really have one singular threat for the hero's main adversary, a main problem with the film.  However, it does feature some green undead zombies which are pretty cool.

Action sequences: Hercules

• Lucy features a pointless car sequence that solely serves to check off the list of requirements for an action movie set in Europe.
• Hercules has some nice battle sequences that don't quite measure up to its predecessors in the genre (i.e. 300, Gladiator, Troy, etc.).  Still, they're fun to watch.

Overall: Hercules

• I was surprised that I enjoyed Hercules as much as I did.  Don't get me wrong, it isn't great, but you know what you're signing up for when you walk into the theater.  It does have a surprising sense of humor about itself, and the supporting characters really elevate the film beyond a purely muscle-filled Rock-fest.

Lucy: 2 out of 5

Hercules: 3.5 out of 5

10 Great Films You Probably Haven't Seen

Submitted for your approval,  another contribution to the always popular demand for "lists."  My apologies for the mis-title if you have seen some or all of these films.  At any rate, they are all worth checking out (or checking out again).  Enjoy!

Image source: http://moviedex.com/wp-content/uploads/hugo-2.jpg

Hugo (2011, directed by Martin Scorsese)

• Hugo is a clear departure from Scorsese's violent, graphic classics.  It's also likely to be his most personal, heartfelt film and a true testament to the magic of movies.  Scorsese ingeniously utilizes 3D, the latest technological muse in the film world, to remind us (or probably educate most viewers) of the very origins of cinema - the early films of George Melies & the Lumiere Brothers.  Parts of the film are largely devoid of dialogue and let the images do the talking, as did the early silent films.  Hugo truly is a magical experience that will delight movie lovers of any age.

Image source: http://media.warp.net/images/SubmarineStill2.jpg

Submarine (2011, directed by Richard Ayoade)

• Submarine is as much of a movie as it is a personality.  The film is well-written and directed by new talent Richard Ayoade, showcasing a variety of camera and editing tricks.  It often resembles a French New Wave film.  Oliver Tate's (the protagonist) voice-over narration is eloquent ("I mustn't let principles stand in the way of progress"), but his actions/speech feel much less scripted when faced with the real-life pressure of confronting his teenage crush.  He feels very put together and insightful internally, but is more awkward externally.  Submarine has enough visual flair and ideas to back it up to satisfy any independent film lover.

Image source: http://cinema10.com.br/upload/filmes/filmes_1711_Shame-5.jpg

Shame (2011, directed by Steve McQueen)

• Shame isn't about sex.  It's about addiction.  Brandon, the film's main character, has an addiction.  Brandon doesn't enjoy his vice so much as he is totally dependent on it.  Like Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, he's incapable of normal human interaction and is consumed by his addiction.  It's a brilliant, intense film filled with long takes; some make us feel "trapped" as Brandon does; others linger, like a moment frozen in time, and allow us to sit in on a scene and watch it transform (i.e. the "date" Brandon goes on where the camera slowly zooms in w/o cutting the camera).  Much of the film takes place on the subway.  Brandon's interactions with a certain woman were particularly interesting; we approach those scenes from Brandon's point of view and are likewise surprised at the (avoiding spoilers...) realization he has.  The interactions also allows us to see the arc of Brandon's character from 1st to 3rd act.  I took the subway to be a metaphor for the way Brandon lives his life - quickly moving from one place to the next, temporarily fixating on someone & getting what he wants, then moving on.  No real connection.  No real emotion.  No mention of love.  He lives a tormented existence it seems.  This way of life ultimately comes with consequences as we learn in the film's third act.  Sex is just a foothold here; drugs, greed, gambling, or alcoholism could easily be substituted and have a similar effect.  Perhaps sex makes the most sense because of its relevance to human interaction.  But this is not "a movie about sex."  Shame is a meditation on crippling addiction.  It's compelling.

Image source: http://amsterdamcurated.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/before.jpg

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007, directed by Sidney Lumet)

• The film could have been called "Anatomy of a Bank Robbery Gone Awry."  But that's not as catchy.  Before the Devil Knows You're Dead examines a "simple" plan that gets completely out of control.  The actors are outstanding, each with their own unique level of deception or sin.  Director Sidney Lumet shows us the outcome, then back tracks to see how each player got involved and what role he/she played.  It's hard to pick any one of the characters to root for really... but you'll be interested to see what happens next nonetheless.  It's a great film with no good guys.

Image source: http://i0.wp.com/www.possiblefilms.com/wp-content/uploads/1990/09/1Trust.jpg?resize=590%2C377

Trust (1991, directed by Hal Hartley)

• Smart, uncommonly well-written, and clever,  Trust offers a unique love story about two flawed characters who find love through each other's imperfection.  Many of the cinematic strategies implemented in Trust seem unusual or outside the norm, much like Matthew and Maria (the film's central couple).  Director Hal Hartley’s camerawork is atypical, dominated by two-shots during the conversations throughout the film as opposed to the common shot-reverse shot strategy; this allows the viewer to see both speaking characters simultaneously rather than forcing him/her to see only one at a time.  The film is full of lesser-known actors as opposed to big-budget movie stars, giving the film the impression of “reality” or an intimacy that might be harder to achieve with well-known actors.    Interestingly, the Matthew-Maria relationship does not seem sexual, though they do kiss and show affection.  The key “equation” of the film, rather, is at play: respect + admiration + trust = love.  Each one is there to protect the other from harm (to “break their fall”) because Maria and Matthew both recognize the challenges they are facing and will face.  Trust is an honest love story that refrains from over-glamorizing or idealizing Matthew and Maria’s relationship.

Image source: http://cinemasights.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/brazil-evilpersists.jpg

Brazil (1985, directed by Terry Gilliam)

• Brazil transports the viewer into a world that's wildly imaginative and filled to the brim with stunning visuals.  The film deftly blends dream-like fantasy & romance, dull office life with endless paperwork (literally), beautiful music, and a slew of quirky characters all wrapped up together in this one-of-a-kind sci-fi experience.  Terry Gilliam is a master of making strange even the most mundane of encounters.  Like Brazil's metaphorical meaning, the film itself takes the viewer away to a unique place that may only exist in fantasy.  With quite a view memorable scenes, Brazil is worth visiting over & over.

Image source: http://blogs.tcpalm.com/marilyn_bauer/Motown_TheBigChill2_1983.jpg

The Big Chill (1983, directed by Lawrence Kasdan)

• The Big Chill is an ensemble film centering around a group of old friends who re-unite for a weekend after the death of one of their own.  One of the key "characters" which adds personality to the film is its amazing soundtrack which features a slew of great, soulful classics.  The film plays like a jukebox from track to track with sometimes poignant, sometimes funny conversations about the current state of all of the friends' lives in between.  The characters all get equal attention, as their personalities click and clash.  All the while the audience feels like they're spending the weekend with them, too.  Rather than taking an overly somber approach to the subject matter, Kasdan has crafted an honest, personal film that goes down smooth.

Image source: http://lbcinema.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Harold-and-Maude-2.jpg

Harold & Maude (1971, directed by Hal Ashby)

• One of my favorites.  A classic example of American dark comedy at its absolute best.  The film has heart, wit, great performances, and a fantastic soundtrack.  Clever from start to finish, from the opening credits we get insight into Harold's personality and later discover how perfect Maude is for him.  Harold & Maude is a wonderful post-60's countercultural film that's easy to love and impossible to forget.  

Image source: http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/articles/arts/movies/2013/08/130806_MOV_SecondsStill.jpg.CROP.original-original.jpg

Seconds (1966, directed by John Frankenheimer)

• This is a crazy movie.  Seconds tells the story of an older man whose life has hit a standstill, but that all changes when he receives a mysterious call from an old friend whom he believed to be dead.  The man discovers a group of scientists who are in the business of giving people a "second chance," transforming the man from his older body into a young man once again.  Think of it as an extreme, science-fiction version of the witness protection program.  The film is beautifully shot in black & white by the acclaimed cinematographer James Wong Howe.  The camerawork is as haunting as the story itself.  Starting from the brilliant opening credits, the audience knows this film is anything but ordinary.  And the final act of the film leaves an indelible impression.  Think of Seconds as a 107 minute long episode of The Twilight Zone.  Yeah, it's good.

Image source: 

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjXQwB_Sz-TKGL5xcVTr1PQYekWHzDwmbdd390YOC1YZNESdtwAqEtYRB7E5ZZsUkjE9F1f2CdnC2Ry-1fTnhb7wsymbOn_pn97_Bhyphenhyphen-lu0xgd0TuXNNt2A_oGsF458yfft_4gGGyGLeUh3/s1600/shoot+the+piano+player+%25283%2529.jpg

Shoot the Piano Player (1960, directed by Francois Truffaut)

• Truffaut’s Shoot the Piano Player features breaks from the classical Hollywood modality.  The very beginning of the film seems noir-esque, featuring an unknown male character (who turns out to be Charlie, the film’s protagonist) running through a dark street only lit by a few streetlights; the tone then abruptly shifts when he begins discussing marriage/relationships with another male character who will never appear again in the film.  In this opening scene and again in the final shootout in the snowy cabins, Truffaut does not seem interested in preserving continuity; it seems impossible to follow who is shooting who in the finale, and it seems like Truffaut focused more so on the “feel” of the sequence than its strict continuity.  Like Michel inverts the classical Hollywood protagonist of film noir, the gangster kidnappers (Ernest and Momo) seem quite unthreatening, showing off their musical lighters, Australian wool suits, and flexible metal scarfs from Japan.  Unlike the intimidating noir villains of Hollywood, these gangsters seem much more friendly and unimposing.  Shoot the Piano Player is a brilliantly crafted, breezy ride through the French New Wave.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

Image source: http://spinoff.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/pota2.jpg

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes represents a great technical achievement.  Andy Serkis' performance as Caesar and his relationship with Koba is the film's clear highpoint.  But it's the kind of film where I feel like you have to watch the behind-the-scenes footage on how they did it to actually appreciate the work they put in.  Maybe in the special features of the DVD/Blu-ray they'll discuss how the apes got a monopoly on horses.  The first reboot in the film had a stronger storyline (grounded in Alzheimer's research) to back up the technical bravura.  It also had James Franco, who served as the emotional anchor for the humans to match Caesar.  Dawn focuses almost all its attention on the apes, and the humans are really caricatures.  There isn't one who you really care about.

What the film does do right is create a real, tangible sense of urgency throughout its runtime.  The film successfully creates imagery that mirrors the two societies: apes & humans (massive crowds beyond roused to action by a singular leader, family bonding time, etc.).  There's  an appreciable feeling that the union of apes and humans is doomed, and it has reached a point beyond repair.  And the image of an ape with a gun pointed at you is pretty striking.  It's even more devastating if you're surrendering to an ape with a machine gun, and then that same ape proceeds to brutally gun you down.  Given the extremely high quality of modern science-fiction filmmaking in recent years, my expectations have been raised dramatically.  Maybe it was hyped up too much, maybe I'm being cynical, or maybe I don't really want to watch a movie where the bulk of the dialogue is told via ape sign language.  At the end of the day, I was let down.

3-D? Don't bother.

Rating: 3/5

Side note: I strongly recommend checking out the ORIGINAL Planet of the Apes (1968).  Man, humans of the future are really bad at avoiding getting trapped in nets.  

Boyhood (2014)

Image source: http://www.shockya.com/news/wp-content/uploads/boyhood-movie.png

Richard Linklater's Boyhood is a true cinematic treasure.  Nothing like it has been created before.  The film is like a home video that's been placed into a time capsule and re-discovered a decade later.  Set to a soundtrack that spans the evolution of the film's main character/actor (Mason, portrayed by Ellar Coltrane), we watch as he grows from age 5 to 18.  We see pivotal moments in his life as well as the seemingly mundane, all given equal importance and weight by Linklater.  Perhaps some impact us as viewers more than others because we are reminded of a similar experience we had in our own childhood.  Not only does Mason grow and change before our eyes, but all the other "characters" around him do as well: parents marry or divorce or re-marry, friends come and go, relationships blossom then fade, siblings fight then forgive, and people you meet along the way shape your life in their own way, too.  I find Ethan Hawke (who plays Mason's dad) to be an immensely likable and believable actor, and he doesn't disappoint here.  His performance (along with Patricia Arquette and Lorelei Linklater) are just as breakthrough as Ellar Coltrane and worthy of high praise.

The film naturally works on so many levels.  It has the scope (and runtime at 2 hrs 45 minutes) of an epic.  It has the "real life" atmosphere of a documentary (and really is almost a hybrid documentary/fiction, capturing the evolution of its actors).  It has the emotional resonance of the best American dramas.  It has comedy, nostalgia, beautiful cinematography, and a killer soundtrack (yes, featuring the timeless Soulja Boy's "Crank That").  Upon repeat viewings, I'd be curious viewings to pay closer attention to how Linklater shot the film in terms of shot choices and camera movements.  My supposition was that he used more handheld camera work as Mason got older, discovered his self more so, and became more in control of his life (think of the last moments of the film).

Boyhood is the kind of movie that makes you sad it has to end.  Maybe it reminds us of a forgotten time when we were growing up and experiencing the world for the first time.  But as the movie suggests, it's not the movie (or the growing up) that's over.  It's a series of moments that combine to form our lives.  One moment is over, and now it's time for the next to begin.

Rating: obvious 5/5, absolutely beautiful

RETURN OF THE BLOG: Summer 2014

Summer 2014 at the movies has gotten off to a great start!  Here are some long overdue reviews on some really well done Hollywood blockbusters (and a Wes Anderson film) that have hit theaters this year.  

Unsurprisingly, only two of the following seven films are "original stories", not sequels, prequels, or re-imaginings!  Even those two (Edge of Tomorrow and The Grand Budapest Hotel) were inspired by written works.  Welcome to summer!

Happy reading!

Image source: http://www.chicagonow.com/hammervision/files/2014/05/XMEN.jpg

• X-Men: Days of Future Past
• This retro-infused superhero flick proves to be one of the strongest entries in the X-Men canon.  Director Bryan Singer & Co. have seamlessly blended two impressive sets of characters/cast members into a single world.   The film also serves another key function - to neatly clean up some of the series' fundamental flaws committed in previous films.  With one memorable action sequence after another (no one will forget the Quicksilver Pentagon scene), this one shouldn't be missed.
• Rating: 5 out of 5 

Image source: http://wac.450f.edgecastcdn.net/80450F/screencrush.com/files/2013/12/edge1.jpg

• Edge of Tomorrow
• If you blend together equal parts badass, clever science fiction writing, and a sense of humor, the result is Edge of Tomorrow.  Borrowing elements from other notable films in the genre (Source Code, The Matrix, and ...Tom Cruise), Edge plays like a D-Day style invasion on repeat.  We see Tom Cruise's character transform with each successive attempt to defeat the mechanical enemy.  Previews have wisely shied away from showing too much of the robotic entities called "mimics" in the film.  I won't spoil their secrets, but they're pretty awesome and represent a formidable foe.  You really can't ask for much more in a sci-fi / war / action comedy this summer.  Well done.
• Rating: 5 out of 5 

Image source: http://imageserver.moviepilot.com/godzillaocean-godzilla-surfaces-in-attack-at-pacific-ocean-clip.jpeg?width=1706&height=702

• Godzilla
• GODZILLA.  The latest entry in the 60-year-old franchise doesn't skimp on the action.  The first and final acts are stunning, but the middle third drags on for a bit.  Not to worry, the other acts make up for it.  I'm a fan of Director Gareth Edwards after his creative 2010 indie/sci-fi hybrid Monsters (which is a really great little film made for almost no budget in comparison to this behemoth).  It's nice to see seasoned actors Bryan Cranston and Juliette Binoche thrown into this world of action movie "reaction shots."  But don't see Godzilla looking for well-developed characters.  Go in expecting to see one helluva big lizard king and you won't be disappointed.
• Rating: 3.5 out of 5 

Image source: http://cdn.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Neighbors-Movie-Seth-Rogen-Zac-Efron.jpg

• Neighbors
• Neighbors pits two of the most physically different actors (pictured above) against each other in a raunchy, hilarious summer comedy.  The film doesn't cover any new ground in picturing the "stereotypical" fraternity lifestyle, which is always disappointing.  Seth Rogen reliably gives us another lovable, pot-smoking oaf of a performance.  It is nice to see Zach Efron break out of his High School Musical / romantic comedy role.  And Rose Byrne proves herself once again as a comedic force to be reckoned with.  All in all, the film is hysterical & certainly delivers the laughs.  
• Rating: 3.5 out of 5 

Image source: http://pridepublishinggroup.com/pride/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Jamie-Foxx-as-Electro-faces-Spider-Man-in-The-Amazing-Spider-Man-2.jpg

• The Amazing Spider-Man 2
• Another entertaining and probably the most visually stunning Spider-man film to date.  This 2nd film in the reboot series answers a lot of the questions the 1st reboot failed to answer (i.e. Peter Parker's father and his backstory).  We finally get more of an idea of where the reboot series is going, and I like the direction it's heading.  The addition of multiple villains remains a writing problem in films like this, but the film is so beautifully shot (and animated) that it doesn't matter as much.  Max Dillon and Harry Osbourne are more caricatures than they are well-developed, believable human characters.  Fortunately, their evil counterparts (Electro and The Green Goblin, respectively) are just so cool that they're hard to resist.  For all the flaws in the storytelling, the film really does make up for it with stellar action sequences and memorable villains.
• Rating: 4 out of 5

Image source: http://d.fastcompany.net/multisite_files/fastcompany/imagecache/inline-large/inline/2014/03/3027812-inline-i-6-adam-stockhausen-grand-budapest-hotel.jpg

• The Grand Budapest Hotel
• For what it's worth, probably the most violent Wes Anderson film to date.  For fans of the director, you'll know that isn't saying much (don't go in expecting Tarantino style violence by any means).  Wes Anderson's cinematic palate remains unique, insightful, and always beautiful.  There's always something else going on under all the wide angle lenses and perfectly chosen colors.  This is a murder mystery painted onto the big screen as no one else could possibly do it.  It's quite an achievement.
• Rating: 5 out of 5 

Image source: http://images.smh.com.au/2014/03/28/5302603/HP-SUNMMag-aw_20140328132714733698-620x349.jpg

• Captain America 2: The Winter Soldier
•  The 2nd film in the Captain America series proves to be much stronger than its predecessor.  While the first film did have a nice retro vibe and a bigger cast of cohorts, The Winter Soldier packs a bigger action punch.  Just as the story throws the classical hero Captain America into modern day society, the film itself has some nicely executed old school action sequences blended with CGI.  It's effective.  The Samuel L. Jackson SUV ambush and the final action set piece (pictured above) were riveting high points. 
• Rating: 4.5 out of 5 

Favorites of 2013

Lists should only be the start of a conversation, never the end of one.

I mean, how can you make a "Top 10" list if you haven't seen every single movie of the year?  So here's my list of favorites (not to be confused with "the best of 2013").

Feel free to rip it apart.

Favorite Films of 2013

1. Frances Ha
2. The Wolf of Wall Street
3. American Hustle 
4. Before Midnight
5. 12 Years a Slave 
6. Spring Breakers
7. Blackfish
8. Much Ado About Nothing
9. The Conjuring
10. Gravity

**One of these will likely be the Best Picture winner this year.

**I haven't seen the following films (and many many more) at the time of making this list:

- Inside Llewyn Davis, Her, Blue is the Warmest Color, Nebraska, The Bling Ring, Stories We Tell, Mud, Behind the Candelabra, The Spectacular Now, The Butler

The Best Time I Had At The Movies in 2013

• Jurassic Park in IMAX 3-D, hands down.

Favorite TV Shows of 2013

1. Breaking Bad
2. The Walking Dead 
3. Masters of Sex
4. House of Cards
5. Mad Men / Homeland (both seasons were the series' low points)