This 'Congress' you'd at least consider over the real Congress

Isn't it fun stumbling upon a work of art...movie, book, TV show, static art...that confounds, angers and delights you all at the same time? Then you try to explain it to someone else, much less yourself, and find that you simply can't. It just is. That's "The Congress" for you. It's a daring film by director Ari Folman of "Waltz with Bashir" fame and loosely based upon Stanislaw Lem's book "The Futurological Congress."

The set-up is basic but provocative enough. Imagine a world where Robin Wright plays herself who indeed shot to stardom in 1987 with "The Princess Bride." (Gawd, has it really been that long ago?) Her star has fallen over the years. With no mention of her being in "House of Cards," "The Congress" envisions Wright as a single mom of two kids, living in an abandoned structure near an airport. Few if any movie studios want to work with her, and her longtime agent Al (an unusually restrained Harvey Keitel) struggles to find her work. But there's one final option and it's a doozy.

Miramount Studios (get it...a play off of Paramount and Miramax?) wants to scan Wright, literally, all of her physical and emotional features and preserve them in digital form. Wright herself won't have to work anymore, but gets paid a hefty sum to have her younger, digital version play roles such as a short-cropped, weapon-slinging rebel of the future. Her new "roles" make millions for the studio; one such role is almost a parody of Ben Stiller's Tugg Speedman character from "Tropical Thunder." Wright balks initially at the thought, but thinking of her children, the ugly reality of her situation, the creepy studio head (Danny Huston) puts it bluntly: The digital version of Robin Wright will do things the real Robin Wright wouldn't do, especially the one now in her 40s.

Twenty years later, Miramount is a world-dominating megacorporation - more than a movie studio - and it's unleash its latest, most powerful product at its cultural confab, The Congress. Miramount has figured out how to reduce an actor's chemical makeup to a drug. Yes, you as a fan can literally eat/drink/inhale your favorite performer and imagine yourself as someone/something else. Everybody else does. Heck, at this point Hollywood has become an animated zone, as in Roger Rabbit's Toontown on steroids. In effect, the entertainment business has become an opiate for the masses that yearn to retreat from an increasingly ugly real world.

Wright is asked to speak to the greatness of what's happening and, well, I'll spare you the rest of the plot. The story doesn't really matter. What matters in "The Congress" is what is seen and done. Visually, especially the animation part, is stunning. Some of the satirical characterizations are hilarious. Some people online criticize the animation part, calling it cheap. I think it's partially because it's meant to be inexpensive. This is an indie/art house flick, after all. So much of it recalls classic cartoons of old, but more so it speaks to some people's desire to escape from their reality and enjoy how they want to be seen/perceived rather than how they are in real life.

Folman touches upon so many themes in his film: Identity, one's hold on reality, free will, capitalism, imagination. The film is a critique of the movie industry, how it treats aging performers, and its plans for a more digital universe. There's a critique about overmedicating our population. "The Congress," visually, is filled with inspiration ranging from "Inception" and "2001" to "What Dreams May Come" and "Solaris."

Wright herself portrays "herself" well but appears a bit distant. I'm sure if she's directed by Folman to be a tad distant or she's just that way, as she was in many of her previous films. With its mish-mash of live action and animation. "The Congress" says something on the whole, but it does feel incoherent in bits and pieces. I'm still trying to figure it all out. Maybe there's a point. Maybe there's not! But it's a philosophical, entertaining, mindblowing trip all the same.

Guardians of the Galaxy equals geekgasm

I would've posted a review much sooner this past weekend if it weren't for my crazy attempts to keep up with coverage of Wizard World Comicon and San Antonio Film Fest. Plus, there was that trip to Austin for the grand opening of Oasis Texas Brewing Company. Hooray, beer.

But I digress. In previous months I had read, with some interest, people discussing concerns about a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. The comics were fun without being silly but, in the greater Marvel comics to cinema universe, GotG isn't up to the level of Thor, Iron Man, X-Men, Spider-man or Captain America. That seemed to be a consensus of many online informal chats leading up to the release of the first trailer of the movie.

The trailer was hilarious and entertaining, but also positioned the movie just right. What a treasure trove awaited the fans. Judging by debut weekend box office numbers, many, many fans took in Guardians of the Galaxy and loved it. I did, too. One person remarked "It's basically Raiders of the Lost Ark in space." Sure, but it's also parts Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon and all the exuberant sci-fi comics, movies and TV shows from my childhood (well, mine anyways) that were swashbuckling, daring, edgy but not overboard in any particular way.

The casting is almost pitch perfect. The special effects, action set pieces, cinematography are beautiful and don't look so overly CGI'd or gaudy (you hear me, Spider-man?!). As with most comic adaptations, it's the little things that make a big impression: Peter Quill's/Star-lord's memory of his mother kept alive by songs you know and will be humming for weeks. Quill's devil-may-care attitude. A better look around The Collector's collection, a longer look than in Thor: The Dark World. ESPECIALLY in the post-credits, which is almost a jab at DC/Warner's fumbling around with comic cinematic adaptations. Baby Groot. Rocket pouring his torn, jagged heart and soul out after a drunken fight with Drax. Yondu's redass personality (a perfect fit for Michael Rooker, long a fan of the comics character). Drax with his heart of gold and despair. Gamora's ass-kickingness that briefly disappears when she's almost won over by the charms of Quill. Lee Pace bringing the pain as Ronan the Accuser. Josh Brolin growing clearer and clearer (in the Marvel movie universe) voicing Thanos. Hell, even with her villainous character Nebula, I've grown more in love with Karen Gillian. It's all there in its splendor.

Guardians of the Galaxy is one of those comic adaptations that perfectly makes fans out of those new to the material. But it doesn't dumb things down for the hardcore fans. The audience could connect, in a sense, with this bunch of outcasts, misfits and criminals. I loved Captain America sequel, I was fine with the Thor sequel, and from the sounds of things, Avengers 2 will be tremendous. I'm worried about what's happening with Ant-Man, how Marvel bungled that in the wake of Edgar Wright's departure. But with James Gunn, the Guardians are in the right hands. I hope to see it again soon, and eagerly await the sequel.

Toast to The Rise of The Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

For a summer blockbuster, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" offers nuanced direction, pulse-pounding music, astounding art direction, a basic but driven storyline, and terrific special effects that don't ruin it all. While the acting isn't award-winning -- well, not from the human characters -- you do have characters you come to like or dislike. But you do learn to appreciate them. In other words, this isn't the loud, bombastic, non-sense that is the latest Transformers film, which has ruined my childhood -- again.

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" picks up a little where we left off with the "Rise of the Planet of the Apes." A quick, unnerving beginning scene uses real shots of riots and people addressing outbreaks to quickly take us through the history of the fictional simian virus, which has killed off most of humanity in a decade and leaving Caesar and his genetically-enhanced fellow simians to evolve to become almost dominant species on Earth. A scouting trip for a small band of humans from the ruins of San Francisco into the forests of Northern California triggers conflict with Caesar in his clan.

How far have special effects come in the last few years? Astounding work by WETA Digital in putting realistic touches to the variety of apes portrayed. But Andy Serkis deservedly gets top billing as Caesar. The first film was more about humanity's hubris.... a drive to create a cure for a disease turns into a death sentence for mankind and gives way to simians to assert their power--maybe reassert is the proper term.

This film is about Caesar, raising his family, attempting to educate the rest of the simians. Loyalty, love and knowledge as power quick emerge as traits mutually shared between humans and simians. But not all the simians are interested in educating themselves and leaving the remnant of humanity to live in the ruins of its creation in some sort of uneasy coexistence. Some, if they have the opportunity and feel pushed, use revenge as a reason to kill humans.

But back to Serkis...he's more than the go-to guy for slo-mo capture effects acting. The guy can act, period. He has more than Gollum and King Kong in his arsenal. Caesar emotes strength, leadership, loyalty, perspective, compassion in his facial expressions, vocalizations, body language, the few words he learns to speak.

The few action scenes in the first hour and a half are relatively brief but filled more with suspense and drama then pure traditional action. As one ape turns on another in the build up to the climax, it's all leading to a pay off. It's like a war movie where the fate of every character, in the end, is unknown until the final sequence. It's parts thrilling, shocking and disheartening, the violence of it all.

Some of the music by JJ Abrams regular composer Michael Giacchino, and intricate direction by - yes- JJ Abrams colleague Matt Reeves, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" pays a bit of tribute to the old, classic "Planet of the Apes" flicks while preparing a new generation for a new slate of "Apes" films that look just as exciting. And we've almost erased the memory of Tim Burton/Mark Wahlberg's unfortunate "Planet of the Apes" remake.

Revenge is a dish best served Spurs

Yeah, I'm massively late in posting these here. No need for further words. It's all self-explanatory: The feelings of relief and redemption of Spurs nation after dethroning the Heat.

It's the freshest championship, but it's probably the strongest Spurs NBA title next to their 2005 seven-game defeat of Detroit, and just as memorable as the first Spurs crown claimed in 1999 over New York.

Aside from beating the defending champs, the Heat, the Spurs rolled over them, sticking to pure team play, the kind of play that has symbolized this organization's rise to greatness especially over the last 20-25 years. Everyone had a role to play.

For Lebron, there's one championship, there's two, there's...oh wait, you may want to step back a bit. The black and silver may be often written off by many, but there's always a game to be played, and they've got scoreboard and skins on the wall to prove they're one of the best pro sports teams around. For the haters, suck it.

X-Men: Days of Future Past: Presently The Best Comic Adaptation You Will Have Seen

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" doesn't totally adhere to Chris Claremont's famed story, but it's inspired by it and doesn't do it a disservice. What it does do is it almost erases the stains of "X-Men 3" and "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," further invigorates the X-Men movie franchise and lays a solid groundwork for a wider X-Men cinematic universe.

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" is pure fun even while providing glimpses of horrible fates that await the few remaining mutants in the distant future if one thing doesn't get prevented from happening one day in 1973. Inexplicably, director Bryan Singer and his colleagues masterfully weave a complex storyline spanning nearly 50 years, past and future selves of the likes of Charles Xavier, Magneto, Wolverine and Mystique, among others.

Time-travel is, well, a time-worn plot device used in movies for heroic and villainous means. Instead of traversing some kind of wormhole through space and time, current/future Kitty Pryde transfers current/future Wolverine's consciousness to his early 70s self. Once 1973 Wolverine awakens, it's action-filled, brief and hilarious all at once. It almost looks inspired by any number of time-loop-associated flashbacks in "Lost."

The overarching goal for the future remaining X-Men is simple enough an idea: Stop Raven/Mystique from killing - no, not Senator Kelly - but Bolivar Trask, the scientist/industrialist. His death in one timeline convinces the government to expand his Sentinel program to hunt down all mutants, even humans who merely carry a mutant gene but have yet to realize their powers.

The mission is difficult in the early 70s: Wolverine tries to suppress his angry nature or risk his mind being pulled apart in the transference of consciousness that Kitty Pryde holds together in a dark, danger-filled future just barely. Then he must try to convince 1973 Charles Xavier to "fight the future." Problem is, Charles is emotionally broken from Raven's departure, Eric Lehnsherr going down a dark path, and the depletion of his academy by the Vietnam draft. He's using a specialized drug (back then, who wasn't?) to enable him to walk. Otherwise he remains paralyzed. And he's not yet the Charles Xavier we know, mentally superstong. He's connected to all other mutants but it's at times he cannot bare...back then.

When Xavier, who's cared for by a young Hank McCoy/Beast, is finally convinced (and even then he feels some doubt), they must break Magneto out of prison, which happens to be several stories beneath in the Pentagon. He's there because he directed the magic bullet that killed JFK. Or so goes the official government line. Enter Pietro (OK, Peter) Maximoff/Quicksilver, arguably the most fun sequence in the movie. The rest of the flick is not necessarily sheer spectacle, tiresome and wearing out its welcome like with "Man of Steel."

Instead, emotions play a big part in the climax of 1973. But oh my, the "final" battles between the remaining future X-Men and the evolved Sentinels -- the robots that have fully adapted to every mutant power, turning those powers onto the mutants themselves -- is a joy to watch. See Iceman/Bobby Drake creating and surfing upon one of his famed ice bridges. Colossus in his steel rage. Blink creating dimension-warping portals. It's pure comic book teamwork for the remaining X-Men as they try to stave off disaster.

The acting is, well, what you can expect from a comic book ensemble. There's actually not much screen time for Patrick Stewart or Ian McKellen in such a busy flick, but at this point in the X-Men cinematic universe, there doesn't need to be. Hugh Jackman has fun again as Wolverine, and James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender fully make young Xavier and Lehnsherr their own. Jennifer Lawrence? I am in love with her, which would probably make Emma Stone jealous. At one moment, her Raven/Mystique is laser focused on doing what it takes to reach and kill Trask. At another moment, she's conflicted.

Halle Berry RECEIVES a big check for her "portrayal" as Storm. Does she EARN it? Nah. Again, it's not necessary at this point. But oof, Evan Peters as Quicksilver. He's a revelation. He wrapped up all his characters from "American Horror Story," mashed them up with a liberal dose of cockiness (why shouldn't he be?) and I want him to be Quicksilver in the expanded X-Men cinematic universe. And yes, there's a post-end credits scene and it sets up nicely for what lies ahead.

So many X-Men characters from the previous films, all in one masterstroke of a new movie, even in a cameo...makes me feel giddy. Excited again for X-Men movies. It's busy but feels effortless. It nearly corrects all that went wrong in X3 and Origins:Wolverine and shows there's much more greatness that's coming up in X-Men on the big screen. See? Bryan Singer has some decent stuff as director leftover after "Superman Returns" and "Jack the Giant Slayer."

Let Us Be Thankful "Godzilla" Is Like "Godzilla" and Not Like "Godzilla"

The reviews of "Godzilla" (aka 2014) on Ain't It Cool News best sum up my feelings. This movie is better the old-fashioned way, a slow burn to the full reveal. Sure, Roland Emmerich tried the same approach in "Godzilla" (aka 1998), but once we see his monster and his personality, it's so far removed from what we've come to expect, what we remember from the old "Godzilla," it's disappointing and troubling on every level.

With "Godzilla" (2014), director Gareth Edwards positions the audience in the best way possible to await all that we know the mutant monster will bring to the table. It's an origin movie. It's not supposed to be filled with behemoth monsters fighting or stomping cities into smithereens from wire to wire. Wait until the sequel.

For some, characters and storyline are a disappointment in "Godzilla" (2014). Since when did we as audiences, and since when did the moviemakers, really worry about the depth of actors, plot and script in Godzilla...or any monster flick? Sure, there's no Oscar-worthy performances in "Godzilla" (2014). That wasn't in the works. Perhaps Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe bring the most passion of any of the main actors. Alas, they're just in supporting roles while Aaron Taylor-Johnson (who was so good in the "Kick-Ass" films) is our Tom Cruise from "War of the Worlds." Wherever he ends up or wherever he puts himself, crap happens. (His character, named Brody, definitely scores some Spielbergian points with me.) Not much can be said for Elizabeth Olsen's character (you know, the Olsen sister who can actually act), but again, that's to be expected.

In most monster movies...and it's no different with "Godzilla" (pick your decade)...the characters react. They run, they hide, they scream, they cry, they die. That's what happens when strange things unfold, in this case, stories-tall beasts battle in metropolitan areas. I am there to see Godzilla, no longer a guy in a rubber suit stepping onto miniature model cities. I'm there to hear his iconic roar. I'm there to see Godzilla literally warm up to breathe fire, or something like it, onto attacking armies, towns and other monsters. (Here, the two MUTOs Godzilla 2014 fought were like hot-to-trot hybrids of Mothra and the Cloverfield critter.) I'm there to see humanity truly humbled by this natural anomaly that we've come to know as Gojira.

With that, I was giddy. It felt like I was rewatching the old Godzilla flicks from the 50s through the 70s. Yes, even the purely bad ones with his dopey-looking son, Jet Jaguar, Mechagodzilla, the miniature 12-inch twins, the smog monster. It made my inner child go crazy and was nostalgic. Heck, I've got a little plastic toy model of him someplace. Sure, Godzilla (2014) didn't do a happy dance, but he kicked some MUTO butt. This "Godzilla" looks as if he's visited one too many taquerias. No matter. This "Godzilla" (2014) is filled with wonderful images and sounds, many of which harken back to the older films.  Like last year's "Pacific Rim," it's fun. It is darker than "Pacific Rim," and while we may have felt more for human characters in monster flicks such as "Jurassic Park," the star we go to see fills space so amazingly.

There's a sequel in the works, maybe two. Perhaps Gamera, or a version thereof, will show up. In the end, it's all about Godzilla smashing things up real good.

Amazing Spider-Man 2: So Much to Do and Say, Not Much to Really Love

It's a classic case: I want to truly love a comic book movie such as "The Amazing Spider-man 2." It's good. It's enjoyable. But I'm not hankering to rush to see it again. Running almost two and a half hours, "The Amazing Spider-man 2" is filled with exciting action sequences and impressive special effects. But the storylines are contrived, characterizations are rush, and practically everything feels like it's truncated in preparation for what lies ahead in The Amazing Spider-man movie franchise.

That's because Part 2 is deliberately stuffed with, well, stuff. Sony has committed to more Spider-man flicks and lots of ground to cover. Heck, secondary characters and images (eggs, if you will) seen in the sequel's climax and in the end credits clearly set up a universe in which we could see the Sinister Six.

In the meantime, we see Max Dillon, played by Jamie Foxx, turn into Electro in a rather unoriginal, uninspired way. It's not Foxx. He does well in portraying the lead villain, but Dillon/Electro's conversion is fast and a little lame, given Dillon's connection to Oscorp.

Ah yes, Oscorp, where we many more connections made in this rushed, overriding storyline. The link with Peter Parker's parents, one of many subplots in the movie. Here, Peter -- played again by Andrew Garfield in an exemplary manner-- goes full-on detective, connecting dots to discover the truth about his parents -- their scientific research and their fate. The reveals here are a tad disappointing to say the least.

Back at supposedly big bad mega-corporation Oscorp, we see a huge missed opportunity: Chris Cooper could have made a fantastic Norman Osborn to rival that of Willem Dafoe's portrayal in the Sam Raimi versions of Spider-man. Yet, Cooper's Norman is reduced considerably. He is the original, most well known Green Goblin.

Harry Osborn takes on the title of actual Green Goblin in this movie, rather late and in a convoluted manner. Don't get me wrong. Dane DeHaan had a polarizing presence in the movie "Chronicle," which I enjoyed, and in "The Amazing Spider-man 2," he seems well suited as Harry Osborn, the heir to the Oscorp empire. But his introduction and development is relatively brief and I almost don't care for it.

It's said that Harry is an old friend of Peter's, but the way director Marc Webb's Spider-man universe is set up, it doesn't seem like such a friendship genuinely exists. You could feel/see that in Raimi's Spider-man films, the dynamic between James Franco and Tobey Maguire. When DeHaan finally appears as Green Goblin, created that way by a serum, he's almost over the top in his performance. Again, not DeHaan's fault. He gets the short end of the stick here, but yes, this is a transitional sequel...meant to serve for more introductions, and sure enough we'll see more Harry Osborn/Green Goblin in "The Amazing Spider-man" cinematic universe.

At last there's Aleksei Sytsevich, or Rhino, played all too briefly yet with glee by Paul Giamatti. His appearances, exciting as they are, literally bookend the film. Giamatti is on record, saying Rhino has been one of his favorite Spider-man villains, and he'll get more chances to be Rhino in "The Amazing Spider-man" cinematic universe. Now, Rhino with automatic guns and missile launchers? That takes more getting used to.

Ultimately, what works for me in the sequel? Garfield as Spider-man/Pete and Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy. Webb and the writing teams give Garfield to insert his charm and wit into the Spidey we all know and love. Sure, he's a bit mopey and constantly wondering about trying to keep from harm's way those he cares about the most. But Peter Parker loves being Spider-man. It's fun. He loves helping people and carries a bit of a cocky attitude. That is on full display in this movie.

There's also no denying the chemistry between Garfield and Stone. (Of course, in my eyes, Stone can do absolute no wrong on the big screen. I'd have her babies if I could.) Stone inserts more confidence into Gwen this time around. Webb works best when it comes to romance, or the building up or collapse of it all. He demonstrated that clearly in "500 Days of Summer." The interaction between Stone's Gwen and Garfield's Peter demands your attention. Sometimes it brings a smile to your face, other times it's depressing. Their shared emotions run the gamut on screen.

In comic book movies these days, some editions are designed to give full introductions to allow for the expansion of crucial characterizations and storylines for upcoming sequels. I understand that. But it takes true talent to NOT make a film feel/look so hurried of saddled with subplots. This isn't Raimi "Spider-man 3" bad. Far from it. Webb and his team have learned from any mistakes Raimi and his team made from the previous movies and are doing their best to improve upon them. Still, "The Amazing Spider-man 2" falls short of amazing.