HOLIDAY SPECIAL: Santa Claus Conquers the Martians

I'll be straight with you. I had no interest in seeing this movie. I really didn't. Sure, I'd heard stories about it, but I never expected to see it. Furthermore, this was supposed to be review for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, but my showing got canceled, resulting in that review being delayed until a later date, hopefully by the end of the year. Regardless, though, let's sit back, enjoy some hot cocoa, and get into the Christmas spirit as I review what is considered one of the worst movies of all time, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.

It's a wonder that this movie even exists; the premise is so ridiculous, the script is laughable most times, and the naming of these characters is incoherent. After the opening credits, we see two Martian children entranced by a beyond-cheesy "Earth program" of a tour through Santa's Workshop in the North Pole. Their father, the king of the Martians, is disturbed by their lack of motivation to do anything after watching TV, so instead of being a reasonable father and commanding them to stop watching them, or better yet, eliminating the TV, he and some council members seek advice from the elder Martian, Chochem (not that that's important). He, with a laughable acting performance that seems as if he's about to die any second, reveals he has feared that the "adults in child bodies" are wishing for fun and a childhood, which can only come about by the presence of Santa Claus. After all, that's all a childhood is. Anyway, the council, even though no one can agree on anything, leave in their spaceship to capture Santa and bring him back to Mars only to find out the blubbering idiot Martian hitched a ride with them! They arrive in New York, find two children creatively named Billy and Betty, realize that New York isn't the North Pole, abduct the children, and redirect their flight up north where they avoid the terrifying MAN IN A POLAR BEAR SUIT and take old St. Nick, whose only weapon of defense are puns that rival those of Mr. Freeze in Batman & Robin. I mean, it's not like the Martians are any more fearsome; their most feared weapon is a stun gun that "will wear off in a few hours..." indeed, there is much to be feared as the Martian reactions are every time they point one at each other. Meanwhile, the US Government sends a spaceship out to hunt for the Martians that took their children...and that's the last you'll hear of them even though we're only halfway through.

For the rest of the movie, the antagonist, a Martian whose character development only goes so far as Betty crying out, "He's the mean one!" is simply a nuisance hellbent on getting rid of Santa...somehow. He's more of a man of words than actions as he becomes more of a caricature than an actual villain. His biggest work of evil is switching some wires in Santa's Workshop on Mars... the villainy! Terribly filmed (and acted) fight scenes follow, the Martians realize that the true embodiment of childhood fun and merriment was with them all along in Buffoon Martian, and Santa goes back to Earth with the children...without conquering anything but puns. As if the movie wasn't laughable enough, it ends with a sing-along! Not even Rudolph has a sing-along after his end credits.

This movie thinks so highly of itself it has a singalong. What is this? Frozen? #SantaClausConquersTheMartians pic.twitter.com/CseS6Oabys
— Adam Johnson (@adamj_film) December 24, 2014

Overall, the movie is like an overextended sitcom episode with the charm of a Holiday TV Special. It's not overtly bad, but it's bad in a "so bad it's good" kind of way. The movie is full of unintentional laughs, jokes that fall hilariously flat, numerous plot holes, very minimal production value (note that in this same year we got the technically brilliant Mary Poppins and the critically acclaimed Goldfinger. It's not like this was the best possible product, especially in terms of practical effects), and overacting out the wazoo. Furthermore, the film doesn't know what it wants to be. At the beginning, it seems like it'll be a film that demonstrates the detrimental effects television has on children, which is complemented by Betty confusing humanlike Martians for televisions because they have antennae. Then later it seems to pride itself on how great the "Earth programs" are then wants to criticize industrialization and how it's gotten rid of practicality, such as when Santa bemoans that "I'm not tired, but my little finger is!" after working the automatic toymaker on Mars instead of making toys by hand back at the North Pole. Then sometimes it seems like it just wants to be a screwball comedy with Three Stooges-level pratfalls among the villains. Sometimes it wants to be taken seriously but everything about is laughable, intentional or not. Thankfully, it's only an hour and a half But none of this really matters; it's a Christmas movie, so if you're tired of watching Elf for the 25th time or been about dried up with the Hallmark Holiday "Classics," this one's available. But as a critic, I have to give this 1/5 stars. It's enjoyable to an extent, but only because it's so atrocious.

Can you see the zipper?

So how about you? What's your favorite Christmas/holiday movie? Have you seen this one? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below.

And finally, to you and yours, have a blessed and most merry Christmas!

NEW MOVIE: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 1

Ever since the Harry Potter film adaptations showed what a blockbuster gold mine young adult literature can be, it seems as if they've been coming at us non-stop. Some have fared better than others; the Potter and Twilight adaptations are among the top grossing franchises of all time, joining the ranks of Star Wars and James Bond. Others have been forgotten like chaff in the wind, such as The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, or failed to surpass mediocrity, like Divergent. However, with the past two installments, The Hunger Games film series is shaping up to be not only an adaptation on par with Potter, but also a film series demanding respect from the most avid film buffs.

Rated PG-13 (intense sequences of violence and action, some disturbing images and thematic material)

I have never sat down and watched the original film nor have I sat down and read the series despite the countless requests for me to--I make no guarantees on the latter. However, I saw Catching Fire, the previous adaptation, with a group of buddies and quite enjoyed what the franchise had to offer. Despite some uproars about the two-way split of the final chapter, Mockingjay--Part 1 does not disappoint in the least.

We're quickly caught up with what has happened since the final moments of the previous film, which ended on the cliffhanger to end all cliffhangers, and Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence, American Hustle, X-Men: Days of Future Past) is still in shock and mourning over the potential loss of her friend in the Quarter Quell. However, the government of the rebel community she and thousands others have taken residence in (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore) hope to use her as a propaganda tool-- or rather, the Mockingjay-- to incite the fires of rebellion among the districts against the evil and autocratic Capitol, led by President Snow (played to villainous perfection by Donald Sutherland). And that's the film really. We see propaganda being made, and we see how evil the government is, while also growing to care for these characters, so that Part 2 makes a huge emotional impact.

Even though the film deals a lot on propaganda production, which many critics have called boring, lending to its 66% on Rotten Tomatoes, but through the propaganda we see Katniss's evolution from reluctant hero to angry revolutionary; it's absolutely invigorating. She questions the consequences of her actions: if I shoot this piece, who will it affect? who will die? what will happen? We see very quickly that while the Capitol plays along in the propaganda game, they mean serious business in some very shocking action scenes. As Katniss comes to realize the how appalling the Capitol is to its people, she cries in anger, "If we burn, you burn with us!" and gives us a very moving revolutionary movement in vein of "Do You Hear the People Sing?" from Les Miserables. The latter was easily the best scene in the entire picture, mixing James Newton Howard's subtle yet powerful musical capability, Jennifer Lawrence's skill as an actor, and director Francis Lawrence's solid direction and sense of buildup as we see the districts starting to feel the fires of revolution. If the song is not utilized at all in the final film, whether in promos or in the finished product, Lionsgate is doing themselves a huge disservice. That's not to say there's no action. There are scenes of explosive scale, but they feel a natural part of the film as they make us more emotionally involved. There's also a well-cut bin Laden-style raid that sets us up perfectly for the final chapter. Try calling that boring!

Despite the lessening of action since Catching Fire and the fact it's only half of a film (it is the first part, after all), the film keeps us occupied, ogling at the performances of this movie. I've never been the biggest Julianne Moore or Josh Hutcherson fan--I found her useless in the second Jurassic Park film and really annoying in Non-Stop, and Hutcherson's passable in everything else--but they were really, really good in this movie. Hutcherson disturbs us with his performance, as we fear for his safety and sanity--is he being controlled by the Capitol? Are Katniss's actions going to do well for him?--and Moore is subtle but grand as the president of the rebel movement. There is not one bad performance in the film (except maybe an extra on screen for 5 seconds playing with her hair at the most predictable moment, but what does that matter?). Lawrence and Hoffman also bring humor to their roles despite the somberness of their situation (war). Not to be forgotten are Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, who are pretty outstanding. If there's one reason to see the movie, it is because of the acting. I'm not saying an Oscar is coming their way, but I'm still in shock as to how good everyone was.

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) witnesses the horror of the Capitol.

All in all, this is the best Hunger Games movie yet, heads and shoulders above its predecessor (why did we need monkeys?). There's very little to complain about, except that it ends abruptly. It's part of the poison of making a film two parts, but that's not to say it can't feel like a whole movie. The first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I felt, left us better satisfied and equally ready for the grand finale. Though let's be honest here: it doesn't matter. I give the film 4.5/5 Stars. I'm excited to see the final part, and I wouldn't complain about seeing this film again.

Have you seen the other films? What did you think? Do you plan on seeing this one? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

In Defense of NOAH

NOTE: The following article contains SEVERAL SPOILERS for the Darren Aronofsky's film Noah. I feel it is important to discuss issues raised in the film, but I do not want to spoil plot points and taint your first impressions seeing the film. If you feel comfortable reading on, please do. If you are afraid of spoilers, know I highly suggest the film and give it 4 out of 5 stars, though due to violent and suggestive material in the film, I strongly advise you take the PG-13 rating to heart.

Back in January, I released a list of the movies that I most anticipated for 2014, and one of the first mentioned was a little picture called Noah, an adaptation of one of first stories in the Bible. Lo and behold, several Christian audiences detested it, some even calling it heresy. However, I really enjoyed the film, but because of my schedule I was unable to do a traditional review of it to tell you to go see it in theatres. Months have passed and its presence has pretty much subsided in the cinema, but I still feel that, in the year which is becoming the return of Christian movies in the cineplex, Noah is a film worth talking about and debating. I've wrestled back and forth about when and how to do this--or even to do it at all--and now I feel I should present to you my defense of Darren Aronofsky's Noah.

There really hadn't been a big-name "Christian" movie in theatres since The Passion of the Christ in 2004, which broke several box-office records for R-rated films, foreign films, and Christian films. Passion was actually nominated for several Academy Awards, those of score, cinematography, and makeup--all of which were stunning. In my personal opinion, it's one of the best-directed films I've seen even if the last half of it is incredibly difficult to watch due to the graphic violence depicted in Jesus's final hours. It's considered a classic now among Christian audiences. What worked most for Passion was the divine, transcendental effect it had on audiences aided by successful artistic imagery that served to heighten the story's message even if they were deviations from the literal Gospels.

The  general reaction

Then 2014 comes along with Son of God, a re-release of the Jesus episodes from The Bible miniseries, and God's Not Dead, a sleeper hit that pits God's existence against philosophy, both of which are embraced by Christian audiences. For example, renowned pastor Rick Warren said of Son of God, "If you have to choose between church and movie, go see the movie this weekend." Then Noah is released and, generally, Christians haaaaate it. They despise it but not because it's a "Hollywood" film or even because of a poor acting performance. It's due to several deviations from the literal Biblical text, Genesis chapters 6-9. Now before I go on with my defense, do know that I generally do not mind if a film deviates from a book, but I do not condone when a film makes perversions of a sacred text like the Bible. That said, I believe that if deviations are made from a Biblical text, it has to be for reasons pertinent to the film's message and not completely arbitrary, in which case I believe Noah, for the most part, succeeds--the messages are made clear and the changes are justified by this, in my opinion.

What got people so riled up about this film? Why did it anger so many religious audiences? After much thought and research, I've narrowed it down to four major things: the addition of fallen angels, aspects of the villain Tubal-Cain, elements of the Creation sequence, and how Noah was portrayed.

This was the best representation of the Watchers I could find.

Noah screenwriter Ari Handel came out in an interview saying that everything that was in the film had some basis in the Genesis narrative, so many audiences with some understanding of the story were completely confused when the Watchers came up, especially since they were noticeably absent from Genesis 6-9 and any advertising. Looking back at promotional material, it appears to me as if the CGI creatures were removed from the advertisements purposefully. For example, look at this excerpt of a scene early in the movie. In the clip, Noah and his family walk out of their tent. In the same scene in the film, however, a Watcher they befriend is sitting in background, watching the family become determined to build the ark. This was obviously done to not scare away religious audiences.

Why are they in here if they are noticeably absent from the source material? Well, the Watchers (some refer to them as the Nephilim giants referred to early on in Genesis) are detailed in the First Book of Enoch, an extrabiblical piece of literature (at least from a Protestant standpoint) allegedly written by the first man to be physically taken up to Heaven and that New Testament author Jude seemingly refers to in his epistle (Jude verses 14-15). In the film, they are angels who disobeyed God by going down to the Earth to help the sons of Cain (the first murderer). Due to their disobedience, they are cursed by God and become one with the Earth (literally, their angelic form is encrusted by rock--some critics have referred to them negatively as "Rock Transformers" because of their appearance). However, the descendants of Cain turn on them, waging war and destruction upon them, until Noah's grandfather Methuselah (played marvelously by the legendary Anthony Hopkins) acts as their defender. The Watchers, however, become distrustful of man and become hermits, until they realize that Noah was called by God to save what is good and innocent, in which case they help Noah and his family build the ark. As the floodwaters come, they defend the ark against Tubal-Cain's wicked armies and, in doing so, sacrifice themselves, revealing their holy forms as they ascend to the sky, supposedly to Heaven.

More than once you probably cocked your head reading that. It seems so far out there that the filmmakers likely added these characters just to capitalize on a big fight scene at the ark. I disagree for one big reason: Darren Aronofsky is a very artistic director whose works include Requiem for a Dream, Pi, The Fountain, and Black Swan, and every artistic director has a purpose in everything they do. After all, Aronofsky has had a relationship with the character of Noah since he was 13 years old when he wrote a fearful poem about the Flood Narrative and grew up in a "culturally Jewish" household. So why did we need the Watchers in this film which could have floated along without them? Seeing the film and analyzing it for the past three months, the themes of mercy and forgiveness are prevalent. The Watchers serve as a symbol. They had sinned but were later redeemed. They showed love; Jesus did say in John 15:13, "There is no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends," and that's what these characters did. For Christians, especially, they can be seen as an example of how God forgives us. I'm not saying that fallen angel demons can return to the Heavenly Choir; I'm saying that despite the seemingly far-fetchedness of the addition, there are lessons that can be learned if we look at film as an art form rather than something to turn our noses at once something smells fishy.

Ray Winstone as Tubal-Cain

The second argument is my favorite to rebuttal, and that's that Tubal-Cain, the villain, stows away on the ark during the big ark battle. Again, red flags are raised, but I encourage you to put them down a moment and hear me out. In the flood narrative, the only biological beings on the ark are Noah, his family, and the animals. So how in the world could the filmmakers dare to put Tubal-Cain on the ark and have their Biblical advisers not remove the material (oh yes, there were Biblical advisers, as seen in this featurette)? Again, Aronofsky is an artistic director, and there is not a better example of this than through the character of Tubal-Cain. First of all, Tubal-Cain is the name of a descendant of Cain in Genesis 4:22 who was "an expert in forging tools of bronze and iron." In the film, Tubal-Cain is the leader of most of humankind (that is, besides Noah's family, the descendants of Adam through his son Seth) and is determined to kill Noah and the Watchers and survive on the ark Noah builds. As any villain arc goes, he fails, but still I find Tubal-Cain the most interesting character in the film in that I see him as a symbol of Satan and sin. Tubal-Cain's monologue to God before the battle at the Ark reminds me so much of the story of Satan's fall from heaven. The gist of the story is that Satan, the most beautiful angel, wanted to take God's throne in his pride and because of that, he was cast down with his followers to Hell. In Tubal-Cain's monologue, he compares himself to God but fails to recognize that God doesn't answer him because Tubal-Cain is clouded with his sin and pride. Now when Tubal-Cain is wounded and on the ark, notice where he is--in the snake pit. What Bible character is the figure most commonly pointed at when a snake makes an appearance? Why, the devil himself! Watching the film, it is my interpretation that Tubal-Cain's purpose was to not only serve as Noah's nemesis, but as the representation of evil like Roger Chillingworth in The Scarlet Letter. Tubal-Cain's appearance on the ark wasn't meant to set up a final fight scene. The way I see it, Tubal-Cain was meant to show that sin stayed on the ark. Just read the Book of Genesis, and you'll see that sin wasn't absent after they land. Only a few verses down, Noah becomes dead drunk and curses his son Ham! Also, in the clip I hyperlinked in the Watchers segment, Noah calls the animals "the innocent;" while on the ark, Tubal-Cain eats animals raw. If we analyze even further, it personifies how Satan (Tubal-Cain) tries to destroy innocence in those who follow God (the animals). I don't believe that an additional character sailed the waters with Noah and his family as written in the Bible, but I do think that Aronofsky provided a stunning symbol in his epic through the character of Tubal-Cain.

The third thing that folks have cried out against are supposed representations of evolution and "overbearing" environmentalism, which many have found in the creation sequence below. I encourage you to take a look at it before reading on.

Before I go on, I must say that that is the most stunning Creation sequence I have seen since 2011's The Tree of Life. The timelapse style is perhaps the best way they could have done it, but it also lends itself to the allegations of evolution, which would be portrayed when Noah begins narrating the sixth day. While that very well may be what Aronofsky was going for--to show a marriage between religion and scientific theories--the sixth day doesn't have to be interpreted that way. The timelapse between the 1:44 and 2:08 mark seems to show reptiles evolving from one to another and then to mammals, but I can appreciate watching it as a display of all of the Creator's creation shown in a short period of time. However, we can look at these little details in the visuals and miss the big picture in the narration. What Aronofsky's trying to get across here in the silhouetted breaking of the fourth wall is that God created everything to be in His image and because we fell into the temptation of sin, we've caused the destruction of the world and each other, a message which is made in the Biblical text. Man sins in the Garden of Eden, falls too far down the sinful rabbit hole, and God eradicates the sin with a flood, though the righteous--those who still strove to follow the will of God--are saved by his grace and their obedience.

The only thing missing from this Noah are two giraffes flanking him.

Then comes the issue many people were uncomfortable with during the film: how Noah was portrayed by the filmmakers. In the Flood Narrative, Noah is a rather static character: he is found righteous in God's sight and builds the ark as commanded by God. After the flood, Noah makes sacrifices and becomes a vineyardsman, then gets drunk on wine. When he wakes up, he curses his son Ham's descendants because Ham saw him naked and did nothing about it. In the film, we see Noah as a much more dynamic character, if less likable. In this, we see two phases of his character. The first is the one you see in the photo above and in the clip hyperlinked in my Watcher argument. He's the Noah many people recognize, a Noah with hope and kindness and full obedience towards God. However, after Noah goes into Tubal-Cain's territory to find wives for his sons Ham (Logan Lerman) and Japheth (Leo McHugh Carroll), he sees the wickedness of man in the most disturbing sequence of the film, and his heart is hardened by what he sees. The second phase of Noah's character gains this false understanding that when God said to save the innocent, man and his wickedness could not included, meaning that Noah and his family were only tools to save the animals and must die alone when the flood recedes. So when his daughter-in-law Ila (played by Emma Watson in her greatest performance yet) becomes pregnant with twins, he becomes convinced that God needs him to destroy the babies in a plot resembling the Binding of Isaac.

Obedience becomes aggressive as Noah progresses through the film.

This latter interpretation of Noah has gotten folks riled up. How could the most righteous man on Earth be portrayed as an "angel of death" (figuratively, of course) in the third act? We must remember that in the Bible, while Noah was called "righteous" and "blameless," he wasn't perfect; no man is. The "Warrior Noah" phase shows this: man is not perfect nor ever will be. The entire third act of the film (at least what was on the ark) was created by Aronofsky and his team of developers; there is no evidence of any of this tense drama ever happening, according to Scripture. But I have enough faith in Aronofsky as a filmmaker to believe that he didn't "change" Noah's character for purposes of perversion and to mock the source material. As I stated before, the director has had a long history with this character, and this is basically his passion project. He found messages and themes in the Bible story that he related to and needed to portray, and through this he made Noah do things Noah may not have done in Bible times. Aronofsky needed to show delicate mercy contrasted with hard justice. When Noah is in his phase of "kill the babies," God is silent; He does not give approval, but Noah acts on his own accord because that's what he thinks God wants him to do even though God did not answer. When Noah has a change of heart and displays mercy and love on his grandchildren, God shines his light of approval upon Noah's family, and the film has a mostly happy ending. Through this the character of Noah realizes God's mercy on the Earth. God destroyed the world, but he preserved a remnant that was willing to follow His will. Aronofsky makes certain mercy is a concrete theme by having the credits song be "Mercy Is" by Patti Smith and Clint Mansell, which is also sung by Noah to a young Ila early in the film and then later by Ila to her babies before Noah plans to execute them.

These four points weren't the only things audiences had problems with. Many Christian audiences had a problem that God was not mentioned by name and only referred to as "The Creator." To that I say: Song of Solomon/Songs and the Book of Esther didn't even mention God, so it's really kind of a petty argument to make if you ask me. Be glad that God was even called the Creator in a film that apparently promotes evolution; I personally think that being Creator of everything is kind of a significant thing regarding who God is, and if we're going to cry fowl about that, something is very terribly wrong. Some have complained that God doesn't have a speaking part. In the Bible, God's the only person to talk and he gives explicit instructions to Noah. In the film, God speaks through light in the clouds to tacitly say, "Yes, I give my blessing to this," or through bizarre, almost disturbing visions that point to a flood and global inundation. This is clearly a filmmaker's choice on how to present God in a non-cheesy fashion. Consider this: how much would it have taken you out of the film if a deep booming voice came out of nowhere and said, "Noah, build an ark." We've seen this before! And potentially, we'd be leaving the theatre forgetting the message of the film or any great display of filmmaking and instead thinking about how God sounded. ("Was that Morgan Freeman? Why wasn't that Morgan Freeman? It was Christopher Walken?!") Nobody left the theatre confused on who was talking through these visions, folks.

Furthermore, an article came out called "Sympathy for the Devil" written by Dr. Brian Mattson which basically asserted that Noah was a film primarily based on the Kabbalah, a notable book dealing in Jewish mysticism, rather than the Bible, which is apparently evident through the mineral zohar used throughout the film (it happens to be the name of a book in the Kabbalah) or that Adam and Eve are glowing in the Garden of Eden during the Creation sequence (an artistic move, I thought in the theatre). The support for his argument is that the Kabbalah was a major theme in Aronofsky's film Pi. I personally feel that if we're going so far to assert these things we're just looking so hard for something to hate with this film or any film in general and in doing so we miss the point entirely. When I was learning rhetoric, I learned that it is important to understand the author's background to pull out the message, but I feel that if start doing this too much, we begin to lose the impact and message the film can have on us as an audience.

We could have had this!

I feel passionately about this, perhaps too passionately than what's normal or preferred, but I believe in film as an art form, and I feel that Noah was very well made from an artistic standpoint. In an age where many Christian movies are some of the worst things ever made (two bookend my top 13 worst movies list), we were given a great film and ignored the merits the film had. I'm not saying that Aronofsky created a film that was the straight Bible because it wasn't. But perhaps we've become too accustomed to seeing film as entertainment that we've forgotten appreciate a director's vision the same way we read books or look at a painting or sculpture. In all honesty, I'd rather have a film that we can get Christian messages from without being beat over the head (like Signs) or a Christian film that tries to be a great film (The Passion of the Christ) than get a movie that settles for less because "it's all for the glory of God" (see 93% of PureFlix Entertainment's library). Filmmakers of all kinds, I implore you to make films that make us think; give us more Girls in Red and less CGI prairie dogs. Give us a film we can discuss and debate and not something we'll forget in a week.

All that said, I don't think the film was perfect. The third act in the ark fumbled in places, mostly because of changes they took too far or seemed unnecessary, and I felt that Ham's story arc about what it means to be a man was uninteresting and pretty weak compared to the rest of the film. However, the acting performances in the film were phenomenal across the board, and I felt the direction, especially with intricate details, and musical score by Clint Mansell were masterful.

I don't assert that what I say is what the director intended, and I don't pretend that this was the definitive interpretation of the film. I simply provide my interpretation to show the film is not as bad as it has been made out to be. Film is meant to be discussed, so please provide your thoughts, rebuttals, and arguments in the comments below. I'd love to talk about this film with you.

NEW MOVIE: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Well, it's sure good to be back here. Sorry for the hiatus--I had a lot going on the past few weeks months that I could not avoid, but I promise I'll get my Noah review to you as soon as I can (in short, I recommend seeing that and the Divergent movie, even if the latter is subpar in terms of writing and character development)--but here I am now to talk to you about the newest Marvel Studios film, and one of my most anticipated movies of the year, Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

Rated PG-13 (intense sequences of violence, gunplay, and action throughout)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier continues the ever-expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe in a unique superhero film, one that delves into dark territory with political conspiracy and espionage that not only builds on the mythology of the Captain America characters and series, but on the foundations of the entire film universe that began with 2008's Iron Man. Taking place a couple years after the giant New York battle in The Avengers, the film has Steve Rogers/Captain America (played by Chris Evans) in the middle of a S.H.I.E.L.D. conspiracy, that Cap and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) seek the answers to in order to keep the system under control. Meanwhile, a skilled assassin, the eponymous Winter Soldier, works to bring S.H.I.E.L.D. and the Captain to their knees.

This may very well be the best sequel I have ever seen. Tonally, the film gets very dark yet keeps a needed sense of humor. Though most importantly, the action, acting, and exposition are all equally engaging and thrilling. I can't remember a boring action sequence, and none of the action seems to be strictly fanservice or explosions-for-explosions, and often the action is vital for the story's plot, such as the first major fight with the Winter Soldier. Everything has a purpose Chris Evans plays the role of Captain America and Steve Rogers so well, and one could buy that he really came out of World War II as a war hero, so a sequence where he talks with an old comrade as a loving contemporary isn't creepy but rather heartbreaking in a sense. Scarlett Johannson makes Black Widow a complex character in her performance, and the appearance of the Falcon (Anthony Mackie) is welcome. Altogether, their shared chemistry works very well, providing the driving emotional force for the movie when a majority of it is so political.

As a comic book movie, it's extremely good, reminding me of the first times I read Ultimate Spider-Man, whose later S.H.I.E.L.D. drama was very reminiscent of this film, come to think of it. Though this is true, the movie stands well on its own as a film, and specifically, an action-thriller along the lines of the Bourne films (albeit less brutal). There are several twists throughout the movie, and each one is shocking and pleasing to its audience. For example, the reveal of the Winter Soldier had so many people in the audience audibly shocked, child and adult, so kudos to the Russo brothers and the screenwriters for making these things effective. I can't say I was shocked with this twist in particular because I had prior knowledge years ago from Marvel games, but I also can't deny that it was very well done. On a side note, it was very good of the Russos for putting in Alan Silvestri's score from the original film during the opening scene, putting audiences back into the character of Cap.

My only complaint with the film, looking back, is that Robert Redford's character wasn't as developed as he should have been for his ultimate purpose in the film, but I can't deny that I had a blast watching it. So in the end, I have to give it 5 out of 5 stars. It's a well-done conspiracy thriller with depth and excitement that has changed the Marvel Cinematic Universe for good. The only question is: will it pay off? Only time will tell.

So did you see The Winter Soldier in the past month-and-a-half? What did you think? Whatever you have to say about me and the movies, comment below!

OSCAR REVIEW: Captain Phillips

I think Tom Hanks has a thing for movies at sea. First Cast Away, now Captain Phillips. At least this one didn't make me cry!

WILSON!! Anyway, Captain Phillips tells the true story of a hostage crisis that began with the infiltration of Somali pirates on the cargo ship Maersk Alabama. Clocking in at a little over two hours, the film rarely seems to let up the suspense, even if you know the end of the story, and that is a big plus to director Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Ultimatum, United 93). While I greatly enjoyed the film as a whole, however, I highly doubt that it will walk away with Best Picture this Sunday.

This is probably one of the more realistic films I've seen Tom Hanks in. Note the opening scene, which is basically a conversation in a car, and the nonchalance he and his wife (played by Catherine Keener, Being John Malkovich, Capote) have talking about what's going on with their son and their lives. If I was a theater patron and I only knew that this was about a boat captain, I couldn't have guessed that this would turn into a hostage thriller. However, in such a simple scene, you get a very stunning display of editing and cinematography that (and I can say this from personal experience) is very difficult to reproduce. I can't imagine the number of takes it took them to make the scene, and I'm not sure I want to. From there, the film moves at a very steady, very thrilling pace throughout, not trying to be too big and flashy for its own good, so props to the filmmakers.

I can't talk about this movie and not bring up the acting. I've seen quite a few Tom Hanks movies, and this may be one of the best performances I've seen him give (although Forrest Gump holds a special place in my heart). He makes the more intense situations realistic; for example, after all the built-up tension finally ends at the climax, Tom Hanks releases in a very realistic, very dramatic way that makes the film all worthwhile--some folks try to bring things full circle by connections to the beginning of the story, but Greengrass elected to come full circle by acknowledging through Hanks' acting that this was real tension. Speaking of tension, the action, when it happens, is exciting. The Somali pirates' invasion of the boat was interesting to watch, and Hanks and newcomer Barkhad Abdi made it easily one of the most exciting parts of the film (as it should be). As for Abdi, his performance was alright, especially for a newcomer. Going into this film several months after its initial release, I feel like his performance was severely overhyped by nearly everybody. It carried the role; he just wasn't spectacular, in my opinion, and as I said in my predictions, it's a crying shame Abdi got nominated instead of Tom Hanks in either Saving Mr. Banks or this picture--that's just my two-cents. Regardless, the violence is gritty and brutal, but not overdone. It's kind of like the Bourne movies; the violence is there and it's not always easy to watch, but it's not excessive or "big" as in an R-rated picture like Goodfellas or RoboCop.

This a very well put-together film, and I was surprised by how much it has stuck with me. When the film ended, I didn't have the emotional impact like I did at the end of The Tree of Life, The Green Mile, or Jurassic Park (the latter being excitement). Yet when I saw clips weeks after seeing it, I felt the rhythm of the scenes again, and I could almost quote it. It is rightfully one of the better films of the year (had I seen it earlier, it would probably have been my number 3 film, under Saving Mr. Banks and Zero Dark Thirty); unfortunately for Greengrass, it won't win. That said, I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars. Hopefully it gets its due this Sunday night at the Oscars, but this is one of those times where it's an honor just to be nominated.

So what about you? Did you see Captain Phillips, and what did you think about it? What's your vote for Best Picture this year? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

The 86th Annual Academy Awards: My Oscar Predictions

As Oscar Night is swiftly approaching, I thought I'd share with you my predictions of who will win the awards. I've also explained my reasoning for a few of them, especially some that will raise some eyebrows. I also want to address the fact that I didn't see many new movies this year, and the few I did see, well, didn't have much awards presence, so most of these are educated guesses based on the buzz by other film critics. However, I can say that Tom Hanks was terribly snubbed this year, especially for his fantastic performance in Captain Phillips, and Emma Thompson was also completely robbed of a nomination in her grounded, tear-jerking performance in Saving Mr. Banks, a movie that, I think, should have been nominated for more than Best Original Score (we'll get to that part later). Now without further ado, here we go!

BEST WRITING--ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
American Hustle
Blue Jasmine
Dallas Buyers Club
Her
Nebraska

A satire of sorts on human obsession with technology, this screenplay has received widespread recognition since the premiere of Her. Although the concept alone is interesting, I think that the reported realistic aspects of it will earn Spike Jonze a screenwriting Oscar over Woody Allen's Blue Jasmine.

BEST WRITING--ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Before Midnight
Captain Phillips
Philomena
12 Years a Slave
The Wolf of Wall Street

This is one category I feel unsure about, like I did last year with Lincoln vs. Argo. Before Midnight was the first screenplay that came up this year that received vast critical acclaim. At the same time, Slave's screenplay has been lauded as well, in particular for keeping true to its subject's account; the recentness of Slave may earn it the prize, but I'm going to root for the underdog here.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Iron Man 3
The Lone Ranger
Star Trek Into Darkness

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
The Act of Killing
Cutie and the Boxer
Dirty Wars
The Square
20 Feet from Stardom

BEST DOCUMENTARY--SHORT SUBJECT
CaveDigger
Facing Fear
Karama Has No Walls
The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life
Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
The Grandmaster
Gravity
Inside Llewyn Davis
Nebraska
Prisoners

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
American Hustle
The Grandmaster
The Great Gatsby
The Invisible Woman
12 Years a Slave

BEST SOUND EDITING
All Is Lost
Captain Phillips
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Lone Survivor

BEST SOUND MIXING
Captain Phillips
Gravity
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Inside Llewyn Davis
Lone Survivor

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
12 Years a Slave
American Hustle
Gravity
The Great Gatsby
Her

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
The Broken Circle Breakdown (Belgium)
The Great Beauty (Italy)
The Hunt (Denmark)
The Missing Picture (Cambodia)
Omar (Palestine)

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
Feral
Get a Horse!
Mr. Hublot
Possessions
Room on the Broom

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
Aquel no era yo (That Wasn't Me)
Avant que de tout perde (Just Before Losing Everything)
Helium
Pitaako mun kaikki hoitta? (Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?)
The Voorman Problem

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
Dallas Buyers Club
Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
The Lone Ranger

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"Happy" from Despicable Me 2 (Pharrell Williams)
"Let It Go" from Frozen (Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez)
"The Moon Song" from Her (Karen Orzolek)
"Ordinary Love" from Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom (U2)

This is possibly the best year for Oscar nominated songs, at least compared to last year, where "Skyfall" was the plain and obvious winner, with "Suddenly" from Les Miserables still struggling to be remembered today. This year, we get something different: a gospel song (which has been getting an absurd amount of radio attention), a Broadway-style ballad, a soulful love song, and an inspirational song to commemorate the history of one of the most influential men of his time (unfortunately, the soft-spoken Christian neo-hymn was disqualified for inappropriate campaigning). While initially I felt Frozen was the clear-cut winner for this category, my research on "Ordinary Love" following the Golden Globe snag showed me that "Ordinary Love" was a much more heartfelt, meaningful, moving song than "Let It Go," which is why I give my nod to the guys behind the Spider-Man musical. Well played.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
The Book Thief, John Williams
Gravity, Steven Price
Her, Arcade Fire (William Butler and Owen Pallett)
Philomena, Alexandre Desplat
Saving Mr. Banks, Thomas Newman

And the Academy decided that last year they would celebrate music and the movies. Someone jumped the gun because these are absolutely incredible songs and scores by wonderful musicians. That said, there has to be a winner, and I'm not expecting a Skyfall-Zero Dark Thirty tie again. So I have to say that, ultimately, Newman's score for Banks, a movie I loved, isn't very memorable, at least compared to the Poppins songs surrounding it; it won't win--it's great when you listen to it, but I couldn't hum it to you if you asked me. Arcade Fire's score for Her, while plenty beautiful, I think, based off the sample I heard, doesn't pack enough of a punch to beat Williams, Desplat, or Price--the best three scores chosen, in my opinion. Williams's score is haunting and divine, like his Schindler's List work; Desplat has a perfect score for a dramedy, mixing the lightheartedness of his King's Speech work and the somberness similar to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows; and Price's score is mysterious, intense, and moving when needed. However, I was moved more by Williams's score, so I feel it's going to win, especially after too many snubs (Life of Pi's score was better than that of Lincoln? Really? REALLY?!?!?)

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
The Croods
Despicable Me 2
Ernest & Celestine
Frozen
The Wind Rises

I will be open and say, "I have seen none of these movies." If I did, Frozen would be the obvious choice. People say it's a return to form for Disney, emulating the greatness that came out of the Disney Renaissance. But then there's one film that was nominated that's keeping me back from saying it will be Frozen. Many anime fans will know a man named Hayao Miyazaki, who made acclaimed films like Howl's Moving Castle and Princess Mononoke. He's supposed to be the best of his kind, and after years of acclaimed animation work, he's going into retirement. My thoughts are that, to commemorate a long line of great works, the Academy will give his World War II film, The Wind Rises, the Oscar over what many consider the best animated film they've seen.

BEST FILM EDITING
12 Years a Slave
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Sally Hawkins, Blue Jasmine
Jennifer Lawrence, American Hustle
Lupita Nyong'o, 12 Years a Slave
Julia Roberts, August: Osage County
June Squibb, Nebraska

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Barkhad Abdi, Captain Phillips
Bradley Cooper, American Hustle
Michael Fassbender, 12 Years a Slave
Jonah Hill, The Wolf of Wall Street
Jared Leto, Dallas Buyers Club

Barkhad Abdi? Really? It was his first role, great, but...really? He got nominated AND TOM HANKS DIDN'T?? Anyway, Leto, from the clips I've seen, played a very convincing transwoman.... Moving on.

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Amy Adams, American Hustle
Cate Blanchett, Blue Jasmine
Sandra Bullock, Gravity
Judi Dench, Philomena
Meryl Streep, August: Osage County

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Christian Bale, American Hustle
Bruce Dern, Nebraska
Leonardo DiCaprio, The Wolf of Wall Street
Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave
Matthew McConaughey, Dallas Buyers Club

BEST DIRECTING
David O. Russell, American Hustle
Alfonso Cuaron, Gravity
Alexander Payne, Nebraska
Steve McQueen, 12 Years a Slave
Martin Scorsese, The Wolf of Wall Street

I predict a Life of Pi scenario this year. Because Ben Affleck wasn't nominated as Best Director last year to accompany his Best Picture Argo, the award for Directing would go to someone who worked on a different film. My guess from the start was Steven Spielberg for Lincoln because Spielberg's a legend, and Lincoln wasn't droll, but inspired. To my shock, I was wrong, and Ang Lee won for his work on Life of Pi. Obviously, this referred to his ability to craft scenes with nothing but an actor and a raft, and still make it believable after post-production. Even though McQueen should probably win to accompany 12 Years a Slave (get to that in a second), I think Cuarón will end up walking away with the award due to making Gravity's atmosphere (no pun intended) completely believable, to the point where one didn't know where reality began, and when it ended.

BEST PICTURE:
American Hustle
Captain Phillips
Dallas Buyers Club
Gravity
Her
Nebraska
Philomena
12 Years a Slave
The Wolf of Wall Street

Based off a formula I made last year, I predict that the period film 12 Years a Slave will walk home with Best Picture. Reportedly the most moving film of the year, Slave has swept many awards, including the Best Motion Picture--Drama award at the Golden Globes last month. Going into this ceremony, people will be looking at the Big Three: 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle, and Gravity, for its power, its entertainment, and its thrill, respectively. I don't see Hustle winning due to the fact that while it was received well by critics, a good amount of people, some critics included, found the film to be lacking in some regard. Gravity, while reportedly the most intense movie of the year, it may be too effects-grounded to garner the Grand Prize on Oscar night. Take Star Wars for example: The film was revolutionary at the time, and it may very well be one of the best adventure science fiction films ever made, but in '77, it lost Best Picture to the Woody Allen classic Annie Hall. From what I've heard, Gravity may not have enough Oscar bait to lure in the metaphorical fish. Therefore, the consistently positive response to 12 Years a Slave should catapult it to one of the most revered spots in cinema.

Last year, I got 13 out of 24 predictions right. How will I do this year? Comment below and tell me your thoughts on who will win the Oscars?

NEW MOVIE: Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

It's generally agreed that this is the best new release this month. But is that saying much? Find out below in my review of Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit!

I don't often get the chance to review new releases because of my often hectic schedule, but now that I have a holiday, I got to see this new espionage movie that serves as a reboot to the Jack Ryan series (The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, Clear and Present Danger). Having seen none of those films, having only seen a trailer, and having read no early reviews, I have the opportunity to give you my candid thoughts on the film.

Directed by Shakespeare aficionado Kenneth Branagh (who also stars as the film's villain) and written in part by Jurassic Park screenwriter David Koepp, Shadow Recruit shows how Jack Ryan (Chris Pine, Star Trek Into Darkness, This Means War) became the spy that 90s audience know and love. Mentored by Kevin Costner's (Man of Steel, Dances With Wolves) character, he tries to uncover a scheme working towards Russian economic domination, bringing about the Second Great Depression. And, of course, Jack's girlfriend has to get involved, but Keira Knightley (Pirates of the Caribbean, Pride & Prejudice) plays the role well enough that I didn't mind her character much at all. Some things get perhaps a little bit convoluted, and then I was unaffected by a small plot twist towards the end--aren't we supposed to be genuinely shocked?--but it was a fun action movie.

For the first act, I was on board. The origin story and the opening sequences were well-paced and interesting, and the first few action sequences were intense. One scene in particular I thought was really gritty, almost like The Bourne Identity, but not to the point where it was hard-to-watch (this is a PG-13 movie, after all). Branagh made some nice directorial choices, such as not showing his character's face until the end of his introductory scene. Knightley and Pine had good chemistry--I bought them as a couple--and there were a few laughs. However, after a while, the pace got a bit off, and the predictable started happening. The camera got so shaky at times that I couldn't tell what was going on, and tension was lacking in certain action scenes, especially towards the end. What saved the picture, for me, was the performances by the leads and some of Branagh's direction. I can't deny that it was a fun action movie, and if that's all you're looking for, go right on ahead. You won't be disappointed.

I would've liked for more character development, especially on the villains' side, but I was entertained for an hour and 40 minutes. In my book, this movie gets 3 out of 5 stars. It's not an exceptional movie by any means, but it wasn't bad either. Honestly, if all you are looking for is an entertaining movie, just see this and don't waste your time with any other new release. It may not reach the acclaim that The Hunt for Red October had, but honestly, it's a January movie; this is The Shawshank Redemption compared to other early releases. Just don't expect Jason Bourne.

Kevin Costner and Chris Pine star in this PG-13 action flick

So what about you? Were you looking forward to this, or are you just going to catch up on the Oscar noms?  Let me know which movie you want me to tell you about next! Whatever you have to say about me and the movies, comment below!

SPECIAL REVIEW: The Shawshank Redemption

The Shawshank Redemption gets 5 out of 5 stars. But then again, everybody and their grandmother knows that The Shawshank Redemption is one of the greatest movies ever made, and so just giving it a numerical score isn't justice enough to the film, so I'll get it out of the way now. But what makes The Shawshank Redemption so good? Read my thoughts below!

The Shawshank Redemption (Rated R for language and prison violence)

The Shawshank Redemption opens up as banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins, Mystic River, Jacob's Ladder) is being tried for the murder of his wife and her lover, to which he tartly objects. He is then sent to Shawshank Prison, the toughest prison in Maine, where longtimers Red (Morgan Freeman, do I even need to say what he's from anymore), Heywood (William Sadler, Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, Die Hard 2), and others take bets to see which one of the newcomers will break down first. The entry of Andy's lot gives us a hint of the grittiness of Shawshank, and the rest of Andy's first night shows us the brutality of Shawshank. Yet in the first hour, we see that there is hope in Shawshank, companionship at Shawshank-- themes that ride along for the remainder of the picture, all the way to the very last shot.

The Shawshank Redemption is a most curious film. It is notoriously the number one movie in IMDb's Top 250 list, yet it barely made a profit. The plot, when you hear about it, seems like it'll make the most boring movie: The Shawshank Redemption tells the story of a banker who is sent to prison with two life sentences, meeting lifelong friends and experiencing brutality and injustice. There's really not much to the story of the film, but the two hours it lasts is the most rewarding I've probably ever had. Typically, you would say that such a case means that the film rides on the talent of its actors, but, while the performances are still superb, everything that we see as an audience makes this, perhaps, the greatest film of all time. The film rarely slows down, yet it takes its time. Frank Darabont is, in my opinion, the most understated writer-director, yet also the best one there is. This is based off a Stephen King novella ("Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption"), but this movie, unlike most book-to-film adaptations, is almost entirely independent of its source material. There are things in this film that aren't easily done just in prose, such as the subtle foreshadowing ("His judgment cometh soon and that right quickly"), or some of the brutal torture sequences--done in silhouette, leaving most to the imagination, thus making the impact doubly terrible to watch--or the iconic "Shawshank shot" at the end of the film. Not just any director could have tackled this material, nor could have any writer, or any composer or cinematographer. Everything is done so well that the slightest change to it would make it less powerful.

After Andy comes, he's to himself for a long while and doesn't make much talk with anybody. We the viewer, as the film progresses, see his smug smile and odd body language, and we don't know what that means until the end of the film--I won't spoil it here. He's also a most unusual character, breaking the prisonmates' status quo countless times. As I write this, I distinctly remember a scene around the 45-minute mark where Andy, Red, and several others are working on roofs when Andy does the unthinkable. However, his confidence ultimately pays off, winning his companions beer--he doesn't take any. Red narrates his hypothesis: "I think he did it just to feel normal again." Again, that theme carries on for a majority of the picture, with certain prisoners fearing institutionalization and becoming alien to society forever.

One of the most interesting parts of the film is that we're so invested in the characters and drawn in by the drama of Andy's time in Shawshank that we don't realize there's a central villain until about half the film is done. What does our villain and the Shawshank prison staff encompass? Hypocrisy, and the prisoners realize it. In fact, at times, it seems as if the prisoners--murderers, thieves, and rapists--are more innocent than the guards and wardens. I mean, it's a prisoner that brings about the eponymous "Shawshank Redemption!" And the payoff that the film has is incredibly rewarding. I can't see many people disliking the film, especially not for the ending--it's probably one of the best.

Is the film occasionally sad? Yes, some may cry. Is the film depressing? At times, as you feel the highs and lows of every character. Is it hopeful? Definitely, and I can't say a negative thing about it. It's almost unfair that this film was rated R because one of the major themes is true friendship--a theme missing from children's/family films and television these days. It's a mature film, but a film for everybody at the same time. It's not incredibly tough to watch, yet it's brutal. It is the movie that defines all movies. It's not my all-time favorite, but it's in my Top Two. Forrest Gump won Best Picture at the Oscars that year, and while I love Gump a whole lot, I honestly think that Shawshank should have won the big prize that year, and then some. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and buy it for $5 at Target or Walmart. It's incredible, and it goes to show that it doesn't matter if your movie doesn't make a lot of money at the box office; what matters is that your movie makes the most lasting impression on people years after your film is released. This September marks its 20th Anniversary, and it'll undoubtedly be remembered for, at least, 20 more.

"You either get busy living or get busy dying."

What more can I say? Have you seen The Shawshank Redemption, and what did you think about it? What's your favorite film of all time? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

My Most Anticipated Movies of 2014

It's a new year, which means new movies, and new movies mean great things are going to happen. And since this is a favorite of other reviewers, I thought I'd try my hand at this and give you my most anticipated movies of 2014.

Voyage of Time (2014?)

Dir. Terrence Malick; Star. Brad Pitt, Emma Thompson

This one is perhaps the most interesting out of all of these for a few reasons. Number one: I have almost no idea of what it's about. Some sources say it will be a documentary about space, which is certainly interesting, but what interests me is the director-star pairing of Terrence Malick and Brad Pitt, who worked very closely together on my favorite film, The Tree of Life. Secondly, IMDb describes the film as "An examination of the birth and death of the known universe," which seems like a companion piece of The Tree of Life, which is what got me interested in it in the first place. This film has no confirmed release date because of certain financial disputes, but as of now, it's tracking for 2014, and when it hits theaters (or iTunes), you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be watching this...even if no one else will.

Noah (March 8, 2014)

Dir. Darren Aronofsky; Star. Russell Crowe, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins

Noah will tell the classic Noah and the Ark Bible story in an epic format. I've been following this film since the beginning of this year, and I'm excited to see how this film turns out, since it's not very often we get a Biblical film on the big screen with a $100 million-plus budget. The last major Biblical film release was The Passion of the Christ, the highest grossing R-rated, and foreign language, film in the US, and while I don't feel that Noah will be either of those, I'm excited to see how the controversial director, Aronofsky, does with this material, especially when adding Noah's nemesis, an adopted daughter, and six-armed Watcher angels from Jewish lore. He had to add things to make a decently-sized movie; I hope it pays off in the end.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (April 4, 2014)

Dir. Anthony and Joe Russo; Star. Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson

I'll be honest: the only reason I'm interested in this film is because the trailer was amazing, or rather, STURDY. The film will follow Captain America working with S.H.I.E.L.D. after The Avengers, and from that we get some awesome new characters, a mysterious foe, and some interesting themes of freedom vs. fear and terrorism vs. justice. Those kinds of themes interest me, and the last few films with Cap were entertaining. Let's do this thing...for 'Merica!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (May 2, 2014)

Dir. Marc Webb; Star. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx
Now this is a film I was a bit on the edge about. I remember liking The Amazing Spider-Man better than the Tobey McGuire-Sam Raimi films, so I was obviously ready for a new sequel. Then I saw the first trailer for the new film, and I felt excited and not excited at the same time. The film just didn't look as good as it should have, I thought, even though the villains seemed interesting (Jamie Foxx plays Electro). But then I saw the trailer before The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and I was hooked. This movie does look awesome, and it should be seen in theaters, probably in 3D. So why quit on a franchise early? If it's not great, at least it'll be fun!

X-Men: Days of Future Past (May 23, 2014)

Dir. Bryan Singer; Star. Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender

Days of Future Past was a film I had also been following for a bit. I've seen all the X-Men films sans the Wolverine-only ones, and I've enjoyed most of them. Future Past serves as a direct sequel to both prequel First Class and to X-Men 3: The Last Stand/The Wolverine. How can this be so? Time travel, of course, with Wolverine going back in time to help young Charles Xavier find his way back to his destiny, especially when the existence of mutants are at stake. This film had a butt-kicking trailer, and the story seems interesting. What could go wrong?

Interstellar (November 7, 2014)

Dir. Christopher Nolan; Star. Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine
Interstellar was originally a film that was going to be made by Steven Spielberg before he gave it to the Nolans. The only two things I know about the plot is that it's about wormholes and corn. Certainly an interesting combination, but I loved Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and I enjoyed Inception, so Interstellar looks like it'll be one of the smartest, if not entertaining, films of the year. And Michael Caine is in it? When has he ever phoned in a performance?

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay—Part One (November 21, 2014)

Dir. Francis Lawrence; Star. Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson
I didn't review Catching Fire, but I mostly enjoyed the film, and I certainly enjoyed it enough to want to see Mockingjay. I've not read the books, though I own them all, but Catching Fire and its political themes of rebellion and oppression get that Les Mis excitement rising up in me. How will it all pan out? Well, I guess that's what the next two films are for!

The Hobbit: There and Back Again (December 17, 2014)

Dir. Peter Jackson; Star. Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage

Did you not expect this on here? There and Back Again is the sequel to The Desolation of Smaug, and as a fan of The Hobbit, I am excited for the finale. I have questions, I have concerns, and I strongly believe they will all be addressed in this film. Not to mention we get to see more of the dragon and the legendary Battle of Five Armies. Peter Jackson, do well. If he makes things relevant, and he makes his changes just, this may be the best Middle-Earth film since The Return of the King.

That's my list. What are you looking forward to this year? Are there any up here that you could care less about? Also, I want to know what January movie you guys think I should see by answering a poll on my Facebook page here, and please "Like" the page. Anyways, whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!