The biggest weekend draw at the box office was the highly anticipated, overly produced/directed, summer Disney movie Maleficent that centers in and around one of Disney’s most iconic villains, and the only one to ever call upon the powers of Hell. Casting a compelling and rivoting spell, Angelina Jolie plays the sorceress and takes the stage to tell her side of the classic fairy tale Sleeping Beauty. Think of this movie as another in a long lineup of an emerging “post-Wicked” genre of revisionist backstories to classic and timeless tales.

Maleficent is a movie about the untold story of what “really” happened in the classic Grimm fairy tale Sleeping Beauty. Note, any studio or production company can adapt the fairy tale for their own movie because it benefits from having fallen into the public domain. No one has the exclusive rights to produce movies featuring Grimm and Hans-Christian-Andersen fairy tales. Anyway, I digress. Unlike the original Disney classic, this movie opens up with Maleficent as a young enchantress fairy in a magical land outside the kingdom of men. She befriends a young man and forms an intimate relationship with him. But, all is not what it seems (a common theme throughout the movie). He betrays Maleficent and takes the kingdom of men for his own. Like in the original, Maleficent shows up at the christening of Aurora (Briar Rose/Sleeping Beauty) and places a curse upon the child. Until the child’s 16th birthday, she is raised by incognito fairies to protect her from the curse of pricking her finger upon the spindle of a spinning wheel. During these years, Aurora forms a remarkable and unlikely friendship with Maleficent. But, fate has a way of working her magic despite human precautions. And, Aurora falls into her deathlike sleep on the eve of her 16th birthday, just as Maleficent cursed her. As this is a revisionist plot, you will see very little of your Sleeping Beauty left from the original Disney classic. In many ways, this tale surpasses its predecessor. So, prepare yourself for a wild adventure with twists and turns around every corner.

The biggest and most outstanding reason to see this movie is to witness Jolie portray Maleficent with uncanny brilliance! Everything from her smile, to her body language, to the manner in which she delivers her poetic lines is fantastic. Suffice it to say, it is highly unlikely that Disney could have found any other actress that both had the look and feel of the very essence of Maleficent. It is as though the audience is watching Maleficent herself, and not an actress playing her. However, the other actors pale in comparison to Jolie. With the exception of Jolie, the entire move was nearly completely miscast and static. Not that it was expected for other performers in the movie to be on par with Jolie, but they should have at least been able to capture the very essence of their respective characters as well. Now, the young girl who plays Aurora when she is a child was quite good–but that’s it. Disney should re-evaluate how they cast chief and supporting players when featuring such a prominent actress. But, had this movie come out during Oscar season, it would not be surprising to find Jolie nominated for her role as Maleficent.

Sweeping landscapes and brilliant lighting design captured by the lens in epic cinematography…too bad most of the movie exists in After Effects. Seems to me, it would have been easier just to make the entire movie animated. Unfortunately, Maleficent suffers from overly employing the use of CGI in nearly every scene. And not in small ways that help to make an existing landscape more authentic or keeping it to the story, but in big ways. It’s nearly as bad as the planet Pandora. From the moment the movie opens to the time it closes, very few moments go by in which CGI is not featured prominently in the scene. Whatever happened to finding landscapes that essentially have the look the studio is going for, then adding some CGI here and there to create movie magic? Why create an entire world in After Effects when there are plenty of qualifying locations on this planet to choose from? In fact, the graphics in this movie were sub-par compared to even the ones from The Phantom Menace. And the score did not fare so well either. Nearly forgettable is the best way to describe the music from the movie. From a technical perspective, the movie showcases a lack in imagination and a barrage of chaotic imagery backed by a canned orchestral par-for-the-course score.

Unfortunately, first-time director Robert Stromberg has just proven that he needs to stick to focussing on production design and not venture into the director’s chair just yet. Had it not been for Angelina Jolie’s amazing performance as the villain, his movie would have gone by of John Carter or The Lone Ranger. Had he focussed more on the production design, the graphics artist may not have had to design entire landscapes for long shots that were way too lengthy with digital renderings overtaking the silver screen. Not sure whether this movie has too much or too little production design. Depends on your perspective, I suppose. Whatever the case, the movie did not live up to the expectations that come with a Disney movie based on their own material, so to speak.

Whether you enjoy revisionist stories or just want to spend a couple hours on a date or with your family, this movie is a decent way to spend an afternoon or evening. Don’t bother seeing it in 3D, though; standard 4K will suffice. Maleficent puts a new twist on an all-too-familiar story about how we live now, and the importance self-discovery in the here-and-now, as opposed to how we live “once upon a time.” And it does so by suggesting, among other things, that young and older women are not natural rivals or arch-nemicists, even if that is the perpetuated idea of what predominantly exists in fairy tales, Hollywood, Broadway, and the world. And while that may sound sappy, it is precisely the kind of hokey that, story by story, may finally make a real difference in the lives of the young and old alike.

Definitely one of the best movies of the year! If you’re a fan of period romantic-drama, then you must see this movie. This film focusses on an area that is the source for the affluence of Jane Austen’s many characters but is never spoken of. Slavery and the slave trade in England. Like last year’s Lee Daniel’s The Butler, this movie will likely fly under the radar and see not a major win or nomination from motion picture awards. However, it is the first movie of the year that seriously deserves consideration for an accolade or two, including Best Actress, Best Picture, and Best Supporting Actor. Although, the placement of the movie in the calendar year puts it at a disadvantage compared to “Oscar” season, which is typically the Fall and Holiday Season.

Belle is inspired by the true story of Dido Elizabeth Belle Lindsay, the illegitimate mulatto daughter (born of one white and one black parent) of Admiral Sir John Lindsay. Through a series of events, Dido (as she is referred to 99% of the movie) comes to live at Mansfield Park with Lindsay’s uncle and aunt–Lord Chief Justice and Lady Mansfield. Dido’s aristocratic blood heritage affords her many privileges, not even the lower class white citizens of England enjoy as part of their lives; however, her mulatto racial status prevents her from the full life she is entitled to based on the traditions of the noble class social system. While her cousin Elizabeth chases suitors for marriage, Dido is left on the sidelines wondering if she will ever find love. After meeting an idealistic young vicar’s son bent on changing society, he and Dido help shape Lord Mansfield’s role as Lord Chief Justice to end slavery in England.

One of the most astonishing elements of this movie is the impeccable acting from nearly all the cast, and definitely the leads. Not that other elements aren’t worth highlighting first; but, of all the elements that make up a movie especially a period piece, the acting is key to the movie’s overall success at the box office. Playing the title role of Belle, actress Gugu Mbatha-Raw, portrays the character of Dido (Belle) passionately and with breathtaking grace. Her delivery and commitment to character is outstanding. After watching her performance in this movie, this newest actress of color’s career should be followed very closely. Unsure whether it’s director Asante’s ability to coax this powerful performance out of her or her inherent talent, there is no doubt that her screen presence in this film is huge. Although the central character is Dido, the most defined character arc and dynamic performance belongs to Tom Wilkerson in his portrayal of Lord Mansfield. Very few performers in the past have shown they can as effectively navigate the vast array of the character’s conflicted sentiments, as Wilkerson has demonstrated, throughout the course of his character’s transformation in the film. In addition to the stellar performances delivered by Dido and Lord Mansfield, they are supported by a cast equally committed to the authentic preservation of character.

Written by Misan Sigay, this romantic drama transcends the predictable outcome of love triangles often associated with period romance films–much in the vain of an Austen or Bronte adaptation. That thread is supplemented by the recurring themes of liberty and restriction. Director Amma Asante is a newcomer, but proves her ability to effectively craft a beautiful work of cinema in this film. Although some of the shots she chooses are to be expected and even cliche, they are outweighed by the many other shots and scenes she uses and the direction of the characters. But, she serves as a shining reminder that women, like Kathryn Bigelow, can be strong directors and take their movies to new heights. However, while Belle is of undeniable interest in many respects, its overall execution restricts it from being quite as engaging as it wants to and could have very well been. But, can serve as a solid foundation from which Asante can correct her short-comings and improve throughout her bright career.

From the moment the movie opens, it packs way too much into the first few minutes–to the point it feels rushed. However, the quick pace of the opening scenes to pave the way for a pace that will eventually settle into a nice rhythm. If you’re looking for a powerful dynamic period story of love and socio-political intrigue, this is the movie for you. In addition to having a solid story, you also get all the other requisites of a well-executed period drama: a strings-heavy score, lavishly designed costumes, and characters that show the flaws of humans and how they can change.

Such an incredible super-hero movie and kick-off to the Summer Blockbuster season. Spider-Man 2, X-Men, and the upcoming Maleficent are excellent movies to usher in the second biggest box office season of the year (second to the Holiday season). It’s also refreshing to see a movie that depicts a dark–very dark–bleak dystopian future that has the opportunity to be prevented. With a cast featuring Sir Ian McKellen, Sir Patrick Stewart, Hugh Jackman, Halle Berry, Jennifer Lawrence, and more, the movie will keep you on the edge of your seat the entire time. Director Bryan Singer has succeeded in topping his previous X-Men movies with the biggest installment in the 14-year, seven-movie X-Men franchise. But, just a word of caution, you probably want to bring along a teenager or comic book fan to decipher some of the plot points and guide you through the time-traveling pretzel-like plot.

In the most recent installment in the X-Men franchise, we are introduced to a Manhattan ravaged by war and destruction caused by the Sentinels on their quest to destroy all mutants–looks a lot like present Detroit. In their quest to destroy all mutants, the human race is all but eradicated as well. Held up in an ancient Chinese mountain fortress, a small band of mutants, including Storm, Wolverine, Xavier, and Magneto are taking their “last stand” against the indestructible adversary. Frenemies Xavier and Eric join together to develop a plan to save the mutants and humans from total destruction. Just goes to show that a common enemy can cause two other enemies to join forces. Wolverine’s conscious is sent back in time to 1973 in order to stop Mystique (Lawrence), who’s essentially gone rogue, from killing Trask, the inventor of the Sentinels–an event that caused the Sentinel program to evolve into the destruction of humanity.

There are many ways and plenty of opportunities for this film to have gone the way of “Spider-Man 3” (original trilogy), but thankfully it surpassed any and all expectations for this sequel/prequel/reboot, or whatever we are going to call it now. After a hiatus from the franchise, it is clear that the series has missed Singer, and what a triumphant return! After the failed “Wolverine” and “X-Men: Last Stand,” I was ready to write this franchise off as something that will merely be produced every three years in order for Fox to withhold the film rights from falling into the gloves of a Mouse. Through “X-Men: First Class” and today’s “X-Men: Days of Future Past,” Singer has been able to save the franchise and redirect its course of action for a bright future that will undoubtedly boost Fox’s pull at the box office. However, it will be difficult to join the masses that are enjoying this movie if you have not seen the, for good or bad, previous films in the franchise.

Lately, it seems like the producers and writers of the superhero genre films have finally figured out that a truly successful superhero movie will not only have amazing action sequences, eye-popping visual effects, but excellent acting and emotional pull (otherwise known as heart). And, this film has the aforementioned in spades. Everything from the cinematography to the writing, from the directing to the acting is done flawlessly. Although some of the characters do not get near the screen time as some of the others, they play an important part in the story. Instead of a kid’s comic come-to-life, we have an excellent work of cinema that honestly keeps the balance between narrative and stunning visual effects. For those with younger ears and eyes that may want to watch the movie, there is a quick shot of Jackman’s backside and an F-bomb. Unlike, the “Transformers” franchise, “X-Men” provides the audience with awesome action sequences, characters that the audience can fall in love with, and a story with passion.

If you haven’t seen the movie, and have seen the six previous films, definitely plan some time over the holiday weekend to watch it. And, if you have a friend who’s familiar with the comics, you should take them along. Sorry, Disney, I don’t think you are getting the rights to the X-Men characters any time soon, especially after the wild success of this most recent installment that has made up for all the cinema sins committed by many of the previous films.

(c)2014 Columbia Pictures

If you haven’t seen the “Amazing Spider-Man 2” yet, definitely make time to see this dynamic super-hero/action genre film. I’ve seen a lot of superhero movies, especially in the last decade, and none can quite compare to the ability of Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker/Spider-Man) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) to capture the array of emotions in the way the characters were able to in this roller coaster of a movie. Although Director Mark Webb overstuffed the 2.5hr movie with multiple plot lines, villains, and changing sets, the chemistry between Garfield and Stone attempt to, and are successful at, giving this movie heart and soul.

Webb’s spring blockbuster is the sequel to the reboot of the movie adaptation of the original Marvel comic-books, which is another way of saying it’s a copy of a copy. But if the Spider-Man tale is about anything, it’s about gawky youth and surging powers. And the film-makers know this and keep the tone skittish and fresh. In this installment of the latest Spider-Man franchise reboot, Columbia Pictures (Sony) takes the audience on the ride of their lives. And, that isn’t even counting the experience one receives in the 3D version (for your information, I watched the standard definition version).

The movie opens, as supplemental installments in a superhero franchise often do, in the middle of a hot pursuit. No surprises there. Parallel to attempting to apprehend a foreshadowed villain, Spider-Man is close to missing his high school graduation and his girlfriend’s valedictorian speech. Coming of no shock, he is able to swing onto the stage just before his name is called to walk across it. In addition to the fast-paced, thrilling ride the audience experiences during the entire movie, Peter and Gwen experience an emotional roller coaster of their own. Facing his most powerful villain to date, Spider-Man must outsmart Electro (played by Jamie Foxx), a mutant who’s ability to control electricity makes him seemingly unstoppable. Everywhere electricity is, there is he. The origin of Electro seems reminiscent of Kathy Bate’s character in the classic Stephen King novel set to film “Misery.” Is Spider-Man able to outwit his nemesis? You will just have to watch the movie to find out. And, like any good orphaned superhero, Peter’s iconic Aunt May (beautifully played again by the accomplished Sally Field) finally tells his the true story about his parents’ death. During the third act of the movie, however rushed, we are introduced to one of the most famed villains in the Spider-Man franchise, the Green Goblin. The close of the movie will likely have you in tears. Honestly, I think this is the only superhero movie that caused me to cry.

New Yorkers can definitely appreciate the sequel for highlighting the metropolis that is so vital to the Spider-Man story. The “Amazing Spider-Man” (first one) felt confined too often to Peter’s bedroom, his high school and the Oscorp skyscraper, neglecting the city. Essentially this latest installment is one long series of postcards of famous NYC landmarks, one right after another; from the Williamsburg Bridge to Columbus Circle, even taking in forgotten subway stations once frequented by a certain US President. Until the third act of the movie, the majority of the scenes take place outdoors from Chinatown to Park and 56^th. For those who have not been to New York City, there is so much more to the metropolis than midtown, which is often all anyone ever sees of the city in movies.

In truth, none of the many subplots or action sequences, have as much combustible power as the scenes featuring Peter Parker/Spider-Man and Gwen, benefiting here as did the previous film from the fizzy, tangible chemistry between Garfield and Stone. It helps that they’re also individually such interesting performers, both nervous fidgeters who always seem so giddy in each other’s presence, even when Peter gets all worried about keeping his promise to dead Captain Stacy (Denis Leary) to stay away from Gwen for her own safety and tries to split up with her. Hence, the roller coast of emotions throughout the movie as I mentioned earlier. Unfortunately, the movie suffers from being overloaded with subplots that cannot be fully developed and executed effectively to the satisfaction of the audience in a timespan of nearly 2.5 hours. This is most evident in the origin and development of Green Goblin, whose story seems stuck in the middle of acts two and three, just to quickly introduce him in order to save time in the next film. And, as much fun as it is to see Paul Giamatti’s charismatic character on screen, he too should have been left out to fully develop in future installments.

All-in-all, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” will thrill audiences everywhere, even the ardent comic book fans who line up every Wednesday morning for new comic book day (this is a shout out to my friend Derek). Although it is nearly impossible to expect a 2.5 hour movie, or even a trilogy (or more) to be all inclusive of the information in the comics, Webb appears to do an excellent job at combing the best of what the comic books offer with the additional elements to tell a story visually on screen.