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.

How good is the new Jon Favreau movie Chef? It made me, a vegetarian from pretty much my entire adult life (20+ years), feel like eating meat. It also made me want to immediately move back to Miami or at least get some tostones.

I recently wrote that if Charlie Chaplin were still alive he'd be making movies like Wes Anderson's The Grand Budapest Hotel. Favreau is what Woody Allen would be doing if he were still alive (ok, he's alive and making good movies but at this point I feel a little "icky" going to see them).

Somehow Favreau shoots meat in a way to make it appealing even to me--and that is no small feat. The film isn't all about "food porn" though; it is a movie about relationships, being true to yourself/your dreams and, as an aside, the power of the internet. More than that, it is a funny film--occasionally bordering on hilarious.

The story is about a chef working for a restaurant with a hidebound menu, a menu that elicits a bad review from a food blogger, sparks a twitter flame war and, ultimately costs the chef, Carl Casper (Favreau) his job. But this loss is the launching point for the film and his character's journey of self exploration.

Chef is full of appearances by actors who appear only briefly--Dustin Hoffman, Robert Downey Jr., Oliver Platt and Scarlett Johansson. All of these fit seamlessly into the movie. So often when films toss in cameos they stick out like sore thumbs but not here--they have a purpose, they move the story forward. Favreau, John Leguizama, Emjay Anthony, Bobby Cannavale and Sofia Vergara get more screen time and do all turn in creditable performances (Cannavale was also in Allen's Blue Jasmine....HMMMMMM).

As noted the comedy is about relationships, specifically that between Casper and his son, Percy (Anthony). Casper doesn't start out as a BAD father, he is just preoccupied with his work and doesn't take into account the little things that alienate kids. He disappoints his son without even realizing it. It is a small, subtle, serious note in an otherwise lighthearted film.

As noted Favreau's films are a slice of life a la Woody Allen.  But unlike Allen the characters here, even though they are sometimes from a wealthy background, seem like humans you could have a conversation with (or a beer).  A funny, touching comedy without a poop joke is a rare thing these days and is to be cherished as well. Plus? A great soundtrack.

Go see Chef.  It is one of those films you will like more and more as you think about it.  I am already wondering what Favreau's next film will be.

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.

Only Lovers Left Alive is a slice of life film, one of those movies that, without a well defined plot, depicts a time in the lives of its characters. Usually such films are about characters you might meet in real life. In this movie? The slice of life depicted is the lives of the undead, of vampires.

One is a world-weary music aficionado, Adam (Tom Hiddleston) and his wife of many centuries. Eve (Tilda Swinton). The roles are cast perfectly in the film. Swinton always seems otherworldly but Hiddleston is the one given the most opportunity to develop a character. He is immortal but he wants to be done with it all. He lives in Detroit, a perfect zombie hide out if there ever was one. Adam is also a music enthusiast. He listens, he collects instruments and he records his own dreary, darkwave-esgue psych rock.

This is a fantasy life for  many musicians; he has no worry about money, he has all the gear he could want and he creates music people trade like it was a drug. The only down side for him is that these same humans (or "zombies" as he names all those with a pulse) seek him out.

But it isn't enough. There is something missing and it is, in part, Swinton but his ennui is due to more than just his beloved being half way around the world.

You may read plot synopses that twist and contort to try an find an actual plot in the film. There is one but it is less important than the mood set, the slice of life (or slice of undeadness) director Jim Jarmusch creates.

Some will walk out  perplexed. The film alludes to many  possible stories and it explores and concludes virtually none of them. It is sort of like most people's lives. Maybe this is a parable about how, even if we lived eternally we would still have the same angst we have as mortals. We would still leave so much unfinished even if we had forever.

It is a thoughtful, slow paced, dark film with a wry sense of humor. There is no hilarity here at any point but a sort of low key irony. John Hurt, Mia Wasikowska and  Anton Yelchin (Mr. Chekov in the new Star Trek films) all add to the film in small roles. Yelchin's Ian is sort of Adam's Renfield in the movie but he doesn't procure virgin blood but vintage guitars. Wasikowska is a  fly in the ointment, Swinton's "sister" who shows up to mess things up.

You want to see more of these characters. You never will. But you can feel free to create the rest of the story on your own. This isn't "typical Jarmusch," if there is such a thing. It is a film that shows a director still growing and changing after decades of work.

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.

Railway Man deals with big issues in a small way. The most obvious of these is the treatment of British prisoners of war held by the Japanese. It also deals with the aftermath, how this mistreatment, the torture, starvation and more continued to haunt the men held in their lives after the war. It is one of the few films to do this.

But it is also a film about redemption--through repentance, through hard work and through love.

The film dodges several mistakes that might have muddled it. It does not spend a ton of time on side characters--and especially not on their background stories. It focuses on the character played by Colin Firth and Jeremy Irvine, Eric. He is a radioman (and we find out, a Railway enthusiast) taken by the Japanese after the surrender of Singapore. The soldiers are then held in deplorable conditions. But this isn't where the movie spends most of his time. 

It is mostly concerned with Eric years later, after he meets a woman and seemingly finds happiness--decades later.  Nicole Kidman plays Patti in an understated role that reminds (again after her performance in Stoker) what a fine actress she is.

The war intrudes on Eric's happiness--even more so when he is told that one of his tormenters Takeshi Nagase (played by Hiroyuki Sanada and Tanroh Ishida) has been found--giving tours of the very railway where the British prisoners toiled and died.

What will Eric do?

This is the basis for the movie. Railway Man is not a film about geo-political aspects of war or about crimes against humanity in a broad sense. It is about the men involved and how they react. It is about Eric and his relationship with his wife vis a vis his experiences in the war. It is a small movie about a man who is trying to put the past behind him and live his life.

There are parts of the film that are designed to make you angry. But ultimately these merely serve to show that what is needed isn't anger but humanity, empathy and forgiveness. A small film, not one that will make much noise, get much notice or win piles of awards but it is moving, well-paced, beautifully shot and filled with excellent acting, even in small roles.

Under the Skin is a creepy film from beginning to end. Part of the reason for this is that, as a heterosexual male, it is easy to imagine yourself going pretty much anywhere with Scarlett Johansson. In this film you learn that it really is what's under the skin that counts.

In one way this film is heir to to the "they are among us" films of the 1950s. At some points I thought "Jodorowsky."  But mostly I just wondered where the film was going. Ultimately it becomes a movie about someone pretending to be something they are not--and coming to identify with that something. She is an alien who starts to "go native."

Johansson drives around, picking up men--some wary, some eager, and taking them with her in her van.  But over the span of the film she also seems to develop empathy with humans--an even more so with her own human form.

Director Jonathan Glazer was at the wheel for the excellent, Sexy Beast. He also worked extensively with English bands Massive Attack and Radiohead. Remember the video for Karma Police? He did it.

He hasn't done a ton of feature films (this is his third). It is to be hoped he will be at the helm again--and soon. This is a unique and thoughtful film and it there are so few like it that make it to theaters. The special effects are minimal and effective showing you need not break the bank in Sci-Fi.

In fact, some of the "special effects" sequences in the film are what really bring home the creepiness of the movie. We barely meet the men and yet we can feel for them because of these parts of the film (trying very hard not to give too much away here).

The Jodorowsky reference relates to a couple of these segments but as soon as these end you are snapped back to a rather mundane reality--something almost neo-realist. The non-alien segments of the film could be something about working people of Scotland.

Another interesting thing about the movie is that the men lured into the van were allegedly not actors but were shot on hidden cameras and only told they were in a film afterward.  It seems a risky way to make a movie--and reinforces the creepiness. Can you imagine if a director did this with the genders reversed?

These sort of creative takes on filmmaking are welcome even in films that do not succeed. Experimentation in how to make movies and what are movies are essential to move the art of filmmaking along. This film does it and succeeds in making a good and provocative film. Again, let's see more from Glazer, and soon.

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."

Noah starts with some promise. Never is this promise related to its adherence to the story's Biblical origin. In fact, the promise resides wholly in how much it initially resembles films based on myths (or fictional but mythic charcters). Clash of the Titans or Conan the Barbarian spring to mind readily.
The film never leaps feet first into this territory but it does seriously flirt with it.

And it is a shame it didn't do more than flirt.

The Noah story, and many other Bible stories could be readily rendered in this way. The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston has this sort of feel, is relatively close to the Biblical version and also stands the test of time. Unfortunately Noah doesn't keep on this path but veers off into familiar Hollywood territory. There is a "bad guy" that is very Conan-esque but that is also one dimensional and unnecessary.

There is even a Hollywood-style half-assed environmental message! The bad guys are into strip mining and Noah's family are vegetarians! One of Hollywood's worst neo-cliches is positioning  EVERYTHING as some "environmentalist" versus "despoilers of creation" dichotomy. It is cheap. Keep in mind I am not a fan of strip mining and am all for vegetarianism. I am not for ham-fisted phoney baloney use of these topics that trivializes them.

Noah is ultimately a trivial film though.

It draws no profound conclusion from the events and even seems fearful of being "too religious" as if anyone hostile to the notion of religion is going to see a movie called "Noah." If you are going to make this movie, grow a pair and believe the story. You don't have to LITERALLY believe it but believe it like you'd "believe"in Harry Potter if you were shooting one of the J.K. Rowling books.

The performances are not bad. Russell Crowe and Jennifer Connelly give it their all. Crowe in particularly does the best with what he has to work with. Anthony Hopkins even turns in a rare non-scenery chewing performance (a rarity in recent efforts from the great actor).

Another issue with the film is that, once on the Arc, it slows to a painful crawl and even turns Noah into something akin to a family annihilator. He runs around with a knife ready to murder babies for God. Don't recall THAT in Genesis (at least not in THIS Genesis story). Somehow this is even dull because you know it isn't going to happen. It does lead to great deal of screeching, however.

The film has its visual moments and isn't, in any way, terrible. It may even be better than people anticipate. It just is one of those films that holds promise before an audience and then repeatedly snatches it away.