I have to say I’ve been loving the new Marvel films, especially those in the Avengers series. I wasn’t in to comics as a kid, and in fact wasn’t much into superheroes at all outside of the Batman and Superman movies. But these new films are great, and they seem to keep getting better. Thor 2 last year was far and away better than the first, and the new Captain America tops its predecessor as well.

This isn’t a deep movie. Don’t see it expecting some earth shattering revelation or any kind of thoughtful commentary. Even so, the people behind it know the formula they are going for and blend it to perfection. Captain America is now living in today’s world and learning about how it works in 2014 as opposed to his time of the 1940’s. The film is not all action (though that is obviously the highlight), there is still a good story, and our hero does have much to learn about this new world. He comes from a time when he could stand up as Captain America and fight for the good ol’ USA knowing he had justice and right on his side. He now lives in a place where the people he is working for might not always have the best for society as their goal, and he is having to change his way of thinking to adapt. This is brought home when one of the hero’s long-time friends ends up on the opposing side.

I’m sure these movies can’t stay good forever, at some point the quality has to drop off. But if you like pure action films, it doesn’t get much better than this right now.

Sab . o . tage (verb) deliberately destroy, damage, or obstruct (something)

The only thing thing this movie sabotages is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s action flick cred, if there was any left that is. Not much to say besides this movie is a big turd, really seems everyone just showed up for a paycheck. So full of clichés that you don’t know whether to laugh or groan. The fake blood is on such an epic scale that it’s almost as if the filmmakers are treating it is a farce. And of course you see the “surprise” ending coming practically from the first 15 minutes in. The movie studio should be ashamed for making this one, the theater should feel ashamed for taking your money to see it, and I certainly feel ashamed for having sat through it.

Wes Anderson has an extremely unique style. You can tell one of his films from just a couple minutes of viewing. His style has fans and critics. Personally I don’t feel one way or the other towards it. Some of his films I like (Royal Tenenbaums), some I don’t (Moonrise Kingdom). In my opinion though, The Grand Budapest Hotel may be his best.

I will say if you don’t like Wes Anderson, this movie won’t change your mind. It is full of his unique narrative style, clever, quirky dialogue and scenes, bright contrasting colors, and his artistic camera work. The story and character development are what I love about this film. Though Moonrise Kingdom may be his most commercially successful film, I feel it lacked the shading and color he usually gives his protagonists. Budapest does not, and the characters are brought to life with a rich and detailed direction. There was also a mystery element to the film which keeps the viewer riveted. When tragedy does come (and in Anderson’s style, it is quick and almost glossed over), you really feel for the characters. Though it is strange and implausible, it is a lot of fun. This is a great film that you’ll continue to think about when it is over.

I didn’t really know anything about Cesar Chavez before seeing this film. I knew he was a civil rights activist sometime before my time, but not much more than that unfortunately. I’m glad I saw this movie, it taught me a lot, and as biographical films go, it’s pretty good. Sometimes these movies can be very paint-by-the-numbers, but the good ones make you connect with the people living these lives. Like Mandela that I saw last year, I really felt for the main character and his predicament, and the fight he was trying to lead.

Cesar Chavez is portrayed by Michael Peña, a very fine actor in a lot of movies and tv shows, but a person you don’t see often in leading roles. His work as Cesar is fantastic. As a leader, he knows his people are angry at the low wages ($1- $2 a day) and poor working conditions (no bathrooms on site, no available drinking water despite a full day working under the sun). Yet he preaches peaceful protest and chastises when people lash out against the farm owners. While he was focused mostly on the plight of the farm workers, it still resonates today, especially with the continuing hot button issue of immigrant and children-of-immigrant workers.

If you totally ignore the biblical aspect of it (which is next to impossible for anyone that attended Sunday School every week), I guess Noah is an ok movie, but still a little far out there as historical films go. There’s a little too much of a sci-fi fantasy element to it for my tastes. Honestly, I think the film would have been better if you gave the main character a different name, had it take place on a different planet, and just called it science fiction. Personally, every time someone said Noah’s name on screen, I had to shake my head at what was going on.

The acting is good, and I’ve been hearing about the visual effects which did indeed live up to the hype. But I was incredulous from the very opening narrative, when we were told that fallen angels, called “watchers” (which look like misshapen stone giants) helped forge man’s place on this planet. I understand watchers are mentioned in the Book of Enoch, but that is such an obscure reference that their inclusion in a film about Noah was just too far fetched. And then the ever-present glowing rocks that can create fire from nothing, and can even be shot out like a gun. Many die-hard religious types are complaining about the environmental aspect to Noah’s story, which I didn’t mind as much. I also wasn’t bothered by Noah’s personal struggle of faith especially in the latter half of the film, though it did seem to only be included to stretch the movie out.

This movie is doing booming business right now, but it has to be solely because of the hype and intrigue. It is currently sitting on a C on Cinemascore (which is a rating of pure word-of-mouth of actual moviegoers, not critic reviews). A C is awful, which is indicative that this movie will not hold well in theaters. See it if you want to see what all the talk is about, but be prepared for a little disappointment.

Who doesn’t love the Muppets? I have fond memories of their earlier movies, as well as the old Muppet Babies cartoon and their appearances on Sesame Street. When the franchise was re-started a couple years ago, I’m sure many adults like myself were brought back to their childhood, with all the familiar faces and behaviors. I very much enjoyed the 2011 reboot. The new Muppets Most Wanted doesn’t quite reach the same level for me, though admittedly that may be due to my own sentimentality. Something can only be new and fresh once.

As a movie on its own feet, it’s not bad. There is plenty of humor and the Muppets’ antics are enjoyable as always. Ricky Gervais in the lead didn’t connect with me as well as Jason Segel in the first movie, his role (and acting) seemed very rote with little personality. But Tina Fey was great, and as you can expect from a Muppets film there were cameos galore. If you don’t go online and read the list of the cast, which I made sure to avoid, you will be surprised at every turn with another star’s face. The music is fun though not as catchy (again, my opinion) as the first one’s. Of course, the Muppets themselves make light of all this, even in the opening musical number they joke that “sequels are never quite as good.” While a good movie overall (I’m sure the kids, like myself back in the early 80’s, will love it), I tend to agree with them.

If you’ve been to a movie anytime in the last 3 months, you’ve probably seen a trailer for Bad Words. Starring Jason Bateman (and in his directorial debut), it is about a 40 year old that finds a loophole to enter a spelling bee. Up against pre-teen kids, he angers parents and verbally abuses his competitors. The premise sounds funny and indeed Bateman’s vulgar words directed at those around him is certainly hilarious at times, unfortunately as a whole the movie is pretty forgettable. It is held together by a loose plot of why he is doing all this in the first place, but when the plot takes a back seat to the star’s antics on the camera, there’s a problem. When you do find out the reason half way through the film, it comes as no surprise and is generally a letdown, not to mention you find it hard to root for a person that has been so thoughtless to those around him. Thankfully the movie is only about 90 minutes long, and just about the time you start to look at your watch, they wrap it up quickly and end it.

The movie is funny, you’ll laugh during it, and for the humor alone it is worth seeing once. But once is enough for this one.

Saw Enemy this morning, and even now, several hours later, I can’t decide if I like it or not. It stars Jake Gyllenhaal as a rather boring college professor who one day sees his doppelganger in a movie. It’s a total independent art-style film, so as expected there are plenty of slow scenes with not much dialogue. That doesn’t bother me, as long as it is done well, and it is in Enemy. The soundtrack is always building suspense, and the whole movie has you feeling something terrible is just about to happen. I’m not going to give anything away and tell if ever does or not.

As Jake hunts down his twin and the two interact in each other’s (and each other’s family’s) lives, the watcher really starts to question who is good and who is bad. But what keeps me thinking about it is the ending. The last 15 minutes or so are a total trip, and the very last scene left me befuddled. I can’t make up my mind as to whether this is an outstanding movie with more meaning and depth that I’m capable of catching, or if it is just a total mess. Gyllenhaal is certainly known for doing movies like this, and if you are a fan of some of his previous works, you’ll probably dig this one too.

I have a thing for dystopian and/or post-apocalyptic movies. Even the duds I tend to generally like more than others might. Thus I was excited to see Divergent, a movie that takes place 100 years in the future after some major war has forced a society to build classes to keep its citizens under control. The movie is based on a young adult book, and unfortunately some elements clearly aimed at a younger audience made it into the film, dumbing down what I think could have been a stellar flick.

Overall I thought it was still good. A little predictable, sure, but a generally rewarding film. There were a few too many scenes and dialogue though that felt very campy or hokey, followed by scenes of extreme violence, almost as if the film’s makers couldn’t decide what demographic they were aiming for. The musical score was awful, with an almost teen top-40 kind of feel that severely detracted from the mood I wanted the film to create, a place that it never quite reached.

Divergent is just book one of a trilogy, and there seems to all ready be plans to make the following 2 in to films as well. I just hope they don’t try so hard to appeal to all age groups, and just make a solid movie. If they do, they could be a lot better.