Over the last 14 years, there has been an amazing resurgence of superhero movies in cinema. However, what most fanboys of Spider-Man, Batman, and the Avengers will never admit is that it is because of the commercial and critical success of the X-Men franchise that all these others even exist. And yet, Wolverine, Magneto, and Professor Xavier have seem to have gotten the short end of the superhero stick lately; there hasn't been a major entry in the franchise in 8 years, and there are now so many competitors in the market eager to snag a piece of the now fat superhero pie that the X-Men tend to get overlooked.

Fortunately, X-Men: Days of Future Past looks set to change all of this. It is a sequel to both the original trilogy of films and its prequel X-Men: First Class, using time travel in order to utilize both casts and continue the story of each.  It is rumored to be one of the most expensive films ever produced, and sees the return of original director Peter Singer. I am crossing my fingers that this film will be the one that lets the X-Men reclaim their roles as the definitive cinema superheroes. So on the eve of X-Men’s next leap into the future, now seems like a good time to look back and reflect upon where the franchise tread in the past.

*And by the way, MAJOR SPOILERS for some of the past films follow. You have been warned.*

Alright, let’s just get this out of the way first by saying that this was definitely the least good out of all the X-Men films. Telling the tale of (you guessed it) Logan’s origin and how he became the Wolverine, this film disappointed fans by showing us an origin story that made us think “Wait, that’s not as cool as we thought it would be…” Frankly, the hints of his origins in the main trilogy were more compelling than the actual movie about it. This film was somehow able to make Wolverine less interesting.

Beyond that, the film falls flat by relying on a whole new cast of characters. While this in and of itself wouldn’t be a bad thing (although seeing will.i.am as a mutant is still a bit odd), it completely fails to make us care about these characters. While the villains in the previous movies were interesting, fleshed-out, and had compelling reasons behind their actions, these bad guys just seem like psychopaths with no reason for any of their actions. Plus, it’s difficult to care about what happens to characters who only get about 10 minutes of screen-time before they get brutally murdered.

Add to that the notoriously sub-par special-effects and you get a generic action movie out of what could have been a really cool origin story for one of the coolest superheroes. Although, you may have noticed earlier when I said this movie was the “least good” of the franchise. I hesitate to call it bad, as it can still be thoroughly enjoyed as long as all you expect out of it is Hugh Jackman running around, blowing things up, and stabbing people in the face. Just don’t think you’re watching an X-Men film.

Out of the films of the original trilogy, the closer is definitely the weakest (please pardon me while I gripe for a couple of paragraphs). Virtually all of its problems are the fault of the writing and the plot. One of the most egregious examples is that Cyclops was killed off about 15 minutes into the movie; between that and his much-diminished role in the previous film, he is one of the most under-utilized characters in the franchise. On top of that, this film fell to the same trap that Origins: Wolverine did with the way that Jean Grey’s transformation into the Phoenix was hinted at in the previous movie being much more interesting than the plot of it actually happening (although Famke Janssen did a great job with the sub-par writing she was given). But the worst of all is that the end of the film reveals that the hated “mutant cure” that drove the plot of the entire movie was only temporarily effective, making the entire story completely pointless.

Much of this can likely be attributed to the director. While Bryan Singer was at the helm of the first two installments, scheduling conflicts prevented him from continuing with the franchise. So instead, Brett Ratner was hired, whose primary experience was the Rush Hour series. Predictably, Last Stand’s plot focused far more on action and explosions than on the drama, character development, and social commentary that made Singer’s films so good. Combined with a sadly lacking script, it’s no wonder this turned out to be one of the weaker links in the franchise, and its less-than-expected box office revenue prevented another major installment in the series for years afterwards.

All that being said, this is also not a bad movie. While having a particularly weak plot and lacking character and heart compared to the better installments of the series, X-Men: The Last Stand is still an entertaining superhero action movie. That puts it at least on par with anything Marvel has released recently. With any luck, Bryan Singer’s return in Days of Future Past will resurrect the charm and soul that this one was sadly lacking (and be a better resurrection than Jean Grey’s, hopefully).

The only one of the spin-off films that does not act as a prequel, The Wolverine picks up 6 or 7 years after The Last Stand. After Jean Grey’s death, Logan has left the X-Men and is living a lonely life out in the Canadian wilderness. All he wants is to be left alone, but he is found by a mysterious Japanese girl named Yukio. She persuades him to come to Tokyo to see her employer Mr. Yashida: a man Logan met in the Second World War. Logan quickly gets swept up in their problems while also being haunted by his memories of Jean Grey.

This film is the second attempt at a Wolverine stand-alone film, and is much better than the previous attempt. There are two keys to this, the first being the portrayal of Logan shown in this film. While previous films showed him as an awesome, bad-ass mutant taking names and kicking ass, this film shows a man haunted by his memories and what he has lost. At the start of the film, Logan denounced the X-Men and his life as a soldier. He gave up fighting and bloodshed, and when he is forced to fight again you can see how troubled and reluctant he is to do so. He is also tormented by his memories of Jean Grey, who appears to him in visions throughout the film as a personification of his doubt and regret. Logan coming to terms with his guilt over Jean’s death is a major mark of his character development and helps to advance him beyond the image of the killing machine he developed in the previous films. Instead of playing a cool character, Hugh Jackman plays a broken one, showing a side of Logan we have never seen before and giving back the soul he lost in his previous solo film.

The second reason this film succeeds is the way that the plotline was moved to Japan without making it into a gimmick. Too often, a film franchise will place the plot of one of their films in a foreign country in order to make it exotic and interesting without actually using that setting as anything more than a different backdrop. However, The Wolverine does not do this. The film actually went out of its way to make all the cast (bar two) actually Japanese, and much of the dialogue is in Japanese with English subtitles. Further, while they do use the standard tropes associated with Japan such as ninja and samurai, they actually fit into the film and feel relevant rather than cheesy. Although the last part of the movie is pretty much just generic action, the setting change is actually interesting, relevant, and adds meat to what could have been just another generic action film. Between that and showing a compelling side to Logan, The Wolverine is basically everything that Origins: Wolverine should have been but wasn't.

A prequel to the series taking place in 1962, X-Men: First Class acts as an origin story for both Magneto and Professor Xavier (and by extension the X-Men as a whole). However, unlike Wolverine’s origin story, this film wildly succeeds to showing an interesting, compelling, and emotionally fleshed-out background to both characters. This was the film that was able to breathe fresh life into the franchise after the lackluster performance of the two previous films.

Out of all the X-Men spin-off films, this is the one that feels most like an X-Men film. Having a team of mutants complete with slightly goofy spandex costumes is key, because instead of feeling like a generic action movie, it actually feels like an X-Men movie. Even better, this film returns to the social commentary about intolerance and discrimination that made the earlier movies so compelling and relevant, complete with an extended version of the Nazi concentration camp scene from the original film that beautifully (or horribly, rather) shows the moment of awakening of Erik’s powers.

Here's what we're going to do. I'm going to count to three... and you're going to move the coin.

In addition, this movie has one of the best casts of all the films. James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender play young Xavier and Lehnsherr respectively, and they both do an absolutely stunning job. McAvoy wonderfully shows how Xavier slowly transitions from a carefree university student into the serious leader he will later become.

Charles Xavier: You have a chance to become a part of something much bigger than yourself!

And Fassbender superbly shows how the tragic events that Lehnsherr went through as a child compared to Charles created incompatible world views between them, and how this led them to oppose each other as they walk different paths.

Charles Xavier: Erik, you said yourself, we're the better man. This is the time to prove it. There are thousands of men on those ships - good, honest, innocent men! They're just following orders-
Erik Lehnsherr: I've been at the mercy of men "just following orders". Never again.

Between the two of them and Jennifer Lawrence, who plays a much younger and more innocent Mystique, X-Men: First Class acts as a superb prequel to the original trilogy, and shows just how good superhero origin stories can be when they are done right.

Plus, this movie contains one the greatest cameos in cinematic history.

Released in 2000, this was the movie that almost single-handedly saved the superhero movie from extinction. After the disaster of 1987’s Superman IV: The Quest for Peace and 1997’s equally bad Batman and Robin (mockingly referred to as Batman on Ice), the superhero looked set to die a painful death on modern movie screens. And yet, 20th Century Fox took a chance and commissioned a film adaption of the X-Men comic book series. The result was a resounding success.

With its dark and realistic tone, serious acting chops (Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Famke Jansenn, Patrick Stewart, and Ian McKellen), and underlying themes of prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination, X-Men not only saved its fellow superheroes from cinematic oblivion, but it was also the very first time that a movie of its kind was actually taken seriously by mainstream cinema. I’ll give you a hint of exactly when that happened… it started with a scene in a Nazi concentration camp…

It is because of this that X-Men is one of the relatively few superhero film franchises that I enjoy. It uses its heroes and costumes and powers to talk about real issues affecting our world, grounding its fantasy in concrete reality and using it to say something relevant, as all good fantasy fiction does. It is not a mindless summer blockbuster (see Origins: Wolverine and The Last Stand, above), relying solely on fights and thrills to keep the audience entertained (although this film does have those in abundance). I think I can safely say that X-Men is the only superhero film franchise with a relevant and important overarching theme, and this is the film that started it all.

Out of all the X-Men films, this is the one that brought the series to its high-mark. Striking a perfect balance of action, character development, a compelling plot, and social commentary, X2 has all of the things that make the X-Men series so great and stands toe-to-toe with the best of all the other superhero franchises.

The part of these films that I like the most is the social commentary and use of mutation as an allegory for every human trait that makes one an outcast or a minority. This is the film where these allegories have the most relevance, as the villain (Colonel William Stryker) is a man who wants to identify and eliminate every single mutant on the planet. While the villains of the other films have some redeeming characteristics, Stryker actually wants to commit genocide. However, rather than making him a flat caricature without any depth, the film actually portrays him as a full character, despite his absolutely abhorrent actions.

Not only that, but director Bryan Singer (an openly gay man) went out of his way to use the social commentary as a story-telling device. One of my favorite scenes has the young mutant Bobby “Iceman” Drake “come out” to his family about being a mutant. The response was close to home for many people:

Mrs. Drake: Bobby, have you tried... not being a mutant?

Later in the film, the two characters Mystique and Nightcrawler are discussing how their respective powers and appearance made them outcasts among ordinary human society, and we get this gem:

Nightcrawler: Then why not stay in disguise all the time? You know— look like everyone else?

Mystique: Because we shouldn't have to.

This is what makes these films so great. As cool as action and superpowers and heroes and villains are, they really don’t mean anything if they are merely mindless entertainment. This is a trap that many superhero films fall into. Meaning creates the line separating fun summer blockbusters from real cinema. Using fantasy as a tool to tell a story about the real world paradoxically makes the best fantasy, and X-Men takes the cake at that. What could have become just another series of mindless action movies has become a story about outcasts, fitting in, prejudice, and being who we are. It just goes to show that mutants are just as human as the rest of us.

Let me be crystal clear on one point before slicing into my review of Chef. You should not… I repeat... should NOT see this movie on an empty stomach. I was warned of this in the one trailer I saw for the film, and I did not heed the warning. Oh God why did I not heed!? Watching as Favreau and other characters diced, sautéed, broiled, fried, mixed, garnished and consumed various mouth-watering and delicious looking dishes throughout the film was simultaneously glorious and torturous. After exiting the film I bolted across the street to Chipotle, hopped the line and proceeded to feast on everything as bewildered employees and customers looked on. Ye be warned, dear readers.

I’m a fan of Jon Favreau. Iron Man, Elf, Zathura and Made were all great movies. His last couple of efforts, Iron Man 2 and Cowboys & Aliens, weren’t bad adventures but left something to be desired. Cowboys & Aliens, in particular, received quite the cold reception from moviegoers and critics upon its release. I happily report Favreau’s latest effort is a return to form for the director.

In what may be a veiled representation of Favreau’s own recent career path, his character Carl Casper is a celebrated chef at an upscale LA restaurant who is convinced to play it safe when a famous food critic visits. The review does not go so well. After trying to take back control of the kitchen, Carl is fired and goes back to his creative roots by starting a food truck. He must try to balance work with being a good father.

Having written, produced, directed and starred in this film, Favreau cooks up a very well balanced and paced feature. The dramatic and comedic aspects both have a strong presence, but neither is ever overwhelming or conflicting. This is made possible by a wonderful supporting cast. John Leguizamo, Emjay Anthony, Sofia Vergara and Scarlett Johansson create strong characters in support of Favreau who truly feels like a man who loves his work. Watching him wrestle with figuring out how to be a good father while continuing to do what he loves really helps carry the film from start to finish. Interestingly, social media becomes a central plot point that drives much of the action, showing how much influence it can have in a person’s career. The film seems to celebrate the connections today’s social media makes possible, with no hint of cynicism, as is often popular.

Chef is a movie about celebration. It celebrates connection, integrity, friendship, family and food. Especially food, oh man. The cooking scenes are elaborate, impressive, beautifully shot, and are never without reason. Just as social media is the newest way to form connections, food is one of the oldest. Pairing these together and using them to help tell the story of a man reestablishing his place in the world and his son’s life is very successful. My compliments to the Chef.

Grade: A-

MINOR/MEDIUM SPOILERS FOLLOW

It’s story time, dear readers. Many winters ago, in a faraway land called Ludlow, Massachusetts, lived a pale, spritely lad named Mike Muse. This freckled youth bonded with his best mate over a mutual love for the Toho Godzilla franchise. Fast forward 15 years and these two friends, now ruggedly handsome, uncomfortably attractive burly men, are shaking with excitement like little girls, their voices in a far higher octave than normal, as the theater lights dim and the screen comes alive to show Gareth Edward’s new take on Godzilla. I preface my review with this personal tale so that you know that however objective I tried to be, I am no doubt in some way subconsciously biased toward this film/franchise. Or… perhaps more qualified? In any case, I’m here to tell you that Godzilla (2014) is awesome. It embodies that over-used descriptor better than anything in recent memory.

That doesn’t mean I don’t have a few gripes with this new iteration, but I did walk away with an utter sense of satisfaction. Godzilla follows the story of Ford Brody, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson, an explosive ordinance disposal specialist for the navy as he travels to Japan to bail his father out of some trouble, played by the magnificent Bryan Cranston. When enormous creatures start to wreak havoc on the world, Ford struggles to make it back to his family in San Francisco.

As has always been the case with the Godzilla franchise, and movies like it, it is very difficult to create a human story that is as interesting as the events happening around them. Godzilla isn’t concerned with anything as small as one human, so how do you tie a few characters story with that of the big green guy himself? Gareth Edwards is more successful in this endeavor than not, but isn’t able to completely weave the two together without it feeling slightly disjointed. Aaron Taylor-Johnson is a serviceable lead, doing what he needs to do when he needs to do it, but felt a little stiff. He is never unlikable though. Elizabeth Olsen is very talented, but isn’t given a lot to do here as Johnson’s wife. Bryan Cranston is the shining radioactive gem of the cast, and it is his character that proves to be the most interesting. Ultimately, for a blockbuster like this, all that matters is that the story between the action sequences is engaging enough to tide you over, and it most certainly is here.

One aspect of the film that is bound to be divisive is the pacing. Some viewers may not be so happy with the amount of screen time the titular monster gets in the first two acts. There is a lot of teasing and build-up, which ends up being very true to form for the Godzilla franchise. However you may feel about the amount of build-up, though, one thing we will all agree on is that the payoff is ridiculously worth it. Once the big guy is on full display in the final act, we see a lot of him, and I can’t emphasize enough how awesome it is. Sorry, there’s that word again. It’s just so fitting.

From a filmmaking and technical viewpoint, this film is astounding. The visual effects are absolutely top notch throughout. The creature designs are well thought out and the destruction is realistic and glorious, as well as feeling deserved. It doesn’t feel like destruction for destruction’s sake, which was a problem I had with, say, Man of Steel. Perhaps the greatest success is the sense of scale. Edwards employs a plethora of clever and intelligent cinematic tricks to relay to the viewer just how big these creatures are. One cannot help but be in awe. When things aren’t exploding, Edwards uses strong colors and interesting camera movement to add some style to the quieter moments. Your eyes will never be bored or overwhelmed. As far as the 3D goes, it is obvious this film was not made with it in mind (which is great in my opinion). It isn’t bad, but it doesn’t really add anything to what you’re seeing. Save your money and see it in 2D.

Whether you’re a longtime fan of the Godzilla series like me, or someone who actually went outside and talked to people, I’ll be damned if you don’t walk out of the theater with the goofiest and giddiest grin on your face. Though the middle of the film may lull a little, the strong opening and closing acts help create a truly satisfying cinematic adventure. It doesn’t hurt there are a lot of sly nods to the films that came before, which I couldn’t help but smile knowingly at when I caught them. Almost no film has had a better sense of massive action. Those of you with a history of heart problems might want to steer clear of this one. Everyone else? Go see it. You won’t be disappointed.

Grade: A-

Whether you love or hate Manakamana, it’s a struggle to get through. It’s not a struggle because it’s violent or confronts challenging notions; it’s just dreadfully boring. Seriously, seriously boring. The experimental conceit of the film is that a still camera sits in a cable car that travels up and down the Nepal Valley, to and from the popular Hindu temple of Manakamana: the wish fulfilling goddess. Each cable car ride is ten minutes long. The film is literally a series of about a dozen ten minute rides. As the sequences unfold, it feels like they filmed a random dozen riders, but directors Spray and Velez carefully choose each selection after filming in the cable car for a year. Someone literally sat in the cable car and filmed each time, there was no hidden camera.

Unfortunately, I was not one that loved the film. I wasn’t surprised to find out that the camera was visibly in the car on the other side of the subjects because I could sense the characters feeling the presence of a camera opposite them. Some particularly extroverted characters chatted with one another without altering their behavior. However, some such as a young boy in the very first ride were clearly aware and perhaps nervous about the presence of the camera. I didn’t feel placed in the reality of this situation, so I was unable to disappear into it. To be clear, it definitely succeeds to a large degree at conveying the notion of simply being on a cable car watching typical travelers pass through, however getting off to a bad start with the camera-aware boy threw me for the rest of the experience.

This film had its world premiere in Locarno, where it won the Golden Leopard for Special Jury Prize in Filmmakers of the Present, Special Mention for Best First Feature Film, and Independent International Film Critics’ Award for Best First Feature. It went on to tremendous acclaim from top film critics as well, being a New York Times Critics’ Pick, and getting positive mentions from Film Comment, the New Yorker, Village Voice and Indiewire. In some moments, I could sense the brilliance that they see in the film. One example is viewing each rider’s unique reaction to a loud noise about halfway through the ride. Some ride along without noticing the mundane occurrence, while others jump in fear. It’s hard to say why this is slightly remarkable to behold, but each person’s unique response reveals his or her humanity. Spray and Velez combined this structure with a set of characters that create a broad snapshot of society. They include introverts and extroverts, with some rides silent and others among chatty friends, old and young, including teenagers constantly taking selfies, and human and animal with one ride being a handful of goats. We see these and other types of beings wander in and out of this spiritual temple, some leaving it profoundly impacted, others bored and disinterested. Perhaps the experience of the film is the same; a good sampling seem to have left it with a spiritual awakening. I was more like the teenagers, ready to move on to something else.

Grade:  B/B-

If you’re like me, then your favorite part of Girls is watching Ray be sad—well good news, that’s this entire film! Alex Karpovsky (Alex Karpovsky) goes on a film tour after his girlfriend of 4-and-a-half years breaks up with him. He travels through the American South with his film Birdwatching, a story of second chances and finding a bird thought to be extinct. He recruits his friend Henry (Onur Tukel) to come along and keep him company (although he wasn’t the first call). Henry is an illustrator trying to get his children’s book published. Alex soon sleeps with River (Jennifer Prediger), who then follows him to the next stop on the tour. When he tries to let her down, Henry convinces him that they should all go out for a drink. River and Henry end up falling for each other, and Alex is left to tour with an old friend and a girl he had a one night stand with while trying to get his girlfriend back and get his life together. 

This film is basically all angst; therefore, I loved it! Alex Karpovsky writes, directs and stars in this film.. He’s  a filmmaker completely lost in life. His mother yells at him after his girlfriend breaks up with him because he should’ve proposed to her by now. He looks for friends to join him on tour and all of them turn him down because they have things going on in their own lives. When eventually his college friend Henry signs on for the tour, we find out how much they’ve drifted; in one of their first scenes together, Henry asks Alex if he read the manuscript he sent him for the children’s book he’s writing—he had not. Alex, much like Ray, is all about staying true to his artistic vision, and he chastises Henry for giving up his artistic vision to get the book published. Ironically, it seems as if Alex has no real vision of his own in life. He makes references to the person he wants to become, but he makes almost no effort to become that person. He seems to know exactly what other people’s (and his own) flaws are but he has no idea how to go about fixing them.

Second chances are a central theme in this film. Alex (the character) is touring to promote his film about finding a bird that was thought to be extinct, thus giving the species a second chances to thrive and lawmakers a second chance to protect its habitat to prevent the bird’s extinction. Similarly, Alex wants a second chance at his relationship. When he’s not at screenings, he spends his time trying to come up with a script to explain to his ex how he’s changed and why she should come back to him. While he obviously hasn’t changed in any significant way in the week since they broke up, he tries to convince her, and himself, that he has. He gets so wrapped up in his ex, never even telling Henry that they’ve broken up, that he misses out on so many opportunities while on tour. First, he meets a fan of his, River, and sleeps with her thinking he can just walk away the next morning. Then, he has the chance to reconnect with Henry. Obviously, by agreeing to come on the trip, Henry is more than willing to try and rediscover the friendship they had in college, but Alex sees him as somewhat of a burden, though at least he appreciates having someone to distract him from his troubles. When River reappears, Henry falls for her, and Alex becomes stuck in a strange form of purgatory where he’s surrounded by people he doesn’t care for all because of his own behavior. Had he taken the time to get to know River, he may have fallen for her. For someone so interested in second chances, he seems to miss a lot of the obvious ones that present themselves, preferring to force his ex into giving him another chance.

The film builds a really funny atmosphere despite being as dark as it is. Alex is continuously pushed lower and lower, each time a little funnier than the last. There’s just something very funny about watching his life get worse as a result of all of his bad choices. It’s not like he’s a drug addict and that ruins his life, it’s more that he’s just kind of a dick to other people and that comes around to hurt him over and over again. A running joke involves him repeatedly being denied requests to check out of his hotel late, and it perfectly represents his life at that point. He continuously hopes that there can be exceptions to the rules that will benefit him, but there never are. He always needs just a little more time to do what he wants to do and become who he wants to be. Again, like in Girls, the unfair world just won’t make exceptions even for sad, whiney, entitled people.

I really enjoyed the film, although at times I felt myself losing interest. Like a lot of recent indie films (Tiny Furniture and Frances Ha come to mind), Red Flag seems to exist as a diary for a filmmaker who wants to complain about life but has no real hardships. I personally find this idea relatable, but also understand that it can come off as whiney and annoying to many others.  I really enjoy Alex Karpovsky’s take on millennials, which takes a darker look into the generation than Lena Dunham but still manages to find humor in the situations. I look forward to seeing more of his work in the future.

Grade: B+
Length: 83 minutes

Jonathan Salemi’s new 17-minute short film, Chasing the Past, was screened on April 14th at this year’s Boston International Film Festival and won Best Cinematography for short films. This is Salemi’s second film in the festival and second award. In 2010, Salemi’s short Sidewalk Symphony won the Indie Soul Special Recognition Award.

Chasing the Past is more dramatic than Sidewalk Symphony. A distraught man (Adam Marcinowski), whose fiancé (Ceri Bethan) passed away, discovers a female self-proclaimed time traveler (Alycia Grant) in the desert. Both actors deliver notably compelling performances. I wouldn’t want to give anything away, but when I spoke to Salemi about the film; he said the ending was influenced by the German film Faust (1926). It took seven days to film and he spent a year in postproduction.

Time travel is very difficult to approach when telling stories. Traditionally I find that filmmakers choose one of two ways to approach this element; some attempt to get very technical, giving logic or reason to the time travel, as in Donnie Darko (2001), and others try to convey time travel as an accepted fact and move on, as in Terminator (1984). I liked Donnie Darko, but I prefer not to dwell on the logistics of time travel unless it’s the heart of the movie. In this case, it was not, and I like that Salemi did not dive in and try to justify it or get into the details. Doing so could take away from the effect of the story.     Overall Chasing the Past is one of the better short films I have seen in a while. If you get a chance, see it. Between the award-winning cinematography, by Josh Fritts and the exciting, unpredictable plot ending, it is worth the watch.

Jonathan Salemi is from Revere, Massachusetts. Some of his other films have been broadcast on PBS and DirectTV. Chasing the Past will screen at the New Jersey International Film Festival on May 30th, 2014.

Beneath the Harvest Sky takes a unique setting and stuffs it with drama that seems a little too familiar.  Starring Emory Cohen (The Place Beyond the Pines) as Casper, Harvest Sky takes us through the fall potato harvest season, undoubtedly the biggest time of the year for a town such as Van Buren, ME.

If “drugs” could be a main character, Harvest Sky nails it; the story revolves around drug trading across the Canadian border with nearly every scene featuring a pill or powder. To be fair, it’s not too far from the sad truth. Maine leads the nation in prescription drug abuse, and is a setting not too often seen on the big screen.

Casper and Dom (Callan McAuliffe) are best friends in their late years of high school. The two are opposites. Dom is the “good” boy, desperate to get the hell out of Dodge and start a new life in Boston. Casper seems to embody a self-fulfilling prophecy by falling into tough-guy spots and ultimately taking bad path after bad path.

Unfortunately we’re stuck with Casper and drugs for the whole film. He’s terribly unlikeable, and it’s a real shame that every glimpse of a shining light cast upon him is immediately shut down by powers outside his control. Dom and the surrounding town prove that the most clichéd drama can happen anywhere, save for a stellar performance from Aiden Gillen (“Game of Thrones”, “The Wire”) as Clayton, Casper’s drug-dealing father.

Yet, just as we get sick of the played out drama, the film takes a turn in the final act, ramping up energy we never knew it had, finally bringing us something of substance. The end is a little out of left field and might leave you scratching your head, but somehow still manages to fall in line with its predictable plot points. 

The camerawork is a nice touch. Cinematographer Steve Calitri is on point with shaky cam – nothing overbearing – and Maine’s natural landscapes are beautiful enough to keep watching.  Just don’t expect anything lifechanging.

Grade: C

So, I will start this by saying that I am a huge Seth Rogen/Evan Goldberg fan, and I love 99% of everything that comes out of their incredibly smart and hilarious minds. Therefore, you can imagine my excitement for their newest project, Neighbors, directed by Nicholas Stoller. Neighbors depicts the story of Mac and Kelly Radner, a young family with an adorable baby named Stella, who live in a college town. A fraternity moves in next door, and, after a broken promise, an all-out feud ensues between the two parties.

As viewers have come to expect from the filmmakers behind the project, the movie was indeed hilarious. The laughs abound all the way through, and there is, refreshingly, no one token dramatic scene that kind of brings you out of the humor of the movie. The casting was spot-on: forget what you know about him, Zac Efron was raunchy and completely right as frat president Teddy Sanders, and Dave Franco gave a great performance (as always) as frat vice-president Pete. Rogen and Byrne were so unbearably hilarious and had great chemistry, and even Ike Barinholtz and Craig Roberts shined in smaller roles. Speaking of smaller roles, I especially loved all the great cameos in the film: there are some unexpected treats from other frat boys of comedy, so to speak, and each one made me oh, so happy. Oh, and even the baby, played by twins Elise and Zoey Vargas, was great! The jokes definitely toed around and took great leaps over the proverbial line (the trailer reveals the baby mouthing a used condom, and that's just as horrific and gut-wrenching and disturbingly funny as you think it would be), and Stoller didn't hold back from anything inappropriate and horrible as long as it was funny (and it all is!, including maybe the least offensive use of the n-word by a white guy ever...), but that's just my kind of humor (although I personally thought there weren't as many dick jokes as promised and wanted more; I wonder what that says about me...). I loved it, and the guffaws from the rest of the audience seemed to indicate love, too.

Despite all my love, I do feel that the film suffered from sloppy storytelling: the story events escalated really quickly, didn't always feel totally warranted, and the story as a whole felt rushed. It moved at an aggressively fast pace, lean and mean, but not necessarily beneficial for story content and development. As a viewer, you were along for the wild and crazy, bombastic ride, and you very quickly ended up in places that you didn't see coming. But instead of feeling  unexpected and fresh, it felt like the story and characters weren’t ready to be in that place yet. Also, we didn't spend a lot of time with the characters. There was a bit of smart character work/development, especially in the lovely meatiness of Byrne's role (aka, a female role that would often not receive much focus in some of these guys’ other films), but not enough of it; I wanted to know some of the main characters better (especially the frat guys), to spend more time with them. I was missing some character connection.

But whatever. The movie is definitely hilarious, lewd, uproariously stupid, and filled with filth: it delivers what you expect from a Rogen/Goldberg movie, and ups the ante for a Stoller film. Go see Neighbors; you'll have a raucously fun time and won't regret it.

Rating: B+/A-

I went in to this movie with high expectations, and Amma Asante did not disappoint. Set in the late 1700s and based on a true story, Belle tells the story of Dido, a young girl of mixed race who is sent to live with the privileged family of her birth father after her “mulatto” mother dies. In a society where her linage leaves her stranded in the middle of two classes, Dido leads a confusing life. She has certain privileges due to her father’s wealth and social status, yet her skin, reflecting some of her mother’s darker tone, restricts her from being completely part of high society. This only gets more complicated when Dido’s father leaves her a considerable dowry, making her a “good match” yet still not putting her on par societally with her peers. Social rank and reputation are in flux, and race is always in the back of your mind.

This film is not only about one girl. It is a glimpse into the issue of slavery in 18th century England; the head of Dido’s family is a justice of the Head Court of England and is dealing with a crucial case regarding treatment of slaves. Not only did the result of this case shape the future of England, but it plays a major part in Dido’s relationship with her uncle.

I was blown away by Gugu Mbatha-Raw’s powerful portrayal of Dido. Her frustration and hopelessness is brilliantly shown in a haunting scene where Dido pulls and beats at her skin, wishing there was a way to change. Tom Wilkinson also gives an excellent performance as Lord Mansfield, head of Dido’s family, and Miranda Richardson plays the manipulative and ambitious Lady Ashford extremely well.

As a whole, Belle is a great film. It deals with heavy moral issues: finding your place in a world and overcoming obstacles to stay true to yourself and your beliefs. The humorous moments are well-scattered throughout the movie, making it lighter than you may expect. You’ll find yourself cheering for Dido and her sharp wit throughout the entire film.


Grade: A

Three brothers living in Detroit in the 70’s start a punk rock band called Death – they are one of the best punk rock bands to ever exist. Bobby plays bass and is the lead singer, Dannis plays the drums, and David, the oldest, is the guitarist. From an early age, their parents made music available to the Hackney brothers and they instantly knew they wanted to play.  . One of their earliest experiences is listening to the Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show with their father. When their mother received a monetary settlement from a car accident, she bought them all instruments and they started a band. They began as a funk bank, but after David went to a Who concert the band committed to rock. After their father passed away, David decided to rename the band Death, one of the few universal experiences that everyone shares. 

The band recorded some of the best punk music the world has ever heard, but being black guys from Detroit playing rock and calling themselves Death they were a tough sell. Nearly all the record labels they were presented to loved the music but they all needed the name changed, which David refused to do. The brothers all continued in music, but after all the rejection decided to move on, from Detroit to Vermont and from Death to a gospel rock group. While Bobby and Dannis stayed in Vermont and continued as a Reggae band and started families, David moved back to Detroit to continue trying to make it in rock music. In 2000, David’s heavy drinking and smoking caught up to him and he died shortly after of lung cancer. Throughout his life, but particularly towards the end, he was adamant that Death would eventually be recognized for its work, but he would be gone by then. His prediction was right; around 2008 their single was discovered by some record collectors and circulated through the underground scene. It was eventually picked up by a record label, who got the master tapes of their original studio sessions from Bobby and released the record “…For the Whole World to See”—the name David had come up with over 30 years ago.

For a documentary, this was ok. It relied too heavily on showing old photos of the band in a style much like Ken Burns’ work. The rest of the story was told through a mix of musician interviews, home movies, and a few recordings from recent concerts. Then the film just follows Bobby and Dannis around from landmark to landmark, such as the recording studios, their family home where they first started playing, etc. While it was fine enough to tell the story of this unknown band, it didn’t do anything new or particularly interesting with the footage. A lot of the old photos were seen several times and they played a few songs over and over (to be fair, Death only has seven songs recorded with the original members). Overall, the story telling style neither added nor subtracted from the story, because it’s a story so interesting that it makes the film well worth watching.

One point that the directors, Mark Christopher Covino and Jeff Howlett, deserve credit for is getting good interviews out of the key people in the story. The interviews throughout with Bobby and Dannis are very good, but when they talk about David’s genius and his love for music they are particularly beautiful. They are able to express so much emotion when it comes to talking about their brother, and it creates a presence through the whole film that the other brothers constantly talk about feeling whenever they play Death. “What does it profit a man to gain the world and lose his soul” is quoted from the bible by Dannis near the end of the film. That describes perfectly David’s influence on the band and his brothers. He was always the one who had a spirituality and mythology for the band and the name. He felt so strongly that the band needed to be called Death that he gave up success to keep that. This is truly one of the most moving documentaries I have ever seen because of the love that the Hackney brothers are able to express through words and music for their brother and the band.  While it may not be beautifully presented, the story and the emotions are amazing and make this very much worth watching.

Grade: A
Length: 96 minutes

PS: The most important take away from this film is the music. It’s incredible! I don’t know enough to do it justice, but if you like punk you will love this. It’s the Ramones before the Ramones existed. I’ll leave you by saying that I bought “…For the Whole World to See” on Saturday after watching the film and I have listened to it twice a day since then.