Bruce Willis has proved himself to be an ageless wonder. Although the roles he has chosen of late (“RED,” Old Joe in “Looper,” “The Expendables 2″ and playing the original G.I. Joe in “G.I. Joe: Retaliation”) suggest he’s playing the “aging action star” card, his box-office draw has been consistent if not downright reliable.

So why, exactly, does the fifth “Die Hard” movie make him share the screen with John McClane’s until-this-point-non-existent son? Did 20th Century Fox think it needed to pass the torch to a younger, blossoming action star in Jai Courtney? The answer is essentially irrelevant, because “A Good Day to Die Hard” offers plenty of reason for this to be “a good time to let this franchise die…hard.” I was a fan of 2007′s “Live Free or Die Hard” despite its obvious shortcomings, but “Good Day” neglects the very reasons the franchise has survived to this point. The only thing making it akin to its predecessors is McClane surviving absurd falls and copious gunfire, but as the franchise has shown us before, there’s a fine line between exaggeration equaling entertainment and exaggeration undermining a film’s credibility.

That fine line is simply a matter of how good the rest of the movie is. That’s “Good Day’s” problem. Writer Skip Woods shoulders much of the blame. Honestly, anyone who had a writing credit on “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” should be blacklisted, but what can you do? The plot exists completely independent of the John McClane character, for one, meaning that it could’ve been a generic action film featuring just about anyone, given a different title, and not caused anyone to bat an eyelash. Admittedly, part of the character’s shtick is that he’s always in the wrong place at the wrong time, but the script has to practically shoehorn him into the film.

John ends up in Russia where his estranged son, Jack (Courtney) has been arrested. He plans to testify against a man named Komarov (Sebastian Koch) for a shorter sentence. Komarov is a political prisoner believed to have valuable information with damning evidence of corruption against a politician named Chagarin. Truth is that Jack is C.I.A. and the U.S. has an interest in protecting Komarov. John, however, distracts his son with his presence and consequently blows Jack’s operation. Together they must figure out Plan B.

So John’s just along for the ride this time and also to get some bonding in with the son he was never there for. The tension and humor that arise from their dynamic prove anywhere from frustrating and pointless to slightly amusing. Overall, it’s extremely cliché.

Great action scenes can heal all narrative wounds, at least for die-hard action fans of the literal and figurative variety, but for a franchise known for pushing the limits of creative stunts and flying shrapnel, “Good Day” offers very little to “ooh” and “ahh” at, just a lot of John and Jack jumping through glass and falling several stories. The film’s grand finale has potential, but director John Moore ruins it with slow-motion (and CGI doesn’t help).

Moore (“Max Payne,” “Flight of the Phoenix”) makes a few shots looks really great and he’s generally competent in this film, but the final action sequence involving a McClane helicopter escape leans hard on digital effects and given the film’s other failures, proves totally anti-climactic. And yes, that bloodcurdling slow-motion… All these criticisms seem irrelevant when you take the time to consider how this fifth “Die Hard” movie does nothing for the John McClane character.

I think an “old John McClane” movie, a satisfying final chapter, could exist and reconcile aging and badassery, but this film was downright afraid of the subject. I’ve never been less excited to hear “Yippee Kay-yay” come out of Bruce Willis’ mouth. He’s just an accessory in this movie and it’s almost upsetting. Sure, he proves to Jack that sometimes Daddy knows best, but the humanity of John McClane, the first action hero to get beaten and bloody and do it the hard way, he’s nowhere to be found. In a franchise this long-running, that’s not acceptable.

1.5/5 Stars

A Good Day to Die Hard

Directed by John Moore

Written by Skip Woods, Roderick Thorp (some characters)

Starring: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Sebastian Koch, Yuliya Snigir

In this superhero-obsessed culture/Hollywood world we live in, it’s a wonder that the grand-daddy of them all, Superman, hasn’t had a successful debut in the 21st Century. Obviously I’ve just implicitly bashed 2006’s “Superman Returns,” which I will not be taking the time to discuss beyond this sentence, but I don’t think anyone disagrees that Bryan Singer’s film failed to do the Man of Steel justice.

Knowing they had yet to tap the full potential of one of the greatest characters of all time, Warner Bros. finally committed to bringing in the amount of mind and muscle befitting of Superman and channeling it into a new incarnation. The duo of producer Christopher Nolan (mind) and director Zack Snyder (muscle) promised an intelligent, visually extravagant and emotion-filled blockbuster spectacle. A tall order, no doubt, but they manage to breathe new life and excitement into the character.

“Man of Steel” doesn’t feel like a Snyder film or a Nolan film, and it visually distinguishes itself as separate from the Christopher Reeve/Richard Donner “Superman,” whose imagery became the definitive take on the Superman universe. Purists might well have an issue with the liberties taken with the Fortress of Solitude, Phantom Zone and likely more. There are no visual easter eggs or homages to famous dialogue either. “Man of Steel” clearly wanted a fresh start.

It begins fresh as well with an extended sequence on Krypton, which sets up a bit more of the reason Jor-El (Russell Crowe) sent his newborn son to Earth as well as who is General Zod (Michael Shannon). It’s definitely rushed, but in showing us part of the Superman universe we’ve never seen before it manages to keep our interest completely piqued with an array of dazzling action, sets, costumes and CGI.

The on-Earth beginning of the story, the origin of Clark Kent, also goes in a different direction. As Clark (Henry Cavill) ventures through Alaska in an effort to discover his greater purpose, the narrative flashes back to pivotal moments during his upbringing in the hands of Jonathan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane).

Screenwriter David S. Goyer keeps the momentum going forward while touching on the crucial thematic points of Superman’s origin, the bits about keeping his identity a secret and finding his greater destiny, etc. This creative choice also helps to avoid a total feeling of deja vu in experiencing Superman’s origin story yet another time, a fault that many saw in the reboot “The Amazing Spider-Man,” for example. That said, toying with the chronology keeps us from experiencing the greatest degree of empathy for our hero. Fortunately, Cavill plays the role with great humility, so it’s tough not to like this Superman.

As much as the script takes certain liberties with the origin and how its told and also how Clark meets Lois Lane (Amy Adams), it stays extremely focused on Superman and Zod’s invasion of Earth the entire time. So many superhero films get bogged down with subplots, but “Man of Steel” has none. Anything you might deem a subplot directly connects with whatever else is going on in the film at the time.

What Goyer and Nolan have done with the story could spark endless discussion (and in some circles, debate). Anyone expecting an artistic blood transfusion from “The Dark Knight Trilogy” will be let down a tad. Batman’s universe can theoretically be steeped in realism; Superman’s flat out can’t. “Man of Steel” embraces the science-fiction elements of “Superman” and plays them up. Considering one of every two action films these days involves aliens leveling a city, it’s not hard to see why Warner Bros. was more than happy to go in that direction.

At this point we can safely say that the more audiences are subjected to final sequences involving mass-scale urban destruction, the more they will begin to just tune it out. The film doesn’t exactly do a great job of making us care about whether the Daily Planet turns to rubble. In fact, I can’t recall if the word Metropolis is even used in the entire movie. Regardless, the photo-realism of the fight sequences thanks to advances in CGI is breathtaking. Snyder, known for his abundant use of slow-motion, goes hard left with extremely fast-moving, often airborne action and fight choreography that despite the potential for blurry, incoherent CGI, comes out stunningly vivid. Superman’s showdown with Zod’s buddies in Smallville serves as an incredible showcase of the visual effects work on the film. The climactic scene in Metropolis is too, but again, after Superman gets chucked through that 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th building (all in one frame), you stop paying attention and eagerly await how the showdown with Zod will finally end.

Spectacle would be the first way to describe “Man of Steel.” As much as it offers some interesting themes, the film doesn’t take the time to sit on anything. It’s go, go, go in order to fit the origin story and provide plenty of drama once Zod invades. It’s a pure summer blockbuster as opposed to a grittier, more intellectual take on “Superman” (a majority of the time), but it’s infinitely more interesting than similar spectacle films such as the “Transformers” series.

All the elements of the film and characters are pretty likable, but these peripheral elements are underdeveloped. Much like how I felt after seeing “Amazing Spider-Man,” now that the origin story is out of the way, there’s room for a little more complexity in future installments. And if just scratching the surface of this new “Superman” world was this exciting from an entertainment standpoint, getting an opportunity to dig deeper holds promise.

3.5/5 Stars

Man of Steel

Directed by  Zack Snyder

Written by David S. Goyer, Christopher Nolan (story), Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster (characters)

Starring: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Russell Crowe

A man who doesn’t play by the law when it comes to delivering justice isn’t an original idea for a main character, and Tom Cruise is far from an original action star, but somehow “Jack Reacher” doesn’t suffer too much from being stale.

Lee Child’s book series appears to be a good fit for film by combining two traditional genres into one seemingly unique hybrid. “Jack Reacher” weaves together a traditional thriller structure with climactic points of physical, “Bourne”-like action. The heart of the story is a mystery, but its fuel is the brutal hand-to-hand combat sequences.

Based on the Reacher novel titled “One Shot,” the film centers on the horrific murder of a handful of civilians in Pittsburgh by sniper rifle. An ex-military sniper named James Barr (Joseph Sikora) has prints are all over the crime scene and the prosecutor’s office believes it has an open-and-shut case. Instead of confessing, however, Barr tells them to “get Jack Reacher.” The next day he is assaulted while in custody and beat into a coma.

Reacher (Cruise) is also ex-military, investigating internal crimes. He’s a drifter who never leaves a trail unless he wants to be found. And sure enough, he shows up at the D.A.’s office right on cue. He eventually strikes a deal with the attorney defending Barr’s case, Helen (Rosamund Pike), who happens to be the D.A.’s daughter. He becomes her chief investigator and like that he’s off gathering evidence, though he wants Barr to be guilty as much as anyone.

We know from the film’s excellently chilling opening sequence that Barr is not guilty and that a much younger man (Jai Courtney) actually shot those civilians and must have wanted to frame him for some reason. As the mystery unravels, Cruise as Reacher collects badass points by taking guys down at every turn until he finds the truth.

Better thrillers with less obvious twists and more satisfying endings have definitely existed, and plenty of better action movies have graced the silver screen, with Cruise himself even starring in some of them. But “Reacher” still offers a satisfying watch for genre film fans.

Reacher has a distinctive personality as a character. He has a sharp sense of humor that writer/director Christopher McQuarrie expertly translates (I assume), a man whose intelligence and no-nonsense animalistic side appear constantly at odds with one another. Some folks will become fans of the character very quickly, while others will at least be piqued. Cruise is normally an odd choice when you want someone imposing, but he add a foot to his height in his performance alone.

McQuarrie makes an impressive directorial debut. The imagery and some of the storytelling devices elevate “Reacher” above your typical thriller. The quiet opening sequence plunges you right into the story and creates an emotional investment in wanting to know what happens, even if how it all happens isn’t ultimately that satisfying. McQuarrie set his bar really high with his Oscar-winning screenplay for “The Usual Suspects” and his other projects haven’t measured up, but he might have found a good vehicle for his talents. His rumored attachment as the next director of the “Mission: Impossible” franchise has my approval to be sure.

It’s Cruise’s show, but Courtney shows potential as an action star and Pike proves why she needs to get better roles. Helen is a part that could’ve been played off as more of your typical “female criminal justice system person in over her head” character, but Pike blends a good deal of resolve in with her fear. She’s no Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling, but “Jack Reacher” is no “Silence of the Lambs.”

Although his screen time is comparable in terms of how little of it there is, Werner Herzog’s villainous character is far from Hannibal Lecter too. It’s fun seeing him in a creepy role like this, but he proves to be a waste, and Robert Duvall comes in late in the game too as a bizarre character that strikes me as someone from the book(s) McQuarrie wanted to include.

The script wants to establish Reacher as someone who is not your typical hero, someone you don’t always find yourself rooting for at every turn because some of his decisions are rash and frankly, not satisfying from an entertainment perspective. To do so, the film doesn’t deliver certain satisfying conventions we associate with action films and thrillers, yet there’s little doubt that fans of both genres will be curious to see if Reacher comes back to the screen in the near future.

3.5/5 Stars

Jack Reacher
Directed by Christopher McQuarrie
Written by Christopher McQuarrie, Lee Child (novel)
Starring: Tom Cruise, Rosamund Pike, Jai Courtney, Richard Jenkins

As Heath Ledger’s Joker said, “this city deserves a better class of criminal, and I’m gonna give it to them.” Who knew that by “city” he meant Hollywood?

Fittingly, Joker was indeed a game-changer in the world of blockbuster films. Christopher Nolan and co. turned Batman’s greatest nemesis into a seemingly omnipotent agent of chaos, a movie villain whose mental prowess dwarfed all who came before him.

The ripple effect of the Joker on the world of superhero films and major blockbuster franchise villains has been impressive. Just this past weekend we witnessed expert villainy from Benedict Cumberbatch in “Star Trek Into Darkness” and even Ben Kingsley’s The Mandarin (known as Tony Stark’s greatest foe) in “Iron Man 3” posed a similarly formidable threat—albeit that one’s a little complicated.

In a few weeks, Superman gets reintroduced to the modern movie world, but no, he won’t be facing off with his arch nemesis Lex Luthor, but instead the ruthless Kryptonian radical General Zod (Michael Shannon), an enemy whose powers obviously match Superman’s inch for inch.

Outside of the superhero genre, we’ve seen similar villains. In 2011, “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” saw Holmes’ storied rival on the big screen engaging in intellectual rivalry; James Bond had to go up against a devious mastermind in Raul Silva in last year’s “Skyfall”; even the Men in Black faced a menacing (and surprisingly effective) threat in Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) in “Men in Black III.”

With The Avengers next set to face Thanos, one of the most powerful villains in the Marvel Comics canon, in 2015, it’s safe to say the number of truly imposing baddies is only going up from here.

So there’s the evidence, but what’s the reason? Blockbusters don’t need amazing supervillains to be quality, entertaining films. Many hold “Iron Man” among the best superhero films, and few will attribute that to Jeff Bridges’ Obadiah Stane. Even something more recent, such as the 2011 hit “Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” featured a villain played by Michael Nyqvist who wanted nothing more than to start nuclear war.

Great villains, however, put films into the next echelon of entertainment. They add an element of mystery (or in the case of recent blockbusters, unpredictable chaos) that ups the stakes of a film.

When you think about it, it’s amazing that we still watch movies with stories centered on good vs. evil when we know who will win. (Hint: it’s not evil). The simple explanation for this is that there’s something thrilling about getting there, and great villains (coupled with great writing) complicate the “getting there” part immensely. “Star Trek Into Darkness” does this perfectly.

But this doesn’t exactly explain why we laud great performances from actors playing villains. We are absolutely engrossed by great bad guys, even the best of us. I’m talking Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences voters, for one. In addition to Ledger’s posthumous Oscar win, Javier Bardem (“No Country for Old Men”), Christoph Waltz (“Inglourious Basterds”), Anthony Hopkins (“Silence of the Lambs”), Kevin Spacey (“The Usual Suspects”) and more have won Academy Awards for playing villains, and dozens of others have won for playing immoral characters.

The answer involves a study of psychology more than film, but I’d venture to say it’s human instinct to be drawn to a psychology that we can’t empathize with. We identify with heroes, not villains, so the ones we don’t understand are the ones that intrigue us. On top of that, the ones we struggle to understand the most—whose motivations are a mystery—those are the very best movie villains.

Sure, the average poorly crafted villain has motivations that are a total mystery—they want to be evil for the sake of being evil. It’s the performance that separates these run-of-the-mill baddies from the greatest of all time.

Let’s got back to that list a few paragraphs up: Anton Chigurh, Hans Landa, Hannibal Lecter, Keyser Soze, Joker—each is unforgettable, and each has motivations that are unclear or nonexistent, for most if not all of the film. We don’t understand them because their personal motivation has been consciously left out of the script.

Ledger’s Joker is the perfect example. “Some men just want to watch the world burn,” Michael Caine’s Alfred says. Joker wants to see humanity cave to its worst instincts, but we don’t know that for a long time thanks to the writing. Ledger’s performance gives this character–who’s unlikely to exist in the real—world a definite presence.

These villains add an element of complete unpredictability to their respective films, and unpredictability in a world of “good triumphs over evil” stories is a valuable commodity. Actors who give great villain performances can seize on this unpredictability. They make the implausible seem plausible by breathing a convincing sinister life into their roles.

Going with “mystery motivation” and finding an actor who can make it work also saves a script from having to do a lot of work. The only other way to create an effective movie villain is by giving the villain a backstory or origin story that justifies his villainy. This can be challenging because audiences will respond differently to the bad guy’s motivation. Either you will be convinced that the backstory provides adequate motivation for the villain to do evil things, or you won’t. Once a film has made that motivation clear, the film will either sink or swim from there. It’s worth striving for, however, as an effectively motivated villain can be incredibly moving to a viewer because it adds a real complexity by making us feel a bit conflicted about the character.

At the start of the 21st Century, the blockbuster movie market became saturated with films centered on singular heroes. Now that we live in the world of the sequels to and reboots of these films, that market is great for movie villains. After the hero beats the first two or three villains, there needs to be a more convincing reason we might doubt our hero will survive the next installment, so upping the severity of the villain is the surest way to test our hero’s meddle.

Considering the amount of superhero films and sequels shows no sign of a downward trajectory anytime soon (thanks in large part to “The Avengers”), I think it’s obvious that screenwriters are going to need to get craftier and craftier with the villains they write, or at least the obstacles they place in a hero’s path. As great as the “unpredictable intellectual mastermind/agent of chaos” archetype is, it can’t be used for every film and be a success (supposing there aren’t dozens of amazing villain actors out there).

At the same time, we’re still talking about old-fashioned good vs. evil here, so as long as the villains stay unpredictable and great actors harness their energy, we’ve likely not yet seen some of the best movie villains.

Having inherited the keys to “Star Wars,” J.J Abrams has seen a rash of outbursts from skeptics in the last few months, picking up steam with this, the release of his second adventure with the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise. Surely one man cannot control both nerd worlds, right? Well, “Star Trek Into Darkness” offers more proof why everyone should just let him try.

Abrams has an acute understanding of creating universally enjoyable entertainment not really seen since Steven Spielberg in his heyday. His use of mystery as a tool to pull viewers in creates the sensation of a two-hour thrill ride, which is essentially what we get with “Into Darkness.”

Equal credit goes –of course—to his team, especially writers Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof, who each add yet another shining bullet point to their respective resumes. Much of the formula that made the initial “Star Trek” reboot a success gets implemented in this script. The pace of the film never lags, delivering persistent action, suspense, mystery or some combination of the three, stopping only for character-developing moments (and usually ending them with a sudden bang). The ace in the hole—and what makes “Into Darkness” a better film by a slim margin—is Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain.

If you’re familiar at all with Cumberbatch’s work, particularly in the title role on BBC’s “Sherlock,” you knew that at some point he would play a significant villain and absolutely nail it. Fortunately for “Star Trek” fans, Abrams got the first chance to unleash Cumberbatch on a mass-scale audience. His role allows him to be the perfect combination of a formidable physical and mental threat, and the script has you clawing for the truth from the onset that it only magnifies Cumberbatch’s strengths. Eric Bana’s Nero in the previous film pales in comparison.

“Into Darkness” continues much of the focus of the earlier film, adding complexity to James Kirk’s (Chris Pine) gutsy and arguably reckless decisionmaking, Spock’s (Zachary Quinto) inability to feel emotions and the friendship between the two. After the opening scene mission on the planet Nibiru in which Kirk violates Starfleet directives to save Spock, Kirk loses to the Enterprise back to its former captain Pike (Bruce Greenwood), but his probation doesn’t last long when Starfleet’s own, John Harrison, (Cumberbatch) blows a Starfleet archive in London and essentially declares war with the federation. Running at the chance to catch Harrison, Kirk plunges the Enterprise and its crew right into the middle of a deadly no-win scenario.

There’s a lot of who’s really the bad guy manipulation/mind games on the script’s part that doesn’t exactly fit together nicely all the time in terms of what’s really going on, but the level of danger and urgency never fades and that makes “Into Darkness” an ideal blockbuster. Once again, Abrams and co. aren’t afraid to pick up the Enterprise like a hyper toddler and shake and smash it and its crew until there seems to be no hope (except for that perfect window to save the day that was set up by some earlier occurrence in the movie).

As Abrams has said multiple times in interviews, he was never a fan of “Star Trek” growing up, so he aimed to make these films accessible to a wider audience. “Into Darkness” definitely is, with plenty of goodies for fans of varying degrees. A sequence on the Klingon home world of Kronos satisfies the hard sci-fi and “Trek” fans’ curiosity about the extent of Abrams’ take on this universe, while also teasing its potential. You’re going to want more Klingons after this film.

Right there is what ought to give “Star Wars” fans some confidence in Abrams: the curiosity factor, the scratching at the surface of the lore that attracts a geek following and appeasing it, while at the same time still delivering a focused, entertaining film that emphasizes the importance of the characters. The biggest problem with the “Star Wars” prequels as compared to the original trilogy is the poor quality of the characters and relationships. Just restoring that element to the mix guarantees a certain measure of success with the new “Star Wars” films.

“Star Trek” is in a really good place after “Into Darkness.” The first two films work together in terms of the character relationships and themes, and while there will always be room to test the bounds of Kirk and Spock’s friendship, to use an example, the door has been opened for the Enterprise to explore anything and everything Gene Roddenberry’s rich universe has to offer.

4.5/5 Stars

Star Trek Into Darkness
Directe by J.J. Abrams
Written by Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci and Damon Lindelof
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana

Los Angeles and gangsters. Before “Gangster Squad,” the first film that ought to come to mind is “L.A. Confidential.” For Ruben Fleischer’s latest, that creates an outrageous comparison point. The “Zombieland” and “30 Minutes or Less” director was probably not aiming that high. Even if he weren’t, he’s still not even aiming to add a prestigious entry to the gangster film canon. “Gangster Squad” is instead one of if not the only history-based gangster movie that just wants to be an action flick.

Okay, so maybe not just an action flick, but considering the slick characters, numerous gun fights, explosions, etc. and sharp-tongued dialogue, no questioning entertainment is the goal. Considering we’re used to mob dramas that have high aspirations and a disproportionate amount of these films have won great acclaim, a number of audiences are likely to find something a bit off.

The first reason is the historical context. Jewish gangster Mickey Cohen has settled in Los Angeles in hopes of establishes his criminal network and owning the city. Police Chief Parker (Nick Nolte) wants to break his grip before it takes complete hold, so he recruits Sgt. John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) to put together a team that will operate outside the department and the sight of the law to bring Cohen down.

O’Mara assembles his team in classic (albeit formulaic) cinematic fashion, with men who each have various specialties from the sharpshooter (Robert Patrick) to the tech geek (or the ’40s version of a tech geek) played by Giovanni Ribisi. Among the last of the men to be convinced is Sgt. Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling), a womanizer who seduces Grace (Emma Stone), Cohen’s etiquette coach and play thing. Together, they plot ways to hit Cohen where it will sting most.

If the team-assembling sequences don’t tip you off as to the movie’s super squad action flick qualities, Cohen’s sinister ways of torturing and killing the men who screw up and the ubiquitous actions scenes will. Even if the events depicted in the film were all true, they definitely didn’t look this pretty in real life.

Fleischer’s glory-shot style with big action payoffs simply wars with everything we’ve come to expect from the genre. Strike that—mob dramas have had among film’s greatest payoffs, but with a jaw-dropping realism that shakes you deep down. As terrific as “Gangster Squad” plays late ’40s dress-up, it does so with the intent of glorifying both the era as well as organized crime and law enforcement.

If you like your movies slick, “Gangster Squad” will fail to disappoint you as you might be lead to believe it will, but if you prefer something that gets its hands dirty and doesn’t care much for looks (more of a Sly Stallone type gangster film), you won’t find it here. There’s a reason Ryan Gosling and Josh Brolin are the heroes here.

Honestly, I applaud Fleischer’s choice to focus on the glitz; after all, this is set in Los Angeles and Cohen had over-the-top aspirations. The script’s choice to be more of a fast-talking action film was probably not as necessary. Regardless, going into “Gangster Squad” anticipating an action film done in ’40s costumes will greatly improve its entertainment level.

3/5 Stars

Gangster Squad
Directed by Ruben Fleischer
Written by Will Beall, Paul Lieberman (book)
Starring: Josh Brolin, Sean Penn, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone

There’s nothing quite like summer movie season to shake a hibernating movie blogger to the point where he must leave the cave.

Although I’m happy to shoulder the blame for my only lull in blogging activity since I began Movie Muse, I will point out that Hollywood released very few interesting films this spring, and I saw a lot of movies in the fall and winter that there weren’t too many DVD releases to cover…okay, so I got a new job, and I still have some work on the weekends, so a few spare hours to watch and review a movie are scarce.

But I’m going to put all that behind me, as summer movie season kicked off last week with the release of “Iron Man 3.” If you’re like me, than “Iron Man” gave you the hunger for all that May, June, July and August have to offer.

Well, here are 20 other films that I want to call your attention to this summer. I’ve ranked them based on my personal anticipation, public buzz and the expectation that they will deliver some quality. Considering the summer is jam-packed, I’ve also included 10 other films I’m looking at but am highly skeptical of in terms of what the finished product will offer.

20. The Lone Ranger (July 3)

Given that the “Pirates of the Caribbean” formula has lost a little luster, it’s easy to be skeptical of Gore Verbinski’s “The Lone Ranger.” It’s an odd comparison, but Verbinski showed his love for Westerns quite effectively in “Rango,” so he might even be more in his wheelhouse with this one. The trailers showcase a lot of dark, intriguing stuff, but also a lot of physical comedy. A fresher face in Armie Hammer and Depp doing something that seems different (enough) and should help give the film a good chance at being a franchise-starter. Watch the trailer

19. The Bling Ring (June 14 – limited)

You never know what you’re going to get with Sofia Coppola, which makes the prospect of “The Bling Ring” especially intriguing. The story centers on a group of teens who decide to rob celebrities when the Internet says they’re out of town, and follows them throughout the aftermath. Coppola hits and misses with equal measure, but her films always stand out. Emma Watson headlining the cast certainly has my attention after “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” We will find out more when the film debuts at Cannes in the middle of the month. Watch the trailer

18. Byzantium (June 28 – limited)

I can’t say that I love Neil Jordan as a filmmaker because I’ve seen one of his films, but in this case it’s the right one. Jordan directed “Interview with the Vampire” back in the day, a film that balanced period drama beautifully with unabashed horror. With amazing talents in Saoirse Ronan and Gemma Arterton, “Byzantium” looks more in the vein of “Let the Right One In” than you-know-what. Watch the trailer

17. 2 Guns (Aug. 2)

In the last couple years, Mark Wahlberg has earned his badass card and backed it up with box office numbers. Pair him with Denzel Washington in a film based on a comic about an undercover DEA agent and an undercover Naval Intelligence officer who find out they’ve been set up by the mob and you don’t have to work hard to imagine what comes next. Wahlberg’s “Contraband” director helms this action-thriller, which looks to be one of the safer bets of the late summer given the talent. Watch the trailer

16. Turbo (July 17)

DreamWorks’ summer entry appears to have a lot of winning elements on paper, starting with a surefire crowd-pleasing underdog story about a snail who can chase his dream of racing after a freak accident gives him super speed. “Turbo” will need every second of its 12-day buffer from “Despicable Me 2” and 14-day buffer until “The Smurfs 2,” but it should easily surpass both in quality. Ryan Reynolds did great voice work in “The Croods” and it should translate well to make Turbo a lovable character. Watch the trailer

15. Only God Forgives (July 19 – limited)

I don’t care what it is—I’m that sold on the combination of Nicolas Winding Refn and Ryan Gosling. That would be the duo behind the 2011 cinephile hit “Drive.” If you can’t tell by the absurd title, this one will also feature a heavy dose of revenge, with Gosling playing a drug-smuggler thriving in Bangkok who has to go off the reservation when things get personal. Watch the trailer

14. White House Down (June 28)

I’m not sure why studios think that releasing competing films of the same exact premise is a good idea. That said, I’ve elected to go with Roland Emmerich in this Hollywood dick-measuring contest. The master of disaster himself has a huge star in Channing Tatum leading the way along with Jamie Foxx in what appears much more realistic of a “‘Die Hard’” in the White House” premise than Antoine Fuqua’s “Olympus Has Fallen,” which earned middling reviews. I’m skeptical, but the trailer is a good sell. Watch the trailer

13. The Conjuring (July 19)

I never see horror films in theaters, but I’ve got to give credit here where it’s due, and that’s to James Wan, who directed the first “Saw” and “Insidious,” and tries his hand at this period horror film whose marketing directly insults its target audience while intriguing them at the same time by saying what’s going on the film is not a haunting nor a possession, but some kind of truth that you have to see for yourself. Well that’s all fine and dandy, but I’m sold on the creepiness of this trailer, Wan, stars Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, and the historical element. Watch the trailer

12. Epic (May 24)

I think “epic” is the most overused word in the English language right now, so the title of this one pisses me off, though I suppose the title of the book it’s based on, “The Leaf Men and the Brave Good Bugs” is kinda crappy too. That aside, this film from “Ice Age” and “Robots” director Chris Wedge looks like Blue Sky Studios’ finest work yet. The nature and the scope and the action look breathtaking, and it’s probably going to be pretty cute. A slug voiced by Aziz Ansari doesn’t hurt either. My guess is this will be the animated film to see in 3D this year. Watch the trailer

11. The Wolverine (July 26)

I would be more excited by this one, except that “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” left a gaping canyon for Hugh Jackman and Fox to crawl out of, so I’m being cautious in placing it here on the list. The trailer didn’t exactly blow me away either, but in this fifth film featuring Wolverine, I’d say it’s about time a film forced him to face the idea of mortality. Frank Miller’s storyline featuring Wolverine in Japan has quite a reputation, and if James Mangold put any of that tone into this film, we will be in for a good mid-summer surprise. Watch the trailer

10. Now You See Me (May 31)

I can’t tell you why, but this trailer has me hooked. Oh wait I can—Morgan Freeman’s voiceover narration. Seriously though, the film does an awesome job destroying the line between what’s real and what’s an illusion, and it leaves me desperately longing to know what the big reveal will be. And a magician heist film is a concept long overdue, Hollywood. This cast has real magic too, with Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Mark Ruffalo, Melanie Laurent, Michael Caine and more alongside Freeman. Watch the trailer

9. This is the End (June 12)

Filmmaking buddies Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg (“Superbad,” “Pineapple Express”) have long been developing this film, formerly known as “Jay and Seth vs. the Apocalypse,” which has all the film’s stars playing self-caricatures. Somehow, by the actors playing themselves, the film conveys a certain intimacy/exclusivity that could help an otherwise ambiguous stoner film into a successful R-rated summer comedy. Maybe there will even be some surprise satire as hinted at in the red-band trailer with celebrities dealing with a massive alien attack. All the big names delivering big laughs from the last 10 years doesn’t hurt its chances of being successful, that’s to be sure, but it might not even be the best apocalyptic comedy of the summer. Watch the red-band trailer

8. Kick-Ass 2 (Aug. 16)

I never thought we’d see a sequel to “Kick-Ass” after its weak box-office opening in 2010, but its success on DVD and Blu-ray was outstanding enough that we’re treated to another chapter. Sadly, Matthew Vaughn only produced and Jeff Wadlow directs instead. It’s a definite uphill battle for this film, as Hit Girl (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a full-fledged teenager now and her cursing won’t be as funny, plus the novelty of the concept has worn off over time with many similar average-Joe vigilante films. However, having read a bit about what happens in Mark Millar’s comic version, this could end up being a pretty sick and twisted action movie. The additions of Jim Carrey, Donald Faison, Morris Chestnut and more will hopefully help give this film the edge it will surely need. Watch the red-band trailer

7. The Great Gatsby (May 10)

My instincts say Baz Luhrmann has put together something aesthetically astounding in this adaptation of everyone’s required high school reading, “The Great Gatsby.” It could just be the trailers effortlessly combining modern music with period décor, but considering the way it echoes “Moulin Rouge!” in terms of style, that ought to guarantee audience enjoyment, even if it doesn’t quite do the novel justice. At the least, “Gatsby” will see a slew of technical nominations at next year’s Oscars. Watch the trailer

6. Monsters University (June 21)

After “Toy Story 3,” I’m all eyes and ears on these long-delayed sequels to classic Pixar films. I think the prequel route is a great way to go with this story in particular and the college angle gives Pixar a ton of room to run with as evidenced by the jokes in the trailer. The consequent marketing has been fun to follow as well. I’m not completely convinced this will be a great film, but considering Mike and Sully are winning characters, there’s no reason to panic that we’ll have another “Cars 2” on our hands. Watch the trailer

5. The World’s End (Aug. 23)

“Hot Fuzz” is one of my favorite movies, and “Shaun of the Dead” is a film I greatly enjoyed. “The World’s End” completes what director Edgar Wright and buddies Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have referred to as “The Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy” (I’ve heard other names as well). The story follows friends trying to recreate a famed pub crawl from their younger years who end up becoming humanity’s only hope when the town they return to appears possessed by aliens. I would see this even without ever seeing a plot summary, that’s how much I think of Wright and company. Watch the trailer

4. Elysium (Aug 9)

Finally, Neill Blomkamp is back. The “District 9” director appears to have given us more cause to wonder “what if?” in regards to that scrapped “Halo” movie with his sophomore feature. Sony confidently moved the film from this past March to prime August territory, so I have no doubts. “Elysium” tells the story of an Earth where the wealthy live off the planet on the Elysium space station and stay practically immortal, while the poor live on the disease-infested surface. Matt Damon’s character procures a weaponized exoskeleton in order to get to Elysium and secure medication for his family. Sharlto Copley and Jodie Foster also star. Watch the trailer

3. Pacific Rim (July 12)

It’s a great summer for blockbusters. In several other years, I can see Guillermo del Toro’s “Pacific Rim” topping the list. Nevertheless, it appears the Mexican aesthetic genius has found a way to make a giant robot movie that shames Michael Bay and a colossal monster flick that will have us riveted regarding the forthcoming “Godzilla” reboot. “Pacific Rim” looks like too much damn fun to be missed out on at the movies. Beasts rising from the sea and destroying humanity, who creates giant robots operated by pilots joined by a neural bridge in order to eradicate them. Star Charlie Hunnam should quickly find himself on the fast track to A-list stardom after this one. Watch the trailer

2. Star Trek Into Darkness (May 16)

J.J. Abrams’ long-awaited sequel to 2009’s “Star Trek” is finally set to arrive and with a ton of firepower. This “is he or isn’t he?” talk with regards to Khan probably won’t be answered until then, but “Sherlock” star Benedict Cumberbatch as the villain was a big score. The entire Enterprise crew appears on life support for this entire film, with relationships and loyalties being tested. It seems like stuff more fitting for a third installment, but nonetheless, you have to be excited to plunge into where no man has gone before. Watch the trailer

1. Man of Steel (June 14)

I have a good feeling about this one. This Zack Snyder-directed Christopher Nolan-mentored reboot of comics’ most beloved hero looks to do for Superman what “Batman Begins” did for the Caped Crusader. I didn’t think Snyder capable of a grittier approach, but in the non-action sequences, he appears to have done that. The photorealism of this “Superman” looks unbelievable, Hans Zimmer’s score already has folks raving and in a normal summer, Michael Shannon would be the best villain casting ever (see previous film on this list). Few actors can ham it up and get away with it and Shannon is one of them. It might not end up the summer’s best movie, but when you consider what’s at stake for DC Comics movies (i.e. if “Justice League” will ever see a green light), you best be rooting for this one to take off. Watch the trailer

10 Summer Films to Be Skeptical About

The Hangover Part III (May 23)

After “Part II” crushed my dignity, I will be skeptical up until the most trusted critics praise this final “Hangover.” The trailer does not give any plot points, but it does suggest that the story won’t be a third hashing of the same thing. I don’t blame you if you’re not so sure it will be any different. Todd Phillips owes us something special. Hopefully he deviated enough from the original premise, but considering the cash cow the first two films were, he certainly has no pressure to change up anything. Watch the trailer

After Earth (May 31)

If you have heard of “After Earth” but did not know that it’s directed by M. Night Shyamalan, then Sony has done its job. More bad has been associated with his name than good the last several years, and given the more accessible sci-fi premise and star power of Will and Jaden Smith, why jeopardize that by highlighting his name in the trailers? Still, I haven’t seen much from the trailers to indicate why this post-apocalyptic sci-fi film will be different than any other. It’s almost cheesy: “Do you know where we are? This is Earth.” Watch the trailer

The Internship (June 7)

I love “Wedding Crashers,” but outside of a good “X-Men” joke, “The Internship” looks unfunny. Sure, old-timers trying to fit in with the progressive contemporary corporate world of Google sounds good in premise, but the trailers are lacking something—severely lacking something. Hopefully Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn can re-create enough chemistry to make this comedy a good time. Watch the trailer

The Purge (June 7)

I’m all for really out-there realistic sci-fi, so I’ve got my eye on “The Purge,” which operates on the premise that the government eventually admits that the reason people do criminal things is because they have a certain carnal need to act on those impulses, so for night a year they have a “purge,” where all criminal activity (even murder) is legal. The film follows one family who accidentally attracts some attention from those looking to take advantage of the lack of law enforcement. This could totally fail as a film and likely will, but a prime summer spot and an attention-grabbing premise has my attention. Watch the trailer

World War Z (June 21)

I’m reading this book right now, and I can tell you that there’s no way the film is anything like it. Considering Max L. Brooks’ fans should be the first group of people you want to appease making this movie, it’s set up for disaster. And that’s without mentioning all the script and production problems that have plagued (no pun intended) the film. Marc Forster as director and Brad Pitt as the star would seem like a great combo for a more intellectual blockbuster, but disaster seems equally as likely. Watch the trailer

The Heat (June 28)

Fox has already talked about a sequel to this one, which is unusual for anything not a huge blockbuster, but they have reason to be confident given the financial success of “Identity Thief,” Melissa McCarthy’s first 2013 outing. Sandra Bullock looks to be a good complement to McCarthy’s bolder comedic style, so there’s definitely some potential, but the trailer looks like it could also contain all the best jokes too. Watch the trailer

Despicable Me 2 (July 3)

I thought the original was as adorable as anything, but the two-year marketing campaign for this one has me ticked off. Considering we still have no idea what the movie is about at this point, that’s really annoying. Almost as annoying as the minions, who will get their own feature film spinoff in the not-too-distant future. The big question is whether or not this franchise’s Looney Tunes-like shtick will stay fresh despite the over-marketing. Watch the trailer

RED 2 (July 19)

I was a fan of the original “RED,” a fall box office surprise thanks to the notion of Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman and more kicking ass as old people. Although director Robert Schwentke was too busy with the next film on this list to make this sequel, Dean Parisot has some reliable (albeit not all that special) chops, John and Erich Hoeber return as writers, and Anthony Hopkins makes for a brilliant addition to the cast. The trailer, however, has failed to stir any excitement for me in a summer crowded with great action movie potential. Watch the trailer

R.I.P.D. (July 19)

“RED” director Robert Schwentke has been hard at work on “Rest in Peace Department” for some time. We saw nothing from this film until the trailer landed recently and underwhelming is the one word I keep returning to. The film most closely resembles “Men in Black” only instead of two agents saving the world from the alien threat it doesn’t know exists, they’re saving it from the restless dead souls threatening the living world. The premise could save it (along with Jeff Bridges being ridiculous), but lack of promotion leaves me doubting hard. “R.I.P.D.” and “RED” compete against each other, which seems asinine to me. I’ll be someone chickens out as July nears. Watch the trailer

300: Rise of an Empire (Aug. 2)

Legendary and Warner Bros. have finally decided to capitalize on the shocking success of “300,” but will it be too late? Early August is a good slot, but the summer is crowded and we’ve yet to see anything from this one. Sullivan Stapleton and Eva Green star with returning cast members Lena Headey and Rodrigo Santoro (Xerxes) in the story of Themistocles defending Athens from the Persian forces that defeated King Leonidas and company. Director Noam Murro has been hailed for his commercial work, so the pressure’s on to deliver some bloody fun in a usually PG-13 summer.

Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) hasn’t been the same since his near-death experience in a intergalactic wormhole at the end of “The Avengers.” In fact, the words “New York” have become a trigger for his newly discovered anxiety attacks. He has spent his funk by building an inordinate amount of Iron Man suits, and specifically a remotely operated suit that he can summon through a biological tracking system. When a terrorist named the Mandarin (Ben Kingsley) emerges, hacking U.S. airwaves to spread fear and causing thermal explosions, Tony calls him out on his cowardice, a move he immediately regrets.

As the script continues to introduce all the players in this third iron-clad outing, from Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian—a think tank manager Tony spurned 13 years ago—to Don Cheadle’s Col. Rhodes who has a new gig as the stars-and-stripes-studded presidential bodyguard Iron Patriot, the film appears as a sloppy mess likely to meet the same fate as “Iron Man 2.” Only when Tony begins to pursue the mystery of the terrorist bombings do all these seemingly disparate pieces begin to come together into what’s actually a rather clever story.

Story structure aside, the script does boast plenty of Stark quips in case you worried the directorial turnover from Jon Favreau to Shane Black would alter the tone of the franchise. Not even close. If anything, the “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” director pushes the boundaries of political correctness with some of the dialogue, especially in the scenes in which Tony finds himself teamed up with a 12-year-old boy.

“Iron Man 3” digs deeper into the psychology of Tony Stark, at least more than you’d expect from a blockbuster. Rather than open with an action sequence to get the ball rolling, we get a flashback to when Stark met Pearce’s Killian as well as a genetic engineer named Maya played by Rebecca Hall. Things don’t really begin to pick up until Tony has his mansion blown into the ocean.

Not unlike “Iron Man 2,” the film’s action is largely reserved for the grand finale. Still, the amount of special effects shots is probably tripled, and the action sequences when they do come were written to be as unique and memorable as possible, with a skydiving sequence taking the cake. “Iron Man 3” hits big whenever it makes the effort to do so, proving again how Marvel Studios holds a quality entertainment standard rivaled by few.

The “Iron Man” films (and this is partly fault of the comic) lack truly excellent villains. This film sets up Tony Stark’s greatest nemesis in the Mandarin, but complicates it in a way you’ll never see coming considering how studios and writers have flocked toward villains in the mold of Heath Ledger’s Joker from “The Dark Knight.”

The movie gambles in that way and in other ways not all audiences will recognize. Take the boy for example. If the film failed on the whole, it would forever be remembered as “the ‘Iron Man’ movie with Tony Stark and that kid.” That’s dangerous territory. If “Spider-Man 3” had worked, everyone wouldn’t refer to it as “the one with emo Peter Parker.”

Nothing gambles more than the script, which spends a lot of time setting up the premise for what it hopes will be an effective payoff. So much of the film seems anecdotal until you see how the pieces fit. Even then, there’s no guarantee the audiences will be compelled by the completed puzzle, but “Iron Man 3” goes bold enough to surprise in a good way.

The humor definitely misfires at times and the sense of danger doesn’t pervade the film from start to finish, but considering how must third installments have sputtered (“Spider-Man 3,” “X-Men: The Last Stand”), it’s testament to a number of quality components at work behind the scenes, not excluding “The Avengers,” which clearly reenergized Iron Man as a solo character. Without it, no way “Iron Man 3” opens with nearly $175 million after the critical disappointment toward the second.

Few actors have truly created and owned a character like Downey Jr. and Tony Stark. Without him, Iron Man is just a second-class superhero in Marvel’s canon. He single-handedly launched Phase One of Marvel Studios’ plan and gave audiences a multi-dimensional hero with both despicable and lovable qualities. If he powers down the suit after “The Avengers 2,” it’ll be the end of an era.

 4/5 Stars

Iron Man 3
Directed by Shane Black
Written by Drew Pearce, Shane Black
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Guy Pearce, Ben Kingsley, Rebecca Hall

I can’t count the number of acclaimed foreign films centered on characters who cannot mobilize half or all their limbs on one hand—if you’ll excuse the awkward phrasing. “The Intouchables” appears to be just another one of those bizarre common niche films, and in many ways it boils down to just that. But with memorable, entertaining characters and a certain fearlessness in the way it uses humor, this French film actually stands out. Again, pardon the phrasing.

Like so many great films, “The Intouchables” centers on an unlikely friendship. Philippe (Francois Cluzet) is a quadriplegic millionaire seeking a caregiver and Driss (Omar Sy) is a troubled young African-Frenchman with zero filter. The two find each other when Driss applies just trying to get Philippe to sign his papers showing he tried to get a job so that he can continue receiving welfare checks. Philippe decides to push Driss by insisting he take the job on a trial basis.

The film opens with a high-speed “chase” of sorts, showing a virtually dissolved boundary between the two characters. Although filmmakers Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano portray their relationship in such a seamless way, the conflict of the rest of the film largely involves how they arrive at a homogenous point, and it’s anything but simple.

At the same time, “The Intouchables” doesn’t offer much more in terms of drama. Philippe and Driss each have their own personal hurdles to overcome (Philippe has a romantic relationship with a pen pal he’s afraid to pursue and some problems with his daughter, Driss has his financial and family situation), and the two have a lot of adjustments to make to one another. That said, no other conflicting forces are at play here. Instead, humor makes this film so surprisingly effective.

While few will completely identify with Philippe’s intellectual and sophisticated tastes, it’s Driss’ bold, put-yourself-out-there approach to life that is the more impressive characteristic. It doesn’t matter how many body parts you can control; if you have trouble letting it all out, you’ll identify with Philippe and envy Driss’ spirt to some extent.

Sy has such a natural way about him as he navigates the humor the script. Nakache and Toledano are not afraid to have Driss cross boundaries, and when he does, Sy makes it feel so natural and understandable. The way Driss scoffs at classical music and opera yet also appreciates them combines artistic appreciation with a “what we’re all really thinking” sentiment that begs laughter.

Examining every inch of “The Intouchables,” formula really comes into play between the character with physical limitations motif, the unlikely relationship motif and more, but it has such a genuine spirit anyway. Nakache and Toledano create brilliant character- and relationship-building scenes and sequences that emphasize how much we can relate to the characters even if we can’t fully identify with either of them. Even toward the very end, in a scene involving facial hair, the filmmakers are having fun crafting this story and experimenting with the relationship at the film’s core (in addition to boundaries of political correctness).

“The Intouchables” strikes all the right chords that both validate and justify its success in France and all over the world. The humor and the levity with which it approaches its subject matter goes toe-to-toe with its poignancy as well as its social and psychological themes, eradicating the need for turbulent or existential drama so often present and necessary in films that share its characteristics.

Essentially, what could’ve been a gloomier affair or an against-all-odds film turns into something most unexpectedly vibrant. “The Intouchables” examines life with a lens much more appropriate for viewing the human condition than the films it can easily be lumped in or associated with. To put any label other than “universal” on its would be a gross over-categorization.

4.5/5 Stars

The Intouchables
Written and Directed by Olivier Nakache and Eric Toledano
Starring: Francois Cluzet, Omar Sy

The incredible visual quality of CGI-animated films these days has been hiding from no one. With a blank canvas, Pixar, DreamWorks, Blue Sky Studios and others have been able to spark the imagination in ways live action films have yet to manage (outside of “Avatar”). “The Croods” is the latest DreamWorks offering to impose its visual might on the animated marketplace with a fantasy of prehistoric proportions.

Directed by Kirk De Micco and “How to Train Your Dragon” co-director Chris Sanders, “The Croods” might be DreamWorks’ finest visual feat, but only in terms of imagination. “How to Train Your Dragon” is a fantasy tale based in Scottish lore, whereas “The Croods” is a fantasy based in the minds of its artists.

In other words, “The Croods” makes up all its own rules. Despite our main characters being described as primitives with sloped foreheads, they possess superhuman physical abilities and fight for survival from genetic hybrid animal predators. When the separation of Pangea or whatever seismic event is behind the Croods’ discovering of a vibrant, lush and dangerous world beyond their cave, the filmmakers triple the amount of fantastical wildlife behind every corner.

Yet it’s all dressing, because “The Croods,” at heart, is no different than any animated film of the 21st Century. Our narrator is young Eep (voiced by Emma Stone), a vivacious and curious teen who longs to break away from the strict, safe rules of her father, Grug (Nicolas Cage), the strong figurehead who instills the value of fear in his family, which also includes the mother, Ugga (Catherine Keener), bumbling preteen boy, Thunk (Clark Duke), nutty grandmother (Cloris Leachman) and rabid animal-like baby daughter, Sandy.

Eep sneaks out of the cave one night to discover an outsider, Guy (Ryan Reynolds), a modern human who knows how to create fire and has all other kinds of progressive ideas, such as shoes. When aforementioned earth-cracking occurs, Grug reluctantly recognizes him as their guide to this new world, and brings him along — inside a wooden log.

So while the characters defy physics and 90 percent of the animal species featured in the film never existed, the core store remains stuffed with familiar motifs from other recent animated adventures. At least they are time-tested and successful ones.

“The Croods” has a secret weapon, however, and that’s a brilliant sense of humor. There’s no proof, but I’d wager “Monty Python’s” own John Cleese having a writing credit has a lot to do with it. The humor of the film balances modern laughs, witty caveman-related jokes, and classic family back-and-forth to create a brand of humor that is both familiar yet will catch everyone by surprise at some point.

Plus, “The Croods” manages to be “so damn cute” in spite of how ridiculous it often is, much like Universal’s “Despicable Me” and “How to Train Your Dragon” as well, specifically as it relates to making big creatures so lovable-looking.

The plot doesn’t foray into new territory as you might be able to guess from the setup, but it does keep you guessing in terms of how the family will survive certain dangers. Okay, maybe not “keep you guessing,” but at least the solutions usually have a creative twist. Humor and creativity help maintain interest in the story and the characters, making them by far the film’s greatest assets.

“The Croods” provides significant evidence as to what storytelling elements comprise DreamWorks’ animated movie formula. Essentially, take the simplest of stories and translate it to whatever kind of fantastical landscape you desire, preferably one that has a distinct visual thumbprint. “The Croods” could be understood by a caveman (sorry), but its imagination and humor build it into something decidedly modern.

3.5/5 Stars

Directed by Kirk De Micco, Chris Sanders
Written by John Cleese, Kirk De Micco, Chris Sanders
Starring: (voices) Emma Stone, Nicolas Cage, Ryan Reynolds, Catherine Keener, Clark Duke

“The Wizard of Oz” is one of the oldest films in existence that can be described as truly magical. L. Frank Baum’s story has sparked the imaginations of countless, young and old, thanks to the 1939 film. Disney and Sam Raimi have teamed up for “Oz the Great and Powerful” in hopes of recreating some of that same magic (and making a killing at the box office), and I’ll be — they do to a greater extent than anyone would’ve guessed.

For one, and perhaps the most important thing, “Oz” aims to create the same sense of visual wonder that the classic did, at least in comparison to the experiences of the audience. Raimi spends a great deal of time treating us to the world he and production designer Robert Stromberg (“Alice in Wonderland,” “Avatar”) have created. Stromberg is nothing short of an aesthetic genius, and with strong 3D, this updated vision for the Land of Oz comes to life in breathtaking fashion worthy of the clout that comes with the “Oz” brand.

But beneath the layers of impeccable visual effects lies a script from Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire that sets “Oz” up for success by echoing the spirit of the 1939 film.

The story begins just as “The Wizard of Oz,” in Kansas in black and white (and in 3:4 aspect ratio for kicks). Oz, or Oscar (James Franco), is a traveling circus magician who deceives his audience, the women who fawn over him and his devoted assistant (Zach Braff). After Oscar’s hot air balloon gets sucked into a tornado, some of the characters he meets in Oz bare resemblance to the people he knew in Kansas. Braff becomes the voice of a winged monkey that Oz saves from a hungry lion, and a young girl who couldn’t walk and hoped Oz would fix her(Joey King) becomes the voice of a living China Doll whose village was destroyed by the Wicked Witch’s flying monkeys.

To set up the story in Oz, when Oz’s balloon crash lands, he’s greeted by Theodora the Good Witch (Mila Kunis), who explains that he must be the wizard who by prophecy is to come save them from the Wicked Witch, become king and restore Oz to glory. Oz is taken by her beauty and the promise of riches, so he allows her to take him to the Emerald City where her sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz) has been protecting the throne. Evanora sends him on a journey to the Dark Forest to kill the Wicked Witch, but soon Oz discovers the truth.

Although Raimi brings his trademark dark and scary moments into play on occasion, “Oz the Great and Powerful” is extremely simple, surface-level storytelling geared toward younger children. Kapner and Lindsay-Abaire have crafted a script that’s classic fairy tale with just enough originality to surprise us a few times and retain our interest. Otherwise, the dialogue could be largely deemed that of the eye roll-inducing variety. With his background in B-movie horror, Raimi embraces that spirit without fear. Luckily, the script and production elements are so fundamentally sound that he can afford that freedom.

In essence, you’re bound not to put up a fight and simply give up on the idea that “Oz” should be a more sophisticated, modern action-adventure film. The story has a linear fantasy structure (not much jumping around to different character perspectives) and the characters have easy-to-follow, thematically driven story arcs that appeal to the emotions.

The big-name actors here have all been better. Michelle Williams as Glinda, however, earns top honors making the adjustment to PG material. Having mostly done superb work in depressing dramas, she displays some nice versatility in this film. Mila Kunis, on the other hand, has a lot of trouble with the quick-tempered part of her character. It’s almost painful to listen to her angry voice.

I’ve still yet to make up my mind on James Franco as leading man. What’s excellent about the Oz character is that he’s flawed and he recognizes it. He doesn’t see himself as a good person because he’s a greedy con artist, and that humility makes a big difference in how we enjoy the film. Franco’s performance serves the character and story well and hits on those points, but he still can’t seem to do anything over-the-top or silly without a wink toward the camera — as if he has trouble doing that stuff seriously. Franco has moments that he’ll take you out of the film, but on the whole he does a nice job.

The film almost displays a preoccupation with echoing “The Wizard of Oz” in hopes of appeasing the film’s decades of fans. Despite Disney not owning that film’s rights, some of the imagery a little too closely resembles that of the film, not that this is a problem for the audience. In general, Raimi tells the story with the same innocence, spectacle and magic. The choice to make the wizard’s journey through Oz similar to Dorothy’s, a hero thinking himself incapable of rising to prophetic expectations and meeting characters along the way who inspire confidence is the clincher.

“Oz the Great and Powerful” doesn’t trump any of today’s great action-adventure films, though its visual effects should be considered at least comparable with the best fantasy work. Instead, the film aims for children and that childhood nostalgia in each of us. It appeals to the emotions like cinematic comfort food for the fantasy-inclined. You don’t want to watch it for stimulation, but rather to be swept away for a couple hours and change. That experience isn’t exactly in high demand, but it can be nice to give in to time to time.

3.5/5 Stars

Directed by Sam Raimi
Written by Mitchell Kapner, David Lindsay-Abaire, L. Frank Baum (books)
Starring: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, Zach Braff, Rachel Weisz

My how things would be different today if in 1995, instead of getting Sylvester Stallone in “Judge Dredd,” we were treated to director Pete Travis’ “Dredd.” And I’m not just talking about visual effects advances in the last 17 years. “Dredd,” starring Karl Urban as the helmeted anti- hero, does classic, ’80s and ’90s-style action better than a lot of films in the ’80s and ’90s did. 

Forget needless character development and side plots — writer Alex Garland’s (“28 Days Later …,” “Never Let Me Go”) adaptation of the John Wagner and Carlos Ezquerra comic drops us straight into the action and executes the plot with video game-like precision. Urban’s Dredd is an immediately likable badass, armed with as many great one-liners as he has different kinds of ammunition in his all-in-one handgun-carbine hybrid.

“Dredd” plays out a lot like another of 2012′s popular little action movies, “The Raid: Redemption.” Both use the straightforward premise of a skilled hero trapped in a dangerous slum building controlled by a ruthless crime lord (in this case lady).

Dredd is a judge of the Hall of Justice in Mega City One, a concrete jungle stretching from D.C. to Boston built amidst the ruins of the world that we know today. With crime rampant, judges are granted the powers of law enforcement and the legal system all rolled into one — judge, jury and executioner. All we know about Dredd is that he plays everything by the book, but he’s far from a softie.

The film occurs over the course of just a few hours. Dredd gets assigned to assess a rookie judge named Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), a young woman that that has failed most of the judge tests, but possesses powerful psychic abilities deemed valuable to the Hall. She joins him on patrol, though they both get more than just a test when they respond to a triple homicide call at a 200-story residence called Peach Trees. The building has been gang-controlled for years, but now just one woman rules the whole place, Ma-Ma (Lena Headey), a former prostitute who peddles an inhaled narcotic called Slo-Mo that causes the brain to experience time at a 100th of its normal speed. When Dredd and Anderson threaten her operation, she locks the building down with intentions of killing them.

That’s the gist of it. No side plots or secondary characters bogging things down, and Travis doesn’t overindulge the sci-fi elements of the film either. All the futuristic technology is rather self-explanatory and none of it is integral to understanding the movie. It’s all style. Technically, the Slo-Mo drug could have been any kind of drug in terms of fitting the purpose of the story, but it ends up crucial to creating the movie’s visual identity..

“Dredd” is an exceptionally bloody film, yet most of it is CGI, so its violence is comparable to the quality of a really graphic video game. Actually, think of the most graphically bloody video game you’ve played and up the level of gory detail. Lots of smashed in heads and stuff. It would be great if it didn’t look as fake, but it fits with the extremely lucid, glossy aesthetic of the movie.

Slow motion will usually cheapen the look of a film because it’s so overused, but Travis works it in as part of the charm. It’s so violent and fast-paced that allowing the audience to experience certain scenes “under the influence of Slo-Mo” radically changes the look and feel of what’s going on and helps form the film’s thumbprint.

One-liners will do the same thing as bad slow motion, but a majority of these lines work really well between the context they’re used in and Urban’s delivery. Most of the time a writer has to completely contrive them, but Garland crafts these zingers exclusively based on what’s happening in the film. He only reaches in a couple of instances.

“Dredd” has a bizarre sense of humor between the dialogue and some of the lewd sequences that occur as the script starts to play around with Anderson’s psychic powers. During much of the film, she has captured one of Ma-Ma’s men (Wood Harris, “The Wire”) and he tries to freak her by picturing sexual episodes between them in his head. These scenes can’t exactly be deemed necessary, but they at least prove Anderson’s psychic powers aren’t just about having a convenient way to advance the plot.

Despite opportunities for all the actors to chew the scenery, none do. Headey has learned a thing or two about playing villains from “Game of Thrones” and Ma-Ma is a sickly subtle villain to be sure, while Urban does a better Christian Bale gruff-voiced Batman than Christian Bale does. The movie doesn’t tell you anything about the man behind the helmet, but by the end, you wouldn’t mind learning a thing or two if there’s ever a sequel.

“Dredd” keeps thing incredibly simple, entertaining and gleefully violent. That’s not everyone’s cup of tea — the style of the movie could definitely be considered too niche for mainstream tastes — but regardless of how good you might feel it is, there’s no question that in executed a stupidly simple story so well, “Dredd” makes bad action movies that try to do too much look that much worse. No one will ever label “Dredd” an action classic of the early 2010s, but it will stand the test of time better than anyone expects.

3.5/5 Stars

Directed by Pete Travis
Written by Alex Garland (screenplay), John Wagner and Carlos Ezquerra (comic)
Starring: Karl Urban, Olivia Thirlby, Lena Headey, Wood Harris

The zombie genre has gone the way of vampires lately, except that it managed to dodge the romance bits — until now. Yes, it’s even possible for the undead to fall in love, though considerably more difficult. “Warm Bodies” introduces the zombie romantic comedy (yes, zom-rom-com), and despite all the ways that in name alone it sounds as though the film could fail, it manages to carve its own niche among zombie pop-culture.

Luckily for us, Jonathan Levine adapts and directs this Isaac Marion novel. The director of “50/50″ and “The Wackness” has yet to disappoint, and though the premise of “Warm Bodies” brings him dangerously close, his grasp on romance and making young love work on the screen serves him well yet again.

Levine’s talents aside, “Warm Bodies” is a premise-driven film, which has its pros and cons. Other filmmakers could’ve executed it in ways that would’ve yielded countless movie reviews featuring the word “cold” in the headline, but a zombie who struggles with being emotionally dead inside and having to prey on human brains has its inherent merits. Conceptually, it takes on a certain life of its own that Levine mostly capitalizes on whenever possible.

The film begins in our main character’s (Nicholas Hoult) head as he copes with being a meandering, flesh-craving zombie and dreams (even though the dead can’t dream in the literal sense) about getting something more out of this paltry existence. The film widens in scope with each passing scene, and though it never gets any better than it is when it’s more intimate, it doesn’t go so far off the rails in the finale that it loses sight of the charm that got us to pay attention up to that point.

Everything changes for R (that’s all he can remember of his first name) when he, his dead best friend (Rob Corddry) and a band of hungry corpses encounter some of the survivors from whatever outbreak caused everyone to become zombies eight years ago. A young woman (Teresa Palmer) catches his eye, and he unknowingly devours the brains of her boyfriend (Dave Franco), thereby receiving his memories of the girl, named Julie. R instantly becomes protective of Julie and helps her escape to his personal jet (an airplane stranded on a runway that R calls home).

R convinces Julie she is only safe if she stays with him, deceiving her for companionship purposes. They bond in a number of ways as R’s use of language drastically begins to improve. It’s clear he’s becoming more and more human with time.

Hoult and Palmer have the difficult task of creating chemistry between their characters, which had to have been one of Levine’s biggest challenges making this film. Presumably, Julie would be grossed out by her undead protector, but she senses his humanity rather quickly. To slow things down from there, however, she tries to ditch him at first. If her romantic interest had grown too quickly, it would’ve trashed the entire film. Given his track record, Levine should get a lot of the credit for allowing the audience time to warm up to their relationship.

Palmer has been in a number of young-adult geared action films (“The Sorcerer’s Apprentice,” “I Am Number Four”) but her performances have been either overshadowed or crushed by these giant turd blockbusters. “Warm Bodies” is a better fit with its indie sensibilities. She makes Julie’s combination of fear, curiosity and love come together into a smoother blend than you’d expect from this kind of film.

Hoult, on the other hand, has to find a perfect balance between zombie caricature and a thinking, emotional person. The narration crucially helps us connect with him, otherwise we’d never get to know him as a character, but he finds a way in the more traditional scenes when he interacts with Julie to express those feelings with grunts and slow-forming words. Think of all the cheesy monster movies when the “thing” expresses his feelings out loud for the first time. Just the mere thought of that has my eyes rolling, but Hoult keeps them firmly interested in what’s going on.

The story falters a bit toward the end because its trajectory is so apparent. R is becoming more alive, so he’ll either become “a real boy” again or get killed before it happens, perhaps even by Julie’s cold father, the leader of the survivors (John Malkovich). Suddenly we have a war of ideologies between Julie and those that believe zombies have the capacity to change and become more human and those who think they’re nothing but animals who’ll snack on your insides the second you let your guard down. It’s a pretty classic motif, but you probably never figured someone would apply it to a zombie movie.

Some unidentifiable spark between R and Julie, or perhaps between Hoult and Palmer, sticks through to the end of the film, even in the more action-oriented finale. “Warm Bodies” also doesn’t ever lose its sense of humor, helping talk us down from taking it too seriously. And even though characters such as the best friend (Analeigh Tipton) appear to serve only comic relief, it doesn’t try too hard for the awkward zombie joke.

“Warm Bodies” twists things up with this unusual genre riff and Levine subdues it rather than ramming its uniqueness down our throats. He makes it foremost about two people who seem like an odd fit that come to love each other — and that’s really the essence of the better romantic comedies of all time.

3.5/5 Stars

Directed by Jonathan Levine
Written by Jonathan Levine, Isaac Marion (novel)
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, Rob Corddry, Analeigh Tipton

Advertisements for anti-depression or anti-anxiety medications are all over television, and when the announcer rattles off the two-dozen or so horrific-sounding side effects, you can’t help but think about taking your chances and sticking with the depression. “Side Effects” explores the dangers of these drugs — and they go beyond the warnings on the label.

“Contagion” writer/director duo Scott Z. Burns and Steven Soderbergh re-team for this pharmaceutical thriller, which is much less procedural than “Contagion” and more of a typical, familiar conspiracy film with ample twists and a plot laden with intrigue.

Rooney Mara stars as Emily Taylor, a 28-year-old married woman whose husband (Channing Tatum) has just been released from prison after being convicted of insider trading. Emily has a history of depression and even with the pieces of her life coming back into place, she has trouble coping. After attempting to take her own life, she enters the care of psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), who attempts to fit her with the right drug, but the side effects end up having a disastrous effect on her.

“Side Effects” begins almost as a horror film with how freaky Emily’s behavior gets and the strange things she does while taking these drugs, but as the questions come flooding in, it mutates into a full-fledged mystery. Not much more should be said, but fans of traditional thrillers and mystery films will likely not be disappointed.

Much of the expert pacing that made “Contagion” a strong film works even better in “Side Effects.” Soderbergh is so good at adding the slightest touches to enhance the tension and the tone of a scene that he brings out the best in Burns’ script, which has plenty to chew on and doesn’t lack for surprises. Given the nature of the genre, you know that something’s not quite right, but the script is so smartly designed that even when there’s a big reveal, part of the truth is still concealed, usually in that the characters are a step ahead of the audience.

Most of Soderbergh’s recent films have gone overboard on big-name casting, but “Side Effects” only uses a few of the stars that have worked with him before: Tatum, Law and Catherine Zeta-Jones, who plays Emily’s former psychiatrist. In a way, “Contagion” and last year’s “Haywire” were hurt by an inflation of stars playing minor roles because it raised the expectations for those films considerably.

“Side Effects” relies chiefly on the talents of Mara, who is still a fresh face even after “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.” She sells the part of Emily beautifully to be sure. If Soderbergh doesn’t fully retire, you can bet he’ll look to cast her again in the future.

Law’s character features prominently in the film as well, particularly in the second hour. He hasn’t done much great work lately but he gets to play a terrifically written character in Banks, who starts the film in a supporting role and then is suddenly thrust into having a share of the lead. Banks develops throughout the film in a way few movie characters ever do, period.

But strong characters and performances are just a bonus, as the success of “Side Effects” comes primarily from the thickness of the plot and the mystery, which at the onset appears so open-ended that not even a supernatural explanation can be ruled out.

Soderbergh assures that each viewer will keep on guessing with the way he guides the story. He finds the poetic, artistic potential in even the most straightforward or mundane scenes. Screenwriters who specialize in these kinds of typical genre entries would kill to be able to recruit Soderbergh to direct their films. He’s definitely capable of making greater movies than “Side Effects,” but when a real professional takes on something simple, great things can happen.

“Side Effects” doesn’t change that game as far as multi-layered thrillers, but credit to Burns for spawning such a complex story out of the simple concept of the inherent risk presented by today’s medications.

4/5 Stars

Directed by Steven Soderbergh
Written by Scott Z. Burns
Starring: Rooney Mara, Jude Law, Channing Tatum, Catherine Zeta-Jones

If I were to pitch you a movie about two police officers who are partners on patrol in South Central Los Angeles, one of your first inclinations might be “not another buddy copy comedy.” While “End of Watch” is often funny, the newest film from “Training Day” writer David Ayer, is no comedy.

Ayer, who spent a lot of time in South Central, takes the found footage approach to his latest film featuring the LAPD in the spirit of modern trends and perhaps the show “Cops.”

It’s hard to tell if Ayer’s exaggerating, but a lot of dangerous stuff happens to Taylor (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Zavala (Michael Peña) despite being beat cops. So much so that they get involved with the wrong Mexican gang, and their attempts to go above and beyond to protect and serve put them in the line of fire.

Gyllenhaal and Peña have incredible chemistry as two cops who are best friends as well as partners. They epitomize the modern “bromance” in a number of ways, joking around, giving each other a hard time, offering love/dating advice with hyper-masculine sarcasm, etc. Ayer takes time to show these men out of their blues frequently to humanize them in a critical way. On the job, they are often cocky, proud and reckless, pushing the line of appropriate police behavior and protocol. They jump back and forth between making laudable, responsible choices and borderline police brutality.

The portrait that this paints of law enforcement feels so much more authentic than we’re normally treated to in cop films and police procedurals on television. They are heroes and good, honorable men, but that doesn’t make them beacons of morality. No matter how much you believe in the quickly escalating plot of “End of Watch,” there’s no disagreement to be had over the authenticity of the characters and the environment they operate in.

Although we do get independent “episodes” in which Taylor and Zavala respond to calls and find more than they bargained for, there’s a through-line involving a powerful Mexican drug cartel and the gang that enforces it. Ayer glamorizes these thugs a little bit, but it makes them formidable villains in the story. As things come to a boil, the realism of the film really unravels in favor of a more compelling, heart-pounding finale.

Ayer takes certain liberties with the found footage style as well. The premise involves Taylor filming everything for a school project or something. He has a handheld camera but also cameras positioned in the squad car, and ones that clip onto their uniforms. The gangs also carry cameras around to film their violent escapades. At times, however, we can’t tell who is supposed to be holding the camera — like when Taylor starts making out with his girlfriend, Janet (Anna Kendrick). Neither is holding the camera, so that’s a bit strange.

Still, that filmmaking style does more good than harm to the film. Say what you will about the found footage trend, but this is an appropriate example that really works. The extra layer of realism and authenticity that the technique gives to a film really goes miles in favor of “End of Watch.”

Humor is an unexpected benefit of this film as well. Peña has failed to be funny in films including “Tower Heist” and “30 Minutes or Less,” but he succeeds in territory that blends it with the dramatic in this very organic way. It would be impressive if most of the dialogue in this film, at least between him and Gyllenhaal, weren’t improvised given how natural it flows.

It sounds like a stretch to consider this one of the better acted films of the year, but Gyllenhaal and Peña should’ve been considered for awards contention. The nature of found footage detracts from what we tend to associate with/look for in an Oscar-worthy performance. We expect authenticity from found footage and only comment when it goes poorly, not when it’s done exceptionally well. Having seen enough films made in the found footage style, no other two actors have done better in this genre.

“End of Watch” offers an intense look at the life of L.A.’s finest and a harrowing portrait of life in the barrios and gang-ridden parts of L.A. Although exaggerated at crucial points, it shows what can happen when officers try and step out of their clearance level. At the least, it’s one of the best films found footage has given us to date.

4.5/5 Stars

Written and Directed by David Ayer
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Peña, Anna Kendrick, Natalie Martinez