Captain America: The Winter Soldier

So those Avengers movies...they seem to be kinda popular judging by the money they're raking in at the box office. I thought The Avengers was great. I loved the first Iron Man but thought the movies progressively went downhill with the sequels. As for the two Thor movies, I thought Thor was a great lead character, but the movies itself were disappointing. So what's that leave? That's right, my personal favorite, Steve Rogers himself. He returns by his better known name in 2014's Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

With the epic battle in New York in the rear view mirror, Steve Rogers, a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans) himself, is working for SHIELD. He takes on countless missions around the world, anything and everything that threatens national and international security, often with Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) working with him. Captain America and the Black Widow pull off one dangerous mission in the Indian Ocean, but it has dangerous repercussions. It actually exposes a breach within Shield and now Captain America is made to look like a traitor to everything he has defended for all these years. With all of SHIELD's resources on his trail, he's now on his own as he tries to stop a diabolical plan that could kill millions while also proving his innocence. His biggest obstacle? A mysterious, seemingly in destructible assassin dubbed the Winter Soldier.

A plot description for an Avengers movie is pretty unnecessary. Without hearing a word about the story, you either know you will or won't be seeing this flick. From directors Anthony and Joe Russo, 'Soldier' is another gem, another worthy addition to the Avengers franchise. Apparently I'm not the only one who thought so as the most recent Captain America earned over $700 million internationally at the box office. All the ingredients are there -- great cast, epic action, well-written script, some well-placed humor -- but there's a reason the Captain movies are my favorite. They're big, giant blockbusters, but they're more than that. These are genuinely smart movies. I don't know if I can say the same for either Iron Man or Thor entries.

It all starts with Chris Evans reprising his role as Captain America. He's long been one of my favorite actors, and this is obviously his biggest and most recognizable role. I love how they've developed the Steve Rogers character. It's been a couple years since the Avengers, and Steve/Captain is still adjusting to the 21st Century after six-plus decades being frozen in a glacier. His chemistry with Johansson's Black Widow/Natasha is evident in all their scenes together, and it's definitely cool to see individuals among the Avengers get some time to themselves, not just as part of the group. Also cool? Like you needed to know, but Samuel L. Jackson is back as Nick Fury, SHIELD's tough, efficient leader. Throw these three epically cool characters together, and you've got quite a lot of heroes to lead the way.

Also returning with varying amounts of screentime are Cobie Smulders as SHIELD agent Hill, Toby Jones, and Hayley Atwell as Peggy Carter, Steve's possible love interest from the 1940s, now a grandma struggling with health issues. 

How about some fresh blood too?!? When I saw that Robert Redford was part of the cast, I almost lost my mind. Robert REDFORD?!? Here he plays Alexander Pierce, a powerful senator backing the defensive efforts of SHIELD who has a long history working with Fury. It's a cool part, one that adds another dimension to the already enjoyable story. Anthony Mackie is a welcome addition to as Sam Wilson, a para-rescue vet who forms a quick friendship with Steve when things hit the fan. Frank Grillo and Callan Mulvey play members of a strike force working with SHIELD while Emily VanCamp plays Steve's neighbor holding a key secret. Some cool parts to add to an already very talented cast.

So go figure, but this Captain America movie has some pretty cool action sequences. Crazy, right? I don't want to give away too much because the various twists and turns should come as a surprise and not be spoiled in a review. The action though is pretty solid, from a smaller scale scene early on where Captain, Widow and a Strike force team take out a group of commandos holding hostages to chases sprinkled throughout the story. I thought the coolest was Jackson's Fury trying to evade an ambush on the streets of Washington D.C., just an effortlessly smooth extended sequence that some cool tricks up its sleeve. And the finale? Yeah, pretty nuts, a gigantic battle in scale and size in the skies in and around Washington. The finale in The Avengers set the bar pretty high in that department, and 'Soldier' does its best to reach those heights.

Just a good movie with a lot to recommend. This is a blockbuster -- $700 million!!! -- that's got a brain. Even the Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) isn't an out-and-out villain, but a tortured baddie forced into something he had no control over. There's a pretty major twist near the halfway point that I didn't love, but it does work when all things are considered, both for this movie and the Captain America and Avengers franchise going forward. Highly recommended, an easy flick to sit back, watch and appreciate.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014): *** 1/2 /****

Muppets Most Wanted

I grew up watching The Muppets, loved them and always have loved them. The Muppet Movie was a childhood favorite and still is, and their TV show that ran for five seasons remains a gem. So naturally I was pretty disappointed when I came away incredibly disappointed with the 2011 franchise reboot, The Muppets. I gave it 2.5 stars but I came away less than pleased. I'm quick to forgive though and here we are with 2014's Muppets Most Wanted.

Having put themselves back on the map.....well, sort of, the Muppets must decide what to do now with their rediscovered fame. Kermit the Frog wants to take it slow, letting the group find their rhythm before jumping back into the limelight. The rest of the Muppets? Miss Piggy, Fozzie the Bear, Gonzo, Rowlf the Dog and the whole crew want to embrace the spotlight. Kermit goes along with it somewhat unwillingly, the Muppets hiring a manager, Dominic Badguy (Ricky Gervais), who unfortunately has some other plans. Badguy is partners with Constantine, the world's most dangerous frog and recently escaped from a Siberian gulag. Their evil, crazy, ridiculous plan? Constantine kidnaps Kermit -- a spot-on lookalike -- and sends him back to the gulag while he takes over the Muppets. Can the gang figure out what's going on or is Kermit doomed to waste away in Siberia?

It wasn't just that 2011's The Muppets wasn't good. It had its moments, and let's be honest. As long as the actual Muppets characters are around, a movie has to be halfway decent, right? Whatever the reasons -- and I'm still processing those reasons -- I liked this version far more. The reviews were about the same, and this follow-up actually made far less money (about $75 million) so go figure. I can't explain it everyone else. For me, I liked the cameos more. The story was goofy but funny. And no disrespect to Jason Segel and Amy Adams and Walter (who's still around), but I never found myself truly interested in their story. Here, I went along for the ride a little bit more. Sure, there are still some flaws that I don't know if any new Muppets movie can fix/solve but those flaws are minimized.

What did director/co-writer James Bobin and writer Nicholas Stoller get right this time around? For starters, more of a focus on the actual Muppets, those created by their founder and brilliant mind Jim Henson. We see Kermit, Miss Piggy, Fozzie, Gonzo, Rowlf, Animal and the whole crew. The voices behind the familiar faces are different, but it's a seamless transition. Walter returns but he's just one of the gang now, not a major focus and that's a good thing. It's fun watching these characters you grew up watching. Their running bits, their sight gags, their subtle one-liners, it's all there. Could there be more focus on our favorite Muppets? Sure, but what's there is getting back to basics.  

If there's an issue, it's the over-reliance on the cameos, the surprise appearances from the Hollywood masses. The key characters include Gervais, nicely cast as the evil sidekick to Constantine, Tina Fey as Nadya, the musically-minded commander of the Siberian gulag, and Modern Family's Ty Burrell as an Interpol agent tracking down Constantine, Sam the Eagle making a memorable appearance as his C.I.A. agent counterpart. They're all solid, all bringing the laughs...but that's just a start. Also look out for -- and take a deep breath --  Lady Gaga, Tony Bennett, Hugh Bonneville, Jemaine Clement, P. Diddy, Rob Corddry, Celine Dion, Zach Galifianakis, Josh Groban, Salma Hayek, Tom Hiddleston, Toby Jones, Frank Langella, Ray Liotta, James McAvoy, Usher, Stanley Tucci, Danny Trejo, Christoph Waltz and probably a bunch others I'm forgetting. Most are a quick scene, a blink and you'll miss it appearance.

And there's the bigger issue. The movie becomes more about the goofiness, kookiness and I hate to say it, the gimmick. It doesn't feel like a movie, just a series of running gags. With this much talent assembled, some of them are going to work. The Muppets' complete acceptance of Constantine as Kermit is pretty hilarious. Animal's immediate awareness of what's going on is perfect. The musical numbers are excellent and far better than the original, especially 'We're Doing a Sequel' and 'I'm Number Two.' It is a movie missing that special something, those magic Muppet moments. It's really good but just not a classic.

Muppets Most Wanted (2014): ***/****

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Oh, how quick the time goes. It seems like the first The Hunger Games was hitting theaters way back in March 2013 and doing it well, earning over $400 million in the U.S. alone. Well, it is based off a trilogy by author Suzanne Collins and as good as the first entry was, the series certainly held a ton of promise going forward. The early returns for 2013's The Hunger Games: Catching Fire were incredibly positive, earning over $300 million in just three weeks in theaters. Does it hold up to the pressure of the vaunted second movie in a trilogy sub-genre?

It's been several months since Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) survived and won the 74th Annual Hunger Games, both struggling to cope with what they were able to survive. Their victory in the Games wasn't so simple or straightforward though. The Panem government is struggling to hold the Districts together, the people seeing that the government isn't so perfect, all of it caused by seeing Katniss and Peeta's defiance in almost choosing suicide rather than one of them winning the previous Hunger Games. While struggling through their own issues, the Game's winners are required to go on a victory tour, taking a train across the 12 districts until they finally end up in the Capital. With each passing district though, the defiance and unrest grows bigger and bigger, leaving Panem President Snow (Donald Sutherland) little choice but to do something desperate in hopes of turning the tide in favor of the government.

SPOILERS STOP READING SPOILERS Because I'm not sure who's read the books, who's seen the trailers, who's looked for possible spoilers, it is rather difficult to write this review without giving away a pretty major spoilers about where the story goes in the second half. Watching previews, it's pretty obvious what's going on, but I don't want to be the one blowing the surprise so be forewarned as you continue reading. SPOILERS FROM HERE ON IN

My personal favorite of the trilogy, I was very curious to see what director Francis Lawrence did with the series' second entry. The second film in a trilogy is pivotal, movies like Godfather 2 and Empire Strikes Back setting the bar pretty high. 'Fire' does a good job setting up where the series will go, the third book broken up into two separate features scheduled for 2014 and 2015. Almost across the board, we learn a lot more about all the characters, the disintegrating situation in Panem. If there's a weakness, it's that at 146 minutes, 'Fire' is a little long in the tooth. The first hour is a little slow-moving in setting everything up, laying everything out with the feel of duplication. It plays a lot like the first movie, scenes repeated, situations repeated almost word-for-word. Thankfully, that's not the entire movie. Things pick up near the hour-mark for the better, the momentum picking up and never slowing down until the final credits.

What is never in question -- and wasn't an issue in the first one -- is casting Jennifer Lawrence in the lead role here as Katniss Everdeen, a teenager living in Panem's District 12, the poorest of the districts. Coming off her Oscar-award winning performance from Silver Linings Playbook, Lawrence adds to the development of Katniss, and for the better in a big way. She may be a teenager in years but in experience, she's a grown woman, questioning everything about what her life has become. Lawrence's Katniss still struggles with the spotlight, not understanding why she's being glorified for killing and surviving where so many others died. Her Katniss has become a hero, a beacon of the rebellion, a hope for something better, something she is quickly figuring out. Whether it be on-screen or just doing promotional interviews, Lawrence has a very natural, likable side, and she proves again why she was such an ideal casting choice to play Katniss.

All the other key players return as well, and with some new additions. I liked Peeta's development, Hutcherson capitalizing on a script that allows him something to do other than whine and look dreamily into Katniss' eyes. Sutherland too is spot-on, brimming with menacing intensity and trying to hold onto a tenuous grasp of his country. Also returning are Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, the former District 12 winner and booze-addled mentor to Katniss and Peeta, Elizabeth Banks as Effie, the group's agent of sorts, promoting them while growing close to each, Lenny Kravitz as Cinna, their stylist and Katniss' confidant, Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman, the TV host of the televised Hunger Games, Toby Jones his partner. With so many characters, it'd be easy for some to get lost in the shuffle, but that's not the case here. Each supporting character gets his moment to shine, Harrelson and Banks taking Haymitch and Effie forward, Kravitz doing a fine job as Cinna, and Tucci is ever the scene-stealer as Caesar, able to produce a laugh or a harsher, more emotional moment almost at will.

Where 'Fire' hits its groove is near the hour-mark, and here come the SPOILERS. In hopes of squashing the symbol Katniss has become, President Snow has a twist in mind for the 75th Hunger Games, the Third Quarter Quell. The competitors will be two winners apiece from each District, Katniss and Peeta forced back into the arena, this time created by Game Master Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman). The setting looks like the South Pacific, a jungle-covered island with a lagoon in the middle, but there's countless twists and threats awaiting the competitors as they see who will be the last fighter standing. Much like the first movie, 'Fire' is at its strongest during the actual Hunger Games. There's something primal, exhilarating, profoundly dark and exciting about these sequences. As a bonus, we get to know more about the other Tributes -- far more than the original -- including Sam Claflin as Finnick, the ego-driven District 4 hero, Jena Malone as Johanna, the vicious, cynical fighter who isn't interested in public opinion, and Jeffrey Wright as Beetee, the squirrelly mechanical and engineering specialist.

Sure, there are weaknesses along the way, especially the sometimes sluggish first hour. Taken as a whole, it's a more than worthy follow-up in the series. If it's not the end-all, be-all second entry in the trilogy, it's still very good and more than lives up to the groundwork Collins set up with her second novel. The ending especially works, doing a great job ending on a cliffhanger that should propel the series right into the final two movies. What else to look for? Liam Hemsworth as Gale, Katniss' quasi-boyfriend, and Willow Shields as Primrose, Katniss' younger sister, growing up at the most turbulent of times and maturing just as fast. And this time around, I noticed James Newton Howard's musical score far more, a worthy addition to the trilogy.

Where does this one stand? Fans of the series -- the books or the first film -- will no doubt enjoy this one. I liked it a lot, even loved the second half. I resent the three books being split into four movies, but like the rest of you jamokes, I'll be there when it hits theaters. 'Fire' does a very nice job setting things up, and I'm psyched for where things are going.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013): ***/****

The Hunger Games

As far as popular book series go, The Hunger Games trilogy by author Suzanne Collins is the only one I've fallen for. That sounds negative, I just liked them...so there. Harry Potter, Twilight, Percy Jackson, any number of others, I never had a whole lot of interest in them. With 'THG,' I don't know if it was the characters, the future dystopia, the unique setting, but I loved the books and raced through all three in a little over a week before the first movie was released March 23rd. Where so many other book-to-novel transitions suffer, 2012's The Hunger Games isn't one of them.

It's sometime in the near future, and North America has ceased to exist. Instead, a government and country Panem have taken over, the country divided into 12 districts ruled with an iron fist. It has been some 80-odd years since a revolution took place, the people revolting against their rulers. The government that took control in the aftermath has installed a brutal system of rule with a yearly tribute meant to keep the population in check. It is called the Hunger Games, and once a year, a boy and a girl aged 12-18 from each district is picked at random and thrown into an arena where they will fight to the death. It is a televised event, all the population forced to watch.

In one of those districts -- District 12, looks like Appalachia -- lives 16-year old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), who cares for her younger sister, Prim (Willow Shields), and her mother who still struggles with the death of her husband in a mining accident. Katniss is the sole provider for her family and tries to calm Prim as they prepare for the Reaping, the yearly event where the 2 district "tributes" are picked for the Hunger Games. At the ceremony, Prim is selected but Katniss desperately volunteers to go in her place. With the male district tribute, a baker's son, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss is whisked off to the Capitol City where she is prepared and trained for the Hunger Games and all its brutality. She can be told anything she wants, but nothing can truly prepare her for what awaits in the arena where 23 will die and only one will survive.

With many book-to-film transitions, my typical goal/objective is for the film to just not ruin the book(s) I've enjoyed so much. With Collins helping write the script, director Gary Ross passes with flying colors. 'Hunger' stays true to the book, the characters and the story. Any omissions don't hurt the movie, and any creative license goes with the flow of the book and movie. As for the future society, it gets things right. We're left in the dark as to the exact details, only seeing this totalitarian society rise up in the place of what we did know. The rich population in the Capitol are lavish, extravagant and favor heavy make-up and showy clothes. The outlying districts are just trying to survive, make it to the next day. It's still a world that feels familiar, but it is tweaked just enough to keep things interesting in all its despicable brutality.

Reading the books, I knew that Jennifer Lawrence had been cast as heroine Katniss so that definitely helped. I had a picture of what the character looked like in my head. No doubt this movie will sink or swim on how the individual viewers feel about her because she's in about 98% of the movie. This is an example of perfect casting...perfect. The sign of good acting is that you don't feel like you're watching someone act. Lawrence -- just 21 years old -- is an incredibly gifted young talent. Natural doesn't begin to describe her. It seems almost effortless with her. She's fought for everything she has in her life, and now she intends to protect her family no matter what. Having hunted and navigated the woods for years, she doesn't realize it, but she's perfectly suited to survive the Games. Good for her, not so much when her rival tributes see how talented she is. Lawrence makes Katniss a human being, not a character, just a teenage girl who's naive, strong, innocent and dead-set on protecting those she loves.

As for the rest of the cast, it's just gravy that they're uniformly and equally as well-cast, both the villains and heroes. Hutcherson has a good, easy-going chemistry with Lawrence, and his Peete has a secret that could help or hurt their chances at survival. Liam Hemsworth plays Gale, Katniss' long-time friend, the two teenagers realizing how special the other is to them only when death is on the line. The Gale character is developed considerably more in books 2 and 3. Rock star and musician Lenny Kravitz is an interesting choice (but a good one) to play Cinna, Katniss' stylist meant to build up an image of her for the viewers. Stanley Tucci is a scene-stealer as Caesar Flickerman, the amiable host of the televised Hunger Games, Toby Jones as his on-air co-host. Woody Harrelson is equally good as Haymitch, the District 12 mentor, a previous winner who teaches his new tributes with each passing year. Elizabeth Banks is surprisingly funny as the clueless Effie, the District 12 representative and guide for the tributes. As for the Capitol villains, there's Donald Sutherland as sinister President Snow and Wes Bentley as Seneca Crane, the constructor of the Hunger Games arena.

The 142-minute movie is basically dived into two portions; the intro in District 12 and the Capitol, all of it building that sense of doom that leads into the second half, the actual Hunger Games (the 74th running of the event). There are no real weak or slow points in the story, but the momentum certainly picks up once Katniss is thrown into the arena with the 23 other tributes. The intro to the arena is a high-point, each tribute on a pedestal waiting for a clock to wind down. Once it runs out, it's a free for all, some running, others running toward the supplies placed in front of them. 'Hunger' earns it's PG-13 rating, but it could have been a hard R easily. The games are almost entirely shown through Katniss' eyes, a personal, adrenaline-pumping, terrifying experience of a blood-soaked sporting event. There are some secrets in store, and the tributes never know what will be thrown at them. Credit also to composer James Newton Howard's score, memorable without being overbearing. We really only get to meet two other tributes, young Rue (Amandla Stenberg), and vicious Cato (Alexander Ludwig), the others mostly known as their district number and little else.

What I came away most impressed with was that Collins' first book in the trilogy, The Hunger Games, throws a lot at the reader. A transition to the big screen seemed daunting. A mysterious and vague -- but hinted at -- past, a long list of characters who were all interesting in their own right, and a futuristic world that seems familiar to what we know, but at the same time is vastly different. The movie doesn't just pick and choose what to do, instead it does an admirable job of making that transition. A lot of that can be chalked up to Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, a star-making role if there ever was one. An incredibly worthy start to a highly successful franchise. Looking forward to what the next movies have to offer.

The Hunger Games <---trailer (2012): *** 1/2 /****

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011)

I love reading, always have and hope I always will. So when I saw a trailer this past summer for a spy movie based off a book from English novelist John Le Carre, I wanted to check out the book before seeing the movie. I can't tell you how much I struggled through the book, forcing myself to finish it because if a movie was made, the source novel has to be good, right? Thankfully, 2011's Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was infinitely more enjoyable than its source novel.

When a mission is badly botched in Budapest, Control (John Hurt) and his right hand man, George Smiley (Gary Oldman), are forcefully pushed out the door at MI6. A new power system rises to the top, and most of a year later with Control dead, Smiley is approached with an important mission. More and more intelligence points to a high-up official in British intelligence being a mole working deep, deep undercover for Russia. The suspects have been narrowed down to four key individuals, but none of them seem any more likely to be the mole than the others. With the help of a younger but very capable agent, Peter Guillam (Benedict Cumberbatch), Smiley is tasked with exposing the mole. Can they do it in time?

Le Carre's book is something else. Countless characters, seemingly endless passages of dialogue on top of dialogue, and a non-linear story that I for one had trouble keeping up with. I hate calling a book dull or boring because it sounds very high school, but I struggled to maintain an interest in the very slowly developing story. Even when things were revealed, I had to re-read and double check just to make sure I'd read right. It defines a low-key, subtle spy story with little sense of urgency. Thankfully the movie streamlines the characters, the dialogue and the story, all the while remaining true to Le Carre's novel. It certainly isn't a movie for everyone, and it has its flaws, but 'Tinker' is quite the thinking man's spy movie.

Let's start with the tone and look of the movie. Like the novel, it is incredibly low-key, almost comatose in its development. For a story revolving around a high-level mole, no one seems particularly worried. The story utilizes flashbacks and bounces around constantly, throwing new characters in and out of scenes as needed. You know, just know, they're somehow related, and for the most part they do fit together in the end. It is a self-assured movie, and will probably lose some viewers with its leisurely pacing. The look of the movie is incredible from the sets and costumes to the camera work. The spies all wear suits and ties, constantly smoke cigarettes, and always have some liquor close by. This was the Cold War fought by gentlemen, not the gung-ho, shoot 'em up James Bond and Jason Bournes. These spies did their best when not seen by their opposition, slinking in and out as quickly as they arrived.

My biggest motivation for finishing the book was the cast assembled in director Tomas Alfredson's spy drama. I'll begin with Gary Oldman as George Smiley, a part that has already started to earn the actor some Oscar buzz for Best Actor. Like its story, Oldman is understated beyond belief as Smiley, a veteran agent with years of experience under his belt. He's experienced more than most can dream of, and the wear and tear shows. Pushed out of a job he was damn good at, his Smiley holds some earned resentment at the government and superiors that turned their back on him. Above all else, he is a professional though. He's a dogged investigator, able to piece together clues and information as needed, always thinking how the pieces fit together. I love Oldman as an actor -- playing good or bad guy -- but it's great seeing him truly acting, not just hamming it up. Great lead performance.

That's saying something considering the rest of the cast. The treacherous suspects include Alleline (Toby Jones), Haydon (Colin Firth), Esterhase (David Dencik), and Bland (Ciaran Hinds), both Jones and Firth making the best impressions. Cumberbath too holds his own at Oldman's side, an agent with a possible secret of his own, and Hurt is Hurt, legitimizing his small part because he's John Hurt. One of my new favorite actors, Mark Strong, has a solid supporting part as Prideaux, an agent who's stumbled into a botched mission and must pay the consequences. Another favorite of mine, Tom Hardy plays Ricki, a "scalphunter," an agent usually relegated to the more sinister missions, this time trying to move up a level with some info he stumbled into. Kathy Burke and Stephen Graham have key parts as former Intelligence members Smiley investigates. Not a false performance in the bunch, an ensemble working perfectly together. Not showy at all, just professionals doing what they do, seemingly effortlessly.

The movie isn't perfect though, but I did enjoy it considerably more than Le Carre's novel. Problems persist though. We learn little to nothing about the suspects so even when the mole is revealed, it makes little impact. A throwaway line explains the reasoning in a weak wrap-up. I would have liked some reasoning, some background on these men, allowing us to connect emotionally in some way whether it be hatred, respect, whatever. The story drifts at time -- like the novel -- in an 127-minute movie. Still, it's almost a must-see movie because it is so rare to see a movie of this quality, especially among the spy genre. The ending especially is a winner, a montage set to French song La Mer, later Americanized by Bobby Darin's Beyond the Sea. Style and acting to spare, just know what you're about to watch.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy <---trailer (2011): ***/****

Your Highness

Stepping into the comedy spotlight over the last four or five years, Danny McBride has slowly built up a name for himself. He's had smaller parts in The Heartbreak Kid, Up in the Air, and Hot Rod while his bigger supporting roles in Tropic Thunder and Pineapple Express were an indication of bigger and better things for this very funny actor.  As well, his show Eastbound and Down has already gained a cult following.  His style and humor are apparently very dividing among fans -- which I was surprised to read up about. Either you love him or you hate him. Me? I think he's hilarious.

In his first real starring role, McBride wrote and starred in this year's Your Highness, a fantasy Dark Ages comedy that struggled -- okay, it bombed epically -- in theaters, barely making $20 million. The movie is truly a mess, full of juvenile humor revolving around sex and violence mixed in with elements of Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and any number of other fantasy and adventure-based movies. It's far from McBride's fault. Check that. It's not McBride's fault as an actor at least. This script is all over the place, but it does provide enough laughs through all the mess to recommend a little bit, but that's all.  Just a little.

The younger son of King Tallious, Prince Thadeous (McBride) can't seem to do anything right, although to be fair he really isn't interested in doing anything not related to sex or drugs. On the other hand, his older brother and future king Fabious (James Franco) can do no wrong, going on countless heroic and dangerous quests. Fabious intends to marry Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel), but on their wedding day she is abducted by the evil wizard, Leezar (Justin Theroux), who intends to fulfill a centuries old prophecy and sire a dragon son. With his team of heroic knights, Fabious prepares to embark on yet another quest, this time to save his beloved. Thadeous more than unwillingly goes along, getting a little more interested in the proceedings when they meet Isabel (Natalie Portman), a beautiful young woman similarly on a dangerous quest. But can Thadeous do anything right, anything at all?

That story/plot description is needlessly wordy so I apologize for that. Basically 'Lazy prince joins heroic brother in quest to save fiance' would have sufficed, but that's a little short on the details, don't you think?  The movie does have its moments, and it has potential in a lot of different ways, but on the whole everything never clicks into place. The fantastical Dark Ages setting with warlocks, witches, spells, mythological beasts is certainly an interesting setting for a spoof-like comedy, but 'Highness' gets bogged down in all those elements. Where the violence and action in Pineapple Express was over the top and still worked, it just doesn't here. Long stretches go by without a laugh in sight, making it hard to remember the lines and gags that were good.

Now all of the juvenile humor isn't bad. A lot of it is surprisingly funny. Here's a good test of whether you'll like this movie. Many of the laughs come from McBride, Franco and Co. speaking in these ridiculous English accents and then cursing, dropping f-bombs and 'sh*t' left and right. Because it sounds so out of place, and the deliveries are so perfect, you can't help but laugh. McBride's Thadeous gets most of the great one-liners (read IMDB's Memorable Quotes HERE), his off-the-cuff vulgarity selling the lines. McBride commits to the ridiculousness of the whole thing, embracing the stupidity and the badness, especially in scenes with his squire sidekick, Courtney (Rasmus Hardiker), who he enjoys all sorts of misadventures with, usually sacrificing Courtney's well-being for his own. If you're going to see this movie, I recommend it almost entirely for McBride's very funny performance as ever-idiotic Thadeous.

The other names definitely caught me off guard when I first saw the trailer for this. Unfortunately, the bigger names don't look too comfortable here. Poor James Franco, typically one of my favorite actors working in movies today. He looks lost, not quite sure what to make of the movie or his character.  As for Natalie Portman, my first thought was that she had been blackmailed into doing this movie. Her Isabel is basically eye candy, something for Thadeous to stare at, and Portman doesn't disappoint. She looks beautiful, even if her acting talent is wasted. Both Franco and Portman are better actors than this. That statement could go for much of the cast. Along with Theroux as the evil wizard Leezar and Deschanel as the virginal Belladonna, there's Damian Lewis as Boremont, a treacherous knight, and Toby Jones as Julie, Fabious' mischievous squire and assistant.

Mostly because of the talent involved and the unique setting, I really wanted to like this movie. It has its moments for sure, and when it is funny, it is very funny. Those moments are few and far between though, the acting talent going to waste. The movie ends on a possible jumping off point for a sequel, but that's not going to happen, not after how mightily this first movie struggled in theaters. It probably doesn't deserve the hate it has received, but I can see why some viewers didn't like it. Smart or even mildly intelligent humor, this is not. Worth renting, but be very aware of what you're getting into.

Your Highness <---trailer (2011): ** 1/2 /****

Captain America: The First Avenger

For several years now, there was talk of an Avengers movie, a team of superheroes united to help defend the world. I've seen most of the movies by now with a couple exceptions, but when I first saw the trailers for Captain America: The First Avenger -- released to huge business this past weekend -- I was especially psyched for the release. It seemed like one of those rare movies where everything came together to work perfectly; story, action, cast, anything and everything. In a rare departure though from a lot of the crap that hits theaters, this one actually lives up to expectations and then some.

What immediately caught my eye with the trailers released over the last few months was the World War II setting. Now I read comic books growing up, but never religiously, picking them up here and there.  I knew who Captain America was, knew his basic storyline, but in general I was pretty vague about him. As a relative non-fan, I can say safely that it doesn't matter how much/little you know about the character. Just go and enjoy it. 'First Avenger' plays like a good old-fashioned action movie, a throwback to movies of past where the good guys were really good and the bad guys really bad. Imagine the Indiana Jones movies (okay, Raiders and Crusade) but with a superhero. Just a fun, highly entertaining movie all around.

Weighing just 90 pounds and always under attack by constant ailments and diseases, Brooklyn youngster Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) just can't get into the army as he meets constant rejection wherever he tries to enlist while World War II rages all over Europe and the Pacific. His persistence catches the eye of Dr. Abraham Erskine (Stanley Tucci) who likes what he sees out of the young man, enlisting him in his own special outfit headed by army Colonel Phillips (Tommy Lee Jones). Undergoing a new scientific medical treatment created by Erskine, Steve is transformed into a super soldier, earning the name Captain America as he encourages Americans to support the war effort by buying war bonds. The Army wants to unleash him against the Axis, but someone is gunning for him. A splinter group of Adolf Hitler's science team/program, a fanatical officer, Col. Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving), has created their own brand of super weapons with his organization Hydra, and their intention isn't just taking out the Allies, but the whole world...unless Captain America can stop them.

One of the biggest concerns reviewers/critics/fans had as the movie was being made was the casting as Chris Evans as Captain America. I've long been a fan of his and think he's one of the real rising stars in Hollywood so I can't say I was too worried. I think any worries people had with Evans being cast were unfounded. He is more than capable of carrying an action movie like this one. Seeing so many dark, cynical superhero movies, it is also rather refreshing to see a character like Steve Rogers, a physically weak but incredibly strong-willed, stubborn individual who just wants to do what's right and join the war effort. Early scenes with Evans' head digitally placed on a much smaller stand-in's body are flawless (even creepy), only to have Steve transform into a ripped, jacked up super soldier. I look forward to seeing Evans continue with the character in next summers Avengers movie, especially with this strong debut now under his belt.

A continuing trend in this recent wave of superhero movies are these ridiculously loaded supporting casts.  We're not talking action stars who can't act a lick either, we're talking reputable, hardcore, serious actors. Tommy Lee Jones takes a role he could do in his sleep and nails it, throwing one-liners left and right. Tucci is a scene-stealer in his too short appearance, a German doctor who left the Nazis behind to work with the Americans. Dominic Cooper plays Howard Stark, engineer/inventor extraordinaire and Tony Stark's father (Iron Man for those newbies around), the very beautiful Hayley Atwell is Agent Peggy Carter, a liaison and PG-13 love interest for Steve, Toby Jones is Dr. Zola, Schmidt's chemist and science specialist, and Weaving makes the most of his underused part as Colonel Schmidt, the fanatical German officer who eventually becomes Red Skull. Some parts are obviously bigger and better than others, but not a one among them disappoints.

Like I needed another reason to like this movie, but I got it as the story developed, Captain American becoming a bona-fide war hero. He liberates some 400 prisoners of war from a Schmidt camp, six of them becoming his expert, international fighting team. A team of specialists?!? Men on a mission! America's group includes his best friend growing up from Brooklyn, Freddy Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Dum Dum Duggan (Neal McDonough), the Irishman who favors a heavy shotgun, Gabe Jones (Derek Luke), a commando, Jim Morita (Kenneth Choi), a Japanese-American soldier, James Montgomery Falworth (JJ Feild), the proper Englishman, and Jacques Dernier (Bruno Ricci), the Frenchman. For the most part, they're given no development other than a quick introduction before being unleashed on the Nazis in a very cool action-heavy montage. Lack of a better description aside, I'll just say they're very cool.

With action movies more than maybe any other genre, I don't always need a lot of things to happen. I'll look past a movie's flaws as long as I'm entertained. There are good movies, and there are good action movies. Captain America? It's just a good movie with some action. Chicago Tribune movie critic Michael Phillips commended the movie for allowing characters to have actual scenes of dialogue, and he's got a point. This is a well-written script that allows all the talent involved to have some fun with the superhero in the WWII setting. A World War II movie with a superhero might seem out of place or even cheesy, but no worries here. Sit back and enjoy this one, a throwback to a different time when movies just wanted to entertain.

Characters, setting, and story? Triple check. Bring on the action! Finding that appropriate mix of action and story, director Joe Johnston never goes overboard. His action sequences are impressive and fun to watch without being mind-numbingly repetitive. He gets into the scenes and does what needs to be done, content with putting together a solid scene as opposed to going overboard. Steve's first scene post-transofrmation is a great chase scene, a pleasure to watch as Steve realizes what he's now capable of. Steve/Captain America taking on a Hydra base with Schmidt's special soldiers to free hundreds of POWs while an assault on a train snaking through the mountains works in its quickness and effectiveness.  The finale is nothing special, just entertaining and exciting like the rest of the flick.

I realize as I write this I'm not exactly doing a great job selling the movie. There is nothing particularly groundbreaking or new about this most recent superhero movie. It...is...just....good.  Is that so bad?  I loved the cast and all the characters brought to life, the story is familiar but always interesting, and the action comes in somewhat smaller doses but never disappoints. The ending is surprising too (with Samuel L. Jackson playing Nick Fury), mostly because it doesn't go for an easy, happy ending. A classic on the whole? Maybe not, but a damn entertaining movie. And stick around through the credits for a teaser trailer for next summer's Avengers movie. Well worth the wait.

Captain America: The First Avenger <---trailer (2011): *** 1/2 /****