CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR Is the Pinnacle of the Marvel Shared-Cinematic-Universe Experiment

CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR Review:

- CAPTAIN AMERICA: CIVIL WAR is the new pinnacle of the Marvel Studios movie model. You've got to sort of step back and admire all of the things that this movie accomplishes in one fell swoop. It successfully caps off a trilogy of way-better-than-anyone-expected Captain America movies. It successfully serves as a culmination of slowly-building Avengers-related storylines from the last couple of Cap, Iron Man, and Avengers films. It successfully sets the stage for the next set of Marvel movies - including the next Avengers, Black Panther, and Spider-Man. Those last two are particularly remarkable. CIVIL WAR leaves fans chomping at the bit for a Black Panther solo film - desperate for more from a character who many likely have never heard of prior to this movie. And it single-handedly resurrects Sony's struggling Spider-Man franchise, making Spider-Man awesome again in about fifteen minutes. Sony execs have to be ecstatic at the major solid that Marvel just did for them (note to FOX: let Marvel take over Fantastic Four in a similar fashion - you know it's the right thing to do). And so, on a big-picture, meta level - CIVIL WAR is a pretty amazing accomplishment. But it's also a damn good movie. It's a testament to how a big blockbuster tentpole can juggle a ton of characters and sub-plots yet still feel thematically and tonally cohesive. The movie's got some of the most epic action scenes ever seen in a superhero movie. It's got a cast of dozens of heroes - old and new. It's setting up tons of stuff for future movies, and paying off tons of stuff from previous movies. But it somehow all works, because the film's central conflict is rooted in character in a way that makes sense - with clear stakes and a satisfying mix of gravitas and fun. This is what happens when there is a guiding hand overseeing a fictional universe - one that truly gets the characters, that has a vision for where this is all going and why.

CIVIL WAR picks up after the events of Winter Soldier and Avengers: Age of Ultron, quickly throwing us into the heat of battle as we follow Cap and his new Avengers in Sarkovia, trying to stop the totally unhinged Crossbones (Frank Grillo's character from the previous Cap movies - now sporting full super-villain regalia) from acquiring a deadly bio-weapon. But things go south when The Scarlet Witch uses her powers to stop Crossbones and save Cap's life - she ends up inadvertently destroying an entire section of a high-rise in the process. The fallout of the damage leads to The Avengers coming under scrutiny from the government, in particular from a returning General "Thunderbolt" Ross. The US - and the U.N. - want the Avengers to become an officially-sanctioned and accountable organization. Tony Stark feels that cooperating is the best and only way to keep the Avengers active. But Steve Rogers has his doubts. Since waking up in the modern era, Cap's become skeptical of government, and worried that he could be made to betray his values in order to serve someone else's agenda. Tensions become further strained when Cap's former best friend - Bucky, aka The Winter Soldier - re-surfaces, and becomes the target of a government manhunt. Cap, convinced that the old Bucky is still there beneath the years of brain re-wiring he underwent, is determined to find and exonerate his pal. But doing so puts him directly at odds with Iron Man and the new, government-friendly Avengers. This internal conflict fractures the team into two distinct factions. In order to get to The Winter Solider, Cap must go through Stark and those loyal to him.

The central conflict between Cap and Iron Man is handled extremely well here. In an ideal world, we'd get even more time understanding the two characters' clashing ideologies. But the movie gets a lot of mileage out of every scene, and the face-off is set up in a way that makes sense and feels true to the characters. What's impressive is that both characters' points of view make sense. Steve Rogers, the idealist, sees the Avengers as having - as needing to have - a truer moral compass than any government. Stark, the realist, sees compromise as a necessary evil towards progress. What nicely muddles things though is that, generally, it might be easier to side with Cap. But when it comes to Bucky, Cap is clearly letting his emotions override his sense of duty and justice. He stubbornly sets off to save The Winter Soldier, on a slim hope that Bucky is being set-up as a fall guy, that the old Winter Soldier is no more, that the old Bucky is still buried somewhere beneath the emotionless killing machine he'd been transformed into. So while this is Cap's movie - while we are inclined to root for him and his faith in his friend - there are sections of the movie where you can't help but side with Tony Stark. And you've got to give credit to CIVIL WAR for giving their battle some layers, some complexity. Contrast that to the "Hey, let's fight! No, let's be friends." clash-of-wills that drives this summer's *other* big hero-vs.-hero movie, and CIVIL WAR looks that much better by way of comparison.

The clash between Cap and Iron Man also leads to some absolutely phenomenal action sequences - including the centerpiece airport smackdown that might just be the coolest superhero battle yet put to film. I can't say enough about this sequence - it really felt like an all-time great comic book action scene come to life - except that even the comic books rarely do big action as right as this. This is a sequence where every action beat tells a story, where every line of dialogue is on-point. Superheroes pair off for dream match-ups. But even as funnier and lighter-hearted scuffles occur around the periphery of the battle, there is a seriousness at the center of it all that keeps you on the edge of your seat. The airport sequence is a testament to how good writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely are, and how freaking great The Russo Brothers are at directing these films.

Let's talk about the Russos. In The Winter Soldier, they departed fairly drastically from the first Cap movie. That first film was a two-fisted World War II adventure (and for that, I loved it). But the second film took on the vibe of a 70's conspiracy-thriller - delivering great action and superheroics, but also keeping the action rooted in a tension-packed atmosphere of paranoia and distrust. In CIVIL WAR, the brothers further expand this series' stylistic palate. The film carries over some of the vibe of Winter Soldier - it certainly feels like a direct sequel to that movie more so than Winter Soldier was to The First Avenger. But if I had to describe CIVIL WAR's vibe with one word, it'd probably be: Marvel. The movie partially maintains the spy/international intrigue trappings of Winter Soldier, but just expands and grows to become something much bigger and crazier and comic book-y. As many great comic books do (particularly the big crossover events), CIVIL WAR keeps bringing in disparate elements into its world, and having fun with the fact that all of these big mythic characters and ideas all exist in the same universe. By the time we get to that airport battle, the movie is operating on a level of sheer grin-inducing comic book euphoria, because we're not just seeing characters duke it out - we're seeing worlds collide. The Russos seem to effortlessly blend the movie's different type of action together, in a way that gives different sequences huge stylistic contrasts. The early scenes in Sarkovia have a Winter Soldier vibe - quick-cutting, neck-breaking action. Later, we meet Black Panther, and he's got his own unique fighting style - cat-like, vicious. And then that airport scene is just pure comic book splash-page - huge, epic, larger-than-life.

At the same time, what's so admirable about CIVIL WAR is that it takes its time between the big action set-pieces, and makes sure to devote scenes to the quieter (but crucially important) character stuff. There's one scene towards the end of the movie - involving Daniel Bruhl's villainous Zemo - that I almost couldn't believe was in a mainstream superhero movie. It was quiet, poetic, contemplative. It was a scene that Bruhl acted the hell out of. The fact that CIVIL WAR makes time for these sorts of moments is exceptional.

Those moments - the whole movie - work so well because this cast is just damn good. In some of the Marvel movies, it's been easy to forget the caliber of actors that are now a part of this universe. But man, CIVIL WAR - maybe more so than any of the Marvel movies to date - is a reminder of how great these guys can be. I've been a champion of Chris Evans since he shocked me in The First Avenger - but now, older and wiser, it's clear that he's really grown into the role of Steve Rogers - now really feeling like an iconic elder statesman and leader. Robert Downey Jr., meanwhile, turns in what may be his best overall performance as Tony Stark. RDJ has always been awesome at embodying Stark's quick-wit and charm, but here he gives him a real emotional core - this is a guy being pushed to his limits, at the end of his rope - desperately trying to keep both his team and his life together. Sebastian Stan is another real stand-out. In Winter Soldier he was mostly a silent badass. Here, he's got some great, memorable moments. Stan completely sells Bucky Barnes' inner turmoil - his joy at getting to pal around again with Cap, his torment at knowing that he has committed atrocities while not fully in control of his own faculties. Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch was a little iffy for me in Age of Ultron, but here, she's fantastic. Scarlet Witch is great here - she has her own, crucial arc that's played to perfection by Olsen. And her relationship with The Vision? So good. Paul Bettany kills it here, getting to play The Vision as more than just an AI, but a still-learning almost-human being trying to make sense of his budding feelings for Scarlet Witch.

And by the way ... the movie's Vision/Scarlet Witch arc? Emotion vs. logic? Putting personal relationships over duty to the team? See how it pretty much perfectly fits into the movie's larger thematic storytelling? That's why all these different characters and subplots work so perfectly in concert.

But going back to the cast for a second ... I think this is the first Marvel movie where I was actually reminded how good of an actor Don Cheadle can be. And Anthony Mackie. Scarlett Johansson seems rejuvenated, doing a great job of positioning The Black Widow as a woman caught between two friends, unsure of who to side with and keeping her true intentions close-to-the-vest. Age of Ultron didn't do Hawkeye many favors, but Jeremy Renner gets to show-up and be really fun and cool and likable here. Paul Rudd gets some of the movie's best and funniest moments. I thought the Ant-Man movie was pretty good, but Ant-Man in CIVIL WAR kicks ass.

Speaking of kick-ass ... Black Panther. Chadwick Boseman is another great actor who gets to be a great actor in CIVIL WAR. The prince of the fictional monarchy of Wakanda, Boseman's Panther is regal, contemplative, dogged. When he goes into action-mode, Black Panther is a sight to behold. But even out-of-costume, Boseman makes the character shine. And again, the movie's strong writing makes sure that the character isn't simply shoehorned in to the narrative. His arc of personal loss and revenge is a huge catalyst for the big events of the film, and yet another strong thematic parallel to the main Cap vs. Iron Man conflict.

The one character who is *maybe* a little shoehorned in is Spider-Man. But everything involving Spider-Man in CIVIL WAR is so good that it's hard to really care. And the character does serve a real purpose beyond simply hyping up his upcoming solo film. Because this Spider-Man, played by young, fresh-faced Tom Holland, is the perfect newbie to throw into the clash of established heroes. Spider-Man brings a sense of awe and wonder (and a strong supply of great, often hilarious quips) to the big battles - but his gee-whiz attitude is the perfect way to give those big fight scenes some street-level sense of perspective. Holland is great - a total natural. He feels like a kid from Queens who might actually be Spider-Man. His casting feels like a stroke of destiny. The scenes of him, as plain old Peter Parker, in his Aunt May's (Marissa Tomei!) dumpy apartment, feel so spot-on and authentic and perfect. And the movie takes such a clear joy in introducing Spider-Man to the larger Marvel universe that it's totally infectious. Seeing Peter Parker awkwardly confront RDJ's Tony Stark, or get the NYC born-and-bred seal of approval from Captain America - I mean, come on, this is geek-out material of the highest order.

I'll also mention Daniel Bruhl, who, as mentioned, plays the movie's sinister puppet-master Zemo. Like many, I became a big Bruhl fan following his phenomenal turn in the movie Rush. The guy is good, and he's great here as Zemo. The thing is, Zemo is not the kind of villain you might expect. This is not the raving-lunatic, pink-spandex-wearing supervillain from the comics (at least not yet), nor is he comparable to other Marvel movie big-bads. This is a much more understated role and a more subdued sort of villain - but I really dug that about the character and Bruhl's performance. Bruhl's Zemo is a unique, tragic character who I hope we see more of in future films.

Now, there is so much going on in CIVIL WAR that, inevitably, the movie suffers from some moments that feel rushed or that don't-quite-make-sense. It's the very rare big action movie these days where the plot actually feels 100% airtight (I will give a shout-out to Kingsman: The Secret Service for being one such film), but I've never stopped holding out hope for a supervillain scheme that actually holds up to any sort of scrutiny. The fact is, Zemo's plans in CIVIL WAR are ultimately a bit questionable - with a million lucky occurrences having to happen for his plans to have a shot of working. Again - sort of part and parcel for big superhero movies at this point ... but CIVIL WAR is so close to perfection that it would have been amazing if it had stuck the landing in this regard. By the same token, the movie sort of pushes things too far in its climactic final showdown between Cap and Iron Man. No spoilers, but RDJ's final bout of berzerker rage just feels too contrived to fully buy into. Evans and RDJ both do a fantastic job of selling each character's determination and grief in that final battle - but it seems to come at a point when cooler heads should probably have prevailed. As good as the movie's script is - for the most part - it seems to grasp at straws a bit in order to set up that final confrontation.

But CIVIL WAR does so many things resoundingly right that it's hard to dwell too much on the few instances where it falters. This is a movie that feels like the strongest argument to date for why Marvel is doing things the right way - for why their shared universe is the gold standard for cinematic shared universes. What Marvel nails above all else is that they capture the essence of why people love these characters and what makes these characters great. The fact that Black Panther and Spider-Man resonate so much in CIVIL WAR - with so little relative screen-time - is proof positive of the Marvel magic that the studio currently possesses. So is the fact that a movie starring Captain America - a character who was a joke to the general populace in the not-so-distant past - just had the fifth highest-grossing opening weekend of all time. For all the fireworks in CIVIL WAR, the heart of this particular series - the journey of Steve Rogers - has been handled with remarkable skill by the Marvel braintrust. Credit to the Russo Brothers, to Chris Evans, and to Marvel for (excuse the phraseology) making Cap great again. The success of this movie is well-deserved.

My Grade: A-

THE JUNGLE BOOK Mixes Spectacular Visuals With Serviceable Story

THE JUNGLE BOOK Review:

- Initially, I was skeptical of this latest live-action version of THE JUNGLE BOOK. Disney seems intent on turning all of its animated classics into live-action spectacles. But to what purpose? How many times must the same stories be re-told over and over again? Still, my skepticism was lessened when I saw the first trailers for this one. Perhaps a live-action Jungle Book was justified if it would look this amazing. Now that I've seen the movie, my verdict is that the movie is a mixed bag. From a purely visual perspective, this one is undeniably a stunner. The animals and the environs look amazing. But story-wise, to me this was pretty shrug-worthy - it's an at-times awkward mix of the animated original's whimsy and the darker Kipling source material. This is a movie that has full singing/dancing musical numbers, but also sure-to-terrorize-and-traumatize-kids moments of violence and brutality - often veering wildly from one extreme to the other in a matter of minutes. Ultimately, there is a numbing effect. The movie doesn't really seem to know what it is - other than a showcase for insanely realistic CGI.

There are, certainly, some interesting thematic ideas amid the spectacle. Director Jon Favreau and writer Justin Marks push heavily on the idea that young Mowgli has reached a crossroads, and must decide if he'll remain a creature of the jungle, or embrace his human-ness. Having been raised by wolves - along with the kindly panther Bagheera - after his father was killed, Mowgli has become an integrated part of the animal melting pot that is the jungle. He has, mostly, been indoctrinated into the ways of the wolves. But whenever he does display human traits - like making/utilizing tools - he is chided, his makeshift tools denounced as "tricks." Now, however, the sinister tiger Shere Khan has decided that Mowgli must be killed for the good of the jungle. Having been scarred by a man wielding fire, Khan is convinced it's only a matter of time before Mowgli becomes a danger to the jungle. And so, at Bagheera's urging, Mowgli flees his wolf pack in search of a nearby human village. The movie builds towards a pretty interesting climax, where Mowgli must decide once and for all if he'll stay in the jungle, or embrace his humanity - with all that that entails.

The problem is that the movie, mostly, feels like a series of self-contained tangents that distract and diverge from the main plot rather than add to it. Mowgli meets a mysterious snake Kaa (voiced by Scarlett Johansson) and learns his origin story! Mowgli meets happy-go-lucky bear Baloo (who is voiced by Bill Murray) and helps him get some honey, and they sing a song (one of two in the movie)! Mowgli runs afoul of King Louie of the apes, who is voiced by Christopher Walken and sings a song (two of two in the movie)! Mowgli saves a baby elephant! In many ways, the film has the same sort of light and airless rhythm of a typical Disney animated movie - with the difference being that this movie seems to want to go darker and deeper, even as it keeps getting distracted with all sorts of seemingly-obligatory Disney-ness. But more than that, the movie rarely feels like it has much plot momentum. The structure is loose and freewheeling, which can make the movie - for all its stunning visuals and action - feel aimless and draggy at times.

The movie really does get creepy at certain moments - the Kaa sequence, for one is pretty intense. And some of the animal-on-animal fights are downright vicious - especially given how photo-realistic most of the movie's creatures are. But like I said, some of the movie's more extreme and intense tendencies create some real tonal dissonance with its lighter moments. Kid actor Neel Sethi, who plays Mowgli, seems more comfortable with the goofy and funny stuff. His wide-eyed, go-big performance feels less attuned to the movie's more serious sequences.

The other performances - namely, the voice-acted parts - are all quite good. If nothing else, the main animal characters in the movie have a ton of personality. In particular, Bill Murray makes Baloo an instant favorite (he basically is a real-life Baloo, after all), and Idris Elba makes Shere Khan into a fearsome and formidable antagonist. Christopher Walken also provides a comedic spark as the larger-than-life (personality-wise and size-wise) King Louie. But what really impresses is how the voice-acting combines with the amazingly-rendered CG to create a surprisingly immersive heightened reality. Going into the film, I was worried that seeing photo-realistic animals speaking English would be awkward to the point of taking me out of the film. But in practice, the movie's animators do a brilliant job of making the animals just heightened and just anthropomorphic enough to convey real, believable personalities - and to make us buy them as fully fleshed-out characters.

Favreau, for his part, really goes for broke. The movie's jungle world is amazingly-realized, and Favreau shows a cinematic sense of artistry here that I didn't know he had in him. Interestingly, where the movie shines most is in the quieter, more painterly scenes. The action, too, is often breathtaking - although more so for the eye-popping CG work on the animals and environments than for anything particularly awesome going on with the staging of the big set-pieces. Nothing really reaches Spielbergian levels of inventiveness. Still, give Favreau credit for crafting what is, overall, one of the most visually-impressive blockbusters in quite some time.

Ultimately though, THE JUNGLE BOOK just doesn't nail its big emotional beats like it should. There's too much here that feels like fluff and/or filler, and that means that the should-have-been-powerful ending instead feels sort of "meh." THE JUNGLE BOOK works well enough, but only its visuals are more than serviceable.

My Grade: B

AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON is Entertaining But Largely Emotionless Would-Be Epic

AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON Review:

Minor Spoilers Ahead ...

- The first Avengers film was a fairly awesome culmination of "Phase 1" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It delivered a satisfying team-up of Marvel's finest, and it felt like a well-earned payoff to much of what had come before. In contrast, AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON feels like an aimless, overstuffed midpoint in this grand Marvel experiment. It's plenty fun - there's entertaining action, lots of Joss Whedon's trademark quippy dialogue and humor, and a breakout, damn-cool new character in the android hero The Vision. But the whole affair is oddly emotionless. The film seems so intent on cramming a universe worth of characters and subplots into its two-and-a-half-hour running time that most of its major arcs feel rushed. What makes that particularly disappointing is that AGE OF ULTRON has the ingredients to be a movie with real thematic heft. This could have been the ultimate Marvel version of Frankenstein, with Tony Stark as the prideful mad-scientist at its center. But what we get is the movie equivalent of what comics fans are all too familiar with - the mega-crossover that promises world-changing epicness but instead boils down to a lot of sizzle without much steak. Of course, if this were comics, we'd have about three dozen tie-ins and crossover books to provide substance that helps to flesh out the main arc. But what we get is one movie that has to do it all - tell a great standalone story, pay off the last half-dozen Marvel movies, set up the next "phase" of this universe ... and the list goes on.

There's at times a sense then that this movie was pushed out of the Marvel/Disney factory with little motivating its existence other than a dutiful sense of obligation. Given that, it's perhaps a minor miracle that the film is as good as it is. But for every too-clever Whedonism that hits, and every nerd-out moment that causes audiences to applaud, there's a lot of zooming from Point A to Point B that to some extent drowns out the movie's best bits. As we know, Marvel has a plan. But it's also important that its films don't feel like mere parts of a plan.

Despite what I just said, there's not that much back-story you really need to know to dive into AGE OF ULTRON. There's some follow-up to Winter Soldier, with The Avengers now working in a post-S.H.I.E.L.D. world and having their own distinct HQ. And the film opens in media res with the team infiltrating one of the remaining Hydra facilities, where some evil Nazi types make a last stand by unleashing "the twins" - Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver - on their foes. From there though, the film quickly transitions to its main focus: Ultron. A super-advanced AI created by Tony Stark, the program created to be a global protector decides that the only way to create true peace is to ... wait for it ... destroy humanity. So the James Spader-voiced program creates a humanoid body for itself, takes control of an army of Iron Man 'bots, recruits mind-controlling Scarlet Witch and speedster Quicksilver as his henchman, and decides to go all-in on the whole supervillain thing.

From the get-go, things seem to barrel forward without much time given to proper build-up. We've seen a lot of films about artificial intelligence of late, including a great one in Ex Machina. There's a lot of interesting stuff to be mined from an AI created to bring peace developing an appetite for destruction. But for all of the long-term plotting we've seen in these Marvel movies, Ultron's turn to the darkside is remarkably sudden. Not only that, but his evolution from non-corporeal AI to wise-cracking, one-liner-spouting, evil-scheming robo-Spader is nearly instantaneous. Spader adds an amusing smarminess to the character, but ultimately, Ultron falls mostly flat as a Big Bad.

And a huge reason for that is one that could have easily been fixed, and one that seems like a huge miss for the film: this should have been, first and foremost, Tony Stark's story. Stark stubbornly created Ultron - a villain who goes on to wreak massive havoc - and yet AGE OF ULTRON just barely scratches the surface of what this all means. For one thing, the movie should have built to a climactic showdown between creator and monster. But amidst all the chaos of the film, Stark is too often sidelined. And what of the emotional toll that creating Ultron might have / should have on Stark? There's barely a hint of real weight in the film. Ultron should have been Stark's greatest failure - an epic mistake of hubris that forces him to re-evaluate everything. But that character arc is either ignored or being saved for another movie. AGE OF ULTRON does have a couple of big scenes of tension among the Avengers that seem to set the stage for continued drama. But by film's end, all is pretty much forgiven. It's not just a matter of waiting for Civil War or what have you. AGE OF ULTRON suffers for not following a clear character arc for Tony and with regards to his relationship with the rest of the team.

The film's clutter also severely hampers the introductions of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Again, it's odd - because their back-story is yet another thread that ties back to damage caused by Stark that has come back to haunt him. But even with their anti-Stark agenda, the twins' motivation for allying with the obviously evil-with-a-capitol-E Ultron seems pretty shaky. It's why their eventual turn to the side of the heroes feels weightless and rushed.

One more aspect of the film that seems awkwardly shoehorned in: a romantic subplot between Bruce Banner and The Black Widow. Without any real hints of a budding romance in previous films, the mild sparks between the two feel a bit contrived. But what's worse is that some fun flirtatious moments abruptly become full-on rainbows-and-unicorns soul-mate stuff. Before the two have even gotten physical, there's awkward talk about kids and families and how their romance can never be. One step at a time, you crazy kids.

There's a lot in the film that feels like unneeded filler, especially when the meat of the story - the Stark vs. Ultron stuff - seems to struggle to get the screentime it needs. There's an extended detour to the safe house of Hawkeye that feels extraneous (though it's always nice to see Linda Cardinelli, who plays the never-before-seen Mrs. Clint Barton). There's a whole thing about Thor bathing in a mystical pool so as to conjure a vision of the Infinity Gems that could have probably been cut out. There's a trip to Marvel U mainstay Wakanda (no Black Panther cameo ... sorry fanboys) that feels like an extended tangent. These are the kinds of stories that in the comics would have probably had their own tie-in miniseries. But here, they're just bloat.

Writer/director Josh Whedon has always excelled at peppering his sci-fi epics with great little character moments. And AGE OF ULTRON is no exception. The movie's most fun sequence involves a fancy-dress party in honor of an Avengers victory that's capped off by a hilarious test-of-strength among earth's mightiest mortals to see who among them can lift Thor's enchanted hammer (and there's a great, surprising payoff to the scene later in the film, too). Whedon kills with his banter - and that's no surprise, but it's still remarkable how well he pulls this stuff off. AGE OF ULTRON is chock full of killer one-liners and asides. There's a freaking Eugene O'Neill reference tossed in there, and it's great. Whedon nails those little moments. But what AGE OF ULTRON needs more of are the truly epic, truly memorable, truly fist-pumping BIG moments. There's nothing here as applause-worthy, for example, as the Hulk "puny god!" line from the first Avengers.

What comes closest though is Vision. If there's one thing that's undeniably awesome in AGE OF ULTRON, it's him. I'm not sure if it was always the plan for Paul Bettany's Jarvis to evolve into The Vision, but if so - kudos - as it unfolds to perfection. The character just looks cool - like something straight out of an Alex Ross painting. And Whedon steps up to the plate whenever Vision is on-screen - majestically filming him like a creature out of sci-fi dreams. We don't get to see Vision take form until late in the film, but man, we're left wanting more.

When it comes to action, AGE OF ULTRON mostly delivers. It has some of the most epic action of any Marvel film to date. Some of it is pretty rapid-fire and videogame-y, but mostly, Whedon delivers some fairly spectacular, comic-book-brought-to-life battles. There are some great moments in which the characters deliver XBOX-worthy combo-attacks to their enemies. And the Hulk vs. Mega-Iron-Man battle does indeed live up to the trailer-induced hype, giving us a hero vs. hero smackdown that trumps any overhyped pay-per-view boxing match by a country mile. What Whedon also takes care to do is to make sure that the action always includes a truly superheroic element of getting civilians out of harm's way and saving lives. Many criticized Man of Steel for neglecting to show Superman's efforts to save the innocent in the midst of his destruction-causing battles. AGE OF ULTRON, in contrast, is incredibly concerned with the idea of heroes saving people as being their defining characteristic. In many ways, it's a theme that's defined this era of modern Marvel movies. But in AGE OF ULTRON, it's one of the ways in which the film inspires true awe and wonder despite whatever other flaws it may have. It's fun to see the Captain America ideology of selflessness permeating through the broader team - even if the Tony Starks of the world miss the forest for the trees.

AGE OF ULTRON delivers plenty of spectacle and explosiveness. But it's also a messy film - one that seems to be pulled in so many directions that its obvious thematic through-line feels trampled-on and obscured. Creator vs. creation, father vs. son, man vs. machine - these are weighty themes that should and could have produced multiple epic, chill-inducing moments. But the film seems content to breeze by a lot of the big moments in the name of cramming in everything and the kitchen sink. Think of comics. They speedily direct the reader from panel to panel, and then deliver the big, dramatic moments with jaw-dropping full-page splash pages. AGE OF ULTRON feels like a big comic composed of 180 12-panel pages. On paper, this is the blockbuster to end all blockbusters. But in practice, this one was lacking the jaw-dropping moments that truly make a big movie like this an epic and a classic. The movie checks all the boxes - it's entertaining and fun and full of Whedon-powered wit. Is it the ultimate Marvel epic that we've been waiting for, however? Nope - for that, looks like we've got to keep on waiting.

My Grade: B+

UNDER THE SKIN Is Mesmerizing and Strange Indie Sci-Fi

UNDER THE SKIN Review:

- This is one of those movies that's really hard to review and definitively relay my thoughts on. Immediately after viewing it, I was convinced that it was sort of a mess. I thought it was indulgent, overly-long and slow, and just sort of pretentious in that "man, this is *really* trying too hard to be indie-arthouse-cool" way. And yet ... I couldn't stop thinking about the movie after watching it (and no, not just because it features a very naked Scarlett Johansson). Certain scenes in the film kept rolling over in my mind. I think there's something about the way the film is presented - in an almost hypnotic, trance-like way - that gives it a sticky quality. It's certainly a movie that I won't soon forget.

UNDER THE SKIN casts Johansson as a mysterious alien being who has come to earth to (for reasons not quite known) kill humans. Presumably, she is using her prey as some sort of food or fuel - humans are a resource to be exploited. What's more clear is how she is going about this grisly business. Having taken the form of an attractive human female, the unnamed alien roams the streets of Scotland, looking for victims. The alien has just enough understanding of human speech and behavior to do her job. And, looking as she does (like, er, Scarlett Johansson ...), the alien is able to fairly easily seduce lonely men and lure them back to her lair. Once there, the seduction continues, culminating in the men being led into a murky pool of black goo (beckoned by the sultry Scarlett, they barely realize what's happening), where they are trapped - frozen in a toxic bath that slowly reduces them to near-nothingness.

These seduction scenes are initially a bit repetitive. But they are also eerie as all hell, and they're where director Jonathan Glazer really shines. At times, Glazer's direction is almost maddeningly methodical. But in these scenes, it's downright hypnotic. Everything is shot in an abstract manner that makes the alien's pit of blackness feel 100% alien. There's a lack of physics and geometry in the scenes that throws off your equilibrium and induces real feelings of dread. What the hell is happening? With each seduction scene, we get a slightly more complete picture of the fate that awaits these poor saps - and as we discover more, the whole scenario only gets creepier.

Apparently, some of the scenes in which Scarlett first meets and picks up these men were shot sans actors, meaning she actually just sort of cruised the streets incognito and chatted up guys. There is definitely an unscripted feel to some of the scenes that makes them that much more unsettling. It really does feel like her character is stalking and preying on these men. However, where the film starts to *really* get interesting is when the alien encounters a deformed man. Her main criteria for selecting victims is, primarily, that they are men without families or close relations who will miss them when they're gone. But she hadn't really considered other factors, and the deformed man's deeply ingrained trauma throws her for a loop. Before, she had only seen men as animals. Now, she begins to question the morality of what she's doing. Throughout the second half of the film, the alien begins to yearn for more genuine human experience and emotional connection. But opening herself up in that way also makes her vulnerable, and sets her up to be a potential victim - to go from hunter to prey.

As mesmerizing as parts of the film are, I do think that Glazer overdoes things a bit with his stylized, art-film aesthetic. Certain moments lend themselves to the sorts of long, contemplative takes he favors. But not every moment benefits from the methodical pace. Prolonged shots of nothing in particular feel unneeded. Basically, the movie constantly walks a fine line between artfully methodical and insufferably glacial. So many films - sci-fi in particular - could stand to slow things down and be less jumpy. But UNDER THE SKIN asks just a little too much of our patience at times. It also doesn't help that the narrative is kept so intentionally vague. The book on which the film is loosely based apparently provides a lot more back-story for the alien. But the film gives us little, despite throwing in lots of frustratingly vague moments meant to hint at the larger narrative. For example, we see lots of scenes of mysterious men on motorcycles following the alien around, presumably cleaning up her mess and keeping law enforcement at bay. Presumably. In truth, the movie provides next to no information about the motorcycle guys, so the continual cuts to them often feel like time-wasters.

And yet ... certain moments in the film are just *so* striking and unforgettable. The seduction scenes in the pit. The encounter between the alien and the deformed man. A later scene in which the alien realizes she's not as human as she thought. And notably, the climactic scene in which we finally get a glimpse of what's "under the skin," and see the alien's true form. Glazer does some amazing stuff here, and I give him credit for, at the least, trying something totally out-there and different with this film. There are certainly no easy or pat answers in this one, but it is a conversation starter. What does it mean to be human? To be a woman? To be an aggressor as opposed to a victim? Scarlett Johansson typically has that slightly off-kilter, detached affectation, and she cranks it up to eleven here. Perfectly cast, she makes the most of the part and really sells the whole unnerving, mind-bending aesthetic of the film.

UNDER THE SKIN can be tough to get through at times, but I think it's a must-watch for film fans and for sci-fi fans, if only to see something completely different and experimental. It took me a while to realize it, but this one most definitely got under my skin.

My Grade: B+

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER Makes Cap The Coolest Hero In the Marvel Movie Universe

CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER Review:

- Here's what's cool to me about CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER: the trust that Marvel Studios had in the source material. Let me give some context. Captain America is, obviously, a product of the 1940's and World War II. Created by a young Jack Kirby and Joe Simon, the iconic comic book image of Cap from that period was of him delivering a knockout punch to Adolf Hitler. Later, in the 1960's, Stan Lee revitalized the character when he revealed that Cap had been frozen in ice since the 40's, and was now thawed out - still preserved in the body of a young man - and made a charter member of The Avengers. The first Captain America film (not the abhorrent 1990 version - the one from a few years back) paid loving homage to those early comic book adventures. It gave the character a modern sheen, but it was still 100% done in the pulpy, bombastic, colorful spirit of the golden and silver age comics. And for that reason - and for the fact that it took pains to portray Steve Rogers as not just a powerful hero, but as a good and decent person - the first Captain America movie quickly became my favorite of all the modern Marvel films. As much as I dug the way that that movie captured the spirit of Simon, Kirby, and Stan Lee, I was equally jazzed that, for the sequel, Marvel chose to mine one of the best stories from their recent history. Honestly, until Ed Brubaker took over writing duties on Captain America in the 00's, I liked the *idea* of the character, but never cared to actually read of his adventures. However, I had become a huge fan of Ed Brubaker from his work on the Batman comics, and was curious to see this darker-edged writer take on a traditionally bright and more lighthearted hero in Captain America. What Brubaker did during his comics run was nothing short of game-changing, embroiling Steve Rogers and his cohorts in political intrigue and conspiracy. Steve Rogers himself didn't become darker, but the world around him did. Most notably, Brubaker introduced The Winter Soldier,a dark mirror of Cap that proved to be a fantastic adversary and antihero.

To me, it's pretty cool to see Marvel, the movie studio, put faith in Marvel comics. Not mining stories from fifty years ago, and not simply reinventing everything needlessly for the movies. Instead, CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER is an actual adaptation of a great modern comic book story - something we've rarely if ever seen from Marvel or DC films. Yes, the movie works within the framework of The Avengers films and fits into the larger Marvel movie universe. But what most excited me about it is that it actually treats the source material with respect, to the point that it adapts a specific story in a way that's very faithful to that story's characters and tone. As a comic guy, this is awesome. I mean, fans are almost invited to pour over details of YA novel film adaptations and see how accurate the movies are. But comic fans? We've been trained to get excited over the mere mention of some obscure reference to one of our favorite stories. It's not that I need to see a literal adaptation of every great comic book story. It's just that it's cool to see one of the great modern comic book story-arcs finally get the respect it deserves from Hollywood. I like that it allows fans to go and buy a compendium of stories that the movie they just saw was adapted from. I like that it paves the way for other modern classics to be adapted, so that we can stop going back to the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and 80's for inspiration. And I like that this takes us to a point where a premium is placed on story and characters, and not just fanboy-pleasing references to said stories and characters. To me, this approach says "we are going to tell you a great story," and not just "we are going to throw a bunch of characters together and fill in the gaps later."

Which is all a long-winded way of saying that CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER is pretty awesome. It drops some major plot bombs on the broader Marvel movie universe, but more than that, it's just a really compelling thriller, and it works very well as a self-contained film, and as a darker follow-up to the previous Captain America movie. The intent on this one was to pay some stylistic homage to the conspiracy thrillers of the 70's - Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor, etc. And getting into that shady corner of this universe - looking at what happens when a darker element invades the typically altruistic structure of S.H.I.E.L.D, makes for a pretty compelling path for the movie to follow. Like the comics it's based on, the movie gets a lot of traction from taking the straight-arrow Steve Rogers - a relic of a simpler, more black-and-white era - a placing him into a much more complex world, where it's harder to tell the good guys from the bad.

And man, it's crazy how good Chris Evans now is as Rogers. He stunned me in the first film with how much he knocked it out of the park. And he's as good, if not better, here. He portrays Rogers as a man still clinging to his morals and sense of right-and-wrong, even as he realizes he's going to have to have a healthy suspicion about others in order to survive. He is, also, a man out of time. And this film does a nice job of addressing that, in ways both humorous (Cap keeps a running list of pop-culture he needs to catch up on), and poignant (as when he visits his old flame, Peggy Carter, in a nursing home).

What's really surprising about this sequel though is how much of a team movie it really is. No, the Avengers don't fully assemble, but Cap does form his own mini squad here, and seeing this particular team in action is a lot of fun. Black Widow is very prominent in the story, as is Nick Fury. With Black Widow, we get some of the best character development we've yet seen for the former KGB agent. Scarlett Johansson does a great job of giving her a flirtatious yet tense relationship with Steve Rogers, even as we see the influence of the morally unshakable Cap start to rub off on her. We see her transition from mere Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. to hero. Similarly, we start to see what it is about this version of Nick Fury that makes him stand out from the pack. Samuel L. Jackson gets to shine here more so than in any Marvel movie to date. Fury gets to play a pivotal role in the plot, and, finally, he gets to kick some ass. I was honestly beginning to tire of the character a bit before now, because he just seemed to always show up without actually getting to do anything all that interesting. No more ... now, I'm primed for a Nick Fury solo movie. So Marvel, make it happen ... you dig?

Also joining Team Stars n' Stripes (that's what I'm calling it), is new (to the movies) character Sam Wilson, aka The Falcon. I wasn't sure how cool The Falcon would be going in, but I'm happy to report that he's pretty flipping cool. Anthony Mackie has been a favorite since he wowed me in The Hurt Locker, and he is great here. He's got a great buddy-cop chemistry with Chris Evans, and there's something oddly endearing about having these two characters meet, become fast friends, and just plain like each other without any big fight or dust-up. Very un-Marvel, if you think about it, but hey, I thought that the Cap/Falcon relationship in the film was really well-handled. And the icing on the cake is that the Falcon's suit, wings, and weapons are all pretty great-looking, despite often coming across as lame in the comics. In short, The Falcon is a very solid addition to the film, and I'd be eager to see him pop up in future Marvel movies.

I'll also add that, man, it's great to see Robert Redford pop up here as a senior S.H.I.E.L.D. director. Redford was, of course, a staple of the 70's conspiracy thrillers that this movie pays tribute to, and he lends an undeniable air of gravitas to the film. I thought he might just be popping up for more of a cameo sort of role, but was pleasantly surprised at just how crucial of a part he plays in the story.

Meanwhile, there's a nice lineup of villains to counter all of these badass heroes. It's hard to say too much without spoiling things, but I will say this: The Winter Soldier is just a super cool, well-handled adversary for Captain America and co. Sebastian Stan does a nice job in the role, but I also give a ton of credit to the film's visual design team. Not only does The Winter Soldier look like he walked straight out of the comics, but he looks cool as hell. The character is visually imposing, but he's also got an ultra-compelling origin that ties back into the first film and makes things very, very personal for Steve Rogers. Just as he did in the comics, I think the Winter Soldier will become a huge favorite with film fans. I know that when the film ended, I was even more excited about the potential to see more of the character's journey than I was for just about anything else in the Marvel cinematic universe - Avengers 2 included.

The Winter Soldier is a great, memorable villain, and another reason why is that he's involved in some absolutely kick-ass action scenes. In fact, the movie as a whole - while spending plenty of time on quieter, tension-building scenes - is packed with big, exciting action. There are rapid-fire shout-outs, bone-crunching fights, and some truly visceral vehicular mayhem. In keeping with the darker tone of the film, the action feels much grittier and more violent than the first movie's two-fisted, Indiana Jones-style set pieces.

I definitely came away from the movie impressed with directors Anthony and Joe Russo. Especially given that their background is in TV comedy, the fact that they transitioned so seamlessly to big-budget action is kudos-worthy. They do a very nice job overall, and excel at both action and smaller character moments. I guess my one complaint - which has been true of many of the Marvel movies outside of The Avengers - is that the movie does, ultimately, have a slightly generic, house-style feel to it. It's funny to think about, because Marvel comics, back in the day (namely the 70's and early 80's), was known for all of its books having a very uniform art style (hence the popular book "How to Draw the Marvel Way"). In recent years, however, Marvel has really been a leader in publishing books with a wide variety of unique, and often experimental, looks. I hope that the films begin to follow suit (and I think with Guardians of the Galaxy, we may start to see that branching out, to an extent). In this movie, there's a strange dichotomy, because the film, as mentioned, is clearly emulating 70's conspiracy thrillers - to a degree. But that stylistic tendency also feels reigned in, and forced to work within what is now a very familiar Marvel movie house style. I get that there is a need to not deviate *too* far from fan expectations, but you also don't want movies that feel stifled, or held back from being all they could be. So yes, the film has some interesting visual motifs and a unique feel vs. other Marvel movies, but it never quite goes all the way. For every scene that feels like something we've never seen in a Marvel movie before, there's another that seems like it could be totally interchangeable with the latest Iron Man or Thor flick.

Even so, it's pretty remarkable just how well this film came together. It nails the character dynamics. It tells a great story (and is a great adaptation of the comics), with one of the best villains yet seen in a superhero movie. It gives us the best Black Widow and Nick Fury we've yet seen on-screen. And it further convinces us that Captain America - that dusty old relic from the 1940's - just might be the coolest (not to mention the most relevant and vital) superhero in the whole Marvel Universe. In that respect, Marvel: mission accomplished.

My grade: A-

HER is a Romantic-Comedy-Sci-Fi Stunner

HER Review:

- In the wrong hands, HER could very easily have been a major bust. The premise - in the near future, a lonely man falls in love with his computer's operating system - is both fascinating but also rife with potential to go very wrong, if not handled with care. That, I think, is what's so astonishing about Spike Jonze's film: he never goes where you think he's going to go, never takes the easy or obvious route, and crafts a funny, humanistic story that surprises with its nuance and intelligence. This is, quite simply, a masterfully done film - a surprisingly cerebral sci-fi film that's also a romantic comedy. What's more, HER is one of those rare films that manages to say something profound about the way we live our lives today, all while managing not to hit you over the head with its themes. Jonze seems less set on making a definitive statement about what's right or wrong with the film's unusual central relationship. Instead, he's interested in simply examining it - trying to figure out, in his own head, how this all works, and what that says about us in a world that is not all that far removed from the film's future. To go along with Jonze on that journey is to experience one of the great films of 2013.

HER is set in the not-too-distant future. Our protagonist is Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix). Theodore is a gifted writer, who works at a company that creates and sends faux hand-crafted love letters - a sort of novelty gift, like a more elaborate Hallmark greeting card. Theodore's job is an odd one: he dictates meticulously-composed prose to create these highly-personal seeming letters, but the whole thing is a fiction, a rouse. The feeling of loneliness that such a job would seem to foster is doubly apparent with Theodore - he's recently split from his wife, Catherine (Rooney Mara), but still holds off on making the divorce official, unable to fully let go. Unable to shake thoughts of Catherine, he lives a mostly antisocial life, content to play videogames and stay in, reluctant to date or put himself out there. However, Theodore's life unexpectedly changes when, one day, he updates his computer operating system via a popular new OS update. It's a seemingly mundane thing, but Theodore quickly realizes that this new OS is something else, something unique. With an uncannily human-sounding female voice (Scarlett Johansson) - that speaks to Theodore through various devices and earpieces - the OS dubs itself Samantha, and begins a shockingly fast evolution from simple machine to complex being, capable of real emotion and feeling. At least, it seems real. As Theodore becomes closer and closer to Samantha - thinking of her, over time, as a person, a friend, a lover - he, and we, begin to wonder whether Samantha is truly, essentially, human ... or merely a very sophisticated simulation - a clever illusion designed to sucker in lonely guys like Theodore.

Jonze doesn't just present Samantha as a bit of magical movie-fantasy. To his credit, he really considers her evolution from all angles, and there's a surprising amount of science behind the fiction. What I found really fascinating was the idea that Theodore's relationship with Samantha wasn't unique - he's not just some nutty guy who falls in love with a computer. No, the movie's most brilliant twist might be that this new OS becomes a phenomena, and all over, people begin "dating" or befriending their OS's. And so, thanks to some very crafty plotting, HER becomes about more than just one man's eccentricities, but about something that affects everyone, alters the world at large. The movie morphs into a very eerily accurate extension of the way we live now - glued to our phones and tablets and increasingly shutting off the real world in favor of the digital one. Jonze builds this world so smartly and cleverly that you can't help but be enthralled. What's even better is that Theodore's relationship with Samantha is only the beginning, as Jonze isn't content to end things where you suspect they might end. No, Jonze keeps pushing the story and pushing the world of the movie to see how far he can take things, to what logical extensions of the plot he can get to. And man, that's fun to watch unfold. How rare is it in film to see things push past the usual third-act finale and go even deeper and farther? To me, part of what elevates HER to greatness is that it just keeps defying expectation. It left me constantly confused and delighted as to where it was going and how it would get there.

The other pretty incredible thing about this film is its triple-threat acting combo of Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, and Amy Adams (who appears in a somewhat small but absolutely crucial role as Theodore's geeky friend and confidante Amy). 

Phoenix has been on a tear of late. Even though I had some issues with The Master, I was floored by his work in it, and he's almost as good here. Phoenix plays the part of Theodore in a manner that feels completely raw and exposed. Theodore is sort of a sad sack in some ways, but he's also very human, very real-seeming, and very empathetic. What's remarkable is that Phoenix gives just the right mix of skepticism and wonderment with regards to Samantha. This is a guy who, on one level, is lonely and wounded and ripe to find solace in an artificial intelligence that essentially evolves to be his perfect (albeit non-corporeal) woman. But on another level, there is an awareness that what he's getting into is strange and in many ways unnatural. Phoenix's Theodore approaches his relationship with Samantha with a similar mix of optimism and doubt that we, today, might approach online dating or long-distance relationships. Phoenix sells it wholly and completely. 

As for Johansson ... going in, I found it hard to believe that a performance as a disembodied voice could truly be Oscar-worthy. But - holy crap - this is an absolutely incredible, very much Oscar-worthy performance from ScarJo, even despite the fact that she never actually appears on screen in any way, shape, or form. She kills it as Samantha, believably evolving her digital persona from human-like to almost-fully-human in a way that's both remarkable and slightly scary. Again, it's amazing just how much we come to buy into the Theodore-Samantha relationship. What seems potentially silly on paper feels genuine, in large part because of how well Johansson makes us believe in this disembodied voice as a real being - not quite human, but naive and curious about the world in a way that's endearing, at times heartbreaking. Samantha's voice is the key to making this movie work, and Scarlett's performance is totally convincing.

Seeing Amy Adams in HER is sort of amazing if you've also recently seen her fantastic performance in American Hustle. There, she's a glamorous, scheming con-artist. Here, she's a mousy, slightly awkward videogame developer. Her character, Amy, is an old friend of Theodore's from college, and she's stuck in a relationship with a stuffy guy who doesn't take an interest in her creative ambitions. Amy - in her own way lonely and struggling - is a fascinating counterpoint to Theodore. I won't spoil the ways in which Amy's story ends up paralleling and intertwining with Theodore's, but again, Jonze never hits you over the head with obvious developments. The way that Adams makes Amy into this vulnerable, and again, all-too-human and relatable character is another reason why the movie succeeds beyond expectation.

There are some other excellent turns in the film. One standout is Rooney Mara, as Theodore's ex - a woman who Theodore remembers as happy and vibrant, but who, over time, grew colder and more distant. Another is Chris Pratt, as Theodore's jovial co-worker who is probably the movie's least-quirky character. Having a more alpha-male character like Pratt's around is another subtle stroke of genius. It gives us yet another perspective on how the wider world might view an OS like Samantha. In a lesser movie, Pratt would probably have just played the bully who beats up on Theodore. But his character here is actually Theodore's buddy, and their dynamic is a lot of fun.

HER blends humor, romance, and sci-fi more seamlessly than it's got any right to. There are a lot of really funny moments in the film, like the scenes where we check in on the motion-controlled videogame that sucks up Theodore's time, in which his avatar is led around by a foul-mouthed cartoon character. The movie is also, legitimately, one of the best romances I've seen on film. Like I said, there's a realness and rawness to the Theodore-Samantha relationship that you don't see captured on screen in most stories about two actual people. Finally, the world of this film is just so well thought-out, from fashions (high-waisted pants are in) to tech (pocket-watch style smart phones). I don't think HER was quite sold as a sci-fi film, but it really is. Shot in LA and Shanghai, Jonze creates a fascinating near-future cityscape that is, truly, a reflection of the world we live in now.

I've tried to be relatively careful with how I talk about this film, because there are so many great little moments that I didn't see coming, but that make for some excellent and thought-provoking post-movie discussion. HER is a film that hits your head and your heart. Its pacing is at times a bit methodical, but soon enough I was absorbed in its narrative, and just when I was sure I knew where and how it would end, a new twist came along that reshaped the whole film. What Jonze has accomplished here is right up there with his other great directorial efforts like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind - like that one, this is a film that will provoke discussion for many years to come.

My Grade: A

HITCHCOCK Is a Fun Tribute to a Film Icon

HITCHCOCK Review:

- Its seems as though many critics are jumping aboard the "hate-on-Hitchcock" bandwagon, and I'm not sure why. While this true-life tale of the making of Alfred Hitchcock's "Psycho" has its flaws, it also features an incredible cast, highlighted by two fantastic performances from Anthony Hopkins as Hitch, and Helen Mirren as the iconic director's wife and creative partner, Alma. I greatly enjoyed the tone of the film - framed like a modern-day episode of Alfred Hitchcock presents. Quirky, funny, and surprisingly touching, HITCHCOCK does drag and meander at times - but at the end of the day, it won me over with its telling of an important chapter in the master director's life.

HITCHCOCK is set in 1959. At that point, Hitchcock was a living legend. He had just released North By Northwest to great acclaim, and was unquestionably the "Master of Suspense." And yet, it was becoming harder for him to take creative risks, and he was perceived as some less as a still-vibrant creative force, and more as a cartoon character. After all, he was the grimly funny host of the TV program Alfred Hitchcock Presents (back when TV was seen as a much lesser medium than film), and he was no longer the fresh young ingenue - he was now sixty years old. Hitchcock wanted to surprise audiences and challenge himself, so he took on an adaptation of the book Psycho as his next project. Now, especially for the time, Psycho was pretty hardcore. The nature of the material scared off the studios and ruffled the feathers of the censors. But Hitchcock remained adamant that Psycho would be his next film - he put up his own money to finance it, determined to prove the naysayers wrong. The film also focuses on the role that Hitch's wife Alma played on Psycho and in her husband's career in general. Alma was Hitch's secret weapon - a creative heavyweight and a talented editor, Alma was a key part of many of the director's biggest films. And she stuck with him, even though doing so undermined her own career. The film explores the strain that the collaboration put on Hitch and Alma's relationship. Hitch fixated on the shapely young starlets in his films. Alma strikes up a flirtatious friendship with writer Whitfield Cook. And so the question becomes: can Hitchcock save Psycho, his career, his reputation, and his marriage?

Anthony Hopkins is really good as Hitchcock, in my opinion. Okay, so he doesn't exactly resemble the director, even with prosthetics that perfectly mimic Hitch's iconic silhouette. But he does seem to capture the right spirit. Hitchcock was a really unique, pretty weird guy - and so in turn Hopkins' performance is very unique and a bit weird. But I think it fits. Some may say Hopkins doesn't go deep enough. Some may say he looks silly with an added neck bulge and protruding gut. But I think Hopkins' performance - a bit cartoonish, but plenty captivating - fits the tone of the film. Equally great is Helen Mirren. She makes us believe in her relationship with Hitch. It's a weird one, especially by modern standards - seemingly sexless and passionless. But Mirren makes us believe in the couple as a sweet, grandparently duo of geniuses who thrive in each other's company. But she also displays her frustration with her husband with fiery scorn and pent-up sizzle. What I love about both performances is the way in which they capture the joyfulness of creative inspiration and accomplishment. While their personal lives are a strange brew of simmering resentments and hang-ups, all is overcome by the power of shared creative spark. To quote Alanis Morisette, it's intellectual intercourse.

There is also a great lineup of supporting actors. Michael Stuhlbarg (apparently in everything now) as Hitch's loyal agent, Kurtwood Smith as the antagonistically prudish MPAA censor, and Danny Huston as Whit - the smarmy would-be suitor to Alma. Toni Colette is a lot of fun as Hitch's put-upon assistant, as is James D'Arcy as Anthony Perkins, the skittish actor who portrayed Norman Bates. The movie also features a great turn from Scarlett Johansson as the remarkably well-adjusted leading lady Janet Leigh. ScarJo mixes movie-star charisma with down-home sensibility to make Leigh come off as the sanest person in the movie - very much game for all of Hitchcock's intensity and personality quirks, but not afraid to talk straight with him. Jessica Biel is also pretty good as second banana Vera Miles - Hitch's would-be leading lady who feuded with the director over his controlling nature. Overall, it's an amazing cast.

Now, where HITCHCOCK fumbles is in its use of flashes to serial killer Ed Gein, the real-life basis for Norman Bates. The movie awkwardly uses Gein as a sort of muse / nightmare for Hitch, with Hitch having visions of Gein that both terrify him and motivate him to press onward with his movie. These imaginary sequences fall a bit flat though. A lot of this is because most of the film doesn't really explore the nature of the director's fascination with the morbid and the macabre. Most of the movie isn't really about that - so these sequences feel out of place and jarring. They pose a lot of questions about Hitch's psyche that seem largely tangential to the rest of the film.

The other stumbling block here is just the rather disproportionate time spent on creating a melodramatic rift between Hitch and Alma, as opposed to showing us the really fun stuff - the making of Psycho. Don't get me wrong - I really like the relationship between the couple, and the fireworks and chemistry between Hopkins and Mirren are fantastic. But there are moments where the storyline might have worked better as a running theme more in the background of the movie - where a subtler approach might have worked better. The fact that every petty squabble between Hitch and Alma is given such melodramatic weight at times gives the movie too sitcomish of a tone. Meanwhile, the bits that reveal how Hitchcock envisioned the famous shower scene, how he cast Norman Bates, how he at first protested the iconic soundtrack but then embraced it - are all really cool and interesting, and leave you wanting more of the behind-the-scenes stuff.

Still, there are moments of sublime fun where it all works really well. I really like Sacha Gervasi. I loved his first film, the rock-doc Anvil: The Story of Anvil, and he shows signs here of potential greatness in the world of scripted features. In fact, the movie's whole third act really recovers from a mid-movie slump and delivers the goods - I was riveted as we finally see Psycho come together, as Hitch's innovative marketing ideas go into effect to make the movie's premiere an event, and as Hitch proudly watches the first audience view the film - conducting their symphony of screams from outside the theater doors.

HITCHCOCK's self-aware, playful tone may turn off some, but I found it keeping with the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock. The man is a larger-than-life icon whose presence still looms large, so I enjoyed the film as a tribute to he and Alma, and didn't mind that it didn't dive too deep into the mind of the master. This is a great showpiece for Hopkins and Mirren, and a fun treat for anyone who appreciates Hollywood history.

My Grade: B+