Annual: The Films of 2014

 

Well here it is, folks! EVERY movie I saw in 2014 ranked from bottom to top!

Now, those who know me know I usually do this every season but the seasons came, the seasons went. Time went on and I never could decide which movie was actually the BEST Summer blockbuster of 2014 (spoiler alert: It was Guardians of the Galaxy).
  It was an interesting year because there was just so much diversity. I was convinced in the Spring that Wes Anderson gave us the best movie of the year already and there ended up being so many other surprises. Granted, one could say it was indeed a unique year for films: The Best Picture went to a movie where old man Michael Keaton battled a psychological demon called Birdman in one take and the most impressive comic book movie of the year featured a talking raccoon and a walking tree voiced by Vin Diesel; yes folks, a unique year where Richard Linklater spent over a decade of his life filming a small child who would give Hayden Christensen a run for his money (whoops, 'nother spoiler alert); yes, a year where Godzilla made a comeback and there were no giants heaps of fish involved; a year where Legos proved to be more than meets the eye and Transformers apparently stooped to a new low (believe it or not I unfortunately missed out) but it was SUCH a unique year indeed; a year where Christopher Nolan launched his biggest film ever while Kevin Smith turns to human-centipede-style comedy/horror for his latest attempt at directing (final spoiler: it didn't work out so well), but it was all an experience, as always, through and through.
  And so, until I die (or give up on loving movies and writing and ranting), here is my super-list; my inevitably pointless plunge into allllll my colorful opinions on films good, bad and everything in between. So without further ado, let's start the show!

For those just joining us, I have a couple rules and if you don't like 'um you'll be locked in the chokey (just kidding, that's a nasty place):

  For starters, I rank based on a mix of criticism and favoritism; I'll admit when a movie's well crafted even if I didn't like the final result (Boyhood) but then you'll see me go ham on praising movies that critics didn't like (The Interview) and it just might tell you what kinda person I am because sometimes, SOMETIMES... a taste in film can say a lot about a person and their traits (saying "your taste in movies sucks" is simply not as fun or even an OUNCE as enjoyable as slamming the people who bat an eye at 50 Shades of sh*t or anything that features a sparkling vampire). I dunno, I'm no critic but I'm old fashioned; it's still fun to hear people's opinions and we need more people like Siskel and Ebert to just flat out say "YOUR MOVIE SUCKS." And frankly, I hope I can help bring the public back to that happy place as us cinema snobs unite
(though you'll probably be disappointed since most of my opinions tend to kinda just weigh in the middle).


*Speaking of cinema snobs, please check out my fellow critics Tom and Mickey with their annual top picks and get some diversity in your life. If you disagree with my opinions you just might agree with theirs. *

  For seconds, I can have a wildly diverse opinion on films and I could care less about what anyone thinks of them. Granted, I love feedback but I do this for me and me alone. I mean, I DO do it for the public; for anyone who cares at all what I might think on the films that aren't my own so that they too may feel like there's someone out there in this weird world who feels so strongly towards films that ultimately resonate so little in the world, but this is more of a weird venting exercise for me because I in fact have such a strangely strong passion for the films I watch. But in the end this is all for S's & G's; It's all for pure, cynical, unadulterated love for entertainment folks... So when you plan on gouging someone'e eyes out because they didn't think Bradley Cooper portrayed Americans "properly," or that they thought Birdman was stupid and they didn't know why, just remember that this all. means. nothing; nothing but pure entertainment. Enjoy it while it lasts too; entertainment isn't always easy to come by.


Now let's start with the over-sized list of EVERY MOVIE I MISSED in 2014 (that I had interest in)

ranging from Best Picture nominees to Razzie winners

• Joe
• Locke
• Edge of Tomorrow Live Die Repeat
• Transformers: Age of Extinction
• Wish I Was Here
• Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
• Hercules
• Flashdrive: The Movie Lucy
• Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2014)
• The Expendables 3
• Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
• This Is Where I Leave You
• Willow Creek
• They Came Together
• Horrible Bosses 2
• The Trip to Italy
• What If
• Love Is Strange
• Skeleton Twins
• John Wick
• St. Vincent
• Top 5
• Exodus: Gods & Kings
• The Gambler
• Big Hero 6
• Wild
• Unbroken
• A Most Violent Year
• Selma
• The Theory of Everything

(yeah, not kidding about those last two)


And now, without further ado, my gigantic, unnecessary list of EVERY MOVIE I SAW in 2014

Ranked!


LET THE GAMES BEGIN

37) Under the Skin

Holy art house-abstract-naked-alien-Scarlett-Johansson flick, Batman.

  Where to begin and where to end, with this one? Under the Skin is arguably the most frustrating film of 2014--scratch that. It IS the most frustrating film of 2014.

  From the moment I was bestowed upon a preview for this film, which screened before The gloriously Grand Budapest Hotel back in March, I instantly knew it was going to be a rare gem that I had to see in order to believe. And Lord almighty, was this one rare indeed. Perhaps it was not only because the preview suggested it, but because multiple critics compared the film to something that came from the mind of Kubrick, that sent me home perplexed... Now, don't get me wrong, I don't worship the work of Kubrick the way many film-heads out there do, but I respect the man's legacy enough to find it bold for ANYONE to just throw around a comparison to his work. So with all due respect, my expectations were held questionably high.

  Let's flashback to three days ago. I finally stumbled upon a high-resolution-quality copy of the film, turned down the lights and sat in silence... for nearly two, long hours. Now, depending on who you are and what you watch, two hours can be a breeze. Hell, each Hobbit movie was nearly three hours long each (and that's one book broken into THREE movies [more on The Hobbit to come], and people MARATHON those movies) but the reason Under the Skin felt like a painful workout was because at the end of the day it was an exercise in abstract art; an exercise that would have worked much, MUCH better, had this been a short film.

  I've used the excuse many times before (ironically last seen in my book with last year's award winning film Her, also starring Johansson) and it really isn't the best excuse but it's all I got. The film would have worked on a much larger scale had the film been 40 minutes or less, plain and simple. It just drags to a point of absurdity and that's not only referring to the film's run time. But even so, there are still too many damn problems with the film's attempts at being abstract.

  For one, I applaud the project for being a near silent film. Yes, many will deem the film "boring" because mainstream audiences lack the attention span for something that legitimately qualifies for true on-screen art, such as a modern day dark, sexual, sci-fi thriller as quiet as this. It's stunning really. But it's also why the film frustrates me as much as it does. I respect the art that went into it so much but the result is stretched so thin and ultimately results in so, so little. Much of the film's premise (alien-Scarlett Johansson seducing men into a black void for purposes unknown) is left so wide open for interpretation, that it's more boggling than beautiful. It got to points where it left me literally angry. Were these dark trances that these slave-men were being sucked into real or not? The dream-like sequences in which she takes these men to her apartment of a literal black, endless void were engaging and mysterious but ultimately doesn't give any concrete answers (and yeah, I understand that's the point) but give me SOMETHING to grasp.

  On the other hand, you have Johansson who ironically devours this role were she the extraterrestrial being she portrays in such an odd, little film. She knocks it out of the park and for having nearly no dialogue, her performance is bold, haunting and beautiful. For obvious reasons, the movie will attract many viewers based on the mere fact that this is the first time Scarlett has gone full nude and she truly does bear it all. She's literally fit for the part being she has an incredible body and the fact that her character is not only beautiful but mysteriously charming and apprehensive, works perfectly for the role of the lonely seductive driver who preys upon equally lonely, drifting men. But on the other hand, while somewhat related to the plot, it will grant most moviegoers no satisfaction of seeing Scarlett's sexuality exploited. In some cases it's more disturbing than delectable (again, I know that's part of the point).

  I can literally go on forever about how much this movie bothered me. But it also strikes a familiar balance with my bizarre taste in movies. I can't help but recall the infamous Only God Forgives, an unworthy followup to a very worthy Drive. Most people will tell you that OGF is one of the most abstract, boring, relentlessly pretentious films in recent memory (for those that would claim they're unfortunate enough to have sat through it) and I can't help but follow the crowd in the beginning like the sheep that I can be at times... I hated that film. I hated it so much that it sat with me for months (yes, months). It frustrated me to no end and yet I couldn't release the imagery or the apparent hidden morals, no matter what. The film was an exercise in making me mad; I was convinced. Then I did the inevitable, watched it for a second time and fell in love with it and to say I'm in love with one of the most unlikable films I've ever seen is bold, even to me but hell, there's a reason these movies stay with me. Which is why I have full confidence that I will look back on this new little gem and turn my apparent hatred into a budding romance.

  Granted and not ironically, the absolutely most interesting aspect of the film was the very bitter end; Right before the credits. It honestly came as no surprise to me but its final still; its last gleaming moments; its fade into a snowy sky, left me unsettled; unbalanced; haunted; moved. I can't deny the sheer artful beauty that goes into such a desolate, wasteful film. But maybe capturing the quiet, dark, moody journey of some sort of alien-creature on this can-be terrible planet, was the entire point of this frustrating exercise in abstract art. Too abstract? Hell yes. Would this have worked better as a bizarre music video for some hipster artist or as a strange, untold trailer for a David Lynch movie? 100%. But a waste of time? Absolutely not. Is the soundtrack the best part? Arguable. The end result is a film, like Only God Forgives, that I will recommend to absolutely no one. But it is a film that will stay with me. The fact that such a film has left me feeling enough to write a small essay means the film did its job to some degree. And for that, we thank you.

Grade: C

36) Tusk

The must-ask question(s): Are you a fan of Kevin Smith and if so, are you a fan of horror? If the answer is no, then please disregard this film altogether. And for those who are going to continue reading... then good God... Here we go...

  It's going to be a challenge in itself to not spend the entire length of this note ranting about this very specific attempt at a film, mostly because there's just as much to say about it as there isn't. To put very bluntly, plain and simple, this movie is outrageous; it's a movie that seems to know it's outrageous and being helmed by Kevin Smith of all people, the result isn't anything remotely close to Clerks but in fact it's an entire beast walrus all on its own, and it just might be the worst movie of 2014.

  Let's back up just a mustache hair and start at the beginning. Now, as a diehard Kevin Smith fan, I'll be the first to admit the man is far from perfect and his track record is extremely shaky given that since his View-askew-niverse has apparently ended (the films that exist between Clerks and Clerks II), he's lost sight on where to take new, original projects (for those keeping count, that includes Jersey Girl, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Cop Out and Red State, all of which range from being mediocre to utter crap) so let's fast forward a bit.

  Over the last few years Smith has sort of gained an apparent desire to be in the spotlight of sorts. Among his famous standup gigs where he tours animated films following Jay & Silent Bob, he also delivers social and political satire all while being laugh-out-loud hilarious as always. His AMC success Comicbook Men is a massively entertaining success for geeks and nerds of the Pawn Stars generation worldwide Jersey-wide. Within this show, Smith does podcasts with his buddies which is where the conception for Tusk began, all while promising fans of an eventual Clerks III and a "return to form," so to speak (even though he "quit" directing just after releasing Red State).

  So why do we care about Smith's track record? We still have YET to cover the abomination that is Tusk. I guess it's because it all calls back to a time not too long ago where Smith publicly addressed that he went back to smoking pot and has since become a fanboy of the ever popular marijuana. Now, I'm not gonna go ahead and make political or social commentary here. Smith's incarnations of Jay and Silent Bob are not only portrayed as stoners but they once came from the mind of a stoner, and the films were incredible. They were stoner films with brains; art house films about slackers, dirtbags, sluts and it was all perfect. Smith's dialogue was the stoner's Quentin Tarantino; it dragged on and was essentially about nothing but it had life and character, and it was hilarious. All it to say is, I have absolutely no qualms with a film coming from someone who writes when they're stoned. But clearly Smith literally couldn't sh*t or get off the pot with this one.

  He not only addressed that he was back to hardcore pot-smoking but that he was going to make a film based on an infamous podcast he once did... which consisted of a what-if scenario where a man turns into a walrus... and that's how we got here.

  Admitting that he came up with the idea and wrote the film all while being stoned, Smith knew he was tackling something ambitious, and he's one of those filmmakers that exists where making a movie about a guy becoming a walrus was, for him, ambitious. It's not because he's Oscar-worthy but because he's made a name for himself in the world of film directors. Sure, he's no Scorsese but this is a man who proved everyone wrong by making a low budget, black and white indie flick coming fresh out of school that had multiple plot points that centered around conversations about how many d**ks a man's girlfriend sucked... that went on to win MULTIPLE film festivals; here was a man who gave slackers and young ambition-less filmmakers a dream. So on the ONE hand, given his history with his colorful topics of choice, it's not much of a surprise that Smith went for a beast such as Tusk, but on the other hand, Smith knew he would be doing a sub-genre piece that would not only be different from any film he's done before but different than most films, period.

  And here's the catch. Tusk isn't a good movie. Smith knew he wasn't making a good movie. That was never the idea in the first place. But with that said, Smith proves he also clearly wasn't going for bad so the end result is kinda just mixed and unfortunately that's where Tusk suffers the most. It's a should-be so-bad-it's-good film that ends up being more meh than anything to shake a stick tusk at. It's a film that is self aware; a little too self aware and not like 22 Jump Street where there's a constant shtick at poking at clever jokes (for them it was mocking the fact that sequels are never as good), but it's too self aware in the sense that its premise alone is flat-out ridiculous that there's no way people would ever take it seriously, which is an idea that can make it work on a satirical level... except for the fact that Smith doesn't seem to have the first clue about how to go about directing his actors, with the exception of the twistedly brilliant Michael Parks.

  There's literally nothing to grasp here. Basically, America's sweetheart, Justin Long, plays Wallace (a crude podcaster, ironically [we see you winking Smith. Stop it]) who, along with a now-fat Haley Joel Osment (so that's where you've been hiding!), develops a cocky attitude which has won him the hearts of comedic fans but has also apparently fractured his intimate relationships (girlfriend trouble explained via flashbacks, yada-yada-yah). I'm not going to dive into the plot, nor spoil anything too big (unless you haven't read up on the film at all, in which case, spoiler alert) but from there Wallace ends up in Canada (Smith made it known this will be the first of a series of films where "weird occurrences happen in Canada") where Michael Parks plays a sick, twisted man confined to a wheelchair, a mansion and a lifetime of stories who attempts to drug and surgically transform Wallace into a walrus, circa something out of the Human Centipede... only it's a human walrus. Sounds funny, right? Wrong.

  The film's first half hour is easily the strongest and only real bit worth taking in, as far as ANY redeeming cinematic qualities go and that's primarily due to the brilliant Michael Parks sharing stories with Justin Long in very usual Smith-like dialogue. From the moment Long is drugged and the weird and unfortunate events take place, the film goes down hill and FAST, and Smith knows it. The more he attempts to give into the bizarre gore and forced horror, the worse the film gets. It's not something that's hilariously gory, sans The Evil Dead nor is it something as wacky and unable to keep quiet about as the dreadful Human Centipede, it attempts to mock, but rather it's a whimper of something that dares to call itself either a horror or a comedy.

  Because in the end, that's why the film kinda sucks. A LOT. It's not scary in the slightest and it's almost never funny. It's not a B movie nor is it something ironically and sickly brilliant. It's kinda just there, and for that, it's a walrus-sized cop out (two Kevin Smith puns right there) for fans of this once high and mighty director who is now just high; high and lazy. After critics slammed the film, Smith even went as far as declaring that he invented a strand of weed that's meant to be smoked while watching this specific film. But unfortunately, no amount of grass will make the film appear to be the philosophical epitome of witty horror or comedy that it tries to be. It takes creepy, weird turns every few beats as expected but with a random cameo towards the end that brings the film to a complete halt, and shoehorned Clerks nods (with Smith and Johnny Depp's daughters playing young, female versions of Dante and Randall), the film results in being a huge mess. The climax of this weird tale is arguably the best part of the whole thing if only because Smith, very briefly, gives into the big, WTF-nonsense that the film's goofy premise failed to ignite when we were given the very mysterious, misleading trailers that centered around a guy being turned into a walrus.

  The film is a turd; a steaming pile of a failed experiment. And it's not bad; at least it's not Troll 2 bad where it demands multiple viewings (though its bound to find a cult following somewhere)... But it's certainly not good. It's not bottom of my barrel in a weirdly beautiful way where I'd recommend it to no one (as with Under the Skin) but it's almost worse for an entirely different reason. This movie had potential; potential to be something so much more than what we got. Given the history behind the movie, it should have been bonkers; absolutely batsh*t crazy... OR it should have resulted in something more quiet and brooding, embracing its goofy creepiness. The result is a hammed up middle ground. And it's worth having a conversation about, rather than sitting through the whole thing yourself. With the exception of Michael Parks (who needs to start chasing Oscars because he's got it in him), there's nothing redeeming here except the loss of a potentially good joke (I mean, hell, look how much writing I got out of it).

  In the end, it is only a stupid, forgettable flick and I do applaud Smith for branching out and doing something wildly different; more different than he's ever done before, but the biggest crime Tusk commits is that it gives me doubt in Smith's future work. Maybe it's because I look up to the man so much, but this gives me very little hope for Clerks III. I can forgive him for experimenting and not really succeeding but I long for the days where I could walk out a Kevin Smith film feeling truly impressed, even if it only resulted in foolish comedy. But this one was just plain foolish.

Grade: F+ (if that's even a thing)

35) Filth

Every now and again someone will attempt to make a film "dark" but not in a dramatic way, yet in a funny way. Films will come and go that show the balls that other filmmakers seemingly don't have by exploiting a whole endless world of possibilities involving not just graphic violence but gratuitous nudity, deeply embedded sexuality and oh, drugs. Lots and lots of drugs. Some films can be deemed trashy but in a tasteful way. Films such as Danny Boyle's early gem, Trainspotting, can prove a positive lifestyle from this dirty, hopeless sub-genre. In fact, Boyle has probably earned the top spot in that style of filth that all other films that have come close are essentially in one way or another, pure imitations. Other cult classics such as In Bruges have proved to be their own beast of this vile sub-genre entirely. And then you have films like Filth.

  Filth is a movie that starts out as an exciting adventure about disgusting nothingness and ends with no rhyme or reason in the slightest. By donning itself with a title such as "Filth," one can't help but roll their eyes at the immediate attempt to be something edgy. In the end, it's nothing more than a cloak of Trainspotting but lacking nearly all the character development and drained of anything that resembles an interesting screenplay.

  The only reason I watched this film is because it was on Netflix and its "classy" sub genre was being  paraded by James McCavoy, a young actor I've come to greatly respect over the years, and thankfully he and he alone, save this film to a small degree.

  Again, cutting right to the chase, the film indeed lives up to its filthy title. It's full of vulgarity, tons of sexuality and its all led by a depressed detective who's a sex-addicted, drug-addicted, suicidal alcoholic who enjoys pulling pranks on his coworkers at the cost of their own expense and at his own twisted sense of humor. And I don't know what it was, but being in this day and age, the film's style just made me numb. I can totally get on board with a vile, vulgar, disgusting picture if there's substance to it and ultimately there is less than zero substance here.

  At the end of the day, the film comes down to McCavoy and the washed up character he plays and as I said before, he's literally the only saving grace here. He plays twisted really well and it's unfortunate that he was given such little to play with because as with most movies, there's room for SO, so much more potential. So why not rank this in last place seeing as I have nearly nothing good to say about it? Because amidst all the filth, McCavoy holds together the film well enough that I ended up sitting through the whole thing, reminding me once again that a single performance can be enough to keep an entire film from completely falling apart. Granted, there's a couple really unsettling twists at the end of the film that seem disturbing and interesting enough to wash away any attempted dirty pretentiousness but it's not enough to keep it from being an obvious attempt at a real-world-look at true filth, even in a comedic way, the way that Trainspotting so successfully did many years ago. Outside of the negatives, McCavoy shines enough to make me respect him even if I don't fully respect the trying attempt at something good filthy here.

Grade: D

34) Neighbors

Much smaller to scale, because I can cut right to the chase with this one, I can't quite put a finger on what the reason is, but Neighbors disappointed me. That's not exactly a shocking statement but it's strange because I normally never set the bar very high for these (literal) frat-boy style comedies from the likes of the Judd Appatow gang (which probably explains why I end up enjoying them so damn much) and maybe it was because it was labeled with "from the guys who brought you This Is The End" (a movie I saw four times in theaters), but Neighbors didn't please me because it was essentially, to me, a one note joke; a one note joke that got old and FAST. It was essentially "old farts" (newlyweds Seth Rogen and a surprisingly confident Rose Byrne) vs. "young douchebags" (a parade of youths led by Zach Efron and Dave Franco, younger brother of James Franco) and this was a literal case in point of "all the funny parts were in the trailer" syndrome. From the violent pranks to the Robert Deniro costume party, every actual funny moment was revealed in the trailer leading to a straight up snooze-fest for the actual film itself. Granted, there's some tender morals sprinkled in regarding life aspects such as youth, what it really means to act your age and how that's reflected by life choices as you grow older but honestly, the movie is nothing but fluff; an airy bag of stale popcorn. Rogen's funny as always (if you find him funny) but he's not nearly as golden as he is in other flicks. Like I said, Rose Byrne is actually a big surprise here but even she's not worth the viewing alone. Granted, it's funny when it can be. It might be worth one good watch especially, if anything, because Efron plays the part of the douchebag way too well showcasing some true comedic talent within the young lad, but other than that there's really no reason for this movie to exist.

Grade: C-

33) Big Eyes

Big Eyes' biggest accomplishment may also be its biggest letdown in the sense that this is in fact a Tim Burton film.

  I know I can keep this one short because there's only one thing to analyze and that's Burton.

  The bare essentials are simple. This is a superbly well crafted film based on the real life stories of the infamous Keane couple who painted many famous portrayals of big eyed children in the 1960s that led to a mysterious court case and an even more mysterious and somewhat disturbing portrayal of the the Keane marriage and what supposedly went on behind closed doors.

  And I truly have nothing bad to say about the movie. Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz are both fantastic. The costume/makeup/art department shines more than anything visually and the soundtrack is as sweet and catchy as Keane's Big Eyed (though somewhat creepy) paintings.

  On paper the film has everything going for it but the most jarring aspect about everything here is that this is directed by the same dude who did Beetlejuice.

  Perhaps it's due to all of Burton's recent flicks over the last decade ranging anywhere from alright to awful, but it seems like there was some sort of wakeup call for the cult-followed creepy director when it comes to Big Eyes. When I say this is the most non-Tim Burton film Tim Burton has ever made, I mean it. All of his usual tropes are missing: There's no visually creepy atmosphere, no weird outfits and/or hairdos, no black and white striped patterns, no Helena Bonham Carter, no Johnny Depp, and all of these absent aspects are as strange as the trademarks  which usually plague Burton's films.

  And for the first time in a while, it's a breath of fresh air. It's no secret that Burton's known for his weird tricks and tropes over the years but another trope has been following his career as a result in that the weirder his films have become, the worse they get. At some point between Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Alice in Wonderland and Dark Shadows, Burton's filmography has become the result of pulling teeth (we GET it, you're strange and dark). And so, since Burton clearly hasn't been able to reinvent the weird wheel in a while, it seems like Big Eyes is the man's way of trying something that's, well, kinda normal for a change.

 And unfortunately that's another flaw. Burton has no idea how to do normal. But Big Eyes is a great first attempt. Granted, when I say normal I don't at all mean boring or poorly filmed. It's just a very standard drama that has many charming qualities to it. 

Make no mistake, some of Burton's famous tropes are buried deep within this movie's spirit; Some of the neighborhoods are so symmetrical and finely positioned on a centered, pleasantly picturesque street, as can only be found in the likes of Edwars Scissorhands (or Dr. Seuss). Some of his visual characteristics are there though hidden (The famous Big Eyed portraits alone are something straight out of a usual Burton film). But in the end, this is a very "normal" movie and therefore a step in the opposite direction for Burton. But hey, at least it works; It works to a small degree. Now he just needs to bring back the witty charm and personality to the glory days of Ed Wood and who knows, we just might see a new and improved Tim Burton. For now, Big Eyes is the tip of that possible iceberg.

Grade: B-

31) & 32) Get On Up/Jersey Boys

A rarity for me, yes I am cramming two movies together, the reason being I feel almost exactly the same about Clint Eastwood's depiction of Frankie Valley as I do about Tate Taylor(director of The Help)'s portrayal of James Brown, despite the fact that the reasoning for my feelings as well as both movies in general are vastly different.

  Let me clear something up for those of you who actually care enough to take the time to be reading this right now (and thank you, by the way). By placing these movies so low on my ranking, it doesn't at ALL mean I disliked either film, rather that both films were good enough to kinda just... be there, so to speak. It sounds pompous of me to put so simply (and believe me, it is) but there's no better way to put it than in blunt fashion.

  Both of these films were exceptional in their own right. They both shed light on the darkness that lies within the history of two very famous musical spotlight sensations. On the one hand, Jersey Boys served to be more of a darker, grittier tale on a tragic division between a legendary group of harmony vocals who were beyond gifted, where Get On Up felt like a spunky, upbeat adaptation of a man who followed his dreams far enough that it pretty much isolated and killed him (or pretty much drove him insane). Both films captured different moods that respectfully told the backstories they needed to tell. But at the end of the day, both films neither moved me nor inspired me in any way. Not that these are the types of stories that make you wanna wake up and become a star; in fact, it's quite the contrary, as both stories showcase exactly why these musician's attributes went over the deep end and are not to be followed. But once the film is over I couldn't help but feel like I wanted to feel more.

  Perhaps it's because I've watched one too many films depicting a troubling history with someone famous, even more narrowed down to musicians. On one end of the spectrum, I couldn't help but call back to Walk the Line where Phoenix and Witherspoon lit up the screen as Johnny and June but that was also driven by a strong screenplay and electric direction. On the other end, Ray came to mind; a truly dark and disturbing depiction of one of the jazziest, most funky dudes to ever get on keys, that also went on to nab a few Oscars. Both films reminded me of what can be when it comes to musical adaptations and neither Get On Up nor Jersey Boys fulfilled that potential.

  The biggest crime Jersey Boys commits is that it rarely presents that on-stage pizazz that the award-winning Broadway show has given to so many fans over the years. Granted, it's fine that the film is a biopic rather than a musical adaptation but by calling the film Jersey Boys, audiences will be unable to help but recall the flashy, showy musical of the same title.

  James Brown's story is at least presented in a more uplifting fashion though his history is indeed also plenty dark. The main difference between the Boys and Brown is in its directors. Where Clint Eastwood is known for presenting literally dark (in color scheme and mood), droll depictions of struggling characters, Get On Up is literally helped by it's director who coming fresh off The Help, is able to bring a spunky liveliness to James Brown's dark spotlight that is seemingly missing from Jersey Boys, though in the end we focus so MUCH on James Brown as an aging, arrogant man that we lose sight of what could have been had we stayed slightly more on track with his actual career.

  In the end, both films are really about nothing, but about nothing in a creative fashion. Both are vastly different yet both films contain a self aware narrative, breaking down the fourth wall, leading us on a journey through time that ironically leads us on to believe that we're seeing a story much bigger than what's entirely shown. It's like peering behind a small veil rather than having gigantic curtains being opened before our eyes. It's just a small shame given that both artists are so big and you can't help but feel like there's so much there, or worse, that there truthfully isn't. Indeed both films result in suffering slightly from "what could have been" syndrome.

  And maybe I'm being a little too hard on both films. There are superbly redeeming qualities to both films. Where Eastwood really brings out the cracked charisma of a broken barbershop quartet, Tate captures the lightning in a bottle that was James Brown in a stylish, funky story that had just as much heart and soul as Mr. Brown appeared to have when he was living it up on stage. Both films made me respect each respectful artist more than I ever have and that's where each film truly succeeds. Listening to Four Seasons or James Brown since, has indeed caught my attention more than it ever has because the films made me believe these characters were real people and to capture even a glimpse of who these people really were, is something special in itself. I just wish I felt like I got something more out of them.

Get On Up: B-

Jersey Boys: B-

30) Boyhood

It's not exactly easy to describe Boyhood in a few short sentences. On the one hand, there's so much to it; Richard Linklater has captured life through the eyes of a boy growing up in modern day and age so accurately and so uniquely that by actually capturing this coming of age story on film for twelve real years, he's done what no other filmmaker has attempted that with his attention to detail in capturing the essence of growing up in the new millennium, he's brought to life one of the most culturally relevant films this new millennium has ever seen...

  And on the other hand, that's about the only praise the movie truly deserves.

  I guess I'll be the only naysayer here, am I the only one who really didn't fall head over heels with Boyhood the way 99% of critics and audiences did this past year? I understand all the effort that went into capturing an on-screen lifespan of 12 years of young adulthood and I get that since it's never been done before, to such an extreme degree, we should all be proud of Linklater but let's address a couple elephants in the room.

  First of all, by capturing the closest thing to a real-life Truman Show, without the brilliant script and without a worthy showman such as Carrey, we're left with a great deal of minor (yet ironically large) holes in the film's production, most notably the acting.

  It is now where I would like to address the only faint glimmer of acting in this life-long ensemble of an ambitious project and that credit solely goes to Ethan Hawke. Perhaps it's due to the fact that the film was so focused on one small boy who started off so pure and innocent (and therefore rewarded a get-out-of-acting-free card) whom we watched slowly grow up before our actual eyes, and maybe it was the fact that the older he got, the worse his acting got, that drew my attention to Hawke but for being in the spotlight, young Mason shouldn't have grown to be such an unlikable young actor. I know I'm alone here and I totally understand that newcomer Ellar Coltrane was channeling "depressed, weird, misunderstood kid with teenage angst", but he flat out sucks. It's like watching someone act their way out of some low budget porno flick, or watching Hayden Christensen grow up over time lapse. And it's awful. The reason it may seem like his acting isn't as bad as I'm making it out to be is because the film is literally masked by years worth of story where we feel for Mason and it takes every few beats of the script for him to get a little older and therefore a little worse at acting. It's impossible to hit us right away because we watch it slowly happen but it's easily one of the film's worst traits and it's tragic because it's the protagonist that ends up being the problem. The supporting actors are wasted as well. Patricia Arquette's whiny and the kids all suck. I know I'm being hard on them but the idea of starting a film with random children was such a gamble from the start so it ends up that none of them could actually act (Mason's high school years [the last beats of the film] are especially painful to watch).

  There's also the problem with the fact that you're dealing with a coming-of-age story that's essentially about nothing. Instead of a plot we watch young Mason and his sister be passed on through the hands of life as we endure endless sequences of dysfunctional families, bullies, girlfriends, deadbeat dads, alcohol, drugs and every other little thing that nearly everyone experiences or passes by as they age and before you call me out on it, yes I understand this is the entire purpose of the film; it's not capturing a singular story but a collection of stories made up by moments through the eyes of a child and it's entirely realistic because of its real time filmography and lapses in time in pop culture yada-yada-yada.

  And it gets really tiresome. I can endure long movies and I indeed make the argument that some feature films just need to stay short films, maybe a little too often, but clocking in at almost three hours, Boyhood's portrayal of young adulthood gets really droll after a while. Starting out with Coldplay's 'Yellow,' a fittingly nostalgic choice of music for the opening sequence, the film constantly barrages its audience with shoehorned in pop-culture references to make everyone aware of the time period and though it might make some of us, who passed by lockers during the birth of the YouTube generation, call back to times where we were bullied or first held hands in the hallways, the references don't help the lack of narrative rather than remind us that Linklater's essentially smacking us over the head with a yearbook yelling "NOW  IT'S 2007! *smack* SOULJA BOY'S PLAYING!" *smack* (also, the film clearly doesn't accurately represent pop culture of the mid-to-late 2000's because LOST wasn't mentioned once [just kidding, but not really]). It's just a series of moments whether the mom's new alcoholic, abusive husband is yelling at the kids over the dinner table or whether it's just Mason staring at a dead bird, and then all of a sudden it's over (when the film cuts to black, and it will, don't be alarmed). It's a collection of random events that do nothing but propel kids into adulthood with misguidance from hurt mothers, heartfelt advice from deadbeat dads, and endless moments inspired by siblings, friends, girlfriends as nothing happens... Moment after moment.

  And that's the entire point (seriously, I do get it). The film is more of a highlight of "random things you'll probably experience growing up" rather than a film in itself. The film is purely an exercise; an experiment and nothing more. And that's fine; It's a really impressive experiment. But when it masks itself into being more than it wants to be by squeezing in philosophic dialogue from stoned kids played by dreadful young actors, that's when the film tricks its audience into thinking it's a Best Picture front runner when in reality it's just an accurate look at growing up in the new millennium with not much depth or emotion... Which has no impact on anything. 

 Sure it takes talent to portray growing up in this day and age so accurately by capturing the random moments we experience, without making it feel overly dramatic, but that's the only credibility the film amounts to; a mere collection of moments. But hey, as stated in the end, we don't cease the moment. The moment ceases us... Right?

Grade: C+

29) 22 Jump Street

I give Phillip Lord and Christopher Miller both a tip of the hat and a wag of the finger for this unexpected sequel. The movie builds itself up just as much as it tears itself down and it's all because of the meta humor. What I mean by that is that this just might be the most self aware movie ever made. The constant references to sequels; how they're bigger but dumber, entertaining but less quality, etc. could not ring more true with the dreaded sequlitus, and to have the characters in the film constantly reference the fact made it just as clever as it was annoying. It gets to certain points in the movie where you can practically see Lord and Miller on set giggling like children at the idea of their characters pointing out how stupid sequels are, while they cash in their checks from the movie's success (it went on to gross an absurd amount of money and received critical praise from just about everyone) and as much as I respect them for being able to be that self aware, I'm also a little disappointed because even though it's still a comedy, I can't take any of it seriously; it didn't even feel like I was watching a movie at times, more so a behind the scenes look at Lord and Miller using Tatum and Hill to jump through every sequel cliche ringer possible and for a film that pushes past the 90 minute mark, it gets annoying. All it to say is, it IS funny; often VERY funny. I found myself laughing out loud throughout multiple points in the movie. And in the end, it really does feel like a generic sequel... But Lord and Miller are clearly going for that with all the clever nods to the inevitable post-modern "generic sequel" genre... And it's almost enough satire to give one a headache. It ultimately disappoints me because it clearly seems that Lord and Miller almost weren't confident enough in believing that a sequel wouldn't stand well on its own two legs unless it was making fun of itself. But obviously their method works because everyone, fans and critics alike, ate it up. And granted, it's one of the most fun movies of the season. These filmmakers are clearly some of the cleverest dudes making movies today (just look at the Lego Movie) but to me, this was just Lord and Miller telling the world "we didn't want to do this movie but let's take the paycheck anyway" (for further examples, please see 22 Jump Street end credits which tease sequels all the way through 43 Jump Street). Look folks. The meta, self aware  jokes are adorable, but they get old way too fast.

Grade: B-

28) A Most Wanted Man

One part espionage thriller, one part heavy political dialogue, and all parts Philip Seymour Hoffman, A Most Wanted Man is not an easy film to bite off and chew. 

  The film's singular most notable trait is Hoffman and only Hoffman. Everything else is great; The moody set design and murky, cold cinematography with a little shaky cam to keep the intensity (even with just dialogue); the counter-terrorist party that tracks down possible terrorist/always Muslim suspicious characters; the inclusion of Robin Wright and Willem Dafoe who are fantastic; everything about this movie works. It plays out like an episode of 'The Bourne Show' which of course isn't a thing but if it were, it would feel like this (substituting kick-ass Matt Damon for troubled Hoffman of course) and again, in the end, the ONLY reason this movie stays afloat and doesn't feel like every other generic espionage spy thriller is due to Hoffman.

 Perhaps it's the fact that this was the very last movie Hoffman filmed before his death, but it felt crucial of me to see this one and I'm glad I did. With a tone set to the building, droll mechanisms of politics, CIA and possible terrorism, we are reminded of 'Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy' (also notable for its lead actor, a phenomenal as always Gary Oldman) in the way Hoffman holds down the entire fort and here he is a powerhouse of acting but ironically not because of his empowerment but because of the disheveled personality he brings to the character. 

  Instead of an inspirational leading man, as seen with the majority of protagonists, Hoffman's character of Bachmann is a worn out shoe box; a tired agent who's been in the game for years and he struggles with it; and we see it; and it's flawless. Hoffman plays the role were he as tired as the character of Bachmann himself, which is tragic given this was his last role, but damn does Hoffman knock it out of the park. The character is a constantly stressed alcoholic who is almost never not smoking a limp cigarette. He walks as if he had two left feet, shuffling along with an untucked shirt and five o'clock shadow; he's a hot mess. And Hoffman sells it all. Putting on quite the German accent, Hoffman establishes a believable Bachmann; a desperate agent who does all he can in his last effort to redeem his claim to fame by attempting to expose a terrorist threat on his turf. And like I said, the film does work. It's slow and doesn't go many places but the slow burnt tension and knockout performance(s) make it work. Without Hoffman it would have just been the well crafted drama we've seen before but Hoffman makes the character believable and therefore helps bring the story to life.

Grade: B

27) Bad Words

Jason Bateman's directorial debut may now be long forgotten even though the movie only came out in the spring of last year. To put lightly, the film is a crude, crass, vulgar, unapologetically dark comedy towards children, society and anyone who goes by the books; it's a film that's made purely for the cynical and against those who offend easily. But unlike 'Filth,' there's actually some personality buried beneath all the vulgarity.

  Bateman shines and he's the sole reason to check out his debut in this unexpectedly rude tale about a man who's technically eligible to enter a national spelling bee featuring otherwise all children. If you can give into the condescendingly mean spirited coat the film wears, there's plenty of expected charm Bateman delivers as both an actor and a director. Going in a very different direction he's ever walked before, Bateman takes on a character who appears nothing less than a nasty prick who's likable in the way Billy Bob Thornton is in Bad Santa. You laugh at his cynicism and sarcastic, unfiltered vulgar sarcasm but deep down you feel kinda sorry for him.

  Ironically that's not the only comparison to Bad Santa as the film also glorifies an unexpected relationship between cocky bitter man and a young child competing in the spelling bee. It is expected but heartwarming that once Bateman and the child clash, the film gives way for its heart that eventually grows three sizes.

  The film is nothing special but it's likable in a naughty but nice kinda way. Similar to Burton's take on Big Eyes as a new direction for his drama, Bateman's take on dark comedy is something different and it doesn't quite hit a homerun, but amongst all its forced filth (and not the first film of 2014 to do so), there's something more here. Bateman still seems to be on the cusp of figuring out what that is but for a first effort, he's done a pretty decent job at being really crass with a small but kind heart.

Grade: B-

26) Dumb and Dumber To

There shouldn't be any reason for me to give an extensive review on a sequel to the 1994 Jim Carrey-Jeff Daniels outrageous comedy from the Farrely brothers that relied on toilet humor, physical gags, outlandish sequences of stupidity that no normal human being, by any standards, could invent, and all helmed by the weight of comedic absurdity from two golden actors who show off true talent to pull off characters that are in short, incredibly dumb. It also was and still is, arguably, one of the funniest movies ever made. Dumb and Dumber didn't need much to be funny because almost every scene is quotable if not memorable for one gross reason or another and the result is quite literally nothing but pure slapstick from its opening where our heroes drive around in their respective vehicles to the ending when they turn down a bus full of babes; and the humor is the closest thing to watching mental retardation on screen. And like I said, it's one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.  

  So obviously two decades later, the question must be begged, "does it compare to the original?" which I understand the question is inevitable but everyone already knew the answer before the sequel ever went into production and the answer is an obvious no. 'Dumb and Dumber To' looks like 'The Room' compared to the original; it feels like a cash-in; a big inside joke that only the cast and crew were in on; it plays out as if the Farrley brothers lost a bet 20 years ago and as a result had to make a sequel to the '94 cult classic of clowns. The movie isn't a movie at all; It's a recurring gag of unreal stupidity and an unmatched amount of foolish and eye rolling behavior; It's a retread of every kind of gag and plot device used in the first one; it's lazy.

  The movie is also brilliant. It's entirely self aware of the fact that it's a recycled movie altogether with two worn out actors in their 50s basically doing impressions of themselves when they were in their 30s. But I'll be damned if these two worn out actors don't still have some life left in them and boy howdy, they still got it.

  Now make no mistake, a movie literally titled 'Dumb and Dumber To' has not much promise to offer, especially outside of the fan base of the original, but Carrey and Daniels share a chemistry that is unmatched by most comedy couples and they alone make this fish-out-of-water sequel worth while and some of the while is proudly laugh-out-loud hilarious. To compare it to the original would be sinful. The result is like comparing Anchorman 2 to the original; It's quite simply not anywhere as good in the slightest and was never going to be. But also, like Anchorman 2, this sequel does a lot on its own right. For one, everything is literally dumber (it lives up to its name alright); It's literally as if this is a world people live in where even geniuses are idiots (the entire climax of the film takes place at a seminar and convention where some of the most (apparently) intelligent people in the world gather (where you can only imagine the kind of hi-jinx that ensue once the likes of Harry and Lloyd make their way there). And yes, it's a road movie; it's a story with hitchhiking, oddly specific vehicles and tons of goofy antics from our heroes who are in an endless conundrum with crooks, villains and masterminds who are just as idiotic as Harry and Lloyd but in an entirely different manor (Rob Wriggle ["POW-POW!" from 'Step Brothers'] plays two very different twins who get involved with said road trip and his bits involve some of the funniest gags in the film). It's absurd and some of it brought me to tears.

  In the end, it's very much so "a Dumb and Dumber film" all in its own right; Like I said, it's a road movie; There are criminals who mistake Harry and Lloyd for professional crooks and want them dead; There are accidental deaths and purposeful injuries; There are extended dream sequences with cartoonish violence and babes; There's poop jokes; lots of them; And tons of mind numbingly stupid gags that can only be seen in order to be served any justice (they wear the 'dumb' title even more proudly than they did 20 years ago) and with this many goofs, yes the jokes do miss. So many of the lines and sequences are just stale and they don't work (it's not ironically like watching a 90s movie trapped in the wrong era), but for every joke that misses there are at least three that land, and it's all upon the backs of Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels who are still some of the most unexpectedly funny dudes living in a Judd Appatow generation. 

  Bottom line: If you're a Farrley Brothers fan and love the original as much as I do, then you'll come to accept these idiots no matter what. Even if it's not nearly as good as the first round, it's still a joyous occasion to see Harry and Lloyd back on the big screen.

Grade: C

25) The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

It's not easy to talk about the last Hobbit and recap it properly. As seen with much of my writing, I clearly can't always make up my mind. Let me preface and do my very best to keep it short.

  As a diehard fan of the Lord of the Rings films, I not only fully supported a live action Hobbit but I was even more in support of turning it into three films. I would have watched these films had they been split into eight films because I love this universe so much, so clearly my opinions are biased (wanna fight about it?) but up until now I was totally on board with the Hobbit films. They added way too much meat on the bones but it was never bad. Was it ever LOTR? No, but it was never supposed to be. Time and time again people keep comparing these films to the original trilogy and make comparisons to the Star Wars prequels but wake up folks. The Hobbit was NEVER Lord of the Rings. Just because Bilbo's quest prefaces the events of Frodo and the ring doesn't mean they're the same kind of story. Sure, they are both "there and back again" journeys filled with dwarvish friends and Orc-ish foes and a quest to a mountain whether it contain a dragon or a lake of fire but the tone of The Hobbit is much more user friendly in its light, comic relief; its use of Trolls who want to cook our heroes into a stew or Goblins who chase our heroes up a giant tree; getting caught in webs and riding barrels down a river; sharing riddles with a fire breathing dragon; the entire story is much more along the lines of a kid-friendly folk tale; a book you'd take on a backpacking trip through Zealand. The Hobbit was NEVER meant to be an award worthy story filled with epic battles and heroic dialogue and troubled conflicts, plagued with darkness. And if you don't believe me, pick up a book. These stories were set in stone for decades and in my humble opinion, these films have done justice to a whimsical folktale such as this, thus far. I enjoy the extended pieces and characters because it gives even more personality and character to the story than the book does. Does the whimsical folktale aspect get lost among the endless battles with Orcs? Sort of. The film constantly calls back to themes from the original LOTR trilogy. With scores, set pieces (though much more CGI now than before) and familiar faces, we are reminded of the fact that this IS inevitably part of a much bigger universe where unfortunately we are reminded much bigger and better films do exist. But it's not such a bad thing if it's all lead up, right?

  Which brings us to the final installment of Peter Jackson's trilogy which completes a sextet which I'm sure Mr. Tolkein never dreamed would happen. And the final result goes out with more of a whimper than a should-be winner. I don't know if it's because Jackson finally ran out of extra material to shoehorn in but the final installment is a workout. As seen with the other films, if you've come this far in the Tolkeiniverse, then you'll walk away satisfied no matter what. But to me, this one took more effort to sit through than the first two. On the one hand, the battle sequences have their moments (much of the movie is battle); the story is tied up in a neat little bow and we part with our characters holding a shred of a possible tear in our eye; it's magical. It also lacks the gravitas of the first two films. Maybe it's the fact that everyone made such a big fuss about splitting a folktale of one book into three films at almost three hours a pop, but the final installment should have had more of an impact than it eventually resides with. 

  For one, the film's focal point is this ginormous battle so there's not much else to work with. For another, there's a character with a unibrow who dresses up in drag and stays in drag for much of the film whose presence almost matches Jar Jar Binks for "most relentlessly obnoxious supporting character in a trilogy" (IMO, this guy is worse than Binks but I don't have the patience to dive more into him). In fact, it's like a reverse Star Wars prequel trilogy in the sense that instead of getting better as it went along (though, and I'm sorry to keep breaking like this, I do think Phantom Menace is better than the outrageous love story that makes up a majority of Attack of the Clones [Star Wars rant over]), the film sort of can't decide which direction it wants to take as it treks along. Let's also not go into detail about how the entire battle sequences, let alone nearly this entire trilogy, was 90% CGI where MUCH of Lord of the Rings is done with the real landscapes of Zealand, actors in costume and practical effects. It all ends up taking away so much from what could have been an ultimately more impactful trilogy from the likes of the guy who snagged Best Picture in 2003 thanks to this universe. As a fan, I have other personal qualms with the film but they aren't big, depending on how you look at it. For one, there's an Arkenstone-sized plot hole that's sorta left open at the end which won't seem important when it's all done but when you call back to what set off this Middle Earth-shattering battle, you might question it. There's also the gaping hole of character development with the supporting dwarves. For being the final installment of a trilogy featuring thirteen dwarves, it's amazing how they give little to no growth for any of the dwarves outside of Thorin and two or three others. I get that there's eventually a lot going on with this ultimate war between parties but it wouldn't be such a problem if this three-part quest didn't belong to the dwarves, but it does and it deserves a little more justice for all of them.

 All negativity aside, I loved the movie and was sad to see it end. Ironically, the end doesn't stretch out the way Return of the King did more than ten years ago. I guess Jackson finally listened to bloggers all these years who rag on LOTR taking an additional forty minutes to end once it's all actually over but here it surprisingly feels quick and relentless. And it kinda  stinks because it took us three movies for it all to kinda just fizzle out (granted the movie's focal point is a ginormous battle but even its video game-like scale can't compare to any of the war sequences in LOTR). Again, it cannot and should not be compared to the original trilogy just like Star Wars should not. But it is a prequel so it is inevitable.

  Overall there's a lot more main focus here. One of the problems with the first two installments is they suffer from lack of narrative due to just random events taking these poor dwarves by storm as they hunt down their stolen treasure, time and time again (Tolkein basically invented "sh*t happens" long before Forrest Gump ever jogged by) and here we focus on our major plot points and it's great. I can't be a hypocrite; It's got its moments. It sends our Hobbit home a changed character and all of the little references and foreshadowed events leading to Sauron and the ring are all awakened; the film ties up loose ends between Bilbo and Thorin that just might bring a whimsical tear to your eye; like I  said, it's magical; it's fitting; it's just about almost everything you'd want in our final send off to Bilbo and the shire; and it's almost great. The end result makes for a great trilogy rather than a great film in itself. But for the fans, the strengths do outweigh the weaknesses, all the way there and back again.

Grade: B-

24) Foxcatcher

A very confused but interesting front runner, Foxcatcher is something that captures great and often times, phenomenal potential. It's a film that is such a mixed bag I'm not sure where to begin but I know where to end but I know the end is somewhere around the performances involved so let me just cut right to the chase.

  The film is spectacularly well made. The murky cinematography captures the cold, dreaded atmosphere of this slightly underdog-slightly mental, entirely true story. The script is slow but it builds; it crawls inside the psyche of athletes who do literally whatever it takes physically and emotionally to make a personal statement as well as a national impact, and it gets pretty dark and very intense; indeed, it builds somewhere alright. But alas, I'm supposed to be cutting to the chase: The actors. 

  First up at bat we have a surprising Channing Tatum; a young, fresh face in Hollywood who's FINALLY made a name for himself since having abandoned the crappy romantic comedies and dreadful action movies. With 21 Jump Street, Tatum proved he had a funny bone and it was a MEAN funny bone at that. I still think Tatum outshines Jonah Hill in the Jump Street movies in every single way. All it to say is, the man proved he's got SOME kind of acting chops even if we're not entirely sure if those chops are entirely cooked. But Foxcatcher is indeed the right step in the next direction Tatum needs to head in. He does pretty well with the part. Some critics have gone on to say his performance is Oscar-worthy which while not entirely false is also most definitely not true. He's good; really good. It's arguably his best role which isn't saying much given his biggest strength prior to this was comedy. But he's worth a look. And he does well with the part.

  Next is the always likable Mark Ruffalo. Also making a name for himself over the past few years, Marky Ruffs has had a little more wiggle room to work with. He proved to be the best on-screen Hulk for The Avengers (after only three tries) but with films like The Kids Are Alright, his Oscar bait is getting some bites and Foxcatcher proves that he's not only the best actor of the three leads but that his acting is definitely a little too overlooked, because like Tatum, he's really good only there's a little more weight to his acting when portraying the older brother and role model of Channing's Mark Schultz. He plays a pretty straight-laced average Joe but he's a Joe you look up to and believe he's someone you can respect. His role is small but it fits like a glove.

  And finally we have Steve Carell... Now, I need to word this properly because I love Carell's work. I think the man is a comedic goldmine and he alone was the glue that held together The Office before it spun into absolute absurdity for its last two years. I've respected him as a depressed, gay man in Little Miss Sunshine, and I've respected him as the mental retardation that is Brick from Anchorman. I think the man can chew almost anything he can bite off whether he be a 40-year-old virgin or a Dan-in-real-life. I love the man. Point taken. With that said, I still can't wrap my head around his performance in Foxcatcher. For the life of me, I can't.

  Let's back up a bit. In short, the film is a depiction of young wrestler Mark Schultz (Tatum) who is contacted by previous champion-now crazy old man John DuPont (Carell) who wants to take him under his wing soar towards a successful future in wrestling and boy, do these wings fly (pun explained in just a moment). If you were to google John Du Pont, you'd learn what a psychopath the man actually was and I'm not gonna go much more into who he is or the plot, not just because there's not much more there but because the true backstory this film sheds upon contains some pretty dark twists in the demented psyche of Mr. Du Pont, whose friends apparently refer to him as "Eagle" or "Golden Eagle" (I told you, the man's got wings).

  So before you think I'm out of line, I understand that John Du Pont was a literal crazy person. I'm fully aware that he was out of his mind and was depicted as strange, to say the least, by most folk. Which is why it comes back to Carell. Now, Steve can do crazy. Whether it's Brick or Michael Scott, he can do it and he can do it while being laugh-out-loud hilarious... But this is a potentially Oscar-nominated drama. And here's the thing. I understand that it's possible that we may find Du Pont's insanity something that's tragically funny, and don't get me wrong, sometimes Carell embraces the role in a way that truly surprises and impresses me (I mean it's earned him an Oscar nomination for crying out loud). But for every moment he won me over, there were at least five moments that felt like I was watching Michael Scott as a loony old man. I to this day cannot decide whether it's a compliment or not because I have absolutely no qualms with Carell. Like I said, I'm even a big fan... But multiple critics are calling his performance Oscar-worthy and I can't help but feel like I was missing the bigger picture here. Because Carell is good... Arguably the best of the three; arguably giving the performance of a lifetime. The man gives remarkable character to a real-life nut job who clearly didn't know when to quit; he brings character to the next level, not just in dialogue but in mannerisms; looks. 

  I guess you can't say It's not a compliment because he pulls off something fiendishly outstanding, even if I can't pinpoint what it is. Carell captures the crazy in this droll and ultimately very dramatic true fable, but unlike Ruffalo he doesn't channel a dramatic tone, mostly because his character (and the real life John DuPont) doesn't call for a flair for the dramatics (not until the climax of our story). In a way, I applaud Carell and respect him more than I ever have because after watching Foxcatcher, I can't help but feel like pulling off John Du Pont in a truly proper method is even remotely possible. But Carell nailed something alright. Again, saying more would not only do no good but may give significant plot point(s) away. 

From the moment it ended, I've been wanting to see it again because buried beneath all the possibly unintentional gags from crazy Carell, I can't help but feel like there's a truly great film here. It's just a shame I seem to have missed it. For what we do get, the film has enough redeeming qualities to be noted.

Grade: B

23) The Drop

Most likely to have flown under the radar by most, this gem has unfortunately been buried among big front runners for awards season which is a damn shame given that The Drop is probably one of the better and more badass flicks of 2014.

  Being that the film is about crime and violence in Brooklyn it actually plays out more like a gritty drama surrounded by quiet, brooding suspense which is carried by the intensity of its three lead actors. On the one hand there's James Gandolfini and for this being his final performance before his passing, he gave a hell of a show. Much like Hoffman in A Most Wanted Man, Gandolfini plays the part here like someone who was once dangerous and is now tired and out of the game, and Gandolfini sells every ounce of his performance were he a worn out Tony Soprano. On the other hand there's Noomi Rappace as the troubled neighbor who's made some poor life decisions in the past. She's a pitied but likable supporting female and her presence is a strong but sweet spotlight in an otherwise dark and bleak picture. And finally we have the ever surprising Tom Hardy who nearly carries the film all by himself. Hardy's always been great and this time was no different. He nails this role as a troubled bar owner in Brooklyn who gets stuck up and robbed on the regular in these dangerous times. What makes his character always interesting is the fact that he never lets up; he never reveals all his hands. Not until the final moments of the film does the character ever break. He's a brick wall of silenced emotion and it's both chilling and powerful. He keeps a quiet mouth and a keen eye as we feel for him in his journey to protect his bar and his loved ones; he's a guy you fear but want to follow. He has a way about him that keeps you wondering if he has a hidden agenda and what it may entail; he's a character with a clearly dark history and Hardy almost never reveals more than small crumbs of what that past has created in the man we see today; the man is a pure power house of acting and he makes this everything that would have been a good film and keeps it a great film.

  With a dramatic enough tone without being over the top and delivering on violence only when it needs to, The Drop is arguably one of the most intense pictures of the year.

Grade: B+

22) A Million Ways to Die in the West

For a movie that was universally hated by just about everyone, Seth Macfarlane's latest satire on the old west was arguably, for me, the most laugh-out-loud movie of 2014.

  In short, this one doesn't have many redeeming qualities; Macfarlane starring as the average Joe isn't as funny as the characters he writes behind the camera; Liam Neeson feels wildly out of place; the jokes are juvenile; many of the gags rely on gross-out/toilet humor and some of it is just plain old not funny. With that said, there's definitely something to treasure buried beneath all the dusty dreck of this one-horse town of a film.

  If you, like me, were born with Macfarlane's wacky brand of ridiculous humor then you too will find something to appreciate about 'A Million Ways.' For starters, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone who isn't head over heels for Macfarlane's work. Granted, as a die hard Family Guy fan, even I'll admit that the show has been growing pretty stale over the years, but every now and again Macfarlane's random, brilliant segments prove he's got a lot of comedic wit left in him and like he proved with Ted, he seems to save a lot of his talent for the big screen. Now, to compare this to Ted would just be inappropriate. The little vulgar teddy bear raked in a record for highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time, surpassing The Hangover, so to compare a comedic legacy like that to a movie many people didn't even know happened would again, be inappropriate. But naysayers needn't doubt. For Macfarlane fans, A Million Ways delivers in its own right.
  For one, the film has a heart; beneath ALL the filth (and there's enough of it to keep its audience  feeling like they're knee-deep in sh*t), there's an underdog story here; a parody of cliches where the little guy can have a still small voice that outweighs any big, bad villains (like I said, Neeson feels out of place but he's got a couple memorable bits), but the real reason people will come back to this flick at all (if all) is because of the hilariously memorable gags; for starters, Neil Patrick Harris as the villainous douche with a mustache more than steals the show; he nails the role so much that being as devoted to keeping a cleanly fit persona for he and his mustache, he almost gives the mustache its own supporting role (there's an entire musical number and dance devoted entirely to mustaches, and it's arguably the best part of the movie); he's outrageous and almost every scene he's in is a gem (granted there may or may not be a scene where Amanda Seyfried orally pleasures his mustache [I'm not gonna comment anymore on that matter]). The other supporting actors do a pretty decent job as well; Charlize Theron is a likable, down-to-earth heroine and Sarah Silverman gives her grossest role to date (fitting, depending on who you ask). There's also the fact that Macfarlane's brand of wacky, random humor is present and often times makes no sense, other than to make the audience crack a rib from laughter (there's a cameo scene with Abraham Lincoln, whom I won't spoil, that literally had me in tears). It may not be as dangerously funny as The Interview nor is it nearly as self winking as 22 Jump Street, but I definitely laughed more with this one.
  It's stupid but it's fun. Much like FG and Ted, there are embedded morals beneath the vulgarity but it takes an effort to get there; the film pokes fun at the West and is ultimately a satire, but this is no Blazing Saddles; there's enough here to cherish for fans of Macfarlane, parodies and toilet humor in general. There's not much else beneath the surface but it's rewarding for those who have never given up on Macfarlane. For everyone else, this is sure to be a forgotten movie but hell, if there are a million ways to die in the West, one of them just might be from laughing too hard. The movie doesn't quite snag that award, but for the right audience it's sure to be an achiever in somebody's eyes. For me, even if it's flawed, it's right up my alley.

Grade: B-

21) Captain America: Winter Soldier

Anyone who follows the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) closely at all already agrees that Captain America: Winter Soldier is not only, most likely, the best addition to "phase 2" of Earth's Mightiest Heroes' (everything post-Avengers) live action saga, but that it was arguably one of the best entries in the entire series.

  The film offers everything the previous Captain America hadn't delivered nor did any previous entry offer beforehand; for one the action is top notch and intense; the humor is relevant and not forced; the supporting cast does an incredible job with what they're given but most of all, it delivers as a political thriller that's both culturally relevant and enticing for fans of the style of genre. What separates Winter Soldier from the MCU's previous entries is that its spy-espionage-thriller tone is dramatic in a purposeful sense rather than a fantastical sense, while residing in a universe of the fantastic. The political themes drive the undertone while the comic book-style action sets the outer layers that we fans want to see from a comic book movie.

  The result is like watching Mission: Impossible or an episode of 24 but with caped crusaders (actually scratch that, there's not a cape in sight for these superheroes). It's set in a real, political world (taking place in the heart of Washington DC) which makes it feel even more so like it's happening in our reality rather than being limited to the boundaries of a graphic novel page.

  The film is still not as quality as some of the phase one flicks (I'm personally just a sucker for origin stories) but it ups the stakes in a way that every Marvel sequel should be partaking in. If every further entry follows the footsteps of Winter Soldier, then there will be no reason to fear for the future of this glorious Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Grade: B+

20) Chef

An unexpected gem and probably (and unfortunately) one of the most ignored films of the Summer was Jon Favreau's latest which is essentially... Jon Favreau as a Chef. But this movie had a kind of heart to it that was missing from so many other films this past year. It had an indy style feel to it but with a mega-big cast (ranging from Scarlett Johansson to Robert Downey Jr. to Dustin effing Hoffman). The real star here is Favreau though and he really does shine as the talented but broken Chef who ends up starting his own food truck and rebuilding a family. The film has everything from a quality script, a memorable gang of characters, laugh-out-loud moments and like I said, genuine heart. It builds upon a start-from-scratch story which builds to a climax that never really comes but rather gives us an insight to the life of a husband, father, entertainer and chef who makes his dreams come true (not to mention a hilarious showcase for social media and Twitter without feeling forced). It's a lot less corny, a lot more insightful and way funnier than it all sounds and it's easily one of the most pleasing flicks of 2014. Also, don't watch on an empty stomach.

Grade: B+

19) Godzilla

When it comes to the king of monsters, making a proper "Godzilla movie" these days has not exactly been a walk through Tokyo. 

  After the original films from 1954 and beyond, the lizard king has since become a campy caricature of himself in outrageous B-movies and B-sequels where he fights monsters from radioactive islands, outer space and ya know what? Let's just make "King Kong vs. Godzilla" (the original Monster vs. Monster flick long before Alien or Predator came stomping in). Filled with horrendously goofy rubber suits and actively hilarious Japanese-English dubs, the films became payperview events. It was the equivalent of waiting for the next Celebrity Death Match and it was outrageous, not to mention it spawned a ginormous cult following. 

The end of the 20th century was not kind to the crowned king either. Roland Emmerich, pre-Michael Bay master of disaster, rebooted Godzilla in 1998 with a much smaller-to-scale approach having 'zilla be the poor man's Jurassic Park; a literal lizard that looked like a Spielberg knockoff that had a CGI love affair with a failed Jim Henson experiment and most people were pretty upset about it. More than the movie taking a King Kong approach in having us feel bad for our monster when the army slays him on the Brooklyn Bridge (after Godzilla's babies naturally nest in Madison Square Garden), most people were disappointed with the fact that it wasn't "a Godzilla movie;" he(she?) destroyed some streets, sure, but being deemed the king of monsters, Godzilla is known for massive destruction and up until the Matthew Broderick run of the mill disaster of a disaster movie, Godzilla usually destroys nearly all of Tokyo (every f**king time [how do they rebuild it so quickly?]) while battling a giant monster and instead, we got a fairly big lizard eating fish, laying eggs and then dies. In short, it wasn't "Godzilla." For me, it works on its own entertaining terms (I for one love the whole Godzilla-babies-rampage-MSG bit in its own campy sense) and I do think the movie gets too bad of a rap overall (it's certainly not very good but it's not the piece of dreck everyone makes it out to be) but again, its primary issue is that this is not a proper "Godzilla movie."

Two years later we got something much, much worse: A sequel, not to "Godzilla '98" but to the original Japanese flicks, that was pure homage to the old campy movies... And it was horrible. Maybe it's my fractured memory of having only seen it once, a mind blowing fifteen years ago, but to this day I deem the abomination that is "Godzilla 2000" as one of the literal worst movies I have ever seen. Ever. I won't dive into it but it was outstandingly bad. With back and forth piss-poor Japanese dubbing, no Godzilla in sight and an aggressively stupid excuse for a villain (which is a giant rock in the ocean which very slowly emerges from the depths, sprouts legs and fights the lizard king [not kidding]), the movie was a joke; it was bad and worse than Troll 2 bad. It was like a goofy 50s monster movie lost in time; like someone found an old reel and committed the crime of resurrecting it. It was outrageous and none of it was redeeming in any department. 

  And thus, we marched on into the new millennium. Whispers went by of a new Godzilla that would be bigger, better and "more like the old stuff." And fourteen years after "2000," with all that said, we were finally given a brand new, second reboot reincarnating the king of monsters and for the first time ever, I can actually say that I've seen a Godzilla movie that is purely awesome.

  Nearly everything about the movie just works. For one, it's a clear love letter to not just Jaws, but to Spielberg's style in general when it comes to "hiding the monster" (quite literally in this case). I mean, our hero is literally named Ford Brody and we don't get to see the main monster until the end. It's about as Spielbergian as movies get (not quite "clear homage" as Super 8 but this comes pretty damn close).

  Speaking of Spielberg and hiding the monster until the end, I would like to address the ignorance of audiences everywhere who complained about "having to sit through a Godzilla movie for more than two hours that barely had Godzilla in it," and it makes me lose faith in moviegoers' suspension of disbelief, or the ability to withstand ACTUAL suspense. Perhaps it's because we're spoiled with a generation of Transformers and Pacific Rim that we need non-stop high octane action that goes boom every beat of the script, but it seems to me like people are forgetting the art of true built up suspense in the style of Jaws, or perhaps, I don't know, the original 1954 Godzilla? People are forgetting that a film can create an illusion to a much bigger, more menacing climax without having to dish out the real thing right away and Godzilla 2014 defines building up to a climax by making the audience work for it. Granted, by the time the movie pays off, we do finally get Godzilla in true form fighting not one, but TWO monsters and as promised, nearly all of Tokyo gets destroyed in the process. Yet once the climax is done and the credits roll on, we can't help but wish there was a LITTLE more of Godzilla ripping some heads off and breathing blue, radioactive fire, but we get both of those things anyway so people don't have the right to complain too much. In the end, Godzilla does what he does best and that's destroying everything in sight while kicking ass.

  What's brilliant about all of that is that we go on a ride of suspense, not following poorly dubbed Japanese actors, but pretty good actors (with sprinkles of Bryan f**king Cranston! [My biggest complaint is they didn't utilize him enough and should have had more screen time but alas, It was still awesome]). The film creates a lasting tension and delivers on true suspense better than most movies that have attempted to do so over the last decade, and when the film does deliver, though in small doses, it delivers big time. But this is only the beginning so it doesn't have to be perfect just yet, and like our Man of Steel reboot, for a beginning it works just fine. The bottom line: we finally have a really good "Godzilla movie."

Grade: B+

18) Noah

One of the more interesting films of the year, I'm not sure if I've seen anything else with more split criticism in 2014 than Darren Aronovsky's latest biblical epic.

  If you were to ask just about anybody, they would tell you that Noah was awful; dreadful; terrible; and the classic "one of the worst movies I've ever seen;" you'll hear things like "there were rock Transformers in the movie" and everyone's cleverly original "the book was better." Needless to say, when I say just about anybody I mean just about everybody hated this movie. And yet, here I am in the minority because I absolutely loved this movie.

  Sure the film isn't flawless by any means and I do mean it when I say I literally loved this movie. What I loved is that it takes its own spin on biblical and spiritual mythology while telling its own story. Ironically the people who were up in arms the most about this film happened to be Christians. They deem it blasphemous and "way off" from the biblical interpretation, but I couldn't shake the fact that an atheist director as dark and daring as Aranovsky would tackle a film as bold as this and what I love is that while yes, he takes his own liberties with the story (you kinda have to, given the original story is a mere two pages long in the Good Book) and instead of delivering a "biblical epic" he instead dives into the psyche of who Noah was as a tortured man who is not only the only person who can seem to hear God (or "The Creator" as depicted in the film) but takes his family on this life-or-death mission to build a boat and stay afloat in order to rebuild mankind's survival, all based on the supposed word of this mysterious Creator. And the film gets pretty dark and while most people were taken aback by Noah's insanity (the third act gets particularly unhinged), I applauded the fact that someone dug deep enough into this story to interpret Noah from a mere mortal man's point of view rather than the seemingly flawless soldier of God he appears for all of two pages in the Bible.

  And Aronovsky's vision is cool; among all of his own liberties, he takes the story of the greatest flood of all time and made it unique. For one, the tactical filmmaking aspects are beyond impressive. The cinematography ranges from big, bold, wide landscapes to small, colorful, hypnotic visions. The film treats its full CGI ark escapade like a big blockbuster while also catering to strange, small and bizarre tropes to film in ways indie-hippie filmmakers may tackle with a limited budget. It's actually a couple films snowballed into one and most of it (for me) works. For one, everyone's complaint of Rocktimus Prime and the Rolling Stones ("the rock monsters") are actually Aronovsky's interpretation of fallen angels depicted before the time of the flood. The Watchers, as depicted in the film, are actually supposed to represent the Nephilim; actual giants that were the hybrid of fallen angels mating with human women and these creatures are IN the Bible (GOOGLE IT)! 

So before you start blaming Aronovsky for being crazy with his bold liberties, instead try and view the film as an artistic interpretation rather than a literal straight-from-text interpretation.

  Because let's be honest, the most straightforward Biblical adaptations are not known to be the most critically acclaimed. Passion of the Christ was deemed by most to be a two hour gore-fest with endless, unnecessary graphic violence that just made people feel bad about themselves while almost no one remembers The Nativity Story, and before you think I'm out to bash these films, take into mind that all I'm saying is that in the hands of worthwhile filmmakers, a different more unique approach to Bible stories has been known to make for better final products, regardless of controversy (Martin Scorsese offended many people with The Last Temptation of Christ but it still made for one of the better Biblical films out there because it did something radically different). 

  And while Noah isn't radically different, it's enough of its own beast as an artistic interpretation to be applauded as far as filmmaking goes and when it comes to a film and not a Biblical interpretation, the movie is purely awesome. Granted, despite negative reviews, I have yet to see Ridley Scott's Exodus, but big budget blockbusters from the minds of extraordinary visionaries such as these only make me excited to see what's in store for future big screen Bible stories.

Grade: B+

17) The Imitation Game

Only one name sums up this film and only one name needs to: Benedict Cumberbatch. Ever since he's risen to fame with BBC's Sherlock or turned the tides as the villain in Star Trek, the man has proved time and again that he's one of the most notable actors working today. Every role he does he treats with such careful precision with such a specific delicacy that can only be handled by someone as British as this, and he outshines just about every actor he works with and this time was no different.

  As far as the film goes, Imitation Game is nothing short of fantastic. It's a clearly well crafted espionage spy drama about British Intelligence finding ways to crack codes in order to possibly thwart the Nazis in WWII. Now, upon hearing that one might think this could be more of an overly dramatic thriller dealing with Hitler and big villains but the film couldn't be more opposite. Granted it's all about cracking codes, the film is more about Cumberbatch's Alan Turing, a real-life mathematician who helped revolutionize computerized code cracking in the 1940s; the film focuses on who he was not only as an isolated, misunderstood genius but as a moral human being who had to hide who he truly was for more reasons than one.

  And like I said, the result is nothing short of fantastic. We feel for Turing's questionably remarkable intelligence the way we follow Russel Crowe in A Beautiful Mind and Cumberbatch plays the part like a man who's desperate and desperately misunderstood and we want him to succeed. Kiera Knightly surprisingly plays her part really well and shares a believable chemistry with Cumberbatch. The film explores their relationship dynamics and it all results in a finely crafted manner truly making this one of the better pictures of 2014. 

Personally, it's not my top cup of English tea for Best Picture of the year but I'm not complaining at all about the nomination and for once Cumberbatch is finally getting the recognition he deserves. He's not expected to win come the big night but Imitation Game will only further Benedict's career and for a guy this good, it's about time.

Grade: A-

16) The Babadook

Arguably one of the most unannounced, unspoken of and unappreciated films of 2014, The Babadook is not only the best horror movie of the year but one of the flat-out best films of the year in general.

Somehow skating by under the noses of just about everyone, the film is a very small gem in a goldmine of modern day horror (which is a rare occasion given all the garbage that passes off as "horror" these days) and unlike surprises such as The Conjuring, The Babadook is one that is bound to tragically fall by the wayside to these mainstream/3D/remake garbage heaps that continue to make horror lovers' souls weep.

  Granted, this little Australian flick just barely made its way across the pond, it packs a huge punch by actually doing so little. By focusing on a single mother and her creepy son, the film delivers enough because it banks solely on suspense. 

  After beginning to read a horrifying pop-up book to her small child that mysteriously pops up on the bookshelf, Essie Davis' character Amelia proceeds to go about her days being stalked, haunted and tormented by what she thinks is the incarnation of this Babadook creature from this horrifying children's book (the title derives from the anagram "a bad book") and thus, we have a plot to our film.

  What makes the film as equally brilliant as it is frustrating is the fact that the movie relies solely on built up suspense rather than delivering a physical terror for us to actually see. Granted we get brief (and I mean brief) glimpses of the monster but 90% of the film's scares are a result of tension; characters talking about the situations; Amelia and her son Samuel going about their sleepless days  regarding what goes bump in the night; the paranoia that sets in, and ultimately the fear of the real monster being the very people living under your roof. The film plays with mixed ideas that definitely mirror the real-life horrors that people experience every day. The use of Amelia being a struggling, single mom and her son being a tormented little bastard aren't just mere plot devices but instead accurately represent the terror of living in a situation where one can't handle the other. And granted The Babadook is represented as an actual monster living in this house, the film uses that colorful "children"s horror as a psychological boogeyman for the real-life monsters who are sleeping in their beds in the other room; the people you call "mom" or "son" (and yes, it's handled with care).

  Like I said, the film is sort of a frustration given the film actually delivers very little when it comes to revealing any sort of Babadooks or Boogeymen but that's exactly why the film works. It's the same notion that's carried good, quality horror movies for years past and for years to come; it's the Jaws theory; it's painting horrifying pictures in your head without actually showing you what they look like; it's the Halloween approach in making you feel like you've witnessed a bloodbath when there's not a drop of fake blood in the mix. It's the same concept here; it's making you feel so much tension that by the film's climax you'll be gripping the edge of your seat, barely peeking with an eye open and when it's all over, you just might sigh with relief at what a wimp you secretly might be.

  But don't mistake what I'm saying at all. The Babadook is frightening; sometimes horrifying, and let's address the fact that William Friedkin (the director of The Exorcist, yes, THE EXORCIST) deemed it "the scariest film I've ever seen." If that's not enough incentive for horror fans to check it out, I literally don't know what is.

Grade: B+

15) Dear White People

With a film titled "Dear White People," one can only wonder exactly what this small, significant social commentary has to offer to American moviegoers nationwide and I gotta hand it to newbie writer/director Justin Simian; for living in the times that we do, we're given probably one of the most brilliant tongue-in-cheek satires of modern day culture in the Obama generation that this country has ever seen.
  Beneath all the poking fun at racial barriers, Simian gives the film a heart and this film wears its heart on its sleeve all too proudly. For one, every slur, stereotype and statement of the black and white dilemmas of post-racist racist America (masqueraded by fifty shades of humor) is all done tastefully though never-not edgy and Simian makes all the intensity of this racial barrier feel acceptable because the social commentary of the film is always funny and often funny as hell.
  Now, when I throw around the word satire, especially "black satire," I need everyone to forget about post 1970s slapstick parodies for a moment and everyone needs to not make comparisons to that style of film while they watch DWP. 
  One aspect of growing up and living in this generation of satire in modern day films is seeing how much they've truly evolved over the years. Blazing Saddles is borderline explicitly racist in its "subtle" spoofing but that was 1974 and socially acceptable. The 80s gave birth to every Wayans Brother which created products that spiraled off its spoofed rails drastically throughout the next two decades. Keenan Ivory's brilliant stupidity exploited 70s "black culture" in I'm Gonna Git You Sucka where Shawn and Marlon practically spoofed every social beat of Boyz 'N Tha Hood with their absurdly outrageous Don't Be a Menace... their popular Scary Movie franchise would ultimately cause death and demise to every current excuse for a movie that banks off making fun of pop culture (ie; please see: Date Movie, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans, Vampires Suck, etc. but don't actually see them given that they are some of the actual worst movies in all of creation). In fact, the only actual worthwhile satire of the last decade or more would have to be Black Dynamite, which takes a small bite out of Keenan Ivory's "black cop" style only rather than spoofing it satires the culture and blows almost every parody over the last two decades out of the water because of its sheer tongue-in-cheek brilliance.
  So before you walk into Dear White People, understand that this is a cultural satire and NOT a spoof, nor is it anything close. What DWP does (and does brilliantly I might add) is give a voice to every stereotypical mouthpiece in the racial barrier of modern day. For the angsty black person, it draws every line in the sand regarding blacks not feeling they have enough equality, rights or freedom of speech whether it's in consideration of heavy political issues or whether its something much more simple regarding pop culture, specific stereotypes and things to actually laugh about; and for every angsty white person, there's the rich white kids who hang their noses in the air to represent that they're better than everyone else whether they think it's because of the color of their skin or whether their preppy attitude is portrayed through their formal dress or proud representation of very stereotypically white pop culture which makes up a vast majority of America's popular topics and current events (there are a couple jabs and jokes about Taylor Swift which are nothing short of brilliant), and then for everyone else, ignorant or not, there's the literal middle man who doesn't care who you are or where you're from; you just make up the vast majority of everyone in the middle. 
  And like I said, these stereotypes are tackled with taste because it's all very humorous.
The ignorant mouthpieces as stated are actually represented by faces and fantastic young actors to speak for them. On the one end you have Tessa Thompson's Sam White. Arguably playing the part of  both the central protagonist and antagonist, Tessa Thompson gives it her all as the stuck up radio host for the campus radio show 'Dear White People,' (yes, that's where the title derives from). Her character is strong but clearly disturbed. She's seen some sh*t and her radio show isn't afraid to speak for how she's not happy about it. On the opposite end of campus you have Kurt Fletcher; rich, white and a douche, Kyle Gallner plays his despicably bitter character with just as much effort as Thompson (though she definitely delivers more of a "fierce" antagonist in her brewing personality). In the middle (like I said, a literal middle man) is Tyler James Williams (Everybody Hates Chris) playing the lonely, misunderstood Lionel; a kid who's just starting out at Ivy League, assigned to write a controversial piece about Sam and her radio show; an innocent everyman who is black but wears many white stereotypes; someone who's just trying to find his place in the world.
Between these three parties is just about every kind of person you can imagine between black and white stereotypes, only totally caricatured were they colorful characters (no pun intended) in a comic strip.
  And the film is a brilliant breakdown of the walls of stereotypes and racism and because it's all done with as much care and precision as these preppy students make themselves out to be at this prestigious school; trying to be somebodies in an overly dramatic world of nobodies, the film lands and it lands pretty well. It's a film that may seem like it's trying to bash its messages over your head when secretly it's actually trying to pull the rug from under your feet. For being a comedy, the film actually ends up delivering some pretty wild plot twists and central pieces to these characters and the white skeletons in their closet making this much more of a social commentary than however much your laughs bargained for. It's a piece of resistance (Lego movie pun?) and a piece of pop culture within a piece of pop culture; it's a film that is self aware but VERY subtly self aware; enough so that it doesn't feel like a film making fun of itself rather than laughing enough at itself to be honest and Simian is about as honest and ballsy as young filmmakers get. The film speaks all kinds of  slurs, obscenities and blasphemous acts against cultures black and white alike and it's great because at the end of the day, though the character's (and ultimately the director's) statements make up a great deal of who they are and what they represent, their words don't actually drastically change our culturally important situations in this country; it's enough of a satire to create comical war but in the end, it's everyone's actions that show the objections and affections of their hearts and like I said, here everyone wears their heart on their sleeve and though this is not always an easy film for many people to swallow, if you stick around for this campus lecture, Dear White People is not only an enormously enlightening lesson but an often shockingly comical commentary.

Grade: B+/A-

14) Snowpiercer

When it comes to original ideas Hollywood is one of the last places to look, to put it short. Like any form of art or for many, a form of a living, it's all centered around business and everyone knows what gets the business boomin' for the world of film; sequels, remakes and endless comic book movies galore. It's what's hot; what's fresh; what's in, and unfortunately but most importantly, it's what makes money (and everybody LOVES. money). So when it comes to original ideas it's always a pleasure to see Hollywood spew out something new; something different; something totally unexpected. And when Snowpiercer finally made its way to Netflix after receiving rave reviews, I finally checked it out to see what the fuss was all about (it very quickly spawned a small cult following [and I LOVE. cult followings]) and hot DAMN, how are more people NOT talking about Snowpiercer?
  This film, to also put short, knocked me flat on my ass. It delivers everything a fanboy could want delivering genres ranging from sci-fi to post-apocalypse survival of the fittest steampunk action. With  poor, underclass heroes to rich, stuck-up villains, this film gives it ALL and what's best is that it ALL takes place on a never-ending, ginormous, locomotive train headed to nowhere for the rest of eternity.
  That's right folks. This sci-fi, post apocalyptic action thriller all takes place on a giant train once the world has frozen over after global warming was proved wrong (somewhere in this universe is a frozen Al Gore, crying). And it's awesome. The whole thing plays out like a B movie and that's exactly what it is. Chris Evans takes a break from being the Captain of America and leads a brigade of poor people fighting their way from the back of the train to the front in order to gain some sort of freedom and explanation as to why the world has gone to frozen hell in grand rebellious fashion that would make Rosa Parks proud (there's also some personal issues the poor people have but that's aside the point). Along the way our heroes fight through nasty guards, sit in on a colorful classroom lesson and crash a drug induced rave. Yes, folks this is indeed the most outrageous train you'll ever see.

  And what makes the film work is that as ridiculous as it all is the film never takes itself all too seriously. Amongst all the overly dramatic dramatics and all the violence (and there's PLENTY of violence) the movie sort of keeps a tongue in cheek spunk that exists in some sort of violent future circa The Warriors or Escape from NY, but if they existed in some sort of twisted version of The Hunger Games on a train (and given that our poor protagonists are indeed very hungry this might as well be titled Hunger Train Games) and did I mention that the movie kicks major post-apocalyptic-villainous ass???

  If you're lookin' to turn the brain on and the senses off; if you need a smart idea filled with wildly stupid B movie violence (okay not wildly stupid but outlandish enough to be a certain kind of stupid), then look no further. Snowpiercer does the job and does it damn well. Sure the film is absurd; of course the film provides unoriginal tropes and plot notions but; BUT... the film also turns its original ideas over on its head to make this locomotive feel fresh and running fast enough to trail on by at a million miles an hour, storming through the gates of a frozen over hell to give any cult-loving fanboy their desires fulfilled by any sci-fi, post apocalyptic means. And for what it's worth, if you can suspend your disbelief, the movie is awesome. It's a B movie alright, but it might be the best damn B movie of the year.

Grade: B+

  

13) The Interview

The most controversial movie of 2014 (and arguably the most controversial movie since Team America) shares more than enough similarities to Matt and Trey's puppet-performed portrayal of North Korean dictators, not just because they both focus on a Kim-Jong but because at the end of the day, both movies received wildly mixed reviews with most people up in arms saying "that's it...?"

  The singlehandedly most unfortunate occurrence to happen to the latest satire from Seth Rogen and co. is that the movie was deemed a terrorist threat and act of war against North Korea and the film's Christmas release was banned, making this the most hyped movie of 2014. And unfortunately, when the most hyped movie of 2014 is filled with a record breaking amount of dick and anal jokes, there can be nothing for most anticipated moviegoers than pure, banal disappointment. So upon its eventual release online and finally on Netflix, everyone watched and inevitably complained that it was a dumb, humorless, overhyped movie... filled with a record breaking amount of dick and anal jokes.

  To which I would like to finally address audiences, not just across America but everywhere, who were thoroughly disappointed by The Interview's crude, immature, childish toilet humor and one-note jokes from the likes of Seth Rogen... Did you honestly expect anything less? This IS Seth Rogen we're talking about.

  It's funny to me that the same people who laugh at Pineapple Express and This Is The End accuse The Interview of being a letdown. Of course a hype as big as the one the country made it out to be can only result in disappointment because at the end of the day, though a ginormous gag and mock of Kim Jong Un and pretty much everything North Korea stands for, the movie is really nothing to be up in arms about (puns intended everywhere). Yeah, the movie is offensive to North Korea but it's nowhere NEAR the calibration of shock and vulgarity, specifically to one dictator and his country, than Matt and Trey's portrayal of puppets with Team America and that was a shocking decade ago. In the end, the real disappointment is how North Korea borderline hinted at WWIII over a movie starring Seth Rogen and James Franco which is guilty of highlighting a scene where Rogen has to stick a small missile in his ass; a movie that glorifies Katy Perry and margaritas that makes Kim out to be a flamboyant pushover stuck in his father's shadow rather than a fearless, terrorist dictator who is so powerful; so impressive of a human being that rumor has it he doesn't need to pee or poop.

  And that's where the film's humor lies; that's the level of humor here. It's the equivalent of jokes sixth graders would make in public school bathrooms; it's not humor based on rocket science or any branch of intelligent jokes and it's been going on since Seth debuted Superbad in 2007.

  And at the exact same time, The Interview might just be Seth Rogen's best movie. Now HEAR ME OUT. I'm not saying it's the funniest; I'm not saying it's the most memorable, but as far as satire goes, not just in satire itself and not only on North Korea but on America; America's brand of humor; what draws in American audiences from reality TV to heavy handed politics. The movie takes shots at all these branches of American pop culture stereotypes and by doing so, it takes steps in modern day meta-America existentialism that make it more than just a stupid, tasteless comedy about Judd Appatow's gang in N. Korea. Granted these are baby steps we're talking about and the film isn't MUCH more than a stupid, tasteless comedy, etc. etc. We can't forget that this is a movie that pauses to focus on James Franco waking up after a night of partying to draw attention to his "stank dick;" but at the same time, this is a movie that takes "stank dick" through the mountains of North Korean satire and post-fascist dictatorship.

  It sounds stupid and almost farfetched, but what makes The Interview brilliant (yes, in a sense I'm calling it brilliant) is the idea that writer-directors Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg are delivering "bro humor" to a more meta, self realized generation of politics with a winking nod to reality TV and pop culture ultimately fusing the two together to create some sort of funny pop-political hybrid that knows it's a funny pop-political hybrid done in the style of a super serious spy thriller. Granted, I can feel myself getting a bit off track and granted, I just MIGHT be giving Rogen and co. a liiiiittle too much credit today, but to me what makes the film as ironically self aware as it comes off is the fact that the country made as big a deal about the film as they did. The fact that President Obama had to give a speech regarding the film being banned made the film not only a trending topic but a duty to American moviegoers across the nation to see what "should not be seen" giving freedom back to the people; freedom that looks like naked Seth Rogen shaking his free flab and free dick at North Korean soldiers; freedom that looks like Eminem coming out as a free gay man (one of the film's opening and more funny gags); freedom that gives James Franco and Seth Rogen more balls than any American actors in 2014 for going ahead with this insanely stupid picture (they might have competition with Bradley Cooper for who's more free but more on that later).

  The movie may be brilliant in a TINY sense but the movie is also filled with humor that's borderline retarded. Granted, it's not enough of a shot at North Korea to start WWIII, nor is it enough of a roar to create the laughs Seth Rogen is known to perform, but there's genuine satire at the core of this film's heart and somewhere among making Kim Jong Un out to be a mortal man who in fact DOES pee and poop (played to perfection by the film's shining star, Randall Park who gives some hilarious personality to Kim), the film does have a small heart indeed. 

  There's one scene in particular where Franco's character Dave Skylark is getting a tour of North Korea's sights; landscapes, naked Asian women and tanks; in that scene is a montage of Dave and Kim riding around in a tank blowing sh*t up to Katy Perry's Firework. It's a scene that, to me, is perhaps a representation of post-fascism humor across the globe; it's a giant middle finger to Americans, Koreans, critics and moviegoers alike who slammed this movie for being a piece of crap, whether it's deemed a terrorist threat or a borderline retarded comedy, but it's a clear sign to the haters; it's proof that Rogen and co. don't care what we think because as stated "they hate us, 'cause they ain't us."

Grade: B+

12) X-Men: Days of Future Past

Comic book movies, as often as they smash through Hollywood these days, are not easy to peg. Comic book sequels are even harder to peg, and when you try to keep a 14-year-old franchise not only running but burning with that super heroic sensation that lit the flame in the wake of the new millennium, no comic book movie has achieved such a rare success and has done it with such style as the latest Summer blockbuster from the likes of the X-Men.

  Believe it or not, Days of Future Past is not only one of the better X-Men sequels but one of the best X-Men movies, period. With an exhausted sense of crappy story telling and an overuse of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, the X-Men franchise has been desperate for a breath of fresh air. Matthew Vaugn breathed that new air into the franchise with his pre-boot X-Men: First Class, which was arguably the best X-Men film since the second installment (a whopping 12 years ago). It was a success because it revamped what made X-Men such a unique comic in the first place; it focused on a fantastic ensemble. The new, young cast had a burning chemistry that these films had been dying for and their sporadic abilities to work so well with each other lit up the 1960s Cuban Missle Crisis storyline to perfection. It brought mutants through time and it was done tastefully, but more so than being a great X-Men film, it also called back to the original franchise whose timeline was existing 50+ years in the future. First Class payed homage enough for fans who have stuck around from the get-go but it also created some minor, though frustrating, continuity errors. Of course these issues can only be seen by those who have followed closely enough to spot the gaps in timeline and overlapping characters (much due to the crammed Last Stand which threw in everything including a Juggernaut of a kitchen sink). So time went on and veteran mutant director Bryan Singer announced he would follow up this timeline with a brand new X-Men film that would not only take place in the 1970s but would close the gaps and gaping holes that now existed in the original franchise.

  To put short, Days of Future Past is indeed a time travel movie. And as we've learned with anything, time travel is not easy to nail. The ever popular DOFP comic book saw Wolverine go back in time from his dystopian future where giant murderous robots (Sentinels) had slaughtered all but a few of Xavier's hall of fame star pupils from the school for the gifted, and time travel would inevitably serve its purpose to correct said dystopian timeline fixing all the bad and making everything good again (hooraayy). So to flash forward, here we are in a time where modern day live action comic book movies rule the screen in a golden age of a fanboy era and to put even shorter than putting short, Singer nails Days of Future Past in nearly every possible way.

  Just when you think another X-Men movie yet again starring Hugh Jackman's Wolverine, parading an overly crowded ensemble of too many cooks--mutants, in a time travel movie nonetheless, sounds like overkill, you just may be right to be suspicious. You'd also be wrong to not check it out because as I said DOFP is not only one of the better X-films but arguably the best of the franchise.

  What makes the film work is how well the cogs move in order to make this machine of a project of a time travel/comic book/sequel work. It's tricky but it ties up many of the franchise's loose ends, past and future alike. For those unconcerned with continuity, the film is also just a really good standalone story. Sure, Logan the lead man is once again taking center stage but here Singer carefully uses him and his ability to not age in order to serve the story properly. Once Wolverine is back in his 1970s body (with a surprise guest from Hugh Jackman's bear ass [puns intended?]) it is not him but the previous characters from First Class who take the torch of the protagonists and they not only take the torch but they take it very well. Everyone from McAvoy to Fassbender to Jennifer Lawrence's Mystique have all stepped up their game. Nicholas Hoult gives Beast true character development and with all this political-mutant scandal (led by newcomer Peter Dinklage who makes a superb villain), everyone's pretty much mad as hell and they're not going to take it anymore. Guest star Evan Peters as Quicksilver arguably steals the show for the few scenes he's in, and be on the lookout for other surprise cameos as well (actual people, not just Hugh Jackman's ass). But outside of the ensemble and homage to the timelines, the film is just really impressive in general. The special effects have gotten better, Singer's direction and pacing with the characters is focused and on point and in the same way First Class felt like a James Bond 60s spy thriller, Days of Future Past actually feels like a time capsule that properly captures the essence and mood of the period (here it feels more like a 1970s political thriller).

  It's damn good fun and whether you've been following the X-Men for 15 years or whether you're just joining class, Days of Future Past is a movie worth noting; it's packed enough to make lovers of comics, sequels, time travel and action squeal with fanboy affection. Also, we finally have Sentinels; They don't pay true homage to the giant-ass robots we remember from the 90s cartoon but we FINALLY have them. 

  So there's a lot worth noting. If it isn't the best X-Men movie period it's a worthy follow up to First Class at worst and the best X-Men movie since X2 at best, and both of those are impressive feats in comic book lore. Live on X-Men; Mutant and proud.

Grade: A-

11) American Sniper

One of the more controversial releases of recent memory (may not be as controversial as The Interview but definitely more worth your time in debating about), Clint Eastwood's latest effort is in no exaggeration the man's best film in probably more than a decade. There is so much to say about the film and ironically nothing at all. It's not easy to capture a war movie properly these days and not make it feel generic (I loved Lone Survivor but even that felt at times like a highlight reel paying homage to previous war movies rather than be its own beast) and I'm not slamming modern day war movies; it can't be easy to do another story depicting the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan and not make it feel like everything else. Hell, even The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty feel generic at times in their capturing peril in America during times of war in the wake of modern day terrorism (in my humble opinion), and yet Clint Eastwood STILL makes Sniper feel more original than the rest of the pack while keeping the spirit of inevitably generic war movie genres, and his secret weapon is Bradley Cooper.

  That's right, the douchebag fiancé from Wedding Crashers; the likable but still kinda douchey party boy from The Hangover; the Academy Award nominated bipolar Eagles Fan in Silver Linings Playbook, and the hilariously flustered FBI agent in American Hustle, Bradley Cooper has arguably come a longer way in ten years than Matthew McConaughey has (might be bold), giving easily not only the boldest performance of his career but one of the best lead roles in 2014 (hence the nomination). Eastwood uses Cooper as a powerful force of acting because he doesn't use him as a loud, right wing, guns blazin', salute the flag kinda stereotypical American depicted in the caricature of soldiers these days, but instead Eastwood literally treats him like a loaded gun; a quiet, carefully wound up powerhouse of suspension that's potential of deadly destruction and Cooper nails the role of real life sniper Chris Kyle as he gives the role not only intimidating presence but makes Kyle a truly relatable and likable guy with down to Earth values  representing an ultimately positive (though arguably controversial) representation of America. And with Chris Kyle being deemed the world's all time deadliest sniper, it mustn't be easy to make such a renounced assassin a truly likable dude, but rather than focus on how he performs on the field, Eastwood dives into the psyche of who Chris Kyle was at home too; how war never left him no matter where he went, building Cooper up to be a powerhouse of acting depicting a true hero of American soldiers whether you agree with the film's politics or not.

  As far as those politics go, it's hard to have a strong opinion on the film and not lean a certain which way on the political bench but whether you're anywhere near the right or left it's hard to deny the sheer talent that goes into this film as both a story and a craft and what separates Sniper from other films is that regardless of the four tours Kyle attends in the Middle East the film really dives into who he is as a genuine man and as an American. We see how he views his role in the war as his true duty; his life's calling, and Eastwood sheds light on his persona with the struggles of war and hints of PTSD and how it never stopped motivating Kyle; how it drove Kyle to keep going back out to the field despite the fact that he had a family at home wondering if he would ever make it home alive. If anything it's the definition of a psychological war movie and it's a damn fine one at that.

  And even though the film does wear its Stars and Stripes proudly; it does bleed red, white, blue and paves the screen with a slight "we're America and if you're not then f**k you" mentality, it never disrespects its soldiers, its audiences and everyone this film represents, notably Kyle; it's a phenomenal depiction of war and how it can cause actual and psychological damage in the same way it can also save lives and shed light on the positives in times of terror. People called Chris Kyle "hero;" "legend," and treated him with a gung-ho respect and Kyle never once gave into that Rambo-like mentality; but Eastwood and Cooper keep him a quietly respected, levelheaded man who never got cocky and never gave up on his duties even in the face of death and having to kill others; men, women and unfortunately some children, because he believed his country needed him to do whatever it took be his own patriot, and if you can get on board with the film and its overly American representation; left or right; red white or blue; filmgoer or not, this is easily one of the greatest war movies ever made.

Grade: A

10) The Double

As far as obscure, unseen dark horses of films go, none may go as unseen or as dark horse or as under appreciated this year as The Double. Without Netflix this somewhat dark, very bizarre comedy would fall to the wayside of everything even close to mainstream, as this is the furthest thing from mainstream. Not to say it's truly got that independent film feel but the atmosphere of it is everything that you'd see from a truly crafted art house film as if it were made by a youthful, innovative filmmaker with a darkly aged mind, and every quirky aspect of this film works to its strange advantage.

  Taking place in some Terry Gilliam-esque universe, Jesse Eisenberg works in a droll factory as Simon. He is bumbling, awkward and is just about as much of a nobody as the most common nobodies you'll rarely remember. Then one day a new coworker arrives named James... Also played by Jesse Eisenberg; James is charming, confident, daring, determined and the polar opposite of Simon in almost every way... Except for he fact that the two look identical. The funny aspects of the film don't come from the fact that Eisenberg is playing two totally different characters but the fact that no one else but the Eisenbergs seem to notice that they share an identical resemblance. Once James tries to steal Simon's job, his girl and his identity, that's where all the true comedy escalates because of the dark irony in people seeing all of one person's strengths and the weaknesses of another when in actuality, they could be more or less the same person, pushing the two forces into dark corners with one another and at the end of the day, ironically, as stupid as it is to say, Eisenberg has incredible chemistry with... Himself. He plays the duality of both characters with perfection making the comedy all the more bizarre as it is unique and the film somehow works. It works in, like I said, a Terry Gilliam kinda way but also in a strange David Lynch kinda way where some things just don't make too much sense but equal a great amount of questionable satisfaction as a well crafted film. With beautifully dark cinematography (that's a double entendre by the way; almost every scene of the film is shot at night), a haunting score, exceptionally strange acting and an even more bizarre story filled with crazy characters that act like they're living in some Roald Dahl pop-up book, the film just works and for something that appears so very small; that has feats which are triumphed by its own weird, crafted perfection; for what it is, it works to its own strange advantage, and it works really well.

Grade: A-

9) Nightcrawler

Jake Gyllenhaal's best performance, probably ever, makes Nightcrawler one of the most edgy thrillers in recent memory. Gyllenhaal plays Louis Bloom, amateur filmmaker who snags footage of crime scenes and sells said footage to news stories for easy money and make no mistake, while mistaken for determined filmmaker, Bloom is the closest thing to a walking serial killer who's NOT a serial killer you'll see on screen this year. Gyllenhaal strikes genuine fear with this brooding performance making him a psychological nutcase playing both a protagonist and antagonist who's carefully precise and scarily unpredictable, and Gyllenhaal gives it his all for this film making Bloom a psychotic villainous artist who lurks in the shadows waiting to capture his golden footage no matter what the cost; even if it means planting pieces at the crime scenes and putting people in harm's way in order to get the shots he needs. Granted, Bloom isn't a killer and he's not necessarily a villain because he never actually crosses that threshold (the climax of the film is up for debate), but this could easily be an origin story for a future serial killer (or just an insane, villainous mastermind) at large. Nevertheless, Nightcrawler never stops being pulsating because Bloom never quits; it's his constant passion and determination to be the best and it's his ultimate stride to have whatever he wants, and the fact he'll stop at nothing to have it, that makes him such a scary character and Gyllenhaal always keeps a levelheaded energy with Bloom and only shows hints of what's potentially at stake when the young videographer becomes truly unhinged. And as the film progresses Bloom dives deeper into his borderline schizophrenic determination and by the film's climax and bone chilling ending, you could say that this is the closest thing to a psychological horror movie, without being a horror movie at all, that you'll see from any movie of recent memory; which is why the film is brilliant and Gyllenhaal alone carries the weight of this dark piece of news pop. I'm honestly shocked he didn't even get a nomination; He's literally that good.

Grade: A

8) Gone Girl

David Fincher strikes again. While not initially his best, Gone Girl is the man's twisted take on marriage and its roots go deeper than almost any f**ked up rabbit hole you're bound to go down in 2014's films. It's a dark thriller but also a social commentary that peels off constant layers for each new beat and twist of the clever script and the rabbit hole never truly ends, even when it's all over, leaving  a lingering feeling in your gut long after the credits roll.

  For one, Ben Affleck puts on an incredible performance; not Oscar worthy but some of his best work, while on the other hand Rosamund Pike plays her part so superbly well that it's literally scary for more than one occasion, and if I talk about her character or the film too much I'll end up giving way to the film's many twists and this is not the kind of movie to be spoiled for anyone who hasn't seen it. 

  The narrative plays out like a pulse pounding chapter book and given that it's based on a best selling novel it's scripted and paced with admiration and perspiration giving an equal balance to both Nick and Amy's perspectives on their relationship and the mysterious disappearance of a dear husband's wife. Everything about the film plays out to its advantage paying respects to both Gillian Flynn as a gifted author and Fincher as a phenomenal filmmaker. As the story progresses it only gets deeper and darker and ultimately being a satire on marriage, news and media, Gone Girl just might be the darkest comedy of a mystery thriller you'll ever see. 

  It's a Fincher film in every way and his staples are everywhere; notably dark, murky, yellow lighting and cinematography; twisted relationships and maaaaybe a gruesome death... You wouldn't think Fincher could keep pumping out movies as stellar as this but the man continues to be a goldmine, producing one of his darkest pictures yet. With a frustrating ending that stamps its grim morals on broken marriages, the movie is pulse pounding and every beat of the story makes it one of the more intense and notable films of the year.

Grade: A

7) Inherent Vice

The latest effort from Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the hardest to peg because there's so much effort and craft that went into making this film but the reason to applaud Anderson and his magnificent ensemble cast is that essentially he made a three hour film noir 1960s comedy with SO much plot resulting with an impact that ultimately leaves so little, making it one of Anderson's funniest and downright self aware films since Boogie Nights. Granted the film is much more aware of its satire of crime and noir, and being filled in a world of drugs, sex, free love and war protest, the film is ironically a lot less dramatic than it may pretend like it's coming off. The film plays out more like a one note joke following Joaquin Phoenix as a bum hippie who gets mixed up in a mystery of his own resulting in all sorts of comedic mishaps; following the roads of FBI Josh Brolin (who steals every scene he's in, including the last scene of the film [which is also the flat-out funniest]), dentist Martin Short, a mysteriously whimsical Owen Wilson and a few hot but maybe bimbo, maybe not, blondes, we find our hero "Doc" (Phoenix) on a dopey misadventure of crime and mystery of his own; the kind of mixed up bumbling mystery that calls back to the days of the Coens capturing the lighting that is Big Lebowski in a bottle of funny film noir. In fact, you could make the argument that Inherent Vice is indeed P.T. Anderson's Big Lebowski. All the tropes are there: the doofy but determined hero driven by very limited motivation, the seductively sinister (but sweet) femme fatale, the big head honcho, and all the shady, omniscient characters waiting behind brick walls, hiding behind smokey alleyways and waiting to pass on messages, deliver threats and cause debauchery just for the sake of moving the mystery-plot forward, and/or for our hero to fall in a comedic trap (Martin Short steals that role while playing a coke addicted dentist and he's fantastic). The film coils itself up in so much mystery; so much nuance, that people forget this is ultimately a comedy. And while not always laugh-out-loud hilarious (save for the last scene with Phoenix and Brolin), the film is lighthearted in its stern attempt at being a dark mystery; the film is a gag; a satire; a lampoon of not only noir but of idiots, hippies, detectives; people in love; people who don't know their purpose; people living in a confused time period of free love and many drugs. The atmosphere of the film is so oddly specific and so well executed in its production, that it could only come from the mind of a master (P.T. Anderson pun..?). And while it shares similar tendencies with Boogie Nights the films couldn't be more different. Nights follows a rising porn star in a new world of many ups and inevitably crashes with all the career's and lifestyle's downs; it's at once very funny but by the end incredibly dramatic. Vice is a tonally different beast with a never ceasing wink of a satirical funny bone; like I said it's more of a lampoon on crime, mystery, lust, drugs; hippies mostly and how they're so belittled and believe me, Phoenix plays primary hippie "Doc" with confused, smokey, whimsically comedic perfection, and ultimately the result will go under appreciated because it's so weird and different. 

  In fact, it's hard to believe this is the same director as the man who once made the coldly dramatic There Will Be Blood, but Inherent Vice is further proof that though sometimes misunderstood, Paul Thomas Anderson is one of the most colorful and gifted filmmakers of our time.

Grade: A-

6) The Lego Movie

It's no secret that The Lego Movie is the best animated movie of 2014; who are we kidding folks? Phil Lord and Chris Miller gave life to Legos on the big screen and made it one of the most hilarious, poignant, smart, brilliantly animated, political-pop satires in probably all of creation. It's one of the best animated movies I've literally ever seen and there are new gems to find in this goldmine upon every viewing. The movie is a rare breed of animated films blending humor, action, satire and political-social commentary and the animation is superb making the brick built universe seem as if it's all stop motion. All these qualities make it a really good film, and then that ending (though definitely up for debate) make it a great film; and it's brilliant, and it's a TRAVESTY the academy didn't recognize a mere nomination. Everything about this movie is literally awesome. And no, I didn't see it, but f**k The Boxtrolls, come on, REALLY?... THE BOXTROLLS... F**k it, I'm done. I'm being mad and immature. I'm sorry. I'm done now... F**k The Boxtrolls. Long live The Lego Movie.

Grade: A

5) Guardians of the Galaxy

Marvel's greatest achievement since The Avengers is also arguably better than The Avengers. James Gunn's sci-fi comic book action lore is nothing short of incredible. Chris Pratt is now finally getting his due; Vin Diesel gives his finest performance yet and it consists of him voicing the same three words over and over; Bradley Cooper makes a talking raccoon one of the most likable characters to ever come out of a comic book movie; Dave Bautista does more than wrestling and should honestly invest in doing comedy; and hey, Zoe Saldana is still attractive even when playing a green alien.

  This ensemble is perfect and it's perfect because it's essentially Marvel's version of rejects and losers and characters we relate to; they're all funny and unique in their own way and what separates Guardians from other comic book movies is that the movie has a keen eye giving an impression that it almost knows it's a comic book movie, but it does so with a self aware respect. It knows when to be serious in its own comic kind of way; big bad villains, dead moms, moral poignancies, etc. but the film also knows how to be comedic in its own comic kind of way. It always knows how to make fun of itself to keep things light hearted, funny and smart. It's meta in a Buffy kinda way. In fact, this is arguably the most "Joss Whedon" movie that Joss Whedon didn't do (good thing given the film is a brother of The Avengers, which IS directed by Whedon). And it's amazing because just when you think the movie is getting too goofy; too swamped in its own sci-fi nonsense; just when it all gets a little too swallowed in its enormous galaxy of a brand new universe to introduce fans to, Gunn will throw in a joke for Rocket (the talking raccoon) or a comical smile from Groot (the talking [and walking] tree played by Vin Diesel) to remind audiences he's in on the joke. It's almost Gunn's way of winking at the audience; his way of giving a calming smile saying "don't worry... I know this is ridiculous 😏" and it works well because it keeps all the nonsense grounded in what is ultimately a very large and expansive science fiction universe.

  And what a universe it is. We're dealing with everything you could imagine from planets to spaceships to aliens, space bandits, outlaws, creatures, ray-guns, purple crystals that make people explode, Benicio Del Toro as a flamboyant, foreign fan-boyish collector of fantastic and rare galactic artifacts (it's also one of his more memorable roles in recent memory). The film is a blast from start to finish. Sometimes it's hard to believe it's grounded in the same universe as Iron Man but it's got enough tropes and callbacks for fans of the MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) who have stuck around this long.

  But in the end, Gunn's film is an original beast of its own; it's electric and full of self aware brilliance and smart, eye popping action that is reminiscent of glory days of popcorn Blockbusters filled with heroes, villains, damsels, sidekicks and distress, all while knowing how to be a straight up fun romp that demands multiple viewings; hell, this is the closest thing you'll see to Star Wars from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It's literally as if Gunn was making his own comedic comic book, self winking sci-fi spectacle masterpiece. And it's nothing short of amazing. It's one of the best (and one of the funniest) comic book movies I've ever seen and  it's guaranteed to be the most fun you'll have watching a movie in 2014.

Grade: A

4) Whiplash

Probably the most intense movie about music ever made, Whiplash will literally give you whiplash. It's a threshold of intensity represented by quality film establishing great music driven by its two lead performers and their chemistry just might set you on fire; no really, whether you're rushing or dragging to see the film, you won't see a burnt up flame between two actors this year. Eddie Redmayne and what's-her-name are put to shame if anyone thinks there's on-screen chemistry better than the likes of Miles Tellar and JK Simmons (that was mean, I actually didn't see Theory of Everything so I take it back, but you catch my drift). But seriously, this film knows exactly how to pin point what it tries to get across not just in terms of music but in true, driven passion in every sense of the word; it takes the kinetic energy of its two main leads and uses their passion to drive their inhibitions and motives not only in their music but in their character. Where Tellar's character is meek, timid, determined but scared (and never quits), Simmons' character is strong, stern, disciplined and someone not to f**k with. The two play off each other like they're bold brass instruments in a finely tuned band; they feed off one another in a way that makes the film crackle with pulse pounding energy but their dramatics are never overly dramatic; it's literally amazing; it's superb; it's bound to make you sweat, and it's all from the likes of a small kid who dreams of being a big drummer, but what makes the film truly work is that whether you're a fan of Buddy Rich, a fan of music in general, a fan of film or whether you just wanna see JK Simmons slap the sh*t out of Miles Tellar and scream colorful obsenities (his verval abuse is not only consistently laugh-out-loud hilarious but it's almost Full Metal Jacket status. Enough said), SEE WHIPLASH. And see it ASAP because it's a hilarious, heartbreaking, nail biting, breathtaking, intense and inspiring experience. If you have ears it would be a disservice to not watch this film and let the energy of its music and passion of its performers carry your eardrums (and your heart) through the NY philharmonic and out into the world of music, film, art and exhilaration.

Grade: A+

3) Birdman

One of the strangest and most beautifully bizarre occurances to happen to film, Birdman is all the proof in the world that a film can be bold, funny, well crafted, unique, artsy and just about everything one could want in a film. Birdman was at the top of my must-see list for all of 2014 from the moment I saw the first previews and I never could have predicted that this incredibly unique beast of a film could and would go so, so far.

  Michael Keaton nails the role of Riggan Thompson, once proud blockbuster actor of the fictional Birdman franchise and now washed up actor who wishes to put on a Broadway play, and the fact that Keaton is where he is after playing Batman in 1989 makes the ironies of this film all too magical. But the beauty of the film isn't just in the ironies of acting and careers (and how Blockbusters like Batman Birdman are killing the industry and what "true art" really is, but in the pure craft of this magnificent ensemble. Everyone here brings their A game from Ed Norton to Emma Stone; from Zach Galiafanakis to Naomi Watts; the cast is perfect and their characters are tragically perfect in their own dark, haunting (yet always funny) ways of misery and modern-represented artists. Let's also note the film appears as if it's been done in one shot. The cinematography and editing here is some of the most outstanding work in recent memory and the fact that foreign filmmaker Alejandro González Iñárritu (super foreign) uses his craft to follow Riggan and other artist friends in seemingly one take (and done well for that matter) is beyond astounding. 

  But aside from the craft and the acting is the story; it speaks volumes for modern day tropes and measures in modern day Hollywood (which is probably why critics love it so much) because it addresses so many issues in theater; in film; in art, that cause problems and create solutions in actors, directors, critics and the film beyond dives into the psyche of its characters, primarily Keaton's Thompson/Birdman. The fact that the film uses the character of Birdman as a sort of Jekyl/Hide angle for Keaton makes the character that much better and sheds light on the psychosis of Thompson as more than a failed actor but as a failed parent and as a somewhat failed human being. But there's light at the end of the tunnel. The film also plays off of a "theater is dead" measure and uses the idea that an old blockbuster action hero is coming back as a "serious, dramatic" Shakespearian actor and the whole thing is treated like a satire on not just those comic book blockbusters (they take some shots at Downey Jr. and Iron Man) but on theater and how seriously people can take it (Norton really shines in that role on the opposite end of the "crazy artist" seesaw); and the pretentious critics out there who bash these projects from these failed artists and how their word means everything to the public; the entire thing is a satirical ball of comedy, drama, action heroes, artists, critics and it's all tastefully respectful in its own cynical, artsy way.

   In short, it's a darkly comedic tragedy; a sad, insightful, hilariously tragic, wacky, pretentious representation of actors, critics and what it means to leave a legacy behind whether you're labeled as a somebody or die as a nobody; a true plunge into the psychosis of a deranged, maniacal artist. The whole thing is a strange and beautiful disaster, and one of the best films of 2014.

Grade: A+

2) The Grand Budapest Hotel

For a film I can't speak too much on since I've already said so much about it this past year, Wes Anderson's latest grandeur ironically cannot be talked about enough. When I saw it in theaters last spring it was the biggest surprise I never could have seen coming. I went from thinking Anderson was an overrated filmmaker to seeing all of his talents from just this one picture alone. I was fairly certain then and I couldn't be more sure now, but this is easily Wes Anderson's flat out best movie. It may not seem like it has the charm of Rushmore or the character development of Tenenbaums but The Grand Budapest Hotel blows not just Anderson's films, but almost every other film of 2014, out of the water in quite literally almost every single department.

  For starters, the production quality is spotless. Costumes, set design, cinematography and score have never been this good; the way the film blends together is one of the closest things to flawless craft you'll see in 2014.

  For another, the outstandingly ginormous ensemble is amazing. Ralph Fiennes' hotel concierge Gustave H. carries the entire film almost by himself and Fiennes even could have been nominated. I've said it before but it's almost as if people have forgotten that Fiennes can be funny and Anderson has channeled his wit and charm as if he discovered a small holy grail in actors. The supporting cast is also played to perfection no matter how big or small the role.

  And the story; it literally has everything. It's a fancy drama, a murder-mystery crime caper; a prison break escapade, a love story, a tragedy, a period piece and it's all executed with as much love and  care as the production that went into it; it's also very, very funny.

  In the end, it's a Wes Anderson film at its finest; it's arguably the most "Wes Anderson" movie ever made. It uses and emphasizes the filmmaker's tropes to its own advantage in every way; it's so carefully crafted that it plays out like a play; a big stage production where every fine detail comes together so perfectly, it makes you realize what good film actually looks like. It's such a throwback to practical craft in film and maintained illusion in a way that George Mellies did with A Trip to the Moon in the early 1900s; it's a reminder, over a hundred years since the birth of film, that simple, practical craft can sometimes shine brighter than any form of CGI or special effects. The film feels like a throwback too; it feels nostalgic even though it's brand new. It reminisces in times where life was different. And the fact that the film takes place in three different past time periods makes all the seemed nostalgia that much more poignant, and in the end the film is very poignant indeed.

  It's a film to celebrate; a film to recognize for so many achievements that there couldn't possibly be enough to say about it. It's everything that should be in a great film and it's a reminder that people like Anderson can make films feel alive again and he can do so much with so little. There's literally nothing bad I can say about Budapest. It's bound to make you laugh, maybe cry, but overall it will keep you satisfied and confident that there's a reason to go to the movies; there's a reason to celebrate an art form as unique as this. It will make you remember what good movies look like, and Grand Budapest is about as grand as movies come.

Grade: A+

1) Interstellar

Here it is folks; the end of our journey through space and time (until next time) and yes, roll your eyes at me all you want; be in an uproar and mock my decision but the number one top slot; the top pick for a blend of quality and favoritism goes to none other than Christopher Nolan's latest sci-fi pilgrimage through space (and time) and before you disagree or think I'm just ignorantly worshiping Nolan simply because he's Nolan, HEAR ME OUT.

  I first want to address the fact that while Nolan is very clearly one of the greatest filmmakers of this generation I also don't blindly praise everything he does without spectacle. GRANTED, I find something worthwhile in every single one of his films (yes, even The Dark Knight Rises), the man's work isn't flawless. HOWEVER, it's as equally ignorant to say he's not one of the most gifted directors working today as it is to blindly applaud every movie he makes. Because to not note the fact that Nolan tries to outdo himself with every film he makes would be wrong. His films grow bigger; more expansive; more diverse; more impressive with each new installment. Now bigger doesn't always mean better (Again, most people look to TDKR to find Nolan's Achilles heels) but with a track record as good as his, Nolan has quite literally almost been actually outdoing himself with every film he puts out, making the anticipation for that new "a film by Christopher Nolan" tag in front of every new trailer THAT much more worth hyping up. And with the Dark Knight trilogy and Inception on your shoulders, the question to be begged is, exactly how does one outdo themselves? The answer, in my opinion, is simply Interstellar.
  I don't know if it's because the film takes our characters through space and time or if it's that I just love the film as much as I do but I literally can't emphasize how flat-out amazing it all is; to the point where if Nolan were to bow out now and make this his swan song and never do film again, I honestly wouldn't blame him for it. He has not only literally taken our characters from Earth but he has taken us as an audience in a spectacle; a grandeur that's so wildly big and extraneous, it's actually impossible to process the film's rich spectacle and goodness upon one viewing alone (I saw it twice in a 24-hour period in IMAX, because I'm a crazy person). The movie is literally too big to wrap around your head with just one look. It's a film to not just be watched but to be experienced and what makes the film a monument in best pictures of 2014 and in general is that the film is the defining key to experience when it comes to film; it moves audiences not just visually but emotionally; it launches into themes as gigantic and inexplicable as our solar system and what's beyond our universe but it also touches down on the raw, emotional issues like the importance of family and values that are established in pure humanity.
  The film is MIND BLOWING and it's almost as mind blowing to hear anyone deem it any less. It packs everything in, not just as a science fiction picture but as a love letter to film and to Nolan's characteristics that make his films leave such a lasting impression.
  For one, the acting is above par. McConaughey truly has amazed me over the last couple years alone. I'm so proud of the man for ditching the crappy rom-coms and leaving Kate Hudson to the crop dust and launching himself into a universe of newly explored roles that actually define his talent and this film is no different. No, it's not going to give him an Oscar the way Dallas Buyers Club did last year, nor is it going to dive into the sea of Emmys the way True Detective set the stage for, but McConaughey plays the all American everyman and he plays it damn well; as an engineer; a father; a traveler; a potential savior of planet Earth (Yeah. It gets really dramatic). Opposite of him is Anne Hatthaway fresh off her Nolan-like Catwoman and an Oscar of her own from Les Mis, and while I usually despise Hatthaway, I find her not only tolerable here but she bounces off of her chemistry with McConaughey superbly (granted, the women in Nolan's movies never get the best treatment but she holds herself together well enough to be believable). Speaking of women in Nolan films, Jessica Chastain also impresses and her emotional range drives the film back on planet Earth just as much as it does for our characters sailing across the sea of stars. The supporting actors do their part as well; Michael Caine, as expected in every Nolan movie, crushes it as an old wise man who's difficult to understand and there's even some surprises from John Lithgow and Casey Affleck for however long a time they're in the film, ALTHOUGH, I gotta say... Best character in the film is a robot named TARS. If I say anymore it'll ruin the fun but I couldn't stop laughing at the character (don't know if it was the sarcasm the character had or just me being unable to accept the ridiculousness of it all), alas I'm getting off track.
  The story is, as I said, mind blowing. I unfortunately can't speak too much on it without spoiling but just when you think the film plunges you into the deep reaches of space and can't go any further, it soars just a little bit beyond the further, through black holes, worm holes, all sorts of planets and by the film's climax, you just might gain some wild anxiety and mild claustrophobia that our hero(es) may never make it back to Earth and that we'll all be doomed to a dark and desolate fate.
  But the story is also supported by outstanding visual effects and one of Hans Zimmer's most unique film scores to date. The visual effects alone are worth noting because Nolan did so much practical work with his model ships and use of exotic locations to make space ironically feel as strange and believable as he makes it out to be. And some of it is not only believable but frighteningly realistic and ergo horrifying at the thought of ANY of the film's plot points being anywhere close to realistic (one of the most intense sequences of the film take place on a planet where one hour there is equal to seven years back on Earth [yeah, the thought of it is horrifying]) and Zimmer's score supports those horrors with godlike organs and intense instrumental breakdowns that signify death in many dark ways.
  And aside from the fact that many of the Interstellar-travel theories are supported by actual scientific facts and theories makes the film only that much more interesting because it makes us as humans question our existence and just how far the deep reaches of space goes and what's truly out there beyond not just our universe, but beyond the dimensions that bind us by space and time. The film carries an aroma that will inevitably create obsessive science-fiction theories and though often ridiculous theories will probably get people researching all about it. It's pure science fiction at its core and it's both challenging, exhausting and it's all simply amazing. And people have said it before but there really hasn't been a film about space before that leaves such a lasting impression, since Stanley Kubrick gave the world 2001: A Space Odyssey, and quite honestly, as bold as I've been this entire rant, I don't think there's a bolder statement I could make today than by admitting that quite frankly, after watching Interstellar, you really might question why anyone would ever make a movie about space ever again. And don't take that the wrong way either; I'm not necessarily saying it's the best movie about space, ever, but simply because it's as well crafted in its production and as expansive as it is in its universe and just how much it all explores both as a film and as an expedition through space, I don't see how anyone can really take the ideas of reaching through space any further (unless of course they did a mini series on the Cosmos and it was produced by Seth Macfarlane... [Cosmos now available on Netflix]) but I'm pretty sure by outdoing just about everyone when it comes to making a film about space that, like I said, is this expansive, it's proof that Nolan has in fact finally outdone himself.
  Seriously, where do you go from here??? After the likes of neo-noir Memento, to raising the comic book bar so high that everyone is going to compare future flicks to The Dark Knight, literally forever, because it's finally been done "dark and gritty" to visually striking and psychologically mind bending thrillers like The Prestige and Inception, to THIS, where does Nolan go next? I'm legitimately curious. And again, before you think I'm just drooling over the man's work I'll also be the first to tell you that again, the man is not flawless and in fact he can be kind of ignorant sometimes (his recent comment on not doing post-credits scenes because "real films" don't do that and they're beneath him, is both shallow and pedantic), but I'm not gonna try and convince you that Interstellar isn't amazing. I've clearly spent too much time talking nonsense about how it very clearly IS amazing and it's not only my number one pick for 2014 but it's arguably one of the best experiences I've seen in film, in years. Now, before you think I'm being blindly ignorant with that statement, understand that I'm saying one of the best experiences in film; not the best film in general. Of course there are better movies; there will always be better movies, but at the end of the day what makes one film that much better than the other? Sure, the quality in production and all around everything can be near flawless; hell, Grand Budapest is by my definition, a BETTER film than Interstellar; but no movie has left me with such a breathtaking experience, as a critic, as a fan, as a filmmaker, or as a human being; not in a long, long time. 
  It's about as dramatic as I can get with films because THIS is why I love films; this is why I love this industry and Interstellar alone is what inspires my drive and passion to one day influence the world in entertainment the way Nolan did with me this year. There's quite literally nothing I can say more about the film without running around in circles. It's a phenomenal film; arguably Nolan's best film, but above all, it's an experience, and whether it's in mind blowing IMAX or in the comfort of your home, it's an experience worth following the deep reaches of space through... 
Also, upon viewing the film, you just might understand why McConaughey was talking so much nonsense when he filmed those Lincoln commercials even if you can't understand the plot of the actual movie. So if for nothing, it's worth it for that.


Grade: A+




AND WE'RE DONE!


Holy hell that was long. Seriously, if anyone read it to the end (which never happens), thank you for wasting your time with me. If you scrolled to the bottom just to see what my number one pick was then congratulations! You've joined the ranks with just about everyone else who couldn't wait another hair raising SECOND to find out what I had to praise (and are you disappointed that #1 went to Interstellar? Oh, were you disappointed? WERE YOU THOUGH?)

Seriously everybody, thanks for clicking and scrolling. You are all beautiful people and I'm glad there are other people out there who enjoy movies about a fraction as much as I do. And so, I must bid you all goodbye for now, though do not go gentle into that goodnight, for we must hibernate until Avengers: Age of Ultron  Mad Max comes out... Yeahhhh, Mad Max looks badasssss. Let's hope we're given any kind of unhinged madness the trailers promise us, AM'I'RIGHT!?

Alright I'm going to bed.

IN THE NAME OF CINEMA!!!