Top Five Favorite Films of 2013

Picking favorite films of the past year can be a challenge, especially if you’ve seen many of them.  It can be exceptionally difficult this year because this is, by far, one of the busiest seasons of Oscar-contending films in quite a while, with many films standing out, despite being in a crowded field.

It seems as though there was an abundance of quality in both mainstream and indie films this year.  The mainstream bunch included the dark and unnerving thriller “Prisoners” and the majestic space adventure “Gravity.”  For the indies, there was the emotionally brutal “12 Years a Slave” and Woody Allen’s dramatic, yet funny, “Blue Jasmine.”

There are many films that deserve to be on this list because what the film industry has given us this year is an abundance of quality stories.  Unfortunately, only five films can make this list.  Before I get to the top five, I will give honorable mention to a few others: “The Wolf of Wall Street,” “Nebraska,” “Captain Phillips,” “Rush” and “Fruitvale Station.”

1) Prisoners: This is the type of thriller that Hollywood should release much more often.  With its hugely talented cast, labyrinthine story, dreary setting, ominous cinematography and Denis Villeneuve’s assured direction, everything in the movie is in sync.  The story concerns the kidnapping of two young suburban girls and the lengths that their families go through to seek justice.  It’s a film that encourages the viewers to consider their own morals and what they would do in a situation that a parent should never have to experience.  The film is anchored by Hugh Jackman’s ferocious performance, as well as a terrific performance by Jake Gyllenhaal, which is easily his best since “Brokeback Mountain.”  “Prisoners” is a film that should be given repeat viewings, not just for the sake of picking up clues, but also because it’s what a truly great film deserves.

2) 12 Years a Slave: Director Steve McQueen has brought us a searing view on one of the most  horrific eras of American history.  Based on the true story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), who is deceived by two traveling circus men and sold into slavery.  The film has some scenes that can be difficult to watch, but this is an important film to experience.  Ejiofor is masterful and heartbreaking in his handling of Northup’s character, and will surely become much more prominent as an actor because of this film.  Michael Fassbender is outstanding, yet horrific, as a cruel plantation owner, and newcomer Lupita Nyong’o is devastating as one of his physically and sexually abused slaves.  Also, the ending is one of the most potent mixtures of happiness and sadness in recent cinema.  This film is much, much more than a history lesson.

3) American Hustle: Director David O. Russell seems to get better with each film he makes, leaving “American Hustle” to be his best one yet.  As Russell has shown Hollywood over the past few years, he’s a director who really knows how to utilize a full and talented cast, similar to what he has done with “Silver Linings Playbook” and “The Fighter.”  The film, which is loosely based on the ABSCAM FBI operation that occurred in the late ‘70s, follows a pair of con artists (Christian Bale and Amy Adams) as they assist an FBI agent (Bradley Cooper) in exposing the corrupt political work of Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), the then-mayor of Camden, New Jersey.  The film is one of the most wildly entertaining of 2013, not only for its cast and screenplay, but for its extensive details to the ‘70s era, such as the attractive costuming and the remarkable soundtrack.  In short, I’m already waiting for Russell’s next project.    

4) Before Midnight: Director Richard Linklater completes his “Before” trilogy with this deeply romantic third chapter.  Nine years after the events of “Before Sunset” and 18 years after “Before Sunrise,” Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) are vacationing with friends in Greece, and the two now have a family. The film itself hinges on three big scenes.  The first has the two discussing what their lives are like at the current moment.  The second has them and their friends around a dining table discussing love.  The third is an argument between Jesse and Celine as they debate about what their relationship holds for their future, an argument that seems to tell the audience that this is what the trilogy has been building towards.  Having theses films be released so many years apart from each other perfectly sets up what their lives have been like and what they have experienced, adding a degree of realism to the proceedings.  It is, without question, one of the most truthful depictions of a relationship that has ever been put to film.

5) Blue Jasmine: Woody Allen’s latest is a riches-to-rags tale with many references to Tennessee Williams’ classic American play, “A Streetcar Named Desire.”  Cate Blanchett plays Jasmine, a NYC socialite who loses everything when her husband, Hal (Alec Baldwin), is arrested for business fraud.  She then moves to San Francisco to live with her sister, Ginger (Sally Hawkins), where she can’t seem to get the hang of living a non-affluent lifestyle.  Picking out the “Streetcar” allusions is a joy itself, but with the film’s interesting and flawed characters, as well as the interplay of comedic and dramatic elements, “Blue Jasmine” becomes another stellar entry into Woody Allen’s ever-growing filmography.

Watch for my Oscar predictions, coming in February.

Debauchery and Tomfoolery Are What's Hot on Wall Street

One of the main things about Martin Scorsese that I admire is his ability to make the audience become attracted to characters who might not be your typical “good guys,” like gangster Henry Hill in “Goodfellas,” aspiring comedian Rupert Pupkin in “The King of Comedy” and Travis Bickle in “Taxi Driver.”  These are some characters who have major flaws, yet, we find ourselves rooting for them.  

Now, Scorsese brings us what is probably his most unconventional protagonist with Wall Street legend Jordan Belfort.  In his new dark comedy, “The Wolf of Wall Street,” which is based on Belfort’s memoir of the same name, Scorsese recounts the events of Belfort’s life as he goes from an eager rookie to an empirical leader in the financial world.  It’s not only another achievement in Scorsese’s reliably masterful filmmaking, but an invitation to see what’s it’s like to party with the big leagues for a little while, albeit the occasional excessiveness.

In 1987, Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) becomes a stockbroker on Wall Street, and is soon drawn into its world with all of its perks.  When the firm he works for goes under after Black Monday, Belfort is desperate to continue working.  He then begins a job selling penny stocks, and his talent for selling earns him praise.  

He soon meets Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill), a salesman who is looking for something different.  The two pair up, hire other potential workers, and start their own firm, Stratton Oakmont.  As their firm becomes bigger, so do the rewards.  Belfort starts to sink deeper into a world of sex, money and illegal financial activity.  With these many vices surrounding him and the feds beginning to catch onto his game, Belfort’s life is at risk of unraveling around him.

Leonardo DiCaprio, as the morally bankrupt antihero, plays his wildest role to date as the wolf who gnashes his teeth in pursuit of his greed.  It's really something to watch his character go from an amateur stockbroker to the leader of his own firm rather quickly, and his portrayal of the character through these phases in his life shows why he's one of the most gifted actors working today.  DiCaprio presents someone who quickly arrives from humble beginnings to behavior that is off-the-charts crazy, behavior that weirdly draws the audience to him, but has it worry for him at the same time.  

This is DiCaprio’s fifth collaboration with Scorsese, and it’s absolutely stunning how much power the director can get out of the actor’s performances, and that power is used to make this DiCaprio’s movie.  He is unhinged and unapologetic in his actions because he’s a man who has it all and takes what he can get, and the speeches he makes to his firm, especially, make for a grand performance.  Whenever he was onscreen, I was thinking to myself, “Oscar, Oscar, Oscar.”

Scorsese has also managed to submerge certain actors in a more seriously light.  In this case, he does it with Jonah Hill and Matthew McConaughey.  McConaughey only shows up for one big scene in the film's first 15 minutes, but still manages to make his character interesting.  As Belfort’s fast-talking boss who takes him under his tutelage, he doesn't seem to be quite all there in the head, but seduces Belfort, as well as the audience, into the financial world, like a devil with dollar signs in his eyes and drugs in his veins.  With the year McConaughey has had with this film, “Dallas Buyers Club” and “Mud,” his rom-com leading-man typecasting has shattered.  

Jonah Hill, as a sleazy salesman who is also new to the Wall Street scene, is as funny as he usually is, and he’s able to make his humor work, even while in a more serious atmosphere, as he exemplified in “Moneyball.”

The screenplay by Terence Winter carries the weight of a protracted narrative, and although certain scenes seem redundant or longer than they should be, most of the length can be beneficial in order to flesh out the extent and damage of Belfort's financial crimes.  After some time on American soil, the film opens another interesting side in international finance as Belfort begins to create off-shore accounts, and this helps to strengthen the financial aspects of the story.

Being a character study on Belfort and the many connections he has to less-than-reputable people, the film is heavily reliant on dialogue.  In a lunch scene between DiCaprio and McConaughey, the screenplay reminded me of something Aaron Sorkin would write because of how meaty the discussions are and how easy it was to give myself over to the characters’ conversation.

Similar to other screenplays that Scorsese directs, the story has some parts narrated by the main character, just like the damaged characters of Henry Hill and Travis Bickle.  The fact that we’re getting into the heads of these not-quite-right individuals allows us to gain a fascinating insight into people who don’t have much regard for what is right and what is wrong.

The sex and drugs do become a bit unrestrained at times.  I get that it's a film about American excessiveness in the lives of Wall Street gurus, but a few scenes regarding these vices could have been cut short, and some smaller scenes could have been cut altogether without damaging the impact of the story’s theme.  The depiction of drug use could almost have this movie compete with that of “Requiem for a Dream.” 

Although Scorsese is in his seventies, he directs this film with the energy of a frat boy who wants to have the biggest bash on campus, or in movie theaters, in this case.  Scorsese’s fast-paced direction makes the hours fly by, and he has the ability to draw audiences into realistic worlds that would normally be undesirable to visit.

Other than DiCaprio, this is Scorsese’s first time collaborating with many of the actors in the film’s cast, and you can just about imagine them working with him again because of how well they fit with his direction.  Years ago, I would never have expected actors like McConaughey and Hill to work with Scorsese, but they show that they belong in the vision of a daring and imaginative filmmaker.  

“The Wolf of Wall Street” lets audiences know that Scorsese is still on the money with what he can contribute to cinema.

Final grade: B+

A Father and Son's Odyssey Through the Heartland

At this point in Alexander Payne’s career, he can be considered as a family man when it comes to his storytelling.  Lately with his films, he seems to be interested in exploring family dynamics.  In his 2011 film, The Descendants, he dealt with family troubles in the paradisiacal backdrop of Hawaii. 

In Payne’s latest family portrait, Nebraska, he focuses on a family in America’s heartland.  What’s similar to both films, however, is that he deals with issues such as what it means to be a family and the challenges that bring families closer and create new memories.    

Woody Grant (Bruce Dern) is an elderly resident of Montana who believes he has won a million-dollar sweepstakes.  His wife, Kate (June Squibb), and son, David (Will Forte), see it as a ruse.  Nevertheless, Woody is determined to journey to Lincoln, Nebraska to collect his supposed fortune, and David reluctantly volunteers to accompany him.  While on the road, Woody and David run into some trouble as they encounter friends and family to whom Woody might owe money.

Bruce Dern’s performance paints his character as someone who is hopelessly and heartbreakingly optimistic.  There is one scene where we have a point-of-view shot from David’s perspective as he wakes up with his father hovering over him, asking with a childlike excited if they are going to collect the money that day.  He is a man of a few words, but that doesn’t mean we don’t know what’s going on in his head.  His expressions of contemplation and determination in regards to his goal say it all.

If Bruce Dern's character is a man of a few words, June Squibb's is a woman of many.  She doesn't have a filter, saying whatever is on her mind, whether it be in the film’s highly comical cemetery scene or the climactic family argument.  Every time she wasn’t on screen, I wished for her to return with her abundance of unapologetic sass.  You simply can’t get enough of her.  She will say anything without any fear of consequence.  

Will Forte does remarkably well in a dramatic performance that’s refreshingly out of the norm from his comedic acting that I was used to seeing back in his time on Saturday Night Live.  Being the usually witty actor he is, Forte doesn’t feel out of place at all because of how well he connects with Dern.  His role as a dutiful son is significantly likable because of how selfless he is with doing what he can to make his father happy.  

The father-son dynamic portrayed by Dern and Forte is the film’s most relatable aspect, with certain moments that have the potential to resonate, including that of sitting in a bar and sharing a few beers together.    

Aside from the film using some well-known performers, most the cast is made up of little-known actors.  This allows the audience to view everyone as being a part of a real, American family, rather than giving us the feeling of watching a collection of actors we’re already familiar with acting as a family.

Phedon Papamichael makes a beautiful use out of black-and-white cinematography to heighten the sense of the small-town feel of the heartland.  It provides a feeling of going to places that are stuck in time with the simplicity of the lifestyles and the friendliness of the towns’ inhabitants.

A few of the more memorable shots of the film are long takes that focus on members of the family sitting on a couch attempting to make innocent, yet painfully awkward, small talk.  At times, you won’t be able to help but shift uncomfortably in your seat.  These scenes feel almost improvised because of how you can sense that the family is trying to think of other topics to discuss, almost desperately grabbing at anything, providing some genuine family discomfort.

The film’s photography also employs impressive landscape shots of the seemingly endless fields throughout the states that the family travels through.  The view of the empty fields can be seen as a symbol for the emptiness that David feels in his relationship with his father, but a better way to look at it is that they can be seen as blank canvas on which to create new memories.   

The screenplay by Bob Nelson embraces the old, yet true, cliche that as long as you have family, you can consider yourself rich, and that theme becomes more evident as the film goes on, especially in the last half hour.  The narrative is simple in its telling, but complex in its views of the family at the center.  Nelson’s story captures a family from a different part of the country, and gives a taste of what life is like out there.  

Similar to The Descendants, director Alexander Payne incorporates a mixture of offbeat humor and bittersweetness, the kind that can be seen in a Jason Reitman film.  The movie also carries the bleakness of chasing the dream of an impossible fortune, similar to what can be found in German director Werner Herzog’s 1977 film, Stroszek.

Payne knows how to make the audience laugh at the perfect moments, and reflect during others, encouraging the viewer to think about his/her own family.  Nebraska is a realistic, familial experience, with all of the interactions being authentic enough to make it seem like the audience is peering through a living-room window, or sitting right there at the dinner table.  Payne might as well be saying, “Welcome to the family.”  

Final grade: A  

Just When She Thinks She's Out, They Pull Her Back In

Over the past few years, Hollywood has been searching the book shelves to find the next big young-adult series to adapt for the screen.  Some have found success, such as The Twilight Saga (somehow) and the Harry Potter series, and others have stumbled, like The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, The Host and Beautiful Creatures.  

When The Hunger Games was released last year, the success came from an anchoring performance from Jennifer Lawrence, an impressive supporting cast and a darkly intriguing storyline with political themes and satirical jabs at reality television.  While it was an admirable book-to-film translation, it had its share of flaws, such as too much handheld-camera movements and questionable special effects.

With the much-anticipated second installment, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, director Francis Lawrence (no relationship to Jennifer) is working with a more generous budget and the widening scope of Suzanne Collins’ dystopian trilogy.  Everything about the movie is bigger, including the story, special effects and the hugely entertaining supporting cast.  It’s a rare thing that a sequel is better than its original, and considering how we’re dealing with a young-adult series, a sub-genre that can be hit-or-miss for the big screen, this is a considerable achievement for Catching Fire.

After winning the 74th Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) are dealing with their new status as celebrities.  While traveling through Panem’s 12 districts and Capitol for their victory tour, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) forces Katniss to convince the public that her and Peeta’s love for each other is real, even though Katniss knows that it was all an act to win the games.  After signs of rebellion are spotted amongst the districts, Snow conspires with the new head gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), to figure out a way to stop the rebellion from spreading.    

It just so happens that this is the year of the third Quarter Quell, a special edition of the Hunger Games that is held every 25 years.  This year, the tributes will be selected from past victors to compete, and Katniss and Peeta are sent back to the Captiol to train for the games.  While there, the two will need to distinguish their allies from their enemies if they are to survive the heightened dangers of the arena.

Jennifer Lawrence is a bright example of an actress who has the versatility to perform exceedingly well in both blockbusters and smaller fare, such as last year’s indie film, Silver Linings Playbook.  She’s the sort of talented actress that many film adaptations of young-adult novels wish they had.  Lawrence gets it all right, from Katniss’ moments of calmness to despair to uncertainty to frustration.  Her character is put through the emotional mill, and Lawrence successfully conveys everything that Katniss is feeling.

The film’s final shot focuses on Katniss, right after she receives some troubling news that acts as a cliffhanger for the next film.  The camera is on her as she experiences confusion, sadness and fury, an emotional buildup that will drive Katniss to further action as she prepares to take on the Capitol.  

Josh Hutcherson's character is given  a little more depth in this film than in the previous one.  He has more time with Katniss, allowing him to express the caring side of his character.  There is more interaction between the two that shows their protectiveness of each other, compared to the first film where Peeta was separated from Katniss for certain chunks of the story.

Another factor that elevates this film beyond previous young-adult adaptations is the stellar supporting cast, and much of which returns from the first film.  Most notable are Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, the colorful (in both senses of the word) Capitol interviewer; Elizabeth Banks as Effie Trinket, Katniss and Peeta’s bubbly escort to the Capitol, and Woody Harrelson as Haymitch Abernathy, the alcoholic, yet knowledgeable, mentor to the two tributes.

Donald Sutherland is positively menacing as President Snow, and becomes a much bigger character in this second installment.  His scene with Katniss in the beginning gives him more screen time than he had with all of his scenes combined in the first film.  His stern glare and deep, sinister voice make him a dark joy to watch.

The new cast members validate that they all fit their parts, especially in their introductory scenes.  There is Sam Claflin as the smooth-talking, trident-wielding Finnick; Jena Malone as the brass, ax-swinging Johanna, and Jeffrey Wright as the cunning scientist-type, Beetee.  Philip Seymour Hoffman is terrifically sly as the new gamemaker, and the scenes with him and Snow conversing are highlights.  Even Patrick St. Esprit makes an impression in his one big scene as the cruel Commander Thread. 

The screenplay by the talented team of Simon Beaufoy and Michael DeBruyn (a pseudonym for Michael Arndt) is divided up into an even, three-act structure, going from the victory tour to the pre-game events to the actual games, with neither segment feeling rushed.  Each act of the film is well-paced and carefully builds on what's to come in the following act and gets a chance to bask in the bigger scope.  Although the film follows similar plot points to the original (i.e. the tribute parade, training, the interviews and the games), it still works because of the film’s bigger-and-better feel.

The story’s love triangle gets bothersome when it comes up, particularly because it sometimes makes Katniss unlikeable for using Peeta for her own gain.  Seeing as how Gale (Liam Hemsworth) is more prominent in this installment, the triangle is featured more, feeling rather out of place with the more serious issues that are happening.  Despite Lawrence’s typically strong performance, the way Katniss leads them both on can cause some disliking of her character.  The love triangle is a weak link in an otherwise interesting story.

Director Francis Lawrence, having helmed I Am Legend, again shows that he can still pull off big special-effects sequences.  One interesting difference between Catching Fire and I Am Legend is that for the latter, he was working with a cast of one for most of the movie; whereas for Catching Fire, he is working with big special effects again, but with a cast that’s significantly bigger than that of I Am Legend, and he manages to let everyone have their moments. 

One of the main improvements for this installment is the camerawork.  Lawrence uses cinematography by Jo Willems to employ a much steadier camera than what Tom Stern used in the previous installment.  This allows the viewer to become more absorbed in the action more easily, rather than having to dart their eyes across the screen in trying to keep up with what’s happening.

This is Lawrence’s first big-budget film in six years since he made I Am Legend, and he has a handle on both visuals and characterization.  It's because of this that Catching Fire almost makes you forget about the first Hunger Games film, and has it appear amateurish by comparison.

Lawrence will return to direct the adaptation of the third book in the trilogy, Mockingjay, which will be made into two movies.  Part 1 will be released in November 2014 and Part 2 will arrive November 2015.  Although it’s the least exciting book of the series, in my opinion, his handle on the source material for Catching Fire gives me hope that he can end the series on a strong note.  

There were some pacing issues with Catching Fire (the novel), as it had some segments that tended to drag, however, the pairing of Lawrence’s vision and Beaufoy and DeBruyn’s screenplay fix the book’s narrative lulls.  As a result, each of the three acts has an acceptable length, and each one still captures plenty of details in the process.

With the first two installments behind us, the brutal games are now over, and we're ready to storm the Capitol.

Final grade: B+

Marvel Returns to the Gods

After getting a taste of the hinted Avengers Initiative in 2008’s Iron Man, audiences were rewarded for their patient four-year wait with the much-anticipated superhero crossover, Marvel’s The Avengers.  Now, much like Thor’s hammer, the Marvel Cinematic Universe is in full swing as we progress through Phase Two, with more big story threads coming into play and each entry helping the MCU in becoming a lot more rich as each comic-book mythology continues to expand.

With most of the characters having been introduced throughout Phase One, these solo outings can now focus on adding more to each hero's world and contribute new characters.  Even though Iron Man 3 didn't reach the dramatic heights it could have with its material (Remember that weird plot twist?), it looks like Phase Two has picked up the thrills with the return of the god of thunder.

Directed by Game of Thrones veteran Alan Taylor, Thor: The Dark World takes a bigger approach to Thor’s mythology as it delves more into Asgard and the rest of the Nine Realms.  Although a few aspects of the story fall short of the grand settings they’re placed upon, the film is still a fitting chapter in the Marvel canon.

Two years after the events of the first film, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is remaining dedicated to protecting the Nine Realms; his half-brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), has been imprisoned for the destruction he brought to Earth, and scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) is in London, studying an astrophysical phenomenon.  When her discovery transports her to an unknown world and she becomes infected with a mysterious substance called the “Aether,” Thor returns to Earth to bring her to Asgard to find a way to separate her from the unearthly parasite.  

They find out that the Aether’s release has awakened an ancient enemy of Asgard, known as the Dark Elves, led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston), who plan to use the rare alignment of the Nine Realms and the Aether’s power to plunge the universe into darkness.  Thor soon realizes that, if he wants to vanquish this threat, he must recruit Loki for help.

Chris Hemsworth continues to show why he deserves to be Thor.  He brings considerable godly authority to the part, but still manages to infuse it with a sense of fun, the kind of high-spirited fun that many of the Marvel films have delivered.

Just like in the original Thor and The Avengers, Tom Hiddleston’s performance as Loki is devilishly fun, and it’s because of this that his character is the best villain in the MCU, so far.  Hiddleston portrays him as a truly sympathetic villain, wanting to be as admired as his half-brother, but wanting the king’s throne even more.  He could very well be one of the most emotionally-complicated characters that Marvel has brought to the screen.  As a plus, he gets some of the film’s funniest lines.  

Odin (Anthony Hopkins) is given much more to work with for the sequel, seeing as he was bedridden for a majority of the original.  When you have an actor like Hopkins playing the ruler of Asgard, you want to see him display the power and kingship that you know Hopkins can convey to this godlike character, and he certainly brings it.

As a villain, Malekith isn't particularly well-developed, and up until the big finale, we only see him for a couple of minutes at a time.  His minions actually get more screen time than he does.  That’s a shame because it seems like there are small traces of what could have been a better performance if his character was given more to do, other than stand around, look menacing and utter bits of dialogue here and there.

The story also builds more on the relationships within Thor’s family.  In the movie, mostly in the beginning, we see more of the adoptive father-son relationship between Loki and Odin, where Odin is disgusted with Loki for the crimes he has committed.  There is also, however, a scene between Loki and his adoptive mother, Frigga (Rene Russo), a character who’s featured more prominently in this installment.  We see how Frigga is the parent who truly understands how Loki is feeling, and her presence emanates a feeling of gentle motherhood.  This sequel also has more time shared with Thor and Loki in scenes that build the tension, both serious and comical, between the two. 

The screenplay by Christopher Yost, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely strikes more of a balance between the settings of Earth and the other Nine Realms, especially Asgard, compared to the first film where Earth was the main setting.  With the cinematography by Kramer Morgenthau, there is an abundance of attractive storybook imagery, thanks to an expanded view of Asgard.  

This deeper look into Asgard allows the story to explore more of Thor's home and the secondary characters.  Besides Odin and Frigga, a few other characters who are given bigger roles in this sequel are tough warrior Sif (Jaimie Alexander) and sentry Heimdall (Idris Elba).  There is also a supremely entertaining cameo from another character in the MCU.

As in other Marvel films, there are plenty of humorous bits.  While some of the jokes hit the mark, some of them fall flat and distract from the action.  There also could have been a little less of Darcy Lewis’ (Kat Dennings) character.  

In terms of the subplot concerning the romance between Thor and Jane, while it does raise the stakes, it can feel somewhat needless at times.  In the portion of the film when Jane is on Asgard and is walking with Thor, there is a brief moment when she passes Sif, and the two have a stare-down for a few seconds; in an earlier scene, Sif has a one-to-one discussion with Thor, and you get the sense that she might have feelings for him, and I was worried that the movie would throw in a needless love triangle.  Thankfully, it didn’t.

In true Marvel fashion, there is a mid-credits scene that sets up a future installment for later in Phase Two, and this segment also includes some hints of what’s to come in Phase Three.  Without giving much away, the scene involves an Oscar-winning actor in what looks like will be one of the most enjoyable performances of 2014 cinema.

Director Alan Taylor has helmed several episodes of Game of Thrones, so he's an appropriate choice to direct this sequel, seeing as he has experience in dealing with stories that are driven by elements of fantasy and myth.  He has an eye for the grandiosity of the Asgardian scenery and for the mythology behind it.

Now that Thor has brought superhero excitement once again to the MCU and his second solo adventure has concluded, it’s time to bring on Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

 Final grade: B

When Searching for the Truth, You Might Not Like What You Find

Chan-wook Park’s 2003 revenge thriller from South Korea, Oldboy, which is based on the manga by Nobuaki Minegishi and Garon Tsuchiya, is a movie that if you see only one foreign film in your life, this must be one that you consider.  It’s dark, brooding and unsettling, and it’s a grim portrait of what people would do for payback, a cinematic plummet into a madness from which an exit seems impossible. 

I knew about the upcoming Americanized retelling when I watched Park’s film for the first time last year, and afterwards, it was difficult to imagine any director being able to match its intensity.  While watching the new version, however, my doubt became smaller and smaller as the film proceeded.

Directed by Spike Lee, this film is not a shot-for-shot remake, but rather a worthy reimagining of this disturbing tale of revenge.  Lee does tribute to the original by placing nods from that film in certain areas, but this new version is its own movie and is distinguishable from Park’s.

While stumbling home one night after having too much to drink, Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin) wakes up to find himself in a strange motel room.  He soon realizes that his room is actually a prison cell, with a television being his only access to what’s happening in the outside world.  He doesn’t have any idea of why he’s there or who’s holding him there, nor does he know for how long he will be there.  

Twenty years later, he awakens inside a trunk in the middle of a field, not having a clue as to why he was released.  With the help of a mysterious girl named Marie (Elizabeth Olsen), Joe sets out to uncover the identity of his captor and the reason behind his imprisonment.

Josh Brolin and Min-sik Choi (the protagonist, Oh Dae-su, from the original) present different interpretations of the character.  Choi's performance was more emotionally raw, whereas Brolin is a gruff, rough-and-tough fighter, even more so than Choi’s interpretation.  The fighting that Brolin’s character does is is so skillful and brutal, he could be a candidate for the next Expendables film.  The negative, however, is that he can sometimes come off as cold and unsympathetic because of his violent persona.  As far as the film’s conclusion goes, the way Choi reacts to the big reveal is a total gut-punch that’s hard to shake off, whereas Brolin, although obviously disgusted, doesn’t exactly reach the heights of horrific realization that Choi accomplished.

Elizabeth Olsen, who plays Marie, is the American counterpart to the role of Mi-do, which was played by Hye-jeong Kang in the South Korean version.  Just like Kang, Olsen presents her character as a highly mature individual, exhibiting someone who carries a warmth and caring nature about her as she attempts to help Joe.

Sharlto Copley's Adrian Pryce, however, is the one who nearly strolls away with the show.  While doing so, he continues to exemplify that he is one of the best recent imports for American cinema (he's a native of South Africa).  Although Ji-tae Yu’s portrayal of the villain in the original (the name of whom was Lee Woo-jin) was chilling and quietly sinister, Copley's interpretation is much more threatening.  With his slicked-back hair, spiffy wardrobe, accent and creatively-cut facial hair, he has all the makings of a James Bond villain.  

Copley effortlessly conveys how dedicated and twisted his character is to carrying out his revenge, and yet, he’s charismatic at times, and has the appearance of what the devil might look like in human form.  The versatility of the character allows Copley to successfully go from fits of rage to unsettling calm, and just as Pryce is absorbed in his plan, Copley is absorbed in his role.

One memorable sequence from the original that Spike Lee's retelling keeps is the brutal and beautifully choreographed fight in the prison hallway.  Lee, however, not to make it exactly like the original, adds his own alteration.  Similar to the original, he films it all in one long take with Sean Bobbitt's cinematography, but instead of having the whole fight take place on one floor in the prison, it's staged to go from one level to the one below it.

The effect of having this scene in one take is to heighten the sensation of the physical toll this is taking on John, and for how long he has to be in this fight.  This few-minutes-long, uninterrupted shot allows for the viewer to stick by John as he’s being battered and returning the hits, giving us a clearer sense of what he has to go through in order to rescue his daughter. 

Speaking of the cinematography, there is also the use of high-angle shots, and they create a somewhat disorienting feel, a sense of vertigo as we’re positioned above the action.  Two of the moments in which this type of shot appears are pivotal: right before John is imprisoned, and when he’s released.  This method of shot composition helps to emphasize the strange nature of the events surrounding the main character.    

The set design by Sharon Seymour helps to further understand the characters, especially Adrian.  There’s a scene in the film where, after enjoying a swim in his apartment’s pool, he retreats to the spacious living room.  Here, the viewer has a perfect example of the set design emphasizing the nature of the character who’s occupying that space, with this particular piece of set design echoing what was done in the original.  The living room of his apartment has some walls that are made up of windows that nearly have floor-to-ceiling length, as well as a huge television that allows Adrian to watch his prey.

This setting compliments Adrian’s prying sensibilities.  He’s always watching the main character and having unsettling access to everything he does.  Similar to movies like Saw, with their morally-unhinged and voyeuristic antagonists, Adrian fits that mold, taking seemingly innocent victims and shoving them to the edge.

Mark Protosevich’s screenplay faithfully follows the beats of the original, while also succeeding in not making the film feel like an unnecessary rehash for American audiences.  Just like how the original supplied flashbacks to the connection between the characters of Oh Dae-su and Lee Woo-jin, this remake provides flashbacks as well between the two opposing individuals, but these add some interesting and disturbing differences from the original.

In his narrative, Protosevich takes out some scenes from the original and adds some that are completely new, like the first 10 minutes that go deep into Joe’s personality and family life.  While doing justice to the original, Protosevich still takes the risk of bringing the story in his own direction for his approach, and it’s a risk that fully pays off.

Those who have seen the original know that Adrian has a troubled past, but by the time the full reason for his motives are brought out and the big reveal arrives, it’s a little more twisted than that of the original.  In the case of the original, it’s much more uncomfortable to watch once you have knowledge of the twist ending, and it’s the same with the Americanized retelling, if you have seen the original as well.      

What’s respectable about Spike Lee’s Oldboy is that, although he amps up the violence in certain scenes, he doesn’t have it descend into it being glorified.  This is a tale of revenge, and the protagonist does what he has to do to get through to the villain, and the grim nature of the story calls for some degree of brutality.  There’s a reason for the violence, and Lee understands that.  

Lee captures the significantly dark tone of the original, particularly in the revenge scenes, the prison scenes and, of course, the infamous conclusion.  Even if you already know the twist ending, the uncomfortable visuals he uses and the tension he builds between the characters is enough to get you as nervous as you were the first time you experienced the original and were wondering what was going to happen.  If you haven’t seen the original, you will be just as nervous during the build-up, maybe more so.  Lee has made a movie in which he shows his dedication to the fans of the original, while also making a movie for those who are unfamiliar with the story.   

Oldboy will take you to some dark places, but just like Joe in his quest to find the truth, you won’t find closure until you find answers.

Final grade: A-

Cast Away Into the Starlit Oblivion

One of the best aspects in the art of filmmaking is being able to see how cinema has evolved over the years.  Every decade or so, there are new technical advancements that set out to create milestones that were once the stuff of dreams, and are now a startling beautiful reality.  There was Stanley Kubrick's surreal "2001: A Space Odyssey," George Lucas' space opera "Star Wars" and the lush, 3D extravagance of James Cameron's "Avatar."

Now, visionary director Alfonso Cuaron transports us to the immensity of outer space with this landmark film, his sci-fi survivor story, "Gravity."  He crafts a simple premise of two lost astronauts, and creates a modern space epic.  What is different about this addition to the sci-fi canon, however, is that the astronauts don't have extraterrestrials to worry about.  What they have to fear can be considered more terrifying: the vastness of the starry abyss and the unwavering sense of loneliness and hopelessness.

Bio-medical engineer Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is on her first mission in space, led by astronaut Matt Kowalski (George Clooney), who is on his final expedition.  While repairing the Hubble Space Telescope, the crew is bombarded by space debris that leaves Stone and Kowalski as the only survivors.  Their shuttle, the Explorer, is destroyed, and communication has been cut off from Mission Control in Houston.  With a limited supply of oxygen left in their suits, Stone and Kowalski must find a way to get to the International Space Station and plan their next steps to make it back home, before it's too late.

It's appropriate that Sandra Bullock's character is surrounded by stars in the film because her film-carrying performance reminds us of why she's one herself.  When we first see her character, the way she exhibits such attentiveness to her work has us believe she's been doing this type of work for far longer than she really has.  This confidence in her work is essential to how she exerts herself to survive in the film later on.  We are with her throughout the film's entirety, so we feel every emotion that Bullock displays.  From confusion to fear to a brief sense of relief to frustration to desperation, we are as fully immersed in her emotional journey as we are in the journey of her drifting through the black, starry nothingness.

George Clooney plays his character as a professional who exhumes pure confidence under pressure, and is someone you could trust when facing danger.  He is our guide every much as he is Stone's, and we want to hang onto his every word as he reminds and assures her, and us, that everything will be all right

In true Cuaron fashion, he makes extensive use of the long-take style of filmmaking, with the film being hypnotically shot by his frequent collaborator, cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki.  The camera movements are beautifully inventive, and they follow the action in fluid motions that make the camera look as though it's floating through space with ease.

The first 15 minutes of the movie are shot in one, unedited shot, fully absorbing the audience in the action from the very beginning.  The shot begins with a glorious view of Earth, and ends with one of the film's most haunting images, that of a helpless Stone spinning deeper into the void, and dizzying point-of-view shots follow shortly after that throw the audience even more into the panic-inducing situation.

The 3D photography adds a depth to the starry abyss that will transport the audience eerily close to the actual thing.  It's unquestionable and essential that you experience this adventure with the extra dimension.

Seeing as there only two characters throughout much of the movie, the screenplay, which was written by the director and his son, Jonas, is fully focused on the characters, and the viewer learns just enough about them to care about their fates.  The two are written in such a way that makes us want to spend as much time with them as we can, because we never know for certain if they will get out of this alive.

The Cuarons also include symbolic reference to rebirth in their story, with the tether between Stone and Kowalski acting as a metaphoric umbilical cord as the two support one another and keep each other alive, and the space suits standing in as wombs that shelter and protect them.  The strongest images of rebirth come in the last few minutes of the film, but it's tough to disclose anything else on this matter without giving much away.

The screenplay's only weakness is that the events in the film tend to get a little repetitive as the story goes on, however, the Cuaron duo should be given credit to acknowledging that they could only make the concept of two people lost in space go a certain distance.  It moves at a brisk and engaging 90 minutes, never being longer than it has to be.  A little side note that movie buffs might find interesting is that, in what is definitely a nod to another great space movie, Ron Howard's "Apollo 13," Ed Harris provides the voice for Mission Control.

After a seven-year hiatus from directing, Alfonso Cuaron makes one of the most triumphant returns in recent memory, and it was certainly worth the wait.  His ambition for new cinematic technology illuminates every shot of the film.  He's committed to providing a new experience to moviegoers with his visuals every bit as much as he is to making sure we connect with the characters on an emotional level, to make sure that we become as tethered to them as they are to each other in the film.  Cuaron has made this into more than simply a movie; he fashioned something that begs to be seen.

He's always sure to astound, similar to when he made "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban," which is one of the best Harry Potter films, and the dystopian thriller, "Children of Men."  Now that he has made "Gravity," Cuaron exemplifies that the future possibilities for filmmaking can be as infinite as space itself.

Final grade: A-

A Desire to Win and a Need for Speed

On the topic of car racing in movies, it's evident that the Fast and Furious series has dominated that subject.  Unfortunately, the increasingly over-the-top ridiculousness of the events in those films have forced any semblance of a plot to be forced into the trunk as the stunts run the gamut from fun to insanely dumb.

This is why director Ron Howard's racing drama, Rush, comes at a perfect time for viewers who have acquired fatigue from the F&F sequels.  Howard brings the true events surrounding famed Formula One drivers James Hunt (Chris Hemsworth) and Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl) for a film that has just as much happening off the track as it does on it.  Not only are there the bracing thrills of the racing sequences, but the clash of the two wildly different personalities, which is just as high-octane.

In the 1970s, James Hunt and Niki Lauda have established an intense rivalry upon meeting and competing in a Formula Three race.  Hunt is arrogant and carefree, and Niki is a man of strict discipline, but both are fierce and talented drivers.  Soon, these contrasts will bring their competitiveness even deeper.  Later on, the two make their way into Formula One.  As each race passes during the 1976 F1 season, the need to win becomes stronger, and the two drivers will do whatever they can to prove who's better.

What make the relationship between Hunt and Lauda strikingly potent are the differences that influence their personalities to clash.  Chris Hemsworth expertly brings two distinct sides to his character.  There is the '70s-party-boy attitude he displays as he revels in the lifestyle of a rock star when not racing, something that is immediately noticeable when he first appears at one of his races, courted by groupies.

When Hunt gets ready to drive, however, he shifts to absolute focus when he hits the track.  Despite his foray with booze, drugs and women, Hemsworth truly makes the viewer believe his character is serious about his profession in the scenes where he's trying to secure a successful run for his racing team.

There is one line of dialogue in particular, said by Hunt, that fully summarizes his character: "The closer you are to death, the more alive you feel.  It's a wonderful way to live.  It's the only way to drive."  He likes to live on the edge, rarely thinking of the consequences, which also reverts back to his partying ways.  There is also one subtle thing that Hunt does that symbolizes this quote.  A few times throughout the film, Hunt holds onto a gold lighter that he flicks on and off.  He lives dangerously; he's playing with fire, the gold color of the lighter emphasizing his desire to place first.

Daniel Bruhl, on the other hand, portrays Lauda as a driver who has a more by-the-books approach to the sport.  His character, a rather pompous individual, is more responsible than Hunt, and Bruhl gives this character an air of someone who thinks he's better than others because of his upbringing; he's always talking down to Hunt and his partying ways.  He's deadly serious about his profession, but is easily quick-witted.  

The racing scenes, thrillingly photographed by cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle, offer a genuine cinematic stimulus.  Some parts of these sequences come in the form of point-of-view shots from inside the car, truly putting the viewer in the driver's seat and delivering on the rush that the title promises.

The screenplay by Peter Morgan is equally invested in Hunt and Lauda's on-track rivalry and their personal lives.  Besides the racing, it's beneficial for the narrative to show what the two experience off the track because it helps to display any anger or uncertainty they feel when something doesn't end up in their favor, and the viewer sees how the characters apply those emotions to heat up their desire to win.

Morgan supplies the same amount of material to both Hemsworth and Bruhl, never making one of them a primary character and one a secondary; they both matter to the same degree.  This is rather similar to when Morgan and Howard teamed up for the latter's 2008 film, Frost/Nixon, another story that focused greatly on the interactions between two opposing characters.

Director Howard, as with some of his other films, such as Frost/Nixon, A Beautiful Mind and Apollo 13, spawns informative and insightful stories on notable, worldly figures.  He specializes in his strong focus on characters and their extended interactions with others, and this helps the viewer in getting to know these individuals and their impact on their areas of expertise.  With Rush, he continues this method of storytelling, and the way he handles the drama between the two leads makes the Grand Prix races all the more dynamic and rewarding when the film gets to them.  Buckle up.

Final grade: A

Pray For the Best, Prepare For the Worst

This is one saying that's stated a few times throughout Denis Villeneuve's kidnapping thriller, Prisoners.  The first part of that sentence is easier than the second, seeing as nothing can prepare a parent for the event of a child being taken.  These are also two things that the audience is encouraged to do while watching the film.

Child abduction is one of the most frightening aspects of society, and it can be equally as unsettling in film.  Just like in real life, narratives involving kidnapping can take the story and its characters beyond simply looking for the victim, and deliver them to grim and hellish places, both externally and internally, that those involved didn't have any idea existed.

In more recent films involving kidnapping, Peter Jackson's The Lovely Bones, unfortunately, diluted the tension of the story with overblown visuals, but Ben Affleck's Gone Baby Gone handled its child abduction story stunningly.

In Villeneuve's film, there are constant, tension-filled shifts between the police's hard-boiled efforts to find the missing children and the ethical dilemmas faced by the parents as they find their own ways to seek justice.  What starts out as a normal family gathering turns into a cinematic puzzle of crime.

On a Thanksgiving afternoon, Keller Dover (Hugh Jackman), his wife Grace (Maria Bello), and their son and younger daughter spend the day at the home of their friends, Franklin and Nancy Birch (Terrence Howard and Viola Davis), along with their two children.  When six-old-year daughters Anna Dover and Joy Birch go missing, the parents seek the help of Detective Loki (Jake Gyllenhaal) to begin a frantic search.

When the police don't get the results that Keller hopes for, he takes the investigation into his own hands and takes main suspect Alex Jones (Paul Dano) captive in order to force answers out of him.  This all unfolds in a disturbing mystery that goes deeper than anyone could have anticipated.

Hugh Jackman gives a career-best performance as a father who will go to dark lengths to get his child back.  He's an actor who can bring an immense power to a film whenever he's on screen, and the fatherly determination of his character is the catalyst for the audience to ask themselves what they would do in this unthinkable and frighteningly plausible scenario.

 His morally-questionable actions can cause stirring debates because Keller's actions encourage the audience to ponder if he's justified in his actions, despite how horrifying the situation is.  Jackman portrays his character as someone who truly believes that he's right in what he's doing, hardly ever expressing any doubt or indecision as he locks up and tortures Alex, leaving the audience to wonder if he has any conscious or sense of humanity during this trying time.

Although Jake Gyllenhaal has a youthful appearance, he plays his character as a detective who has much confidence in his profession.  He is an individual of a calm and reassuring stance when providing comfort for the two families, but is a very different person when interrogating the suspects.

The first time we meet him is when he's having dinner alone at a Chinese restaurant on Thanksgiving.  He is essentially a loner in most of his work on this case, going along without much help from any other cop, and the socially-introverted personality that Gyllenhaal gives the character compliments it.  Despite that, it's clear he has the seasoned, interrogation-room ruggedness that's needed to solve the case at hand.

Paul Dano is another character in the film who causes the audience to be split on how it views him.  He has the appearance and withdrawn personality of someone who looks as though he is hiding something heinous, but the way he's victimized by Keller without any substantial evidence of being a kidnapper creates some doubt to him being guilty. 

The screenplay by Aaron Guzikowski carefully doles out its clues to keep the audience invested, without giving too much away at once.  As more clues are revealed, it's easy for the audience to give itself over to the film and try to piece everything together with each plot revelation.

The two-and-a-half-hour length of the story allows for the mystery to grip the viewer slowly in its barbed vice until it becomes tight enough that the viewer becomes as obsessed with solving the crime as Detective Loki, and if the viewer thinks that the character motivations make for stimulating talking points, then the ending will ignite discussions in the minutes following the film's cut-to-black.

One of the best parts of the story comes from Detective Loki being more reasonable in his actions and Keller being the opposite in his ferocity, and this is a genius aspect of the film because it looks as though the two are engaged in a good-cop-bad-cop routine that neither realizes they are playing.

The way the characters are written, particularly Keller and Alex, has the audience question if Keller is justified in his actions and if Alex is truly an abductor, or if Alex is innocent and Keller has become an abductor himself by holding the suspect against his will.

Director Villeneuve explores people's dark intentions that they don't even realize are there until they are called upon.  Although Jackman and Gyllenhaal are the two at the center of the story, Villeneuve still gets terrific and memorable performances out of his entire cast.  With the characters who are involved in the scenes with Alex being held captive, especially Keller, the film begs the question: When trying to save your child, do morals matter?

The mood that Villeneuve creates with the technical aspects of the film reinforces the dark nature of the protagonists as they try to take action into their own hands.  With the bleak coloring of Roger A. Deakins' cinematography, the effective lack of lighting in certain scenes, and the gloomy and rainy atmosphere, there is a sense of danger and hopelessness that makes it almost feel as though the viewer is watching a David Fincher film, particularly The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Zodiac and Seven.

Despite Prisoners dealing with situations that are nightmarish to even think about, it's a grimly gripping film mystery that any adult moviegoer should get involved in.

Final grade: A 

Animal House

It seems that the subject of home invasion has become this year's trend in horror movies.  Earlier this summer, there was The Purge, which focused on a one-night-a-year free-for-all where people could murder each other without consequence.  Now, the end of the season has brought the ominously titled You're Next.

Home invasion is one of the scarier topics of terror because of its frightening plausibility.  Directed by Adam Wingard, the film isn't as tightly tense as it should be, but it holds a few treats that make it worth watching more than most films of the horror genre in the last few years.

Erin (Sharni Vinson) is invited by her boyfriend, Crispian (A.J. Bowen), to spend some time with his well-to-do family at their secluded vacation home.  This includes his parents, two brothers and their girlfriends, and his sister and her boyfriend.  In the middle of their dinner one night, a group of three animal-mask-wearing intruders suddenly and viciously attack.  As the family attempts to do everything they can to survive the night, it turns out that one of them possesses the required skills to fight back.

Sharni Vinson, with the methods she uses to combat the assailants, has her character of Erin deserving to fall in the realm of tough horror movie heroes, such as Sidney Prescott of Scream, Nancy Thompson of A Nightmare on Elm Street and Laurie Strode of Halloween.  In this case, however, Erin could even be considered as a Horror Movie Protagonist 2.0 with how she handles herself in the film's deadly situations.  Erin is a strong individual who is positively fearless in the way she takes charge, and is a tremendously competent fighter.

She is also rather creative in her ways of taking down the killers, particularly in one scene where she finds a rather grisly way to use a blender as a tool for bloodshed, and she even takes down one attacker in a fashion similar to what James Stewart does to Raymond Burr in Rear Window.  Some of the traps she sets also bring forth a bloody Home Alone vibe.

The screenplay by Simon Barrett presents a clever touch of how even the most well-off families have their share of problems.  What gives this aspect a comical punch is when Erin tells Crispian how lucky he is to come from a good family, only to have the dinner table erupt into an argument the first night they all have dinner together.  Some of the film's best dark humor comes from the twist.  Not to give anything away, but it goes back to the theme of family dysfunction that is shown in the dinner scene, and amps it up considerably.  There's even a good dose of biting irony at the film's closing.

Although the dark wit helps to keep the movie afloat, there isn't much tension throughout.  There are some decent moments of dread in the first half, but once the twist reveals the killers' identities at the middle mark, much of the film afterwards becomes fairly predictable, including the killers' motives, which are revealed later on.

Director Wingard maintains the darkly humorous tone throughout the movie, even though the film's second half isn't quite as fun as the first.  His use of wit in a slasher-movie backdrop is reminiscent of what Wes Craven did for his Scream films.  If Wingard can integrate the smarts in any possible future horror-movie projects as he does with You're Next, he can be one of the next directors to watch out for in this genre.

Final grade: B

More Superheroes, But Less Super

Three years ago, director Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass unleashed two young and daring superheroes into the mix of comic-book cinema: the teenage-nerd-turned-city-savior Kick-Ass, and the child weapon-wielding prodigy known as Hit-Girl.  Based on the comic-book series by Mark Millar and John Romita Jr., it was a superhero movie that had a humorous depiction of amateur vigilantes.

Kick-Ass 2, directed by Jeff Wadlow, follows a different, but inferior approach to the continuation of the story.  Where many superhero sequels should outshine their predecessors, this one feels more like an annoying sidekick to the first.

In New York City, there has been an increase of individuals who wish to follow in the footsteps of Kick-Ass's latest valiance.  Now, in his senior year of high school and not sure what to do with his life, Dave Lizewski/Kick-Ass (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) wants to create a superhero team with Mindy Macready/Hit-Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz).  After Mindy is caught going out as Hit-Girl, against her guardian's wishes, she is forbidden to continue her heroic deeds.  As a result, Kick-Ass finds and joins a group of superheroes, known as Justice Forever.  Meanwhile, Chris D'Amico (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) sets out to form a team of super villains to avenge his father, who died at the hands of Kick-Ass.

Now that Taylor-Johnson's character of Dave has grown into his ability to be Kick-Ass, both sides of his role exemplify a confidence that has helped him develop into a hero.  He isn't the timid, Peter-Parker like outcast audiences were introduced to in the previous film, but a more experienced superhero who can now bring some serious damage to the film's many brawls.

Although Taylor-Johnson and Mintz-Plasse reprise their roles effectively, Grace Moretz gives the standout performance in the film.  She has grown into a mature young actress, and is still getting better.  Having evolved from a preteen from the first film to a shy high-school freshman, the viewer sees her gleeful ruthlessness when she dons her cape, but can also sense the insecurities she carries as she walks through the school hallways as a normal girl.

 There's a scene where her character learns to be herself, and this new-found confidence helps her stand up to the popular girls.  Because of her strong personality as Hit-Girl, there was reason to hope that she would throw some of her scorpion-sting remarks to bring down the clique, however, her retaliation quickly turns into an embarrassing display of crude humor that seems to be above her character, as well as the movie, given how smart the first one was.

One would think that a sequel with more heroes to showcase would take advantage of the opportunity and flesh them out a bit beyond their brief origin stories, but many of them are fairly forgettable, even Doctor Gravity, played by Donald Faison, who was superbly funny on Scrubs.

The best new addition to the Kick-Ass universe is Jim Carrey, who plays Justice Forever leader Colonel Stars and Stripes.  He doesn't use his typical Carrey mannerisms and humorous physical movements, which is fine because they would have seemed awkward with his superhero character.  *SPOILER ALERT* Unfortunately, what could have been a terrifically funny and different performance from him is cut short.

The screenplay from Wadlow, in what can be guessed as an attempt to top the previous film, as is the case with some comedy-franchise sequels, tries too hard to get even more laughs by employing gross-out humor in certain spots.  There are also some issues with the plot concerning Dave's love life.  His girlfriend Katie (Lyndsy Fonseca) gets upset with him when she thinks he is dating Mindy, and then this issue is forgotten and never resolved.  It's frustrating because Katie is who Dave wanted to be with in the first movie, and they don't even try to fix the problem.  He then begins a relationship with a member of Justice Forever, which doesn't go anywhere and is suddenly dropped before the end without any explanation.

The difference between Matthew Vaughn and Jeff Wadlow is that Vaughn struck an acceptable balance between the heavy violence and dark humor that reinforced each other in the first installment, whereas Wadlow emphasizes so much on the over-the-top violence that the humor is almost gone.  There are even a couple of scenes where the violence gets so potent that it transforms material from being darkly funny to just dark, particularly a scene where the super villains take on a group of police in a local neighborhood.

Kick-Ass 2 tries to do what most superhero sequels do, and that's to add more action to top the predecessor.  But, supplying more doesn't always guarantee success.  In most cases, all a filmmaker has to do is retain the spirit of what has worked before.  It might have been fine if the fight scenes kept some of their wit, but it simply becomes too much at times that it's almost jarring.

While there are many superheroes that deserve plenty of save-the-day adventures, Kick-Ass should probably just stay on the panels of his comics.

Final grade: C-

A Night Out With Friends, A Young Life Taken

There's a scene in the first 20 minutes of Ryan Coogler's drama Fruitvale Station that offers some disturbing foreshadowing for the main character.  Oscar Grant (Michael B. Jordan), stops at a gas station to fill up his car, and notices a stray pit bull a few feet away.  He kneels down to pet it, and then returns to filling his car.  He then hears a car speed by behind him and hit something.  That something turns out to be the dog, who soon dies from its injuries.  What makes this scene a reflection of Oscar is that pit bulls tend to be misunderstood as violent animals, and this dog's life was cut short.  Oscar was accused of wrongdoing by the police, and was gunned down.

In Coogler's film, which is based on a true story, he chronicles the final 24 hours in the life of Oscar.  Because of the condensed time frame of the film, the audience is with Oscar through the entirety of his last day, from the interactions with his loving family to the errands of preparing for New Year's Eve to a harrowing clash with the police.

Oscar is a 22-year-old resident of Hayward, California who is trying to get his life in order after being released from prison.  He wants to create a better lifestyle for his girlfriend Sophina (Melonie Diaz) and daughter Tatiana (Ariana Neal), while also trying to be a responsible and trustworthy son for his mother (Octavia Spencer).  Everything that happens on the day of Dec. 31, 2008 eventually leads to Oscar and his friends having a confrontation with the police on a platform in the Fruitvale train station.

Michael B. Jordan presents his character as an individual who has an avid sincerity in wanting to improve his life and gain the respect of his family.  He presents Oscar as a caring father, a loving husband and a devoted son.  The ability with which he is able to display all of these sides to this character makes the prior knowledge of his untimely end all the more tragic.  A true actor can lose himself in a role, and that's what happens with Jordan.  He connects so well with his on-screen mother, wife, daughter and friends, that those bonds compliment the film's realistic aesthetic.  The barrier between Jordan's portrayal of Oscar and the real Oscar is gone.

In their supporting roles as the women of Oscar's life, Octavia Spencer and Melonie Diaz bring the strong nature of their characters that keeps them going in tough times.  Spencer plays her role as a mother who only wishes for the safety of her son and for him to improve his life.  There's a flashback scene where she visits him in jail and tells him that she won't do it anymore if he won't better himself.  She then leaves without giving him so much as a hug as he calls out to her and is restrained by security.  While this is happening, the viewer see's the conflicted emotions on her face.  She hates to be doing this to him, but knows it's the right thing to do.

Diaz portrays her character as a mother with the power to show strength in numerous hard situations, such as Oscar's killing, finding out that he had cheated on her at one point, and realizing he had lied to her about being able to find a job.  But, when she has to tell her daughter that her father has died, the mother-daughter connection the two share becomes significantly more important because they will need each other now more than ever.  In this scene, the viewer gets an idea of the strength that they will need to instill in each other in order to carry on.

The cinematography by Rachel Morrison successfully makes this film appear to be a day-in-the-life type of story, a tribute to Oscar.  It is filmed with an unsteady camera in many long takes, creating the illusion of the story unfolding in real time.  It plays out almost like a documentary, which helps in making the performances very grounded in reality.

Although the film only takes place in a single day, Coogler's screenplay is very immersive in Oscar's life.  The way the story is constructed shows the kind of person that Oscar was and the lifestyle he wanted to gain with his family.  Not only does the story show him trying to get his life together, but it also displays Oscar engaging in acts of kindness to strangers that he meets within his last 24 hours.  It's quite an achievement to write a narrative that takes place over a limited time span, while still giving the audience an idea of exactly the type of person the protagonist is.

Fruitvale Station is not only a portrait of man who was, but of a man who could have been.

Final grade: A

James Wan Returns to Troubled Real Estate

For the horror genre these days, any approach can feel worn out, whether the story focuses on slashers, hellish monsters, the undead or haunted houses.  Many filmmakers in the past few years who have dipped into horror have failed to live up to the standards of those set by Alfred Hitchcock, Wes Craven and John Carpenter.  Atmosphere and tension, nowadays, are usually sidelined for a simplistic showcase of blood and gore.

James Wan, however, is one director who understands how to effectively scare an audience.  Through his distinct visual style, he has contributed some striking renovations to haunted houses in film.  He accomplished this for his 2011 film Insidious, and has done it again for his latest cover-your-eyes horror film The Conjuring.  With his method of execution, he proves once again that all a viewer needs to be frightened is the anticipation of what's waiting around the corner or behind a closed door, factors that he makes scarier than they have been in years.

In 1971, Roger and Carolyn Perron (Ron Livingston and Lili Taylor), along with their five daughters, move into an old farmhouse in Harrisville, Rhode Island.  Not long after they settle in, the family begins to experience some strange occurrences.  As the family's sense of unease heightens, they set out to seek the help of paranormal researchers Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga).  As investigations on the house get underway, the Warrens reveal to the Perron family that the house is haunted by several spirits, but that there is one that is so aggressive to protect the house that was once its own, that it will do anything to reclaim it.

Although the performances are generally fine for a horror film, it's Lili Taylor and Vera Farmiga that give the best work.  Taylor portrays her character as a mother who will do anything to protect her children and husband, particularly in one scene where she walks around the house late at night to investigate some strange sounds.  In this sequence, the viewer knows that she means business when trying to intimidate whatever it is that's in the house, but she also showcases her vulnerability in not knowing what she's dealing with.

Farmiga's character is fairly similar.  Just like Carolyn, Lorraine is a mother.  The way her character presents herself with a calming smile and friendly posture when she first enters the Perron household shows her as a comforting presence to those around her.  She holds a motherly quality in her character, extending her maternal personality to people outside her own family, people she is promising to help.  Similar to Carolyn, Lorraine showcases her own vulnerability when she's investigating the case, having suffered some psychological damage from a previous exorcism, damage that becomes more evident as she sinks deeper into the house's horrific history.

Cinematographer John R. Leonetti, who also collaborated with Wan for Insidious, uses some of the same photography methods from that film to frame The Conjuring's characters and settings.  He uses several long takes to capture extended views of the home's interior.  The first shot of the house, which is a long take, comes from inside as the camera looks at a window, and then slowly zooms in closer to watch the family as it arrives.  It's like seeing the family through the eyes of the demonic entity that resides within.  The use of long takes and an unsteady camera create a feeling of unease as they track the characters around the house as the viewer wonders what horrors await to be revealed in these unbroken shots.  In these cases, what makes this filming method unsettling is how the audience is following these characters and searching with them as they are going through the house from room to room, unsuspecting of what will be found.

The screenplay by Chad and Carey Hayes not only focuses on the Perron family and their troubles, but also puts in a few scenes at the Warren household that show how they are dealing with the case.  The viewer sees the toll that the supernatural is taking on Ed and Lorraine, especially the latter, and it's clear that the couple has as much at stake in the situation as the Perrons.  Besides the scares, there is plenty of focus on characters, and this helps keep the film from being a generic haunted-house routine.

There are some horror cliches, however, that creep their way into the story.  We have the dog that senses trouble before the family does, birds that crash into the house, and very prominent appearances from a possessed doll.  In fact, the opening shot is a close-up of the doll's face.  If it wasn't for director Wan's ability to craft a heart-pounding and spooky ambiance, those aforementioned tropes would cripple this film.

Wan has a noticeable talent for slowly building the tension in his horror films.  He did it with the first Saw film (the more psychological and, thankfully, least bloody of all seven), and with Insidious two years ago.  By prolonging the shocks, he doesn't give it away all at once.  He can hold off on the scares for a while until it's difficult to tell when the moment will come that will cause the viewers to spring out of their seats, which is a significant aspect of the terror in his films.

Wan is also adept with the handling of the characters.  They're not cheap, expendable characters that garner only indifference from the audience, but are people that are easy to care about who have lives to fight for.  With The Conjuring, Wan has made himself the new host of haunted houses in modern horror cinema.

Final grade: B+