The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

I’ve struggled quite a bit with the not necessary competition between The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies brought about by fans. That’s great that you like one of them more than the other. For me, I just think it’s awesome that we have six epic middle Earth movies. The final chapter, taking place in the middle chronologically, is The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies. The title describes the plot pretty well. Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) and the company of Dwarves reclaim the Lonely Mountain after the dragon, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch), leaves to destroy nearby Lake Town. But once word of the dragon leaving gets around, a bunch of different people want the mountain that happens to be a strong strategic location. It’s also filled with gold, so people want that too.

Aesthetically, director Peter Jackson and his crew have the look of these movies down to a science. The sweeping New Zealand landscapes with varying terrains are the best backdrops in film. As for the effects, they look great on the big screen. But throughout this trilogy there have been a number of moments where the advanced technology brings about visuals that seem over-the-top. I’m looking at you giant unnecessary were-worms.

The story develops relatively slowly in the film since they stretched the plot to cover three movies. This allows for more back story and Easter eggs for fans of Tolkien. After the very calculated and serious tone of The Lord of the Rings, I think that these new films were the right place for those details. But a casual moviegoer without much interest in the mythology probably didn’t need all the side stories. The acting was pretty steady throughout. Martin Freeman’s turn as Bilbo is the most successful of all Hobbits throughout the series. He does really well layering the positive and negative aspects of the title character. Ian McKellan is also given his chance to end the series on a high note. A battle between the White Council and Sauron had the nerds in the theater foaming at the mouth (myself included.) But he also gets some great dialogue to go next to his fighting in the massive battle.

Ultimately, the main criticism with the film is that it is made up of a fight with the dragon, which is followed by one big battle. Looking at the trilogy as one story makes this fact easier to understand. But if you don’t enjoy watching the battle strategies of dwarves and elves, this may not be the best film for you. As for me, I look forward to the extended cut with more nerdy goodness.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Theory of Everything

You can’t go too far into film discussion about 2014 without hearing a lot about actor Eddie Redmayne. The slight British actor plays the lead in the Stephen Hawking biopic The Theory of Everything. Like in those discussions, I’ll tell you that he gives an incredible performance. But there is more than just the actor. Look no further than Felicity Jones who plays Jane Hawking. We’ll break down these performances more in a moment. The film follows Hawking and his wife as they develop a relationship while Stephen’s health deteriorates and his scientific résumé gains prominence.

The first act shines as we see quite a bit of character development in the form of a budding romance. We know from real life this honeymoon phase won’t last the whole movie, but this pain free aspect is exciting nonetheless. It builds up the viewer before the fall. Biopics are an odd animal since the person being portrayed tends to look like an unrealistic saint or a total jerk. Theory gives you a bit of both. Many of Stephen’s negative traits are presented as a result of losing control of his body as his brain gains more acclaim. I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the negative elements of the story are tamped down so as to not ruin the admiration for the real life people that the script emphasizes.

Redmayne’s physical transformation is worth recognition in and of itself. To present such a performance when you are limited to almost no movement is quite a feat. But he is also able to keep some of the charm the actor has maintained throughout his career. Alongside Redmayne, Jones takes on a very different, but no less impressive task as the wife forced to devote her life to a severely handicapped husband. It’s heartbreaking to watch because it is so incredibly real. The movie is accessible while still being very complex, which is a perfect way to describe the relationship between the Hawkings.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Neighbors

In a world where Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are the comedy tag team champions of the world, it only makes sense that Seth Rogen and Zac Efron work together perfectly in the frat comedy Neighbors. Rogen and Rose Byrne play new parents adjusting to family life when a college fraternity moves into the house next door. Of course this isn’t a nice, quiet, volunteering frat either. Efron and co. are quite raucous. So after a failed attempt to befriend their new neighbors, they go back and forth in prank warfare.

Rogen has become a master at portraying the loveable oaf and in this effort he is a responsible, loveable oaf. He pulls it off quite well. Byrne complements him well as she continues to be a comedy powerhouse in her own right. Now what about Efron? Well, he’s actually quite funny. All three of the leads provide some depth to their laugh happy characters, but let’s not pretend this is some deep dive into the human condition. It’s a frat comedy that meets all the stereotypes of the binge-drinking, fornicating college idiots. But at the risk of sounding overly simple, Neighbors is just plain funny. I tend to think that’s important for a comedy.

Seth Rogen has done well adapting his films to his increasing age. It seems odd to think that the stoner comic is playing a semi-responsible parent, but he does so with great success. The frat also comes across as equal parts annoying and likeable. The fact you can work in a Franco brother (Dave), the actor formerly known as McLovin’ (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) along with Efron, I’d say casting has done their job quite well. And as if I needed to say more, what about that Robert DeNiro themed party? Genius.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

At the risk of bringing nostalgia into this conversation, X-Men: Days of Future Past is the movie I dreamed about when I was five years old. It’s not necessarily this particular storyline, but it’s a comic book movie chock full of popular characters with cameos from additional familiar names, allusions to other moments in the expanded universe and, believe it or not, it’s a really strong movie too. DOFP has the team from the original X-Men films living in a future where mutant hunting sentinels have almost completely wiped them out. So to try and change this reality, they use Kitty Pride’s (Ellen Page) powers to send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back in time to try and stop an important assassination that set the world on this path. It sounds a bit confusing, but the script makes it easy to understand.

Not only is the cast list filled with the best of the previous films, these actors are an acclaimed, award winning bunch. Hugh Jackman leads the charge by appearing in both future and past timelines, but he doesn’t actually come across as the film’s main character. Maybe it’s because he’s had his own spin off Wolverine films, but this is essentially a Professor X story. This works since Sir Patrick Stewart and James McAvoy do such a great job adding depth to a character that could very easily come across as a priest-like moral stalwart. With current superstar Jennifer Lawrence, Ian McKellen and Michael Fassbender also featuring prominently, the principle cast, which contains a ton more familiar names, is quite incredible. And to avoid spoilers, I won’t even get into the cameos!

The story for Days of Future past is strong. It’s clear this film was made with the intention of molding a super-franchise like The Avengers and also repairing some of the continuity hiccups created throughout seven films that had a number of different directors. Plus since the film is directed by X-Men and X2 director Bryan Singer, let’s just say the elements erased from the timeline aren’t the ones from his projects. The X-Men are a fun group that diversifies the plot among characters better than any other comic book film. Would my thrilled yet hypothetical five year old self understand the time travelling paradoxical results of this movie? No, but I’d definitely think it was a lot of fun.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Godzilla

In the lead up to the Gareth Edwards directed Godzilla, it seemed that everyone needed to compare it to Roland Emmerich’s project of the same name from the 90s. Those comparisons will happen, but it’s clear that this movie was made with that predecessor planted firmly in mind. This film takes itself very seriously and, if you can believe it, lacks realism in critical moments. I will explain that momentarily. Godzilla tells the story of a naval officer (Aaron Taylor Johnson) who finds himself repeatedly coming in contact with a trio of ancient monsters who suddenly wake up.

By attempting to be faithful to the original Japanese Godzilla films, we get a Godzilla who unknowingly acts as a defender of the people by preying on the two MUTO (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism). That’s all fine except for the fact that the US Navy rides along side by side with a massive dinosaur like monster and trusts him while he crushes everything in his wake. Also, I think our military is smarter than repeatedly targeting monsters that feed on radiation with radioactive weapons. But yes, I understand the movie is just that, a motion picture about giant monsters.

A lot does go right also. The cast is quite successful with Johnson proving to be a likeable and adequate lead with an understated performance. Paired with Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olsen and Ken Watanabe, who all give emotional personality to the story, there isn’t a weak link among them. Visually there are a number of memorable moments that are beautiful on the big screen. When a team of soldiers HALO jump to get into war torn San Francisco, the result is a haunting scene that emphasizes the intended tone. The movie is good, but if you’re rebooting an old concept that has been done a bunch of times before, it needs to be different. At this point with Godzilla, I don’t know how that’s possible.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

In the build up to blockbuster season, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 seemed to take the backseat in my mind to time travelling X-Men and city smashing monsters. The result of this is a movie that kicked off May with a bang that will be tough to match. Spider-Man/ Peter Parker is a compelling character, which is why he has been a pop culture mainstay for so many years. But never has a Peter Parker come across as human as Andrew Garfield’s portrayal in his second turn as the web-slinger. But the British actor doesn’t deserve all the credit. In fact, there are a number of pieces to this puzzle.

The film picks up with Peter enjoying being Spider-Man, as well as his relationship with Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), only to quickly be forced into conflict with the emergence of a number of powerful villains. To be honest, the development of the villains is pretty par for the course with what we’ve seen from all the superhero movies. But with the average development of Electro (Jamie Foxx) we get an incredible audio-visual experience with a Time Square battle between him and Spidey. I can’t think of a special effects scene that had me in awe like this since last summer’s Pacific Rim. But beyond Electro, the company Oscorp, with Norman and Harry Osborne, is presented as a villain factory of sorts that will prove troublesome in future franchise installments, which is a cool twist.

But even with high flying stunts and immersive special effects, the most successful moments follow the young love of Peter and Gwen. Sure, the on again off again element is dull and tiring, but their connection is as real as any on-screen couple you’ll ever see. Maybe the fact that the actors are dating in real life has something to do with it. On the same note, the film’s emotional climax far outweighs the fisticuffs that accompany it. If The Dark Knight changed the tone of comic book movies for the better, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has changed the genre’s ability to convey emotion. Poor Peter Parker. The character has been around since 1962 and in all that time, he just can’t seem to catch a break.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Rio 2

For some reason it interests me immensely that with Rio and its sequel Rio 2 we get the rare instance where an animated movie is not named after its protagonist. Yes there are others, Ice Age and Up being two examples, but still. I find it worth noting. Rio 2 has Blu (Jesse Eisenberg), Jewel (Anne Hathaway) and their kids travelling to the Amazon Rainforest in an attempt to find more of their kind. But things get complicated by evil loggers, the return of their old foe Nigel (Jemaine Clement), and the fact that Blu is a city bird who wears a fanny pack and uses a GPS.

The voice cast is good, there is no denying that. Eisenberg conveys the perfect timidity of his character and the support is spot on. But with the film’s expansion into the forest and the adding of characters, many of the strong players from the first film were severely marginalized. Nigel’s return is never fully developed even though he is given his own cast of minions. And even more noticeable is the lack of importance of the friends, played by Jamie Foxx, Will.I.Am and George Lopez. They’re basically only there for nostalgia’s sake and nothing more.

Plot wise, the logger and Nigel conflicts are resolved very easily and the only real development that takes place is Blu proving his worth to the jungle birds and that moves very slowly before being instantly fixed in the film’s final minutes. Sure, there is funny stuff in the there. I’m not going to pretend I didn’t laugh, but in an attempt to expand the story’s scope, so much of what worked the first time around goes unrealized here in Rio 2. I was definitely tapping my toe to the music too. I’m all for an animated musical that gets “Let it Go” out of my head.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Just when you think you know what is going to happen next in the Marvel cinematic universe, they throw you a curve ball. Or in the case of Captain America: The Winter Soldier, a curve shield. The film has Captain America, played by Chris Evans, adapting to life in the 21st century. But beyond learning about iPhones and the Berlin Wall, he has the ever conniving and secretive SHIELD to try and decode. Plus there’s the deadly appearance of the Winter Soldier to deal with. This movie has a whole lot of stuff going on. It could even have been labeled as a SHIELD movie because this is the first time we’ve seen the organization featured so much in the forefront of the story telling.

As the no-nonsense member of The Avengers, Evans approaches the character head on focusing on maintaining a steady personality. If anything, Cap should be more frazzled by everything going on around him. The plot is quite complex as Marvel breaks down the barriers they built themselves in the previous films. The second Captain America is so important to Marvel’s overall structure that it really weakens the previous phase two films. We’re looking at you Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World.

But what is tough about being a piece of such a large series is that it causes holes in the stand alone films. We get a lot of underdeveloped characters that may return in the future, maybe not. Emily Van Camp’s Agent 13 comes to mind. Also we lose time with the title character in order to build what is essentially a team of secret Avengers for this film. Cap is joined by Nick Fury (Samuel L Jackson), Falcon (Anthony Mackie), Agent Hill (Cobie Smulders) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) to bring down the bad guys. That’s all fun and exciting. But we watched Tony Stark drag his suit around in the snow for a while in his last movie. Where’s that insight into the character for Captain America?

The Film moves quickly never letting you catch your breath as you’re treated to tie-ins to the previous Captain America film, Avenger’s allusions and easter egg name dropping to appease the hardcore fans. (Did you catch the mention of Dr. Strange, a character we’ll likely see sooner or later?) There’s no question Marvel is continuing to strive for fresh approaches to the comic book genre. This film was advertised as essentially more of the same with Cap fighting bad guys with SHIELD. To avoid spoilers, let’s just say this isn’t that. Touché Disney and Marvel. Touché.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Wes Anderson is a polarizing filmmaker. It wouldn’t be too hard to find someone who loves his films, another who hates them and a third who has never heard of him at all. The unique vision that has led to such a split is on full display in his latest effort, The Grand Budapest Hotel. Tony Revolori plays a lobby boy at the titular hotel, who grows close to the well-known concierge there, played by Ralph Fiennes. A good amount of the film takes place outside of the hotel’s walls as the pair are involved in a jail break, encounters with Nazis and even a high speed sled chase.

What is a Wes Anderson movie without a bit of the bizarre? Since the story is told through a girl reading a book written by an author who is recalling a conversation he had with a man involved in the story, the bizarre is justified like in a game of telephone. Anderson’s usual cast of regulars all turn up throughout the story in roles of various sizes. If you go through the writer/director’s filmography that list seems to grow with every project. Grand Budapest is able to support such a large cast. Though I’m sure I’m not the only one who would have liked to see Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman and others featured a bit more.

The story rides entirely on Fiennes, probably a bit more than was intended. His delivery is spot on throughout most of the film with moments of memorable schizophrenic comedy. Unfortunately, he is unable to effect the pacing in a positive way. It is by no means a long movie, but it sure feels that way while you are watching. Exciting events take place, but almost all of them are long winded. Look no further than the scene where Willem Dafoe’s character chases Jeff Goldblum’s through a museum. It took Goldblum less time to escape a T-Rex in Jurassic Park. Even with its flaws, not much comes as a surprise to those familiar with Wes Anderson’s work. This is his huge casted hotel chapter.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Noah

You know, Noah always gets a bad rap for being the reason unicorns don’t exist, but if Darren Aronofsky’s new film, Noah is accurate, there was a dude hiding out on the ark eating a bunch of the animals! So blame him for all the extinct animals that didn’t survive the flood. The film stars Russell Crowe as the ark builder attempting to interpret “the creator’s” message while saving his family from the coming floods. The imagery is unlike what one would expect from a biblical epic. I must admit I’ve never seen a biblical story where giant rock people bash enemies away, but I’d also never seen a Darren Aronofsky directed biblical film.

It’s important to specify that Noah isn’t a religious film. I considered it to be, but that comes from preconceived notions of who Noah was and where the story was written. The movie uses the term “creator” instead of “God” and takes place in a time so far gone that the way we see religion had not yet been developed. But with fallen angels (rock monsters) and sin and debauchery portrayed the way they are, associated religion with the film is not so far off.

Crowe gives a good performance, but it suffers in the final third of the film when the script turns all gloomy and homicidal. Emma Watson, who plays Noah’s adopted daughter/daughter-in-law is probably the other standout due to the complex situation her character must deal with. Others prove to be very middle of the road. Jennifer Connolly is just there, Logan Lerman is a whiny pouter and Anthony Hopkins plays a crazy wizard (?) like guy. Even with that list, Noah is an interesting film that moves along well even though it’s filled with dense material. Plus it definitely isn’t what you would expect from a movie with this title.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Muppets Most Wanted

There have been a lot of Muppets movies over the years, but when The Muppets hit theaters in 2011; it was supposed to signify a reboot that would separate it from the crazy chapters that marginalized the characters. I’m looking at you Muppets from Space and Muppet Treasure Island. That new focus worked under the watchful eye of its writer and star, Jason Segel. But here we are a few years later without him and the sequel, Muppets Most Wanted has to try and follow that up. The result is a different, but positive experience from the last film.

The plot has the Muppets on a world tour while unknowingly becoming involved in a European jewel heist. The heist is pulled off by their tour manager (Ricky Gervais) and a criminal mastermind who has switched places with Kermit. In addition to this primary storyline, there are two others that split the screen time. Kermit is locked in a Russian prison under the watchful eye of Tina Fey’s prison guard character. Also, Ty Burrell plays an Interpol agent teamed up with Sam Eagle, a CIA Agent, to figure out the crimes playing out across the continent. Each storyline has its funny moments, but with the different arcs playing out, a number of our favorite Muppets don’t get the screen time fans are used to. There’s not nearly enough Gonzo in my opinion.

There is a feeling of cheesiness that the poor Muppet movies of the past also had, but it never reaches the point that would make the film unlikeable to adults watching. After all, since the Muppets have been around so long, the film should be an experience for all ages. The songs are witty and there are quite a few laugh-out-loud moments sprinkled throughout, so the film should be considered a success. After all, Gervais’ character is named Dominic Badguy, (pronounced Bad-jee) so that should speak to the fun tone on display here. But with fragmented story-telling and very little character development from 95 percent of the cast, Muppets most Wanted could have done a bit better.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Divergent

Man, do we love us some young-adult conflict in the movie theaters these days. The latest, Divergent, features a world where people are split into factions based on personality types. The teenagers, after being raised in their parent’s faction, have the choice to switch if they want. In this case, Beatrice (Shailene Woodley) does switch. It’s no too much of a surprise considering the fact that her birth faction, Abnegation, is essentially the burlap sack of factions where mirrors are evil and they eat like they’re Oliver Twist. Instead she chooses Dauntless where they jump from trains, yell stuff in public and get embarrassing 90’s tribal tattoos that they’ll surely never regret.

As far as the YA genre goes, the concept for Divergent is a pretty interesting one. The factions operate like the Hogwarts houses from “Harry Potter” with natural rivals and such. Beatrice, now known by her hipper train jumping name, Trice, has to go through training and making friends, a group of sequences that look very familiar to fans of other YA stories. But the problem with the movie is that this concept is hardly developed before it gets torn apart. Based on the first book of an associated trilogy, I could have used a more straightforward story about life in this world before we get thrown a curve ball.

I don’t have too many big problems with Divergent, but for some reason it just seems like a mix of things we’ve already seen. The world looks like The Hunger Games, the factions are like the Harry Potter houses, they train like in Ender’s Game and they sulk and brood like they’re from Twilight. When you put those elements together I did enjoy the result, but it’s like eating a peanut butter, jelly bean and salami sandwich. After that visual, there’s a good chance I’m going to try that for lunch today.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Need for Speed

In a time where the world is buying tickets to see Fast and the Furious sequels in record numbers, it’s only logical that a competitor may emerge to fill our quota of street racing action films. That’s what Need for Speed is, an off year substitute while we wait for Vin Diesel’s franchise to come back with a bang. Starring Aaron Paul of “Breaking Bad” fame, Need for Speed has a street racer seeking revenge on the man who framed him for death of his friend.

Based on the video game franchise of the same name, the movie spends time appealing to the car experts watching by featuring cars I’ve never heard of and a fair amount of talk about what’s under the hood. Splitting its time as an ensemble comedy, a high stakes crime thriller, a road movie and an action film, there really isn’t enough time to develop any of those thoughts fully. The final race scene is thrilling, but logic severely weakens it. Would an army of police officers risk their lives, be killed and ultimately kill others in order to catch illegal street racers who seem to only serve short prison sentences? Not in the way this movie presents it.

Paul is a good actor and there’s no denying that. His brooding, mumbling performance here is not his best though. Dominic Cooper, who plays the villain, and Imogen Poots, the love interest, even out do Paul a bit. But nothing compares to the poorly executed and horribly written race organizer played by Michael Keaton. This quasi-narrator, who knows more about the personal lives of the characters than would be possible is laughable in almost every scene he turns up in. Need for Speed isn’t meant to reinvent the wall, but it seems to not really understand how the wheel works.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Mr. Peabody & Sherman

Fans of “The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show” will be a bit partial to seeing the genius dog, Mr. Peabody take center stage in his own feature film, but parents should be pleased as well. It’s rare to see an animated movie that features history so prominently. Now, it does star a talking dog who adopted a human boy, but let’s not get too picky here. Napoleon, da Vinci and the Trojan horse all make appearances as Mr. Peabody and Sherman travel through time. Written in the tone familiar to Dreamworks Animation, the comedy works well for young viewers, their parents and everyone in between.

Based on the simple segments the characters originally appeared in, the movie ramps up the backstory. It even goes so far as to explain how a dog could possibly adopt a human. Answer, he has to be very smart. Also there is more to the story than time travelling. There is a whole arch involving the relationship between parents and their children. From bullying at school to showing respect to others, they really pulled out all the stops in sending the message they wanted to send.

Where the story hits a snag is when the space time continuum and complicated physics get involved. The normal time travel is fine but ultimately a vortex is opened which threatens the city. It’s used as a device to bring back characters introduced earlier in the film, but it’s a clunky few scenes that could have been expressed in a different way. Ty Burrell, who voices Mr. Peabody does well making the classic character his own without changing him too much. I know it’s only his voice, but rebooting classics is a tricky business, one at which Mr. Peabody & Sherman delivers.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

300: Rise of an Empire

Where is all the hype for 300: Rise of An Empire? If you told the 2006 versions of us that big sequel to 300 was being made centered on the naval battle that played out side by side with Leonidas’ last stand, we would be very excited. Instead the sequel took eight years to make and the hype grew cob webs on our DVD shelves. It’s a bit unfortunate because Rise of An Empire delivers the back story and depth that wasn’t given in the first go around. What are missing are the legendary sound bites, we remember from ’06. “Tonight we dine in hell!” “Meaning we’re ordering Chinese food.”

Sullivan Stapleton plays Themistocles, a character whose legend is on par with Leonidas’. His army is a large one that seems to contain a predictable dynamic of archetypes including the father/ son pairing we saw in the first film. I hate to keep mentioning 300 but the truth is Rise of an Empire makes sure you don’t forget it. References to the past characters, including the presence of Lena Headey’s Queen Gorgo and David Wenham’s Dilios, pop up around every turn.

Xerxes, played by Rodrigo Santoro is featured again also, but this is much more than an ode to the past. WE get the character’s origin story and see more into his life as god-king than before. He’s no longer just the creepy villain who says “Europa” in a deep accent. Eva Green also does well as the creepy commander Artemisia.

The action is higher quality than expected from a film about a naval battle. I kind of wondered why all the ships didn’t just come to shore and fight there though. Most of the time the ships just rammed each other and the fighters jumped from deck to deck. Why not make it easier? But I expected over the top Greek historical fiction in Rise of an Empire and that’s what I got.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Robocop

Did you ask for a Robocop reboot? I know I sure didn’t. But you never know with these projects until you watch them. Joel Kinnaman plays a Detroit cop on the verge of death after being injured on the job. But his wife (Abbie Cornish) is given a choice to bring him back as part man, part robot. Spoiler alert, she does. If she chose to let him die it would be a pretty short movie. Once the transition is made, it quickly becomes clear that he’s not the same person. His mind can be bent through the machine part of his being.

In a time where so many sci-fi adventures are told with an eye to comedy or the possibility to appeal to children, Robocop takes itself very seriously. Sure, it’s not the bloodbath the original was. This version received a PG-13 rating, but there’s a lot of stress throughout the narrative. Kinnaman, best known for his work on “The Killing,” is an interesting choice to play the lead. He’s believable as a good cop, but he has a seedy nature to his look that makes you question the character a bit. The script helps by spending a fair amount of time establishing his good guy nature through his interactions with family and friends.

With a lesser known actor playing Robocop, the star power is built up elsewhere. Samuel L. Jackson plays a television news pundit, who establishes the story early on and ultimately beats the audience over the head with the moral issues presented in the film. Then there’s Gary Oldman, who plays the morally conflicted scientist who builds Robocop. The film’s attempted intensity takes a lot of the fun out of a story about a robot police officer and the result is a stunted pace with semi-likeable characters. Sure the character is way sleeker than the original, but the movie isn’t as slick as they think.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Lego Movie

How good could a movie based on Legos possibly be? Well actually, quite good. Chris Pratt voices Emmet, an everyday Lego construction worker, who is happy going through his everyday life. But when he is believed to be the subject of a prophecy, he joins a quest to save the Lego world from an oppressive villain. Over the past number of years, Lego has built an entertainment brand on witty humor in their screen and video game properties. This makes a very easy transition to the big screen. The Lego movie is the culmination of such an approach.

Beyond Pratt, the voice cast is incredibly deep with Will Ferrell, Morgan Freeman, Elizabeth Banks, Liam Neeson and a host of other big names contributing their spoken talents. Arnett plays Batman who is one of many popular properties to make an appearance. There are also Star Wars, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Harry Potter characters featured. These familiar faces keep the audience’s attention, looking for their favorites to make a cameo. But beyond that, the film is very conscious of the real process of children playing with Legos. Using a lollipop stick as a staff, broken accessories and the mismatching of characters from different “worlds” brings back memories from playing with the brick toys.

Ultimately the stream of consciousness format of the story telling is explained in a funny way with one of the well-known voice contributors making a real life appearance. It’s one of the final successful moments in a movie that has one after another for its full running time. Obviously, the intended audience is children, but the references are probably better understood by adults who have lived through more of Lego’s long varied history. And good luck getting Teagan and Sara w/ The Lonely Island’s “Everything is Awesome” out of your head. There aren’t many songs catchier than that.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

The Monuments Men

Take George Clooney (the actor and the director) add Matt Damon, John Goodman and a pinch of Bill Murray and what do you get? An Oscar sure thing. Unfortunately The Monument’s Men wasn’t ready in time for award season so it got the early year release. The film is based on the true story of a group of soldiers tasked with saving classic art from the Nazis in World War II. The film has a bit of war time fighting, but it is a fresh take on a time that has been thoroughly explored throughout cinematic history.

The cast delivers exactly as you would expect them to. Oscar sweethearts Cate Blanchett and Jean Dujardin also feature through the star studded project and their ability to hold equal weight next to Clooney and Damon shows the script’s balance and depth. The film is a treasure hunt as a few specific pieces of art become the primary focus to drive the story forward. Looking through Clooney’s short list of directed features, it’s clear he has an eye to present moments of historic significance either through an authentic or fictitious lens. The Monument’s Men blends those two approaches using history to mold a story that differs vastly from the factual account.

The film isn’t afraid to get wordy as some scenes do last a bit long. A negative result to the large cast receiving balanced screen time is most of the supporting characters could use more developing. It has the look of a WWII film and the feel of one also, but the fresh elements give it a unique voice. Clooney and Dujardin in particular have looks that place them in the appropriate era seamlessly. I just wish Clooney would stop charming me in all of his roles. He’s just so dreamy.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

Whenever anyone asks me if I saw Jack Ryan it takes me a minute to figure out if they mean this movie starring Chris Pine or last year’s Jack Reacher starring Tom Cruise. The names are just too darn similar. In the defense of Ryan, they did add Shadow Recruit afterwards in order to give it some originality. The film tells the origin story of Jack Ryan, a spy among many other things who is the lead in Tom Clancy’s popular book series. On screen the character has been played by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck before Chris pine took his turn.

In order to make room for the main conflict in the film, the character’s backstory is summarized through the films first act. It seems like episodes of a TV show the way his time in college, military experience and subsequent recovery play out in rapid fire succession. But once everything gets moving there is a high level of charm at work alongside the tension and drama. Director (and costar) Kenneth Branagh does well keeping the film’s voice central throughout. As a spy story in Europe, Shadow Recruit could have very easily become a Mission Impossible or James Bond wannabe. That isn’t the case however.

Pine does well as the film’s lead, but never quite fits in the role the way he does in the Star Trek franchise. Branagh is a great accented villain to counteract the charm of Pine. The one dimensional character played by Kevin Costner proves less successful however as the personality could have been played by just about any actor in Hollywood. Last of the featured actors is Kiera Knightley. She gives a more accessible performance than we’re used to in the majority of her work, but the character is written as a bit clueless. Overall the film is a successful effort, but I don’t expect we’ll be remembering its name.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.

Ride Along

In a role that is essentially the same as the supporting one he plays in 21 Jump Street, Ice Cube plays a hard-nosed cop who brings his sister’s goofy boyfriend out on a day’s police work to see if he’s worthy of marrying her. Ride Along pairs Cube with current it comedian Kevin Hart, a team that apparently is perfect for the big screen. It’s all a bit predictable with how the dynamic of the odd couple plays out, but that doesn’t mean it’s not funny. It definitely is.

Hart’s incessant comedy builds the character past what could have been an annoying performance and into a likeable guy. He isn’t always able to keep the coolness level down enough though. The script presents the character as a bigger loser than Hart plays him as. Ice Cube proves the perfect foil. He can keep the tough guy persona through even the most ridiculous antics. He’s come a long way as an actor. I don’t anticipate seeing “Oscar nominee” in front of his name or anything, but he’s still vastly improved. Beyond the leads, smaller performances by John Leguizamo and Laurence Fishburne play out as middle of the road.

Like I mentioned earlier, the film’s biggest flaw is how incredibly predictable it is. Individual scenes stand out as memorable inside a plot that has been written countless times before. Even with a solid performance, Ice Cube comes across as less memorable than Hart. Hart is on a quick rise to super stardom and the success of Ride Along shows that. His scenes at a shooting range and imitating a crime boss are great moments to add to his reel. They’re well-timed and with a good amount of improvisation. Overall, it’s a solid effort.

Each film earns either zero, a half or a full arrow in five categories. The categories are Acting, Writing/Directing, Emotion, Innovation and Overall Impression. The arrows are added up to equal the full score.