"Captain Phillips" 4 stars out of 4 (A)

There is something about Tom Hanks that I've always loved as a movie-watcher. I remember very vividly seeing movie after movie with him in it during my childhood. It almost seemed like he was the only male actor there was (with the exception of the "Ghostbusters" cast and Bruce Willis). I would sit with my Dad and watch movies like "Turner and Hooch", "The Money Pit", "Big", and "A League of Their Own". There was something about his demeanor that resonated with me and made me feel almost like home. He is the closest our generation has to a Jimmy Stewart and more than likely the closest we will ever get. Hanks has always found a way to take the stereotypical "crowd-pleasing" and "accessible" Hollywood film and inject it with a sense of life that is not typical. He has made us cry in more films than probably any other actor. He hits us on a different nerve than most. While an actor like Daniel Day Lewis, Gary Oldman or Javier Bardiem can completely change themselves into a character, Hanks seems to comfort the audience more than impress them. Lewis might completely lose himself in a character but Hanks stays in front of it. This is not a detriment to him. It has been one of his most redeeming qualities. When Hanks cries, he makes us cry because we feel that a family-member is hurting. We laugh with him. We cry with him. We grieve with him. In "Captain Phillips" we stand next to him as he protects his ship and his crew-men from Somali pirates. We want to see him get off the boat safely although we are never quite sure if it will happen. Hanks delivers his best and most engrossing performance since "Forrest Gump" in what might be director Paul Greengrass's masterpiece.

Captain Richard Phillips (Hanks) pilots his container ship filled with cargo, the Maersk Alabama, from en route to Kenya. Reports of Somali pirate attacks in the area have kept him and his crew on watch. His superiors keep reassuring Phillips and his crewmates that the ship's firehouse defense will protect them from any attackers. Soon enough, a small craft filled with Somali's attempts to board the Alabama. Armed with weapons and the "learned from TV" charisma of their leader Muse (Barkhad Abdi), Phillips must keep his crew safe from the attackers.

The filming style of Greengrass has been parodied almost to eye-rolling amounts. Yes, his cameras tend to shake. The fight sequences in his "Bourne" series were equal parts adrenaline-pumping and confusing. You were excited but damned if you knew what just happened on screen. Greengrass's hand-held camera style is prevalent throughout "Captain Phillips" but it feels nature. The film takes place almost entirely on the water. Any motion-sickness (or sea-sickness) almost seems like a nature event. You are supposed to feel uneasy. You are supposed to be disoriented. Greengrass's filmmaking seems a nature fit for "Captain Phillips". It results in a film that is tense and leaves the viewers as uncertain about the next event as the captain and his crew. While his "Bourne" films might be championed for their action scenes and his "United 93" (unseen by me) often called "the best movie you only want to see one time), "Captain Phillips" finds a happy medium between the two. It is intense but entirely watchable. It will more than likely go down likely go down as his best film.

Hanks has been an actor with very few slip-ups. He has been always dependable if not entirely surprising. Everything he has made since "Forrest Gump" has felt mostly "safe". This is not to say his performances in movies like "Saving Private Ryan", "The Green Mile" or "Cast Away" were bad. They were simply workman-like. Hanks showed up and did the job well. Here, Hanks is given so much more to do than he has had since his early 90s "Look what I can do!"-phase. While his Irish accent may flutter a bit, our care and concern for him never falters. The movie lives and dies by him. He is acting alongside the actors playing Somali pirates who, understandably, are distant and uninviting. His crew spends almost the entire film hidden away while Phillips deals with the pirates in clever and not always successful ways. A lesser actor would have made this felt like an action movie. Hanks makes it feel like a suspense film. He is not protecting the cargo or the money on the ship. He is protecting the people hidden at the bottom of the ship. Put any other actor in his place and it would have felt unbelievable and "Hollywood". Hanks, not known for being in films that are suspenseful (the more we forget "The Da Vinci Code" the better) was the perfect man for this job. He takes Greengrass's talent and brings a human element to the suspense.

Much will be said about the performance of Barkhad Abdi's performance as the "villain" Muse. Abdi is a newcomer to film and we more than likely won't be seeing him in many films. Not many roles call for tall, skinny Somali men. That said, Abdi is incredible. He blends the intense and almost maniac nature of Abdi with the human element that is buried beneath the gun in front of him. We see him alternate between these two sides effortlessly and that almost makes him more scary. We don't know if he is going to try to charm Phillips or smash his head against a wall. He is a great find and will be long remembered for this role.

Much of the suspense of a "true life story" is wasted because you may already know the outcome. The less known about the actual hijacking of the Alabama, the better. While the trailer gives away far too much of the film (one of many horrible elements in today's filmmaking), the journey is still intense and keeps the audience on the edge of their seat. They are as uncertain about the outcome as Phillips is. The film rarely lets up and audiences will eat up every moment. In a year of so little action and suspense (when "Fast 6" is the most respected action film, you are having a bad year), "Captain Phillips" is one of the best films of the year and arguably the most intense movie we will see.

"Turbo" 3.5 stars out of 4 (A-)

We are experiencing one of the most brutally mediocre summer movie seasons I can remember. Every week a sequel (Hangover 3, Despicable Me 2, Monsters University, The Wolverine, Red 2, Grown Ups 2) of some kind is coming out. If it isn't a sequel, it is a movie based on a pre-established story (R.I.P.D., Lone Ranger, World War Z). This summer has been almost completely devoid of original stories at the mainstream multiplex. The only one that succeeded (both in terms of money and in terms of quality) was "This is the End". "Pacific Rim" was mediocre at best and the less said about "White House Down" the better. Now comes "Turbo", an original story about a snail who aspires to be a race car driver, which is being all but passed off as nothing more than a silly child's film. It is. It is also one of the funniest films released this summer hitting on surprisingly dark humor all while containing genuinely touching scenes with interesting characters. It is a much better film than both "Despicable Me 2" and "Monsters University" which will hopefully find the audience it deserves.

The almost ridiculous plot summary of "Turbo" would simply read "what if a snail could go really fast". Theo (voiced by Ryan Reynolds) is a snail who dreams of one day competing in professional racing. His fellow snails think he is crazy for having such a ridiculous dream and encourage him to simply continue working at the tomato patch (referred to as "the plant"). One day a freak accident with a supercharged car results in Theo receiving special powers which allow to "drive" at extremely fast speed. He draws the attention of a local taco shop owner, Tito (voiced by Michael Pena), who believes that Theo (who goes by the name "Turbo" now) has a chance at winning the Indianapolis 500.

On the surface, there is nothing new in "Turbo". The "follow your dreams and you can achieve anything" plot has been done countless times before. Where "Turbo" succeeds is in not taking itself too seriously. It knows it is a movie about a talking snail who wants to race. It makes up for this silliness by being genuinely funny. While the voice-cast (which also includes Paul Giamatti, Bill Hader, Samuel L. Jackson, and many other recognizable names) delivers their lines with great comic timing, it is "Turbo"'s surprisingly dark sense of humor which succeeds so often. Various jokes revolve around snails being picked up and taken away by carnivorous birds. An animated film with humor that revolves around animals essentially dying is a gutsy bit of writing. Each of these scenes are surprisingly hilarious.

There are quite a few very nice little touches in "Turbo". One of the most interesting and well-developed touches is the inclusion of the shop owners at the strip mall where Tito works. While these characters aren't necessarily given ample screen time, they feel like real people and are never played for laughs. Michelle Rodriguez plays an auto shop owner. The fact that she is a woman is never forced into a ridiculous sub plot (there is no love story and she never breaks from being a "tough" businesswoman). The relationship between Tito and his brother Angelo (voiced by the always great Luis Guzman) is also given a good amount of screen time and feels genuine. The shop owners of this strip mall are not ridiculous (not an easy feat when one is voiced by Ken Jeong). They are simply people who love their businesses even though nobody seems to be coming to frequent their shops. It feels natural and makes the film that much more enjoyable.

"Turbo" is not without a few faults though. The inclusion of Snoop Dogg (or Snoop Lion now) is unnecessary. In a film that is so often well-written and original, hearing Lion's trademark way of delivering dialogue (adding "izzle" often) is tired, unfunny, and feels incredibly dated. It feels like a relic from a "Shrek" script that was desperately trying to include pop culture references to appeal to the masses. I kept waiting for a character to turn to Lion's snail character to ask him why in the world he still talks like that. The fact that I expected it to happen in this movie shows that the comedic writing is far more intelligent than what you might be expecting.

As I mentioned earlier, "Turbo" is a much better film than "Despicable Me 2" and "Monsters University". While those movies (especially "Monsters University") may be better-animated and show a slightly more serious tone, they are mediocre. Their mediocrity is not simply because they are "sequels". They fail because they simply aren't as fun as they could be. "Turbo" contains some comedic sequences that you will remember long after the film ends. The heart of the film feels natural and not forced like we so often see in animated films these days. One wonders if Pixar had made "Turbo" using the same script and contents if we would be seeing critics calling this a "return to form". If you had told me years ago that films like "Turbo", "How to Train Your Dragon" and even "Madagascar 3" would be much better than what Pixar is putting out, I wouldn't have believed you. "Turbo" isn't good simply because it is an original story or that it isn't produced by Pixar. It is good because it is hilarious, well-written, surprising, and one of the most fun times you can have at the theater right now.

"Pacific Rim" 2.5 stars out of 4 (C+)

You know the state of film is in a bit of trouble when people are championing a film simply because it is an "original idea". By this, I don't mean that the film is necessarily original or has an unpredictable storyline. "Pacific Rim" is being championed simply because it isn't a pre-existing story. It is not based on a graphic novel or comic book. It is not a sequel. That coupled with the fact that it is directed by Guillemo Del Toro, arguably one of the most impressive directors in big-budget cinema, made many believe that "Pacific Rim" would be the saving grace of the summer. That it would deliver us from sequels and origin stories. That raises this film to an expectation that it simply can't reach. Even without the hype, "Pacific Rim" is simply a mostly interesting spectacle with occasional inspired moments. It is "Top Gun" meets "Transformers" meets "Godzilla" with elements of "The Avengers" and even Del Toro's own "Hellboy". This is not necessarily a good thing.

In the 2020s, giant alien creatures called Kaiju have risen from an interdimensional portal inside the Pacific Ocean. The Kaiju damage nearby cities and are difficult to kill. Various countries band together to creature Jaegers, towering mechanical robots operated by two humans. These humans must form a mental bond with each other in order to power the Jaegers and defeat the Kaiju. The Jaegers easily take out Kaiju after Kaiju, raising the Jaeger pilots to stardom. Slowly but surely though, the Kaiju that start coming out of the portal are becoming smarter and adapting to the fighting style of the Jaegers. With the Jaegers losing public trust, military leader Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba) must ask Raleigh Bucket (Charlie Hunnam), a former Jaeger pilot who is extremely talented though he doesn't "play by the rules", to be a pilot of one of the remaining Jaeger's and save mankind from the ever-increasing Kaiju threats.

If that plot summary made you roll your eyes, this film is not for you. Del Toro seems to be aiming his film at a very specific audience. While the story is not necessarily complex or difficult to follow, it seems as if this film was created for people who are fans of monster combat movies and teenagers. There are occasional glimpses at telling a bigger and more interesting story but they are often interrupted by scenes of combat that are honestly not that impressive. Most of the combat scenes between the Kaiju and Jaegers are nothing we haven't already seen. It almost seems as if the film and Del Toro are impressed with what they are showing to a degree where they just assume you will be too. We have already seen several movies where giant beings fight. There is very little new you can show us. Although there are a few inspired moments, they almost seem like they are grasping for new ways to show something we are so used to in big-budget blockbusters.

"Pacific Rim" occasionally gives glimpses to the film it could have been. When it isn't showing us scenes of destruction, it has a few genuinely impressive moments. The opening introduction that chronicles how the Kaiju went from being murderous and devastating creatures to late-night TV jokes and children's toys is an especially interesting moment. An interesting satire exists there that would have been a nice direction that Del Toro could have easily pursued. A moment of a young child dealing with a Kaiju attack shows the true destructive powers of these creatures and give us a human element that is not really pursued otherwise. A handful of the Jaeger and Kaiju battles take place during daylight which is an uncommon occur in big-budget cinema. Often directors will hide their visual effects behind the darkness of night. These scenes allow us to get a better glimpse of the creatures and robots, although most of the fights take place at night. It is also always great to see Charlie Day and Ron Perlman on screen and the scenes they have together are especially good.

The largest problem with "Pacific Rim" is that despite being an "original" story, it feels like a mishmash of films we have already seen. The rebellious but talented Bucket feels almost as if they transposed Tom Cruise's Maverick from "Top Gun" into a science-fiction film. There is nothing he does, says, or thinks that is surprising. He doesn't feel like a hero, something that is desperately needed in a film where we are essentially cheering on soulless robots. The climax of the film echoes "The Avengers" in such an obvious way that it is almost shocking that it made it into the final cut. The filmmakers had a year to develop a different and more original way to finish the film.

"Pacific Rim" will no doubt appeal to many. It is loud, occasionally funny and the fight sequences are full of impressive visual effects. Seen through the eyes of a genre fan or a child, this film would no doubt be a lot of fun. The problem is that Del Toro films are not and have never been "turn your brain off" films. His last film "Hellboy 2: The Golden Army" was an interesting and visually-appealing big-budget film that was unfortunately ignored by audiences. It showed that you can make an original "blockbuster" film that entertains and occasionally challenges audiences. "Pacific Rim" never challenges or truly surprises. It feels like Del-Toro-lite. While it is far from a failure, it is nowhere near the film it could be.

Best and the Worst of 2013... So Far

We are halfway through 2013 and I've seen... a lot of movies. So many movies. Too many movies. Still, this experiment has been successful so far. I can honestly say that I haven't completely regretted seeing anything this year. "The Lone Ranger" came very close but at the very least it allowed me to strengthen my chops at tearing into a movie (more on that later).

The most interesting part about this experiment is the movies I have seen that I absolutely loved that would have no doubt not been seen if I didn't see simply everything. I don't think I would have found myself in the theater to watch something like "What Maisie Knew" or "Disconnect". These are movies that would have probably just been added to my Netflix Instant queue somewhere down the line and then ignored and deleted months later. I also more than likely wouldn't have paid to see "Spring Breakers", another good surprise.

On the other hand, I also wouldn't have been able to say that I actually made the request "One for 'Scary Movie 5'". I more than likely wouldn't have seen "The Lone Ranger" or "The Iceman". I would have still seen (and been massively disappointed in) "A Good Day to Die Hard" and "Evil Dead".

These lists are totally complete. I still have yet to see the following movies:

21 and Over, A Haunted House, A Place at the Table, Arthur Newman, Beautiful Creatures, Black Rock, Broken City, Bullet to the Head, Dark Skies, Emperor, Escape from Planet Earth, Fill the Void, From Up on Poppy Hill, Gangster Squad, Ginger and Rosa, Identity Thief, Mama, Movie 43, No, Parker, Safe Haven, Snitch, Stories We Tell, Texas Chainsaw, The Call, The Sapphires, To The Wonder, Upside Down, Unfinished Song.

Most of those movies are more than likely not good at all. I don't necessarily know if any of them would make my "Worst" list (with the exceptions of "Haunted House", "Identity Thief and "Movie 43" possibly). I do have an interest in seeing a few of these though. I've been debating if I simply must see everything in order to give an informed opinion or if my "time" is more important. I suppose some of these movies could be watched while I'm cooking or something. I highly doubt I would miss extremely important parts of something like "Bullet to the Head" or "Safe Haven" if I looked away for a moment. I might have to join Netflix for a month and plow through as many of these as possible in the smallest amount of time possible.

There has been quite a lot really excellent movies this year. I would recommend any of the following movies in a moment's notice. Some of these might not appeal to everyone ("Spring Breakers" is more than likely an acquired taste although it is hard to ignore the fantastic cinematography and maybe even the wonderful dark humor). Still, I could defend and explain why all of these films are very good. I don't necessarily know how many of these will make it to my end of the year list but only time will tell that.

Best (in no order)
Before Midnight
Disconnect
Spring Breakers
The Great Gatsby
What Maisie Knew

Honorable Mentions: Frances Ha, Oblivion, Side Effects, Stoker, This is the End

The following movies are all bad. Some are very, very bad. These were chores to sit through and often had no redeeming qualities. I would recommend going far away from any of these. Even if you have an interest in seeing these, I would do whatever you can to destroy that interest. If they are playing in a room that you happen to walk into, you should turn around. Your time is more important than these movies.


Worst (in no order)
A Good Day to Die Hard
The Hangover 3
The Lone Ranger
The Purge
White House Down

Dishonorable Mentions: Dead Man Down, Evil Dead, Scary Movie 5, The Company You Keep, The Iceman

"White House Down" 1 star out of 4 (D-)

Nobody watches a Roland Emmerich movie for its believability, wonderful characterizations, or interesting plot devices. You go into them to see things explode and people make quips. This is the man who made Will Smith say "Welcome to Errrf!", had CGI wolves attack Jack Gyllenhaal, and had Matthew Broderick use his scientist powers on Godzilla. A story directed by Emmerich where Channing Tatum must save President Jamie Foxx from terrorists seems to be fool-proof. Somehow though, "White House Down" is not only unbelievable and ridiculous but it is also boring. The action sequences feel sloppy and the dialogue is so laughably bad that it borders on "so bad it is good". Still, the plot holes and overall just shoddy filmmaking makes this easily one of the most disappointing big-budget summer movies in quite some time. 

John Cale (Channing Tatum), an Iraq War veteran, has come back from being a soldier to guarding the current Speaker of the House Ralpheson (Richard Jenkins). He usually this proximity to the White House to get an interview for a position of President Sawyer's (Jamie Foxx) security detail. This job would go quite a long way to winning the favor of his daughter Emily (Joey King), a tech-savvy teenager who has a passion for politics and American history. Cale, seeing an opportunity to make up for missing a recent talent show, takes Emily with him to the interview for the position. Shortly after the interview, chaos erupts as a group of terrorists run by Emil Stanz (Jason Clarke) and aided by the current Head of the Presidential Detail Martin Walker (James Woods) with a plot to make the country pay for the human costs of wars. Cale must protect the President, save his daughter, and hopefully walk out of the White House alive and with a job.

One of the sure-fire signs of a bad script is when good actors can't deliver lines. While Tatum might not be seen as a "good actor", he definitely has been able to get through recent films like "21 Jump Street" utilizing his charm. Foxx won an Oscar for his performance in "Ray". In "White House Down" both actors are forced to say lines so awkward and poorly written that they simply can't say them like a real human being. There are some lines in this movie that almost echo the same "so horrible that you are laughing" dialogue of movies like "The Happening". When a terrorist is seen killing his tenth person in 30 minutes and someone yells "You are going to go to jail for that!", the audience can't help but laugh. Lines like this and several others completely pull you out of the "brain off" mentality that we must employ with summer action movies here. It feels like a first-draft screenplay that was rushed into production. The actors simply took the paychecks and delivered the nails-on-a-chalkboard dialogue.

For such a large budget film, "White House Down" feels extremely limited in scope. A tour guide at the beginning of the movie goes on and on about the size and intricacies of the White House. When our heroes spend a good third of the movie trapped in an elevator shaft, this does nothing to make us think that the set designers or screenwriter had anything more than a cursory glance at what the White House actually looks like. Almost all shots of the Washington DC area are CGI messes where airplanes and helicopters fly around as if they were cut scenes from a 1990s CD-ROM game. "Olympus Has Fallen", this year's other film involving an agent protecting the president during a terrorist uprising on the White House, felt like a much bigger movie and yet was filmed with half the budget. If you are going to make an event film, you need to offer us more than we would see on the first portion of the White House tour.

Emmerich has made a career out of blowing up CGI cities in his films like "Independence Day", "The Day After Tomorrow", "Godzilla", and "2012". He proves here that he may have a grasp on orchestrating digital destruction but that he can't film shoot-outs, hand-to-hand combat, or any other mainstays of action films. The action scenes are choppy and poorly edited to a point where you almost don't have a clue what is going on. The PG-13 rating may have gone a long way to nurturing the action scenes but watching a man just slump over bloodlessly after being shot by a car-mounted machine gun is unbelievable. It pulls you out of the moment and takes away "the money shot" that is so often wanted and often promised in action films.

While "Olympus Has Fallen" featured a child actor who actually helps the plot, the character of Emily is every teenage stereotype we have seen in bad event films. She texts Cale even though he is sitting right next to her. She snaps at her father for calling her YouTube channel "a blog". Her voice mail message is her sassily asking "Why aren't you texting me?". She is a screenwriter misconception of what a ridiculous and technologically-driven teenager would actually look like. As a result, Emily is not only unlikable and annoying but she doesn't even feel like a real person. She doesn't advance the plot beyond the prerequisite terrorist kidnapping that is meant to only further fuel Cale's rage.

There are moments of "White House Down" that are so unintentionally hilarious that I almost have to give it the slightest of recommendations based on that. Overall though, it is a film devoid of any surprises or action that makes the audience feel cheated. It is as empty and unfilling as the popcorn this movie hopes you will be so engrossed in eating that you won't notice they have completely giving up on trying to surprise an audience.

Capsule Mini-Reviews (World War Z. We Steal Secrets. Much Ado About Nothing. The Bling Ring. Before Midnight)

Apparently vacations are good for movie watching but AREN'T great times to write reviews. I would like to imagine I'm going to write all these reviews either today or tomorrow... or Thursday.

World War Z (2 stars out of 4. C) - "World War Z" is two films that are constantly fighting with each other. One is a surprisingly nuanced drama about dealing with a national epidemic. That part is a more speedy "Contagion". The other is a messy and unbelievable zombie horror film where the creatures are super fast. They crawl up buildings like a giant snake of former humans. These scenes are never impressive and always eye-roll inducing. "World War Z" would have benefitted from being adapted into an HBO series. Had it been given an 8-episode season (a la "Generation Kill") starring a somewhat lower profile star and they dialed down some of the more ridiculous elements and expounded the more serious, you would be looking at a great show. As it is, it is hopelessly jumbled and frustrating. You see the movie that is trying to dig its way out of the rubble but it can't quite make it.

We Steal Secrets: The Story of Wikileaks (2.5 stars out of 4. C+) - An interesting documentary about Julian Assange, Wikileaks, and the culture of "leaking" confidential information. Alex Gibney (the director of 2005's "Enron: The Smartest Men in the Room) puts together a sprawling, if not somewhat confusion, tale involving leaks, leakers, the paranoid mental-state of Assange. "We Steal Secrets" is interesting but could have used a good 20 minutes cut from it. Gibney again proves that he can't edit. This is the type of movie you add to your Netflix Queue and plan on watching because you know it is good for you. Then you decide to watch "The Avengers" because... EXPLOSIONS.

Much Ado About Nothing (3 stars out of 4. B) - A charming retelling of the Shakespeare story directed by Joss Whedon. It is a lot of fun although not of much substance. Completely worth a viewing but nothing you need to rush out and see.

The Bling Ring (3.5 stars out of 4. B+) - "The Bling Ring" deals with a group of teens who are so engrossed in celebrity culture that they will do whatever it takes to become just like their idols. Instead of doing the real work, they decide to simply break into the houses of celebrities and steal objects that they believe the stars will never notice disappeared. Much like "Spring Breakers", "Bling Ring" is devoid of likable characters but you end up laughing at the moronic capabilities of these characters. While the overall message of the film can be a little heavy at times, it is definitely well delivered.

Before Midnight (4 stars out of 4. A-) - The conclusion (maybe?) of the "Before Sunrise" series. Much like the other two films in the story, "Before Midnight" involves long, interesting discussions between the main characters. You will see yourself and past conversations in the dialogue, even when you really wish you couldn't see it. Some scenes echo 2010's "Blue Valentine" although "Before Midnight" seems to do them in a manner that seems much more plausible and believable. It is far from a breezy and fun time at the cinema but it is definitely amazing in its realism.

"Monsters University" 2 stars out of 4 (C)

It has become almost expected for Pixar movies to be looked down on. The former critical darling now seems to be spinning its wheels (sometimes literally) in recent years. While "Toy Story 3" received glowing reviews (although I found it very underwhelming), Pixar has since been releasing films that have been lightly torn apart by critics. Films like "Cars 2" and "Brave" were seen as derivative of other works both from Pixar and Disney. They were seen almost as cash-ins from a company that had all but proven you don't need promotional items to pull in the attention of critics and audiences. "Monsters University" unfortunately continues this streak of underwhelming films. While it is not a bad film, it pales in comparison to other Pixar films and even a great deal of the animated films Dreamworks and Fox are producing. It takes a story we already know and then mixes it with genre conventions that we already know to create a beautiful looking film that is unnecessary. It feels like the most visually-impressive straight-to-video film that was designed to sell "Monsters U" t-shirts rather than tell an interesting story.

"Monsters University" is a prequel to 2002's "Monsters Inc." Here were are reintroduced to Mike Wazowski (voiced by Billy Crystal), a one-eyed monster who grew up with only one goal in mind: being a "scarer". "Scarers" are sent into the human world to capture the screams of startled children which are used to power the world of the monsters. The only way Mike knows to get into the "scaring" business is to attend, Monsters University, a college with classes on every aspect of adult monster life. Mike is a quick-learner who is constantly at the top of his class. The only problem is that Mike is not naturally scary, unlike fellow new student Sullivan (voiced by John Goodman). Sullivan comes from a family of "top scarers" and has a natural ability despite the fact that he has no motivation in studying. Soon Mike and Sullivan are in competition as they attempt to see who can be the best student at the university.

The original "Monsters Inc." was arguably the film when Pixar perfectly melded humor with emotion. It involved Mike and Sullivan dealing with Boo, a human child who had made it into the world of humans. It was a hilarious and original story that had a deep emotion core. Unfortunately "Monsters University" is not trying to make you feel anything at all. It is a piece of entertaining fluff that takes the genre conventions of "college films" and applies them to the world of monsters. A movie that deals with monsters using their ability to scare humans as day-to-day job is a novel and interesting idea for a film. Having these same monsters go through the process of frat initiations, being "popular", and studying hard is not a novel or interesting idea. It is a story more situated for a short animated piece or a "Muppet Babies"-esque television series. Here we are expected to simply care about Mike and Sullivan because we are familiar with their characters. Neither are the likable characters we knew from "Monsters Inc". Mike is a bookish straight-man character who has no strong character to work off of while Sullivan is a jock who we can't root for because of his attitude. It is a movie about characters who we are supposed to hope will succeed all while we don't really care if they manage to achieve anything. Even if we hadn't known from "Monsters Inc." that they will succeed, it would be difficult to hope or care about these characters.

The problem that Pixar movies seem to have these days is that they seemingly "have" to hit specific points. We need an underdog character (Wall-E, Princess Merida from "Brave", Remy from "Ratatouille). We need a stubborn or cocks character who learns a lesson (Buzz Lightyear, Lightning McQueen). We need a cast of supporting characters who are voiced by recognizable actors yet we can't exactly remember their names. We need to laugh until we are expected to feel emotional in the very last act. All of this these tropes are not comforting. They just point out how by-the-book a company that had been so adventurous in the past has become. A film like "How to Train Your Dragon" are taking these ideas and running with them in interesting ways. Pixar can no longer simply repeat what has worked in the past. They cannot just produce films with characters or character types audiences are familiar with and make their way to the bank thanks to critical and audience love. We have seen this all before and there is no reason for us to want to see it again.

All these negatives aside, "Monsters University" might be the most visually-beautiful film that Pixar has put out. Pixar is at its best when it is dealing with non-human characters in a bright atmosphere. The animation of the monsters and the college campus is nothing short of amazing. I found myself tuning out of the story and dialogue and just watching the slight details such as the rusting of a college bus. It almost seems as if it the locations were filmed in live-action and the monsters were digitally inserted later. It is the perfect blending of cartoonish elements and natural and believable animation. I can only assume this high level of work will continue in future Pixar productions.

"Monsters University" is more fun than the last few Pixar films. It has Mike and Sullivan taking part in interesting competitions which are mostly original and usually funny. The supporting cast also goes a long way to getting laughs. Charlie Day of "Horrible Bosses" appears as a Muppet-like monster who can't seem to control himself. If you enjoyed his character in "Bosses" or in "Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia" you will no doubt laugh at this G-rated version of his "Wild Card!" character. Joel Murray from "Mad Men" and last year's "God Bless America" is a welcome surprise as a non-traditional student who has gone back to college when his sales career crashed. These two characters go a long way to helping this film although they definitely can't rescue it.

It is unfortunate that Pixar has created some of not only the best animated films of the last decade but also some of the best films period. It makes it all the more disappointing when they make a film that is unsurprising and relatively fluff-filled. While "Monsters University" is not a bad film, it comes nowhere near what we expect from the name Pixar. It is predictable, underwhelming, and even occasionally boring. These are three adjectives that would have never been connected with Pixar. Here is hoping that Pixar sits down and creates some interesting and original ideas. Until then, we have our BluRay copies of the original films around to remember what once was and what could be again.

"The Purge" 0.5 stars out of 4 (F)

Bad horror films come out all the time. The genre is well-known for producing low-budget pictures that don't necessarily scare as much as they cause the audience to laugh. I'm not above enjoying "bad" horror films. I wrote a favorable review for "The Last Exorcism II", a movie that was universally panned but that I enjoyed in all its silly small-budget goodness. I even somewhat enjoyed "No One Lives", a film I didn't review recently. It was pointless, stupid, and shoddily made but it had a few surprises. There is nothing surprising about "The Purge", a low-budget attempt at a high-concept horror film that is among the most frustrating and disappointing films I've ever seen. It takes an interesting idea and buries it in stupidly all well seemingly turning to the camera and saying "Do you get this metaphor? Aren't we clever?" It is a student film that somehow attracted slightly big-name talent. It is a great idea for a movie that is so completely and totally failed that you stare at the screen in disbelief while cliche after cliche is presented. The only crime that is truly committed during "The Purge" is how much of your time it wastes.

"The Purge" deals with the titular event and the impact it has on the characters in Miscellaneous Suburban Town, America. "The Purge" is a yearly event where all crime is legal for a 12-hour span. Since they have instituted this event, unemployment has dropped and everyone has seemed to profit. Few have profited more than James Sandin (Ethan Hawke), who has made a (ahem) killing off of selling home security systems. He lives in suburbia with his seemingly stay-at-home wife Mary (Lena Headey), rebellious teenage daughter Zoey (Adelaide Kane), and their Tim Burton-character younger son Charlie (Max Burkholder). They have all settled down for a night inside their protected fortress as The Purge begins. Outside, a man (Edwin Hodge) is screaming, bleeding, and begging to be let in. Charlie, who amazingly enough has the security code, lets the man in and he quickly disappears inside the house. Minutes later, a creepy man (Rhys Wakefield) appears at the doorstep saying that the Sandin family has taken in a "fugitive" and he and his group of murderers want him back or else they will find a way in. The family must decide what to do next: save this unknown man or save themselves.

The worst part about "The Purge" is that it is a wonderful concept for a film. Although it resembles a storyline from an original "Star Trek" episode, the idea of all crime being legal for a period of time brings up images of a John Carpenter-esque dystopian mess. The concept raises questions, not of if something like The Purge is actually a good event but how such an event would no doubt result in lower employment. The homeless and those who aren't rich enough to protect their homes would no doubt be killed off. "The Purge" is a wonderful idea for a short story or an hour long TV movie. Unfortunately, writer/director James DeMonaco, has completely failed the concept of this movie resulting in a stupid film that tries for cheap scares and completely fails at them. This is the type of movie where one scene contains a "There is someone behind a refrigerator door! Oh good! It is a false alarm" scare and the next tries to make a quasi-intelligent connection between race, poverty, and white privilege. It is a 90-minute trudge to a conclusion where nothing interesting occurs and you openly hope for the death of all characters involved.

There are enough "Are you kidding me?!" moments in "The Purge" for at least five other films. There are characters who are introduced, do crazy things, die and then are completely forgotten about. There are characters and character design that are stolen right out of 2008's "The Strangers". There are action scenes so haphazard and difficult to follow that you won't know or care what is happening. Low budget films often film these action scenes as close-ups in order to save on budget. Usually, you still have an idea of what is happening. "Low budget" doesn't mean your movie has to look cheap or be impossible to follow. "The Purge" does both of these things.

There is nothing fun about "The Purge". I'm not saying that horror films need to be "fun". There are plenty of dark films where you walk away shaken, thinking introspectively, and telling yourself that you will never watch them again. The events and questions that "The Purge" contains are not necessarily fun. There is no enjoyment in this film though. It isn't scary at all and relies on characters who we don't know attacking characters we don't care about in the dark. It contains characters who we really don't care if they live or die. It contains a villain who is not scary who does things that are so stereotypically villainous, and at times impossible, that we aren't scared of him. The film fails at every possible step of the way. The fact that the concept is so interesting makes it all the more disappointing and infuriating.

I can't recommend you ignore "The Purge" strongly enough. The audience I saw it with on opening night did not care about what they were seeing in the slightest. No one jumped. No one screamed. They simply watched it, got up, and left. There is no redeeming elements to this film. It is a complete failure and only receives a half-star because I didn't leave the theater before the movie finished and the concept is interesting enough that you might be able to re-write it into a better story. How do I end this review: "I'd like to purge this film from my memory"? "The Purge is pure vomit"? "The crimes committed by this movie should be illegal?" How about I just end it now?

"This is the End" 3.5 stars out of 4 (B+)

Seth Rogan's new comedy "This is the End" offers a lot of what we usually expect from him. It stars many people who usually co-star with him like James Franco, Jonah Hill, and Jay Baruchel. The characters take a large amount of drugs. Everyone is at their most vulgar. There is a "buddy" element where characters bond over events. There is the matter one one plot point though: "This is the End" takes place during the apocalypse. Yep. As in full-on, end of the world, apocalypse. It is also the funniest movie of the year and may stay that way.

Jay Baruchel has flown in to visit his friend Seth Rogan in Los Angeles. They have a close friendship as they were both actors growing up in Canada. Soon after getting into town, Rogan takes Baruchel to James Franco's house for a large housewarming party. The party is going pretty well until Baruchel starts feeling as if he doesn't quite belong in the same group of Hollywood stars. Things go especially bad when the world starts to end. Rogan, Baruchel, Franco, and fellow actors Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, and Danny McBride need to band together and defeat the various forces of evil to survive "the End of Days".

"This is the End" is easily the funniest movie that has come out in quite some time. The comedy genre has been extremely dried up in the last few years. I can honestly say the last movie I found myself laughing hard at was "Django Unchained" and I would have to go back maybe as far as "Zombieland" to think of the last time before that. "This is the End" has scenes where I was laughing so hard my face and neck hurt. It throws event after event along with cameo after cameo that it completely catches you off-guard. This film is easily one of the most unpredictable comedies ever made. The plot summary above was kept short so as not to spoil anything or anyone that appears. "This is the End" will easily be the film this year that is quoted and has word-of-mouth pulling in .

The cast works so incredibly well with each other, no doubt because they have worked so well in the past. While each actor is playing themselves, they are playing a version of themselves that is grossly different from themselves. Jonah Hill, often thought to be cocky and abrasive, is hilariously nice to everyone around him. On the other hand, Michael Cera, often thought to be rather tame, is presented as a womanizing drug-addict. There are no stand-out performances and nobody steals the show. Every actor pulls in ridiculous laughs and has a few catch-phrases that will no doubt catch on.

There are a few missteps throughout "This is the End". Unfortunately there are three very long comedic sequences that involve either the discussion or the comedic assumption of rape. Rape jokes have not been funny for quite some time. They have been the subject of a large amount of controversy, news articles, and overall agreement that rape jokes are not acceptable. Here, all the humor is delivered by the all-male cast which makes it all the more uncomfortable. These jokes are unnecessary, unfunny, and could have easily been cut from the film. They are the only parts where I saw the audience look genuinely uncomfortable, a feeling that shouldn't arise in a comedy. Had these three scenes been omitted or modified, you would have had a truly great film.

To go on about any of the other plot points in this comedy would do it a great disservice. My recommendation to you is that you try to miss every TV spot and trailer you find. You should stay far away from any cast list as some of the cameos are among the biggest surprises of the film. The missteps aside, we are looking at what will more than likely be the funniest film that comes out this summer.

"Man of Steel" 3 stars out of 4 (B-)

Superhero movies are coming in two different forms these day. The first is the bright, colorful, and relatively single-minded superhero film that the Marvel films are presenting. Films like "The Avengers" or the "Iron Man" series are quick, breezy and entertaining with just enough surprises to keep you interested and enjoying yourself. Then there are the DC films like Christopher Nolan's "Batman" series. They are darker films that try to deal with heavier themes and entertain through powerful film scores (often created by Hans Zimmer). These films are often considered more serious and are often more respected by critics. "Man of Steel" is a DC film. It features the pre-requisite Zimmer score. It presents a superhero story with seriousness, weighty metaphors, and contains powerful imagery. The problem is that is a reboot that is trying to tell four sides of Clark Kent's life: Krypton's (his home planet) destruction, his childhood, his drifter days, and when he finally becomes the "Man of Steel". As a result of trying to fit four major stories into a 150-minute movie, none of the stories feel fleshed out enough. What we have a film that some glimpses of what it could be. We are never given a chance to see Clark truly fly because he is just too fast.

Clark Kent (Henry Cavill) is a drifter who goes from place to place doing odd jobs and occasionally saving people with his amazing strength and ability. Having come to Earth from the planet Krypton as a child, he was raised by Jonathan (Kevin Costner) and Martha (Diane Lane) to keep as low as profile as possible. This all changes when he comes across journalist Lois Lane (Amy Adams) who exposes his story. This draws the attention of General Zod (Michael Shannon), a Kryptonian prisoner who has been trying to find Clark since he was a baby. He will stop at nothing, including the destruction of Earth, to get an object that Clark holds which will he believes will restart the Krypton race. It is up to Clark to save the planet he has always called home.

Zack Snyder is an interesting and often torn-apart director. After making movies like the "Dawn of the Dead" remake, "300", "Watchmen", and "Sucker Punch", he has an aesthetic that many people thought wouldn't fit well with a Superman story. He often cuts his films with violent, choppy editing which is often scored by contemporary music. With "Man of Steel", Snyder shows restraint that we have never seen before. Scenes like the first time we see Clark take flight are given the attention to detail they deserve. The Snyder of a few years ago would have most likely just had him jump in the air. Here, he holds himself back giving us the necessary feeling of awe. His soundtrack flourishes are almost entirely gone. Where films like "Watchmen" had Jimi Hendrix playing and "Sucker Punch" had female covers of Stooges songs, here Zimmer's amazing 

score is used to accent the story. While Snyder's direction is not on the level of someone like Christopher Nolan (who he will no doubt be compared to), it is still an impressive presentation.

In sharp contrast with 2006's "Superman Returns", "Man of Steel" jumps from one plot point to the next in almost breakneck speed. The 150-minute runtime feels much shorter than that. This sense of speed is often caused not just by alternating between story lines featuring various parts of Clark's life but also in the small amount of time each is offered. While this will no doubt please those who thought "Superman Returns" was overly long and slow, it doesn't necessarily do a service to any of the plot lines. "Man of Steel" feels like a movie was originally three hours long but was cut down to 150 minutes. While it is never difficult to follow or understand, this fast storytelling doesn't necessarily give the story the weight it deserves. It would almost seem that this story could have benefited from being told in two parts. As it is, the story is told in a serviceable way but is missing something.

The performances in "Man of Steel" are especially impressive for a superhero film. Cavill was a perfect choice for Clark Kent leading believability to a superhero story that could easily veer into silliness. Costner delivers what might be the best performance we've seen in decades. While he isn't given nearly enough screen-time, he proves that he was an interesting and well-thought choice as the father who must tell his son to hold back his urge to help everyone. Shannon is quite powerful as Zod, although when compared to the previous characterization by Terrence Stamp and even other Shannon performances it seems a little subdued. Many people were expecting something on the level of Heath Ledger's Joker performance when people saw a actor as respected and as passionate as Shannon in the role. While it is a good performance, it is an almost subdued performance compared to what we have seen in the past from him.

"Man of Steel" calls to mind 2005's "Batman Begins". Both films were written by David S. Goyer, the man who is almost always in charge of writing DC movie scripts. "Begins" and "Steel" are both reboots with origin stories that are hastily included. Both stories go very fast, introducing characters and concepts in a fashion that feels like they aren't exactly telling us the whole story. Hopefully the next Superman movie will follow in the footsteps of "The Dark Knight". Now that they no longer have to worry about setting up who Clark Kent   is and was we no longer need to spend time on that. We can just focus on the amazing action and the story that goes along with it. While "Man of Steel" does successfully reboot the franchise, we are still a movie away from the film truly great "Superman" movie since the original.)

"The Internship" 2 stars out of 4 (C-)

A joke that is utilized at least three times in "The Internship" is Billy (Vince Vaughn) comparing what his group of underdog Google interns is going through with the 1983 film "Flashdance". It gets to the point that when Billy isn't even on-screen, the characters mention that had he been there he would have been referencing 80s films. There is nothing about "The Internship" that doesn't feel dated. The film consists of montages to show struggles and improvements of groups. The soundtrack features songs like "Ironic" by Alanis Morisette, "Jump Around" by House of Pain, and "Lowrider" by War. It feels like a film that was kept in a time capsule digitally swapping out the name of a technology company from the 90s with Google and then simply releasing it. While it is incredibly difficult for stars Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn to not be charming and elict laughter, the feeling that we have already seen "The Internship" made it a wholly unnecessary film.

Billy (Vaughn) and Nick (Owen Wilson) are down on their luck. After losing their sales jobs, they stride out into the harsh economic climate with no modern-day skills. On a whim, Billy applies the two for an internship to Google. Through a rambling and quasi-enlightening interview they are accepted into Google's headquarters. When there, they find themselves at least double the age of everyone there. They team up with another group of outcast interns and try to beat the team run by a smug Brit (Max Minghella) in hopes of receiving a full-time job.

Everything about "The Internship" feels like a movie we have seen repeatedly on cable networks for years. The "outcasts vs preps" plot is utilized to almost eye-rolling degrees. There are montages set to music that think that simply by having up-lifting music we can see that they are bonding. It contains a sports competition that is meant to show how even outcasts can come together as a team and win. There are scenes of characters leaving the group when they think they are bringing the group down only to show up at just the right moment. The group of "preps" even has a male character who wears a tight pink polo shot. The only thing that is missing is a conclusion that involves a skiing competition. In the hands of a more capable director by Shawn Levy (the man who continues to release mediocre films like the "Night at the Museum" series and "Real Steel") this movie might almost be a nostalgic homage. Unfortunately, "The Internship" never reaches this. The cliches and stereotypes are never pleasant or entertaining. Every character feels like they are simply filling a necessary component (attitude, ethnicity, gender). Every plot advancement is seen a mile away. You will no doubt know what is going to happen just by reading the plot summary. This is not comforting or meant to bring up images of other films. It is simply lazy film-making.

It is impossible for Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson to not be entertaining. We have seen both actors deliver enjoyable performances in the past and it is almost to the point where anything they do can make an audience laugh. Here, both Vaughn and Wilson feel tired and rushed. It has nothing to do with age and entirely is blamed on the material they are given. We are constantly being told hat both characters are hopelessly flawed and they are constantly having to prove that they are not. They are trying but not nearly as hard as we have seen before. Most comedic scenes feel like first-take improv sessions from a bunch of actors.

Another big problem with the film is that the plot set-up is not necessarily fun. While it is topical (sort of) to have characters dealing with the economic downturn, it is not that much fun to hear 20-somethings being depressed about their job prospects. When the top five out of hundreds of interns are actually given a job for their hard work, it is hardly a victory. You are actively rooting for other characters to fail and be unemployed. While it is understand to dislike the main villain, the rest of the opposing cast didn't necessarily do anything wrong to make us want them to necessarily fail. This is a championship basketball game where the outcome doesn't really matter.. It is unemployment. That is not a good basis for a comedy.

While "The Internship" is not without its charm, that charm mostly comes from what we have already seen and know about Wilson and Vaughn. If you dislike either (and there are plenty) this movie will be near unbearable. It offers nothing new or special and takes far too long to get to its obvious and cliched outcome.

"The Kings of Summer" 3 stars out of 4 (B)

The name of writer/director/soundtrack compiler Wes Anderson will get bandied around so much near the upcoming independent film "The Kings of Summer" that you will think he had any hand in it. Many of Anderson's tropes are there. There is the soundtrack which seems to reflect the character's every emotion all while completely catching you off-guard. One moment they are playing Thin Lizzy and the next they are playing something that sounds like it is off the "Spring Breakers" soundtrack. You've got quirky characters saying snappy dialogue with a speed and voraciously that almost pulls out of the element. You even have a character played by Moises Arias who looks oddly like Jason Schwartzman. Still, Anderson has absolutely nothing to do with the film. It is a coming-of-age wilderness story (barring a slight similarity to the plot of Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" from last year) directed by first-timer Jordan Vogt-Roberts and written by first-time writer Chris Galletta. Even with the similarities to Anderson's style, "The Kings of Summer" is a pleasant, funny movie that shows that Vogt-Roberts and Galletta might be filmmakers to look out for in a few years when they've learned to fine-tune their craft.

Joe (Nick Robinson) and Patrick (Gabriel Basso) are completely sick of their parents. Joe's cold and calculating father Frank (Nick Offerman) is so controlling that he even times the exact amount of minutes that Joe has been using the shower. Patrick's parents (Megan Mullally and Marc Evan Jackson) are so plain vanilla that they find buying a different variation of ciabatta bread is an adventure. With school ending and summer beginning, Joe and Patrick don't know how they are going to survive the time they must spend with their strict and boring families. While in the woods, they come across an open area. Employing Joe's rudimentary skills at building learned from wood shop class coupled with his extreme distaste for being stuck with his father, he and Patrick along with their eccentric new friend Biaggio (Moises Arias) set out to build a house in the middle of the woods. Not a tree house or a clubhouse but a cabin of manliness and solitude. Here they will learn quite a bit more than carpentry.

Writer Chris Galletta has taken a fairly standard coming-of-age story (teenagers rebel against family by going into nature) and turned it into a genuinely funny comedy/drama. The strength (and also sometimes weakness) of Galletta's script is that it is openly quirky. This isn't quirky in the "Napoleon Dynamite" sense. Instead, it has most of the characters delivering smart and witty lines that will no doubt have audiences laughing. Many of those lines are delivered by Arias as Biaggio, one of the oddest characters we have seen in some time. Biaggio almost always has some oddly cryptic line of dialogue to completely confound Joe and Patrick. Again though, this comedy and wit is a bit of a downfall for "The Kings of Summer". A little bit of Biaggio goes a long way. You will find yourself laughing at many of his off-kilter lines at the beginning but by the end, you will be rolling your eyes. There is a reason a character like McLovin (who Arias will no doubt be compared to) was a supporting character and not a main character. You end up wondering why you laughed at Biaggio when he is delivering his 40th cryptic line.

There are also moments in "The Kings of Summer" that try too hard for the comedy in the situation and end up limiting the dramatic impact of other scenes. Scenes where Joe has melodramatic daydreams are especially impressive and recall John Cusack daydreams from "Better Off Dead". Sometimes though, they are trying too hard to pull laughs from something that isn't there. As talented and hilarious as Offerman often can be, he is simply too cold in this roll. While his cold demeanor is all but a trademark thanks to his wonderful performance in TV's "Parks and Recreation", here he almost goes too far. When he finally does warm up, we don't know if we truly care that he has. Other times, the film pushes for dramatic scenes too close to comedic ones. They almost pay off, making us feel deeply for the characters, until Biaggio pipes in with another catch phrase. While I wouldn't say "The Kings of Summer" has an identity crises, it may have succeeded more by dialing down on the comedy and focusing more on the relationships between characters.

"The Kings of Summer" is a charming film that is worth catching on a hot day when you have become sick of seeing the countless big-budget blockbuster sequels. Like last year's "Safety Not Guaranteed", it fills a void in the multiplex. It is genuinely entertaining and holds a few surprises. Just don't think too hard about it. I firmly believe we will be seeing more work by Vogt-Roberts and Galetta in the future. This is their "Bottle Rocket". We will just have to see if they have a "Royal Tenenbaums" in them somewhere down the line.

"What Maisie Knew" 4 stars out of 4 (A)

There are moments in "What Maisie Knew" where I wanted to break through the screen and protect the titular character. She is being exposed to so much harmful events around here that it is almost impossible not to let your heart break when her heart is so easily broken. This is not a horror film. Demons aren't stalking Maisie and her family. Instead, it is her family that is fallen apart and Maisie is left there to struggle under the rubble. "What Maisie Knew" is the most realistic depiction of the impact of a dysfunctional relationship and the impact it has on a child. It is an expertly crafted film with performances that deserved to be recognized.

Maisie (Onata Aprile) is the bright, energetic daughter of rock singer Susanna (Julianne Moore) and businessman Beale (Steve Coogan). Between Susanna's music recording and touring and Beale's constant travel and womanizing, Maisie is left on the side. She is often put into the arms of her caring nanny Margo (Joanna Vanderham) if she is cared for at all. Just as often, she is forgotten. It isn't that Susanna and Beale actively are trying to hurt their daughter. This is not a story of abuse. It is a story of neglect. Susanna and Beale care for Maisie but just as often they are swept into their own world, which is often filled with loud and harsh verbal fights through thin walls as their relationship falls apart. In one scene Beale actually jokingly refers to Maisie as his "sixth favorite girl". What is meant as a joke is subconsciously true. It is not all neglect and isolation for Maisie though. Margo and her mother's friend Lincoln (Alexander Skarsgard) see the light of Maisie and give her the childhood she so greatly desires. They become foster parents all while the real parents are in the other room. Maisie tries to understand the world around her as it constantly changes as she continues to not be the priority in her parents life.

From the sounds of the plot and my description, it is easy to think that "What Maisie Knew" will be an incredibly depressing film. In a lot of ways, it is heart-breaking. There are scenes where you will watch what Maisie has to deal with and you will ache for her. They will feel like little blows to the stomach. These are not the manipulative blows that are so often found in independent dramas. Instead, they feel real. They don't feel like events that are created to further a plot. We know children like Maisie. Her parents might not be abusive in the standard sense but their neglect and mis-managed priorities lead her to understand extremely complex and adult situations. Little care is given to what Maisie wants or how she feels about events. You won't openly hate Susanna and Beale, no small feat considering how wonderful and mistreated Maisie is, but you will constantly tell them to slow down and open their eyes.


For every gut-punching moment, there are moments of absolute beauty and emotion that will no doubt last with you. There are many moments between Maisie and Lincoln which are absolutely wonderful and will make even the hardest person smile. These short scenes show the childhood Maisie deserved from her parents. Skarsgard, who I've often simply seen as his cold and cruel character in "True Blood", shows he has fantastic acting range. An actor we so often see as intimidating and cunning, is shown to have a wonderful heart. It is a truly surprising performance.


The "amazing performance by a child" card has almost become a movie critic cliche at this point. 8-year old Quvenzhane Wallis received a Best Actress nominee for last year's "Beasts of the Southern Wild". Other actors such as Haley Joel Osment, Anna Paquin, and countless others are often praised because their performances are good "for a child actor". Onata Aprile is absolutely fantastic as Maisie. Sure she may not get the acting powerhouse (which are often manipulative) moments as someone like Wallis but she plays Maisie in such a convincing and honest way that you can't help but feel and connect with her. Her performance is not simply her playing with Skarsgard and Vanderham. There are moments of her reacting to her parents actions that can't simply be summed up to a child actor as "act sad now, Onata". If it weren't actors as recognizable as Moore and Coogan, you would almost feel this was a documentary about the impact of divorce on a child. In a just world, Aprile will be receiving plenty of nominations come award season.

"What Maisie Knew" is one of the best movies to come out in quite some time. It is completely worth seeking out although I strongly predict that most won't know it exists until it hits Netflix Instant and pops up as a recommended title. It is a true same. It is the type of shame that makes me want to never stop writing film reviews. There are a multitude and opinions and mentions of big-budget films. As I write this review, I'm about to leave to see two summer tent-pole films where the catering budget was probably higher than the entire budget of "What Maisie Knew". Movies like "What Maisie Knew" give me a reason as a film-lover to drive lengths for movies, to give every film a chance, and to shout their praises from the roof-tops when they prove to be amazing. In the hands of a bigger studio, "What Maisie Knew" would be released in December and receive Oscar attention. As that can't happen, all I can do is strongly recommend that you seek out this beautiful film as soon as you can.

"Fast and Furious 6" 2 stars out of 4 (C)

If you would have told me three years ago that not just fans of fast cars would be eagerly awaiting the reason of a sixth "Fast and the Furious" film but that critics would be excited as well, I would have easily bet my "pink" (title to my car) that you were wrong. Of course, you would have gotten a rundown 1999 Ford Escort but at least you would have had the American ride that Vin Diesel's character Dominic Toretto prefers. Of course, that Escort did 0 to 60 in "Ehhhh" miles-per-hour so he would have probably prefered the Charger he drives in the series. Not only does his Charger make a return but the full cast of the last film and even a character we thought was dead. Trailers and TV spots have aired since the Super Bowl, promising cars that drive even more fast than before and ridiculous explosions. At this point, it is what the fans of the series and action fans in general are expecting. They expect to see decent one-liners, fast cars, shocking displays of the ignorance of physics, and Dwayne Johnson something getting bigger and stronger every movie. The problem that "Fast and Furious 6" has is that it seems to be directed by the Justin Lin who brought us "Fast and Furious" (the 4th film in the series) and not the Justin Lin who brought us "Fast Five", the 2011 sequel that surprised audiences and critics by being "'Oceans Eleven' with cars" and completely legitimizing a film series that had become the bane of so many jokes. Lin uses his inflated budget and expanded reign on the film to set some impressive action scenes. The problem is that we have seen every one of these scenes for months now in ads and most of the non-action scenes are either implausible or riff on past scenes in the series that desperately try to add gravitas to the "family" aspect that Toretto has been preaching since the first film but nobody has ever truly believed. Like back-from-the dead Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), "Fast and Furious 6" hit its nitrous oxide far too early and has nothing new to show us and it crosses the finish line far behind "Fast Five".

When we last left Toretto (Diesel), O'Conner (Paul Walker), and his crew (Tyrese Gibson, Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges, Sung Kang, and Gal Gadot) had pulled off an impressive heist and were hiding overseas. "Fast and Furious 6" starts like most action film sequels do with someone, in this case Special Agent Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) giving them a reason to come out of hiding and fight... err... drive again. It turns out that Letty (Rodriguez), former girlfriend of Toretto, didn't actually die as we had assumed in "Fast and Furious" (again, the fourth film). She has been working with a criminal named Shaw (Lee Evans) who runs a group of mercenaries which Gibson hilariously points out look like the evil versions of our gang of "good guys". It is up to the group to help Hobbs track down Shaw, explain to the amnesia-stricken Letty about her past, and hopefully receive a pardon for the crimes they have committed.

Justin Lin again shows that he can film an interesting driving sequence. As is to be expected, "Fast and Furious 6" features some rather impressive stunts. One featuring what can most easily be described as an armored F1 racing car (all apologies to people who actually know something about cars if I got this wrong) is especially well-done. Another scene involving a tank and a busy highway is surprisingly well put-together and actually far more sadistic than we have seen in this series. The problem lies with the total lack of realism in these action scenes. It is difficult to fault the "Fast and Furious" films for psychics or logic issues. It is a movie about cars driving very fast. When we see someone project themselves out of a car, catch another person, land hard into another car, and walk away untouched we aren't supposed to question it. The problem lies in the visual effects. Far too often, any time a car or a human being does something that is impossible it is displayed using some very weak CGI. These second-rate effects completely take us out of the moment. We believe someone like Iron Man can fly because we buy the effects. It is difficult to believe that the cars are pulling off a great deal of the stunts in "Fast and Furious 6" because the effects don't make us believe.

Another large misstep in "Fast and Furious 6" is the filming of hand-to-hand combat scenes. Lin seems so used to cutting his shots fast for the car sequences (most likely to give them a feeling of being truly faster than possible) that he carries this bad habit along with the scenes of people fighting outside of cars. One of the brightest additions of "Fast Five" was that it featured some very impressive hand-to-hand combat, presented perfectly in the modern-day classic fight between Hobbs and Toretto. Unfortunately, nothing in "Fast and Furious 6" comes close to that fight and any attempts fall extremely short. The quick cutting makes these fights difficult to follow and, much like the visual effects in the car action sequences, make them very difficult to believe.

Some have suggested that the "Fast and Furious" films have become a form of "comic book movie" that has no comic book past. It features caricatures of humans, both good and bad, beautiful women, one-liners, fast cars, gorgeous locations, and action sequences that are simply impossible. That is all fine and good but you need to have the presentation to back it up. We are no longer impressed or surprised with the jabs between Tyrese Gibson and Chris "Ludacris" Bridges. All of the good dialogue they seem to be able to write was featured in "Fast Five". On the action front, nothing here comes close to the fight between Diesel and Johnson or the finale involving a large stolen safe being drug through city streets. You can tell them "Fast and Furious 6" is trying to reach those heights but it simply can't. Instead what we have is a sloppy story that relies on a character coming "back from the dead" with amnesia in order to advance the story. It plays like a television show that has gone on just a bit too long. It is still entertaining but it seems to be doing whatever it can to leave a cliffhanger and to get picked up for another season. The end credits of "Fast and Furious 6" make a grand promise for a "Fast Seven". One hopes that we get the Lin who made "Fast Five" back again and that someone tells him that sometimes less is more.

"The Hangover Part III" 1 star out of 4 (D)

You can almost hear the discussion now:

"We need to print more money! Let's make another Hangover movie! We can say that it is the last in the series and we can tie everything together."

"Sounds like a great idea. Frat boys and high schoolers will eat that up! They completely bought into 'Hangover 2'. I don't know how they didn't notice that it was the same movie as 'Hangover 1' only now it took place in Bangkok."

"Yeah but who cares. As long as we can sell Wolfpack shirts and tickets we are golden!"

"We have a draft of a script. Zack Galifianakis's character is acting crazy because he is off his meds or something. The Wolfpack... Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and... uh... that other guy take him to a doctor or something."

"That doesn't sound wacky though. Can they get high or something?"

"Maybe later. I know it sounds lame but it will get crazy. Ken Jeong's character owes some mobsters some money. The mobsters kidnap... uh... the guy who got kidnapped in the first movie... and it is up to the guys to find Jeong to get him back."

"Ok. I get you. How can we compensate for the fact that Galifianakis and Cooper have risen far beyond the source material, are extremely busy, and are sick of playing these tired characters."

"We will just write more scenes with Jeong! People love his stereotypical Asian stereotype!"

"The Hangover Part III" is a cash-grab that seems rushed and like none of the actors involved wanted anything to do with it. Cooper and Galifianakis look like they would literally be anywhere else but here. Cooper hides behind glasses, no doubt so the camera can't see him rolling his eyes as he just counts his salary in his head and how it will allow him to make better films in the future. Galifianakis is playing an almost parody of the character he played in the first film. Here, he is almost reserved unless the script calls for him to say a word oddly or for him to fall into something.

The script of "Hangover Part III" almost resembles an early draft of something that was just pushed into production as fast as possible. Some have said that the somewhat more dark and less comedic nature of this script is an interesting step. If anything, the lack of comedy and laughs just shows a total failure in storyline. It is easy to write that someone gets shot and killed unexpectedly (no spoilers here). It is difficult to write interesting and funny dialogue. There is nothing even close to the Wolfpack speech of the first "Hangover". In its place are the aforementioned "Galifianakis falls into things!" "Jeong mangles the English language becauses he is an Asian stereotype!" and even several incredibly pathetic music-related laughs. Having a character play "MMMBop" by Hanson as they drive around or having a character sing "Hurt" by Nine Inch Nails during karaoke is not funny. Having Jeong singing "I Believe I Can Fly" by R. Kelly while parachuting is pathetic and the fact that scene was used in the trailers should be a dead give-away at the total lack of laughs this film delivers. It is weak eye-roll inducing comedy.

The harshest complaint of "Hangover Part III" is when it wraps up the story and the series, the audience feels nothing. We don't want the story to continue. We don't care what these characters do. By this point, everyone is simply going through the motions. Nobody wants to be there and it seems that they invested more money in getting the rights to songs than they did polishing and re-writing their script. While I wasn't the biggest fan of "Hangover" and "Hangover 2", both of these films are far better. "Hangover" had some genuinely funny moments, even if they were simply Galifianakis playing a personality he'd been working on for years in stand-up. Although "Hangover 2" was very much a copy of the first film, it at least had an interesting location in China and had some dark comedy slipped in. The best element of "Hangover Part III" is probably its poster, a spoof of the "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part II" teaser image. This is a joke based on a movie that is two years old. Nothing about this film is fresh, interesting, or worth your time.

I can honestly say I laughed more at "Scary Movie 5". That film at least had actors and screenwriters who were going through the motions without wasting your valuable summer movie money. When the small roles (almost glorified cameos) by John Goodman and Melissa Mccarthy are the best parts of your film, you are in trouble. If you want to think fondly of the original "Hangover", stay far away from this conclusion. Just know that it is over and hopefully Galifianakis can cash his checks and return to worthwhile and interesting comedy.

"Star Trek Into Darkness" 2.5 stars out of 4 (C+)

The film opens with Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Bones (Karl Urban) running from something. Maybe it is angry villagers. Maybe it is an exploding volcano. Maybe it is both. It is that uncertainty and chaos that defines "Star Trek Into Darkness", J.J. Abrams's second film in the re-boot of Ray Bradbury's science-fiction story. Maybe it was the IMAX sound ripping through my ears or the screen-filling 3D elements bouncing every which way but "Star Trek Into Darkness" is a loud, clanking movie. When you think of the "Star Trek" series prior to J.J. Abrams's 2009 reboot, you wouldn't imagine it as loud and clanking. These adjectives are often associated with mindless action movies like the "Transformers" films and while "Star Trek Into Darkness" is definitely more intelligent than those films, it is as equally interested in wowing you versus testing your mental capabilities. It would rather throw obvious references to past "Star Trek" movies and TV episodes than test your ability to understand confusing time-travel events like the previous film. While "Star Trek Into Darkness" might lack any true surprises, it does move at a break-neck pace, maybe in hopes that you won't think too much. Most of the time it is successful but when it fails, you can't help and watch it like a starship falling in space.

The U.S.S. Enterprise has been sent to a distant planet to kill John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a terrorist who attacked Starfleet offices. This plan of "kill, not capture" doesn't agree well with the staff, especially Spock (Zachary Quinto), a stickler for following the rules in the name of "logic". When they do meet up with Harrison, they find that there is much more to this cunning adversary than they expected. His booming declarations start to influence Kirk and those around him. Is Harrison to be trusted though? Can they truly believe a terrorist? It is up to Kirk and his crew to figure this out.

Without getting into spoilers, there are far too many instances in "Star Trek Into Darkness" of characters all but "breaking the fourth wall" and winking at the audience to acknowledge references to the original series and films. While the 2009 "Star Trek" had its share of obvious connections to the original story, it didn't do it nearly to the degree this film does. While the first time this is done, it might be charming, it quickly becomes grating and manipulative. The final act (again without spoilers) comes as close to "nuking the fridge" (or "jumping the shark" if you will) as any film in recent memory. It takes an intense and action-packed story and completed stops it in its tracks making you wince and want to look away from such an obvious repacking of a former story. There is a thin line between knowingly referencing and out-and-out copying. The final act falls much closer to "copying".

The script's dialogue, written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, and Damon Lindelof, is another especially disheartening element. It seems much more interested in making the audience laugh than propelling the story forward in a straight-forward manner. There is an alarming amount of "s" words dropped into this film, no doubt in hopes of eliciting laughs. While I am far from someone who balks at language in films, there is something about the "Star Trek" series that seems above using vulgarities. It is understandable that the dialogue would need to be livened up to go along with the young cast and romantic storylines, but it pulls you out of the moment and almost seems to belittle the story.

Seen as a big-budget summer spectacle, "Star Trek Into Darkness" is not without its positive elements. Abrams knows how to film action and some scenes are truly exhilarating. Cumberbatch is also excellent as the villain. Had his character been fleshed-out further, he may have been looking at award nominations. As it is, he proves that he is definitely someone to watch in future films. Although it is easy to chide the dialogue for being somewhat cloying, it does make up care about these characters. While it had a built-in fan-base to begin with, the characterizations of Kirk and Spock are still very good and we buy their connection at every turn.

It is difficult to recommend "Star Trek Into Darkness" as a continuation of the story set up in the far-better 2009 film. While that film challenged viewers with a complicated storyline that contained action, here it seems that Abrams just wanted to experiment with the effects budget. Gone is any subtlety and in its place is just a somewhat numbing and forgettable action film. While it will no doubt have fans and entertain viewers (both old fans of the series and new fans), it still is disappointing and receives a weak recommendation. While I definitely hope Abrams's "Star Trek" series "lives long" in future films, it is going to need to take a look inside and push away what it thinks audiences want if it is going to truly "prosper".

Additional note: "Star Trek Into Darkness" was post-converted into 3D. This means that Abrams filmed it in 2D and then went back and used computers to produce a 3D effect. He has been quoted as saying he did not want to do this and that the movie studio told him that if he wanted to make the film, he had to release it in 3D. While some scenes do feature interesting uses of the extra dimension, overall it is distracting. 3D is not made for fast and kinetic action. It is also not made for scenes where the camera focuses in and out of two characters in a wide scope shot. Very often I found myself looking away from the screen to re-orient myself. While some of the action scenes do benefit from the 3D (especially when seen in sequences filmed using IMAX cameras), I recommend that you see "Star Trek Into Darkness" in 2D. Abrams would want it that way and your eyes and brain will thank you.

"Disconnect" 4 stars out of 4 (A-)

"Disconnect" could easily be compared to films like "The Place Beyond the Pines" or "Crash". It features actors you recognize as characters whose lives interconnect. Where "Disconnect" succeeds over the failures of "Pines" and "Crash" is that it is a dark, realistic depiction of these intersecting lives that doesn't once think low of its audience. There are several moments where "Disconnect" could have gone the easy route. It could have given you what you expect or in many cases simply "fear". Instead, it is a riveting, gripping film about how technology has pulled us away from the people who are around us. In one particularly touching scene the character says "Everything I love is in this room". This somewhat cliche line is made important by it being one of the few moments that character is seen without a cell phone.

"Disconnect" revolves around three stories. The first involves two teenagers (Aviad Bernstein and Colin Ford) creating a fake online character they use to tease Ben, a loner student (Jonah Bobo) who goes to their school. Ben's father, Rich (Jason Bateman) is unaware of his son's blossoming "relationship" as he constantly on the cell phone doing business. The second story involves reporter Nina Dunham (Andrea Riseborough) who begins to interview Kyle, an 18-year old online "sex webcam" performer (Max Thieriot), in hopes of putting together a juicy story based on his life. What starts off as online web chat interviews becomes much more as Nina tries to get the story that is Kyle's life. The last has couple Derek and Cindy (Alexander Skarsgård and Paula Patton) dealing with online identity theft which leaves them penniless. Derek is addicted to online poker while Cindy frequents chat rooms to help her deal with the grief of losing her child.

Films like "Disconnect" could implode on themselves with their overly weighty premise and meaning. The idea of technology pulling people apart is not a terribly new thing to film. 2006's totally unseen gem "LOL" dealt with characters whose relationships were ruined by technology. While "Disconnect" is often about how technology can have a negative impact on human interaction, it is never so over-the-top that it becomes eye-rolling. This is the kind of message that can get self-indulgent very quickly. "Disconnect" never feels like it is straining with the story and the message. It does not bash you over the head. It weaves the dangers of technology into real weighty human problems. This story is much more about human interaction than it is about those humans typing on keypads.

Director Henry Alex Rubin makes his fictional film debut here. He directed 2005's wonderful documentary Murderball (whose star Mark Zuban makes a brief appearance). Rubin shows great skill being able to weave these stories together in a sharp fashion considering the film's no-doubt low budget. He shows wonderful restraint when he needs to as well as impacting and suspenseful moments when they are called for. Again, Rubin and screenwriter Andrew Stern, need to be congratulated on how they were able to side-step many of the problems inherent in stories like "Crash" and "Place Beyond the Pines". There is not one "eye-rolling" moment in "Disconnect". It constantly surprises you not just in the directions the story takes but the directions that it does not take.

"Disconnect" is a small film that will no doubt not be playing in many markets. Hopefully, the inevitable appearance on Netflix Instant will result in people seeing this gem that will no doubt be one of the best of the year.

"The Great Gatsby" 3.5 out of 4 (B+)

If there ever was a director that could be considered "polarizing", it is Baz Luhrmann. You either find his films (which include the, in my opinion, modern-day classic "Moulin Rouge" and the very inspired yet often maligned "Romeo + Juliet") interesting and visually-stimulating or you think they are over-the-top manic drug-induced dreams. His latest film, "The Great Gatsby", based on the classic F. Scott Fitzgerald novel, will do nothing to dispel those who already dislike his work. In fact, it will no doubt bring a new crew of Luhrmann-haters as he has once again taken a much-loved piece of literature and gave it a contemporary and altogether surprising twist. I can openly say that I like Luhrmann's films and his vision is one of the most interesting of a director working today. "The Great Gatsby" may be his best story yet and although his vision the original Fitzgerald story do not always connection well, it is still a jaw-droppingly beautiful film.

Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) is a 1920s bonds salesman whose newfound wealth moves him into an impressive house on Long Island. His small-town beginnings don't prepare him for what money and his new location bring to his life. Next-door to Carraway, is the house of a mysterious figure named Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) who holds human parties that pull in all of New York City. Nobody has seen Gatsby but his reputation is more than enough for people to create elaborate stories about who he is and who he is not. After receiving an invitation (a rarity for Gatsby), Carraway runs into Gatsby. Gatsby pulls Carraway into a life of money, romance, alcoholism, and corruption all in hopes of rekindling a relationship with Carraway's cousin Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan). Daisy's powerful and angry husband, Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton) is the only thing keeping Gatsby from achieving the only thing his money can't buy.

"The Great Gatsby" is easily Baz Luhrmann's most reserved film maybe ever. This, of course, isn't saying much. The extravagant party sequences show the Luhrmann we've come to love (or hate). They are loud, colorful events blaring music that is not time-period appropriate in the slightest. Sometimes the music works incredibly well (both incarnations of Lana Del Ray's "Young and Beautiful" fit perfectly) and sometimes they are like nails on a chalkboard (a scene featuring Jay-Z's "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)). Luhrmann utilizes 3D well in these scenes of excess allowing heaps of confetti to seemingly spill into the audience. It is his 3D utilization and filming of the more sullen and reserved moments in "Gatsby" that work especially well. Iconic scenes such as Gatsby staring at the often-discussed "green light" across the water are among the most beautiful moments presented in 3D cinema. The diminished brightness of the picture that 3D often causes has very little impact on the distance and depth the dimension adds. Luhrmann actually holds himself quite a bit in comparison to his previous works. The 3D is never so over-the-top that it takes you out of the film. The only scenes that feel completely connected with his often "campy" style are the party scenes which almost seem to be written just for Luhrmann to present. While it is not totally necessary to be seen in 3D (in fact, the brightness 2D offers might be preferable in several scenes) it is easily the most impressive 3D presentation since "Hugo".

DiCaprio is his typical great self as Gatsby. He plays the calm and kind-eyed man with every nuance that could be expected. He again proves that he possibly the best American actor currently working. While this won't be the time he walks away with an Oscar, he is perfectly cast and it is impossible to picture another actor in his position. It is nice to see Maguire make a return to wide-release cinema. After reading about how Maguire and DiCaprio grew up acting together, it makes the connection to Carraway and Gatsby that much deeper.

Taking such a well-loved work of literature like "Great Gatsby" and turning into into a big-budget 3D film filmed by the maker of "Moulin Rouge" and featuring a soundtrack produced by Jay-Z is something akin to a joke. On paper (no pun intended), Fitzgerald's story does not read even close to the presentation offered here. Surprisingly enough, Luhrmann's style fits perfectly. If you take the story and its themes of how money and parties can't bring you everything and inject it with the manic and gorgeous energy Luhrmann often presents, it is a natural fit. Many purists will no doubt be disappointed in this film. This is definitely not the story you pictured while reading this novel in high school. That said, there is no reason the film version should have to please the fans of the book. The book will remain and they can either choose to watch Robert Redford's 1974 version or simply to re-read Fitzgerald's text. The heart of Fitzgerald's story is still seen in Luhrmann's story. It gave me a whole new reading on a novel I all but ignored during my first reading in 9th grade. I can only hope I enjoy a re-reading of the novel as much as I enjoyed this presentation.

The film is not without its negatives though. The scenes featuring Myrtle (Isla Fisher) and George Wilson (Jason Clarke), working-class friends of Tom Buchanan's are extremely out-of-place. While it could be said that the slightly irritating characterizations of Myrtle and George are part of who these characters are truly meant to be, they are both miscast in their roles. Clarke, who was easily one of the highlights in last year's "Zero Dark Thirty" plays George almost as a theater performance and it doesn't fit. It could also be said that Edgerton's performance of Tom Buchanan might not be up to the character he needs to play. He may act cold and yell as a man in a loveless marriage protected by money but after we see similar performances by Jon Hamm in "Mad Men" that eclipse this weekly.

Luhrmann's campy flourishes don't always work. Almost every Jay-Z song in this film completely pulls you out of the moment. They feel like temporary audio tracks that were put on the film until they could fit a better song that fit the scene. While I'm definitely not against the usage of hip-hop in period films (Quentin Tarantino's usage of Rick Ross and Tupac songs in last year's "Django Unchained" worked perfectly), here they feel awkward. Dubstep, techno, and even Jay-Z collaboration with Kanye West "Who Gon Stop Me" fit with the gluttonous nature of the 1920s rich. Jay-Z songs like "100$ Bill" and "Hova (I.Z.Z.O.)" do not and pull you totally out of the moment.

"Great Gatsby" is still something we don't see often during the summer. An intriguing, beautiful, and well-made film that must be seen on a big-screen to be truly enjoyed (in 3D or 2D). While it will more than likely not be the movie you pictured when you bought that ear-marked copy complete with the writing of someone you never knew (as the copy I purchased at John Kings Books in Detroit), it is still an amazing story with themes that still echo today. Much like Luhrmann's "Romeo + Juliet", this is a retelling of an amazing story that we can only hope makes a connection with today's generation.

"Mud" - 3 stars out of 4 (B)

One of the more interesting developments in Hollywood recently has been that Matthew McConaughey has turned from more than a punchline and into more of an actor. I'm not saying he isn't still funny or an easy addition to a joke. His laid-back demeanor and Texas drawl are just begging for comedy. He has proven though that he is a respectable actor who is hired in movies by directors like Lee Daniels, Steven Soderbergh, and even Christopher Nolan. His latest performance is in Jeff Nichols's "Mud". He plays the titular character with all the drawl we have come to expect from McConaughey. It just so happens that that drawl fits the character and the film perfectly.

Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) are two middle schoolers who lived alongside the Mississippi River. They are bored and spent most of their time on the river, trolling for fish they can freeze and sell to the townsfolk. They also enjoy spending time in their treehouse on a remote island which is acutally much more of a treehouse-boat. The boat, located high up in a tree, has no owner and no sign of how it got there. On one of their visits, Ellis and Neckbone run into a man named Mud (McConaughey). Sly and personable, Mud asks the boys if they wouldn't mind going into town and getting him food. He can't leave the island as he is waiting for his girlfriend Juniper (Reese Witherspoon). It is with this action, that the two boys get themselves into a darker situation than they had expected as Mud proves to be more than they expected and yet exactly as they expected.

Jeff Nichols is coming off of 2011's "Take Shelter", a film that would have received much more award attention had it been released at a better time and had it received a proper advertising budget. Nichols again proves that he is one of the more promising new-comers. His writing and directing show a filmmaker who could produce something great in the next few years. He lingers just long enough on shots so that he makes his point but never beats you down with it. While "Mud" is not nearly as powerful or as riveting as "Take Shelter", it still shows Nichols in a good light.

McConaughey is a natural fit as Mud. One of the often maligned parts of his acting ability is that he essentially plays himself. His characterization of Mud is no different. McConaughey is a charming, good-looking rascal and that is his character here as well. Still, he plays his standard role very well and it fits the character extremely well. Witherspoon is essentially wasted as Juniper, a woman of few words or actions. Her role could have been played by any 30-something actress although it is nice to know that she can branch out from big-budget romantic comedies and do semi-independent film again. Nichols mainstay (and soon to be extremely sought-after actor following his performance in this summer's "Man of Steel") Michael Shannon appears in a supporting role as Neckbone's uncle. There is a part of me that wonders what he might have done with a character like Mud even though McConaughey is such a natural fit.

Much of the acclaim for "Mud" will not go to McConaughey but to the performance by Sheridan as Ellis. The characterization and delivery of Ellis seems natural and propels the film forward. One scene in particular between Mud and Ellis near the end after a realization is "Oscar-bait" in the best way. His performance is very reminiscent of River Phoenix in "Stand By Me" or Jamie Bell in "Undertow". There is not one moment we don't believe this boy is a 14-year old who honestly has no idea what is going through his mind or what he is getting himself wrapped up into. While his performance will more than likely be forgotten come next Oscar season, Sheridan is definitely someone to watch in the upcoming years.

Like "Take Shelter", Nichols somewhat fumbles his way through the third act. He builds tension incredibly well and pulls viewers in so tight that very few endings could complement them. The final 20 minutes of "Mud" feels oddly out-of-place, like a film with not enough time to adequately tie everything up. While it does not totally disappoint, it isn't the ending the film deserves. One hopes Nichols can figure out how to master an ending in his next film as he certainly knows how to build something up.

Much like its main character, "Mud" breezes through with a charismatic attitude that hides dark and mysterious undertones. It again proves that Nichols is on his way to something great, that we should probably compliment McConaughey at least 1/3 as much as we poke fun, and that there are some truly great child actors out there working today and hopefully in the future.