Edge of Tomorrow doesn't suck. Generally speaking these days that is pretty high praise for a Tom Cruise vehicle (especially a Sci-Fi film starring Cruise and not directed by Steven Speilberg).  There are lots of awful Cruise films and a slew of mediocre ones over the past decade and half.  But this film really, genuinely, isn't bad.

In fact, for the first 3/4 of the film it is actually pretty engaging. It takes the tired premise of "you must relive the same day over and over until you get it right" premise and adds some new twists, some humor and keeps the action moving along. It handles the necessary repetition well. In the first hour or so of the film they never really give you a chance to think. This isn't a film where thinking helps. That sounds damning but it isn'; good action films take you out or reality and turn off your brain for the ride. That is a compliment for an action film and Edge of tomorrow manages it, for awhile.

There is  a point in the film where something changes in Cruise's character (being vague here to avoid spoilers) and the film slows after that. It even seems a little slapdash. The denouement is also about as Hollywood as you can get. It might be best to leave ten minutes before the film ends. But anyone who walks into this film expecting a "non-Hollywood" ending probably doesn't go to the movies often and, therefore, won't notice. It mostly works and for big budget sci-fi that is a rarity.

One minor note--if you have an English actor who cannot do an American accent? Don't make them try. Even in a small character it is distracting.

Most of the actors in the film, however, handle it all professionally. No one wows you. No one is really given a chance--not even co-star, Emily Blunt. Blunt is fine but there doesn't seem to be much chemistry here. Who is responsible for missing chemistry? Actors? Directors? Casting? It could be all of the above and others as well but who is responsible doesn't much matter to an audience.

One of the problems Cruise faces as an actor is that he isn't versatile. Lots of decent actors are not versatile but when they become big stars? You see THEM and not their character. It isn't their fault necessarily. Some actors who have never been accused of being fine thespians have overcome this (Clint Eastwood springs to mind). Other, better actors, have lazily fallen into this trap (Johnny Depp springs to mind). Cruise can't really help it. He has a limited range and he is a big star. You see "Tom Cruise" on the screen and it is a tough thing for him to overcome. 

And while this is true here? Cruise manages better than usual. He CAN do it--War of the Worlds showed he could be a sort of frightened "everyman." Maybe it isn't all on the actor but on his directors? I have often wondered if Cruise is better with directors who are "bigger" than him in Hollywood.

But psychoanalyzing Cruise for the purpose of damning or praising him isn't terribly productive. Maybe he and his agent just pick weak scripts. Which is why a film like Edge of Tomorrow may scare off audiences. They remember Oblivion and other failures (and even some near misses) and just don't head out to the theater.

Here he has managed a decent performance in a decent, if not terribly memorable film. If his co-stars had more opportunities it might have improved the movie but it is worth a look if your expectations are not too high.

First of all let us establish this; Godzilla is a Godzilla movie. It is not a film about a young boy coming of age on  small New England farm. It is not the story of a blind boy in Pakistan overcoming his disability and learning to love. It is not Norma Rae. It is not The Sorrow and the Pity.

It is Godzilla.

Now that that is out of the way (it seems to need to be explained to both those who love and don't love the movie--especially a certain type of critic) Godzilla is a movie with more good than bad. It takes a while to get to the monster attacking and smashing part but that is sort of a tradition in this sort of movie. In fact, this movie gets to the monsters much faster than the old school versions.

This movie is also far more coherent than the old monster movies and certainly better paced and constructed than the dubious 1998 remake. The most valid complaints about the movie might be; a) it needed more Brian Cranston b) it needed more Juliette Binoche or c) it needed more Godzilla.

This last complaint might be valid but if you make a movie with monsters fighting for an hour and a half it might get a little repetitive. In this film some instances of fighting are cut of, and action implied. It handles this well--more extended fights are really not necessary.

Is there a lot of plot here? No but if you expected something profound or complicated you probably have never seen a giant monster movie. Most of these movies are incredibly dull with only small bits of cheesy action. You can count the good ones (old or more recent) on one hand. The Japanese Godzilla, Cloverfield and Pacific Rim.

I have a soft spot for all the old Toho Studio films but they have more of a kitsch factor rather than a "good" factor. Sure, the original 1954 Godzilla film was unique and sort of a landmark but the rest of their output was not great filmmaking for anyone over 10 years old. We remember them fondly and they remind us of a time but they are (mostly) not good movies.

This Godzilla isn't really an updating of the genre. It essentially does the same things as the original; it builds to a big conflict through smaller conflicts, it points out the hubris of humanity vis a vis nature and it has a tiny bit of a personal story to weave it all together.
Another thing is that giant monster movies are often downhill once the monster is revealed. Here they avoid that pitfall by giving little reveals right in the credits.

It is not a reinvention but is just a bigger budget version of the old formula. That is a good thing. Giant monster movies deserve big budgets every bit as much as super hero films.

The Amazing Spider Man 2 is another in a long line of decent, recent super hero movies. Yet there is a strange feeling here. Is this a stand alone movie or a set up for a sequel?

I keep writing the same thing about all of the super hero films; hollywood has the formula down via pacing, solid acting and decent (if not spectacular) writing. Likewise as the "franchises" progress there is less need for the often pace-killing that goes alongside back story.  The Amazing Spider Man 2 does all of this.

But the second Spider Man movie deviates from the norm here and there--and it isn't always for the best. Whenever movies like this start delving into the emotional issues of the characters--their relationships and their guilt and angst--they fall down. They may get back UP but there is at least some time spent on the proverbial canvas.  When this emotional exploration happens in Spider Man movies? I cannot say "it doesn't work" but I can say that it doesn't work well.

It is curious because this is where the Sam Raimi Spider Man movies fair (and in the second two of that trilogy they fail far, far more spectacularly). It is ALSO where the comics drag. Paradoxically this is also what makes Spider Man different? His angst isn't that of Bruce Wayne, it is more complicated and nuanced. Maybe this is why it is harder to depict in comic or film? Maybe.

So I equivocate. This complaint is also, in some odd way, what is charming about the movies.

This movie has solid acting but no one is really given a chance to stand out (with one possible exception).  Andrew Garfield is an everyman superhero with wise cracks and pathos mixed together. Emma Stone is her usual reliable self. Jamie Foxx plays both the nerd and the arch villain with skill (even if his character isn't given any real depth). You sort of wish there was more screen time for Paul Giamatti because he only scratches the surface in a handful of scenery chewing scenes.

Dane DeHaan (also good in the surprising Chronicle) shows something in the film; he transcends the material delivering more than just a professional performance. He has a charisma.

Another reason this falls short of some other super hero movies are the city fight scenes. Whenever you see a super hero movie you have to suspend all logic; gods and monsters come alive, men can leap over buildings. The one thing you do need is for regular people to act like regular people. In Amazing Spider Man 2  regular people stand behind barriers and cheer as hero and villain destroy city-blocks. You cannot help but think; why aren't they RUNNING FOR THEIR LIVES.  The fact it happens doesn't matter so much as you are given time to stop and realize it is happening.

Essentially the movie is an entertaining one but it doesn't stand out in the ever expanding pool of super hero movies. There is also a sense that this film is a building to a greater crescendo to come later--Amazing Spider Man 3.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier easily tops its predecessor. There is more drama, there is more action and there are bad guys who are more than just make up. There is even some emotion here--you sort of get to caring about some of these characters. It is somewhat predictable but it is well paced and so doesn't give the audience much time to put two and two together between chases, fights and things blowing up.

This is starting to turn into a "broken record" sort of thing. Every time I write about a comic super hero movie I get into how Hollywood has this all down now.

Sure there was Green Lantern and Iron Man II (made bearable only by the presence of bad guy, Mickey Rourke). But by and large these films are now, at worst, bearable and at best they are solidly entertaining films. Captain America: The Winter Soldier is more in the latter category than the former. It isn't any of the Nolan Batman films nor is it like the first two X-Men movies but it compares favorably to Iron Man I and III (both surprisingly good) and is better than the also surprisingly good Thor movies.

It just works. But why does it work?

There are the usual reasons--the super hero films that work have tight, together scripts. The acting in these films is all top notch. In many films (can you say Robocop?) Samuel L. Jackson seems like someone doing a Samuel L. Jackson impression at a party. Here? He is a character distinct from that perceived persona. No one is allowed to phone it in in this film and no one even seems inclined to. The material is treated with respect even in its ultimately sort of silly when you think about it. 

Perhaps the most important reason this film (and these #2 or #3 super hero films) work is that the heavy lifting of character development and backstory has been done by the earlier movies. One of the things that brings a super hero down is back story--how did they become a super hero? This isn't always deadly to a film but it seems to be the area where films can get bogged down.

An uninteresting bad guy can also bring a film to a screeching halt. Sam Rockwell did it in Iron Man II. In part Rockwell did it because there was another, better, villain in the film and he just seemed mundane. His villain just didn't seem very interesting (he, in fact, seemed like someone imitating Sam Rockwell at a party). If you have more than one villain? They all have to be interesting in their own way. In this film they work--even if they are not terribly surprising. Who plays the villains also counts.

People also just like heroes, good versus evil. And there is very little chance in these films that evil will win. They are not horror movies.  We even like a chance at redemption and also stories of lost love. Captain America: The Winter Soldier offers a little bit of all these. It isn't a great movie but it is an entertaining one. For good or ill it does its part to keep us all interested in the various interconnected Marvel franchise films--for awh

The Raid: Berandal has a pretty high bar set being the sequel to 2011's The Raid: Redemption. While it doesn't quite measure up to the original  that isn't a knock on the new film. Anyone who says it does measure up or is better? They wanted "more plot" in the first  film which pretty much indicates they didn't get the point of the earlier film.

The point was ass whupping. Lots and lots of ass whupping.  There was a building full of bad guys and cops were going in to get them. That was pretty much it. It has about ten minutes of set up and an hour and a half of action.

This second effort starts on the day after the original ends. It has a great deal more set up before a punch is thrown. That isn't a bad thing in an adaptation of an Emily Bronte novel but in this movie? It is a slow start. The film also does a bit of jumping around in time and introduces a slew of characters, tries to develop them yet never really manages to make them, in any way, real. Again? In what is basically a martial arts movie? Not a terrible knock and the movie still does better than most in the genre in this regard (again that high bar set for this sequel).

Here, as in the first movie, what matters most is action and style. The jumbled story and the slew of characters doesn't ruin the movie or make it less enjoyable.  The fights are a little less spectacular but the film never tries to "top itself" or the fantastically over the top "Mad Dog" fight in the first movie. There is a fight in a moving car, in a muddy prison compound, in stylishly decorated hallways,  nightclubs, moving subway cars and more.  Where this movie may top the first is in the style. It has a great visual flair with its multiple locations. In this regard it calls to mind films by Korean director, Park Chan-wook.

Iko Uwais again shows he is an action movie star. He should have Hollywood beating down his door. He isn't going to win an Oscar anytime soon but his action movie chops are down. He has a presence beyond his obvious skill. It isn't just acrobatics.

The film manages--in a different role--to bring back one of the shining villains of the first film, Yayan Ruhian, another Indonesian actor, martial artist and stuntman. His fight in The Raid: Redemption, with Uwais and Donny Alamsyah, may well be the best fight in any martial arts movie, ever. His main fight in this film is also a little less impressive but, again, it can be pretty damned impressive and be less than his main fight scene in the first film. It would have been nice to see more of him in the film (and it would be nice to see him get some lead roles of his own).

One way the film solidly succeeds is in the acting. Many action films--wherever they are made--don't bother with requiring even the most minimal acting skills. This film isn't like that. No one is going to mistake the script for Shakespeare (and it doesn't have to be) so the actors have to be the ones selling it--often with looks and body language as much as words. You have to wonder if the martial artists in the cast are uniquely qualified to "speak" to an audience with body language.

Nothing here is ever cheap or overdone. Even some of the mini side plot points here have an actual purpose. The film is long--it runs just shy of two and a half hours but it never bores even when it sometimes confuses with its plethora of characters. There is a "video game" feel in the movie sometimes. Uwais battles scads of men one after another then there is a "boss battle" with a tougher opponent with unique armament. This is clever--there is a reason why these games appeal.

Fans should also be curious about where the already announced Raid 3 will take this international "franchise."

How good did the remake of Robocop actually have to be? Basically all it had to do was a) be moderately entertaining and b) not be boring. It almost achieves "a" in spots but unfortunately couldn't manage "b."

For  a movie about a cyborg cop this move is maddeningly talky and if anyone can can come up with a plausible reason why Samuel L. Jackson is in this movie it would be great to hear (most likely it is so he can say "motherfucker" at the end). If you excised every moment he is in the movie it would make no difference and it is a LOT of moments. It brings an already slow film to a screeching halt. His segments are so hamfisted in their writing and delivery it is embarrassing.

This said, Robocop may be the best action film released in January or February, 2014. Of course being the "best" of anything released in the first two months of the year is sort of like being the best reggae band in New Jersey.

Some of the good things about the movie include the acting and the fact that they make some effort to update and change the plot. It is nice when a remake isn't just a rehash. As much as they tried to alter the plot they kept some things around, like the criminal kingpin. But in this case that is a side-plot that is disconnected from the rest of the movie. Regardless, it is tough to get beyond boring.

Too much talking will kill any action movie. When you walk into Robocop do you want to see people debating ethics or a faux cable TV news show? No, you do not. You want to see a robot shooting bad guys and maybe some humor. 

Of course, in this film one of the best segments is when Joel Kinnaman's Alex Murphy wakes up to find he is mostly machine. The brief scenes of his psychological turmoil over this information are surprisingly effective. If they hadn't sprung for the exceptional cast this movie  would probably have been unwatchable--Gary Oldman, Michael Keaton, Jackie Earle Haley and pretty much all the smaller roles don't phone in their performances even though the material isn't particularly great.

Also, if they are robots would they spray and pray with their guns? Wouldn't they fire more sparingly? The action sequences in the film are also oddly clipped and anti-climactic. They are poorly staged and run of the mill. Add that to talky and it isn't likely to yield a good result. It isn't awful but it barely hangs on to that least coveted of movie adjectives--mediocre.

Robocop redone is sort of difficult to write about because it is just so middling. Nothing new and not terribly fun, this is a sequel that should have remained in the can.

Lone Survivor is a film you might think risks being a flag waving bit of jingoism. Let's put that to bed right away; it is not that. It doesn't really take a stand on "should we be there?" It comes down squarely against the Taliban but most people on the planet are not fans outside of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

It is also an exciting action film that has something else too--it is a true story and is depicted fairly close to accounts of what happened (the book of the same name).  This also gives the film something totally fictional films do not have--gravitas. You realize, before the film proper even starts that the characters represent real people. What happens to them, or something similar, happened in real life. They had families and friend. It gives the film a different feel. It opens with actual SEAL training and ends with photos of the actual soldiers who perished.

One thing I wish the film had gotten across is that these Navy SEALs are not just bad asses. You have to be smart to do this, you have to have the sort of leadership qualities that, frankly, the world needs. It is tragic when anyone dies in war but it is even worse when men of such promise do. That is, however, not about the film that was made.

The acting is, across the board, solid. The ensemble cast never let you think of them as actors. Of course this is IDEALLY what should happen in every movie. It doesn't. I am not sure anyone stands out in the film, that anyone steal the movie. In a way it is an analogy for the military men they are portraying; they work together.

The film doesn't go into a great deal of backstory--something I talk a lot about because in some movies you need that, in others it is a distraction.  Here you know enough about the men to make them real but not in the depth to make you really care for the character in the movie. Again, in the back of your head you realize these were real men so the characters get mixed up with reality. That makes it compelling so that the snatches of backstory work.

The relationship between the Taliban, Afghani villagers and the U.S. military comes of as a little false here. Perhaps it isn't so much "falseness" but rather the relationship being complicated, perhaps too complicated for a details in this film. Without giving anything away there are interactions, at the end of the film, that seem like they need more explanation. They don't ring true (although they may well be). Yet, it is also true that further details, a few more minutes, likely wouldn't help.

The film isn't Blackhawk Down or Zero Dark 30. It doesn't have the scope of those films. Yet it succeeds in telling this story. It should make you think about the gravity and tragedy of war too, which is always a good thing.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a solid second film in the series. But it may suffer a little from being the middle movie in a trilogy. Those old enough to remember when the second Star Wars film, The Empire Strikes Back was released may remember the sensation.  It was a good movie that ended with something of a letdown (or what seemed to be a letdown). The film seemed, out of the context of the trilogy, to be a little disappointing.

Then, years later, when watched in the context of the trilogy? The film is arguably the best of the three. This may be the fate of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. At the very least the film may seem fuller once surrounded by parts one and three.

The film begins with the victors, home in their district, preparing to go out on a sort of victory tour. President Snow pays Katniss a visit to let her know she better really sell it--or everyone she knows will pay the price. The film shows the moment she finds out she's failed in the same way as the book;  it is a subtle, effective and even a little scary. It happens with a nod.

The film, like the first one, has a fine collection of actors and is a reasonably faithful adaptation of the book. The changes made are not substantial. This is not a Peter Jackson movie that runs gleefully away from its source material cutting and pasting. It isn't identical. Of course the third book is going to be two movies, not one (KA-Ching!). It has worked in the past--the last two Harry Potter movies came from one book. But that was a massive book.

There is little attempt to develop existing characters further in the second film--we know who they all are from the first film. Woody Harrelson's Haymitch and Jennifer Lawrence's Katniss are the same as we left them. The former alcoholic and crafty and the latter brave and conflicted. Some characters get a little more human (Elizabeth Bank's Effie, for instance) but mostly this is status quo.

There are two new characters of note; Finnick, Johanna, Beetee and most notably Plutarch Heavensby, played by Philip Seymour-Hoffman. All these characters are not just important in this movie but have a big part in the two films to come.

The film perhaps drag a bit in the set up, as we see the tour of the victors unfold and then go through the set up for a second Hunger Games--the procession, the interviews and the melee as the games start. It is all a little familiar but it also tracks along fairly close to the book. Parts of what is actually going on are hidden and a second viewing of the movie may--or may not--reveal clues.

This is a good film, not a great one. But it may prove to have a second life with a second look.

The most remarkable thing about both of the Thor movies, and maybe even more about Thor: The Dark World, is that they are not terrible. They are entertaining, well-paced, well-directed action films filled with good acting and relatively coherent stories (even given that there are various monsters firing lasers at Norse gods in the new film.)

They make sense within themselves and that is about as much as you can ask for in a super hero movie. Hollywood seems to have gotten this down--for the most part. They play it basically straight throw in some humor. They never make the mistake of thinking they can make this any of the Batman movies. It is played serious but a great deal lighter than the caped crusader films. It isn't something you will think about after you see it? But you won't be bored watching it.

Seems like faint praise but only to those who do not attend many movies. Being entertaining all the way through is the exception not the rule. Thor has that going through it.

It is difficult to get too deeply into a movie like Thor: The Dark World because there is so little depth to it. There are evil elves who want to destroy everything and make the universe dark. Thor aims to stop this.  This lack of detail, this lack of complication might actually be a strength of the movie. There is very little time spent talking about the goobledeygook science behind the evil elves and the physics of their schem and the less time doing that the better.

Just get the basics to line up and let Chris Hemsworth, Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hiddleston chew some scenery; they do it expertly. Director Alan Taylor has directed a number of episodes of cable television series; Game of Thrones, Nurse Jackie, The Sopranos, Deadwood and even Sex in the City. He knows how to move things along and seems to realize this isn't Shakespeare.

Of course Kenneth Branagh was successful making the first Thor movie by making a film with a Shakesperean feel. It was good for one film but Taylor was wise to move in another direction.

Thor is still in theaters but it won't be the end of the world if you see it on DVD.

If you require a large number of explosions, CGI werewolves or are a HUGE Chris Tucker fan you probably shouldn't go to see All Is Lost. Excluding one, fairly brief, voice over there are a probably less than half a dozen words in the entire film (I recall four). But the plot explains this; it is the story of a man trapped at sea. He spends most of his time talking to a volleyball. Oh...wait...wrong movie.

Robert Redford's sailor doesn't talk to anyone because there is no one there to talk to and there is no contrivance to make him speak. He attends to the task at hand, which is what a person in this situation would do.

If you've seen the preview you know Redford's (and his character is not named) character's boat strikes an errant shipping container. From there he works on fixes and plots courses while battling the elements and plain old bad luck.

One amazing thing about the movie is that it never lags and it manages a sort of low-key tension throughout. Redford never has a real moment of rest, of comfort, as he tries to save himself.  Director, J.C. Chandor, foreshadows some of what is to come in the film at the outset. The audience knows what the man on screen does not. Truthfully you know if you saw the previews but it is artfully done in the movie.

Redford gives a powerful performance that, by definition, has to be understated and restrained. But there are moments that have to be done so delicately--rare moments when the character gives into emotion or, particularly, a point where the character truly believes all is lost. At that moment he is about to do something that truly is giving up and he can barely bring himself to do it. His depiction of this moment and of a man in these straits is outstanding.  It is worthy, at least, of an Oscar nomination (although it would be shocking if he won).

One other thing about Redford--he looks good for a man his age but he looks at least CLOSE to his age. This is something aging leading men (or former leading men) should take a cue from. When you get older and you get Jean-Claude Van Damme-style plastic surgery it really doesn't prolong your career. It just makes you look like an alien.

This film curiously mirrors the recent film, Gravity, also about someone marooned and trying to survive but in a slightly different environment. Gravity is spectacular looking and keeps the back story spare. But it is incredibly detailed compared to the story of All Is Lost. We can glean some details from little clues throughout but we only have what happens on screen to go on--there is no talking, no photos of loved ones and no doomed side-kick. It is all Redford and the sea and curiously that is more than enough.