But instead of bashing a movie I have never seen before, like I ask my staff to refrain from all the time (BURLESQUE), I decided to act professional like any movie critic should and attack this with an open mind, granted an open mind totally blown away free of any and all expectations.  LOL.  So let’s do this thang!

As I mentioned above, for those new to our planet, Battleship is loosely based on the legendary board game of the same name.  The film was directed by Peter Berg and stars Taylor Kitsch, Alexander Skarsgard, Brooklyn Decker, and wolf slayer Liam Neeson.  You probably noticed that I did not include Rihanna as a star?  Hater!

The film was originally supposed to be released in 2011, but 2011 came and went with no sign of it.  Oh darn!  It has actually been out for over a month now overseas and has already made back its 200 million dollar budget.  As Darth Vader would say in his best scuba diving mask voice…”Impressive!”

So let’s skip the entire string of proverbial lingo I’m so famous for watering my reviews down with (even I can make fun of myself and have a good time doing it) and ask the million-dollar question.  What did you think, Brian?  A million people shout “tell, tell!”  And my immediate response to that question is really quite juvenile.  On our dedicated Why So Blu text chat line I typed “LOL” after the movie’s final scene (BTW…there is a scene after the credits).  Gerard Iribe immediately jumped all over me for saying that, but I’m used to that by now.  The honest to God truth is that I had fun with this one.  I never thought I would be saying that, but I’m never afraid to admit when I am wrong and…I was wrong here.  Now I’m not saying by any stretch of the imagination that this was a good film, quite the opposite, but I am saying that I sat there giddy as a school boy because…I had fun.  And that’s all that it was.  It was SIMPLE, STUPID, FUN, nothing else, and nothing more.

So let me see if I can break this down and get it over in a paragraph or two for you all.  The year is 2005 and NASA discovers another planet in another galaxy far, far away that they believe could be hospitable to sustaining life due to its approximate Earth-like distance from their sun star.  So what do they do?  They try to communicate.  And successful they are!  But wait!  There’s character development, or at least a humorous attempt at it as the brothers, Alex (Kitsch) and Stone Hopper (Skarsgard), are introduced to us.  Let the blundering moments begin.  Yep, I can pretty much sum the whole movie up by saying that any scene that involves Kitsch is a blundering moment, but I mean that with nothing but love.  Why did people like John Carter?  It was because although it was completely over-the-top and utterly ridiculous, Kitsch still managed to make it fun.  The same principle, in my opinion, applies here.

So where were we?  Oh yes!  The aliens!  They are coming, and like the ones in Independence Day, War of the Worlds, etc…, they are hell bent on destroying our world.  It’s an extinction event!  So we’re led to believe.  I kind of sat there confused the whole time as to why the aliens basically chose to destroy physical structures rather than humans, but that’s a whole separate topic I never intended this review to cover, so for brevity’s sake, like David Freedman loves to say at bad films, “Skip It!.”  And we’re kind of at the point in the story where there is really nothing new to see or report on here.  There’s a romance (Kitsch and Decker), a convenient naval practice assembly that just so happens to be in the right place and time to ward off any alien attacks and of course, the all mighty quest to find the aliens’ weakness.  In actuality, there’s really nothing left to the imagination other than to just sit back, throw down some popcorn, Sour Patch Kids, an Icee and have a good time (if possible for you) with what we have to work with.

I will say the following.  There are moments of extreme patriotism here.  Now whether you like that or not, I could not help the lump that formed in the back of my throat when all the retired naval officers (older than time itself) lent a helping hand in saving the Earth from its sure doom.  And…there was team building.  Rival countries and cultures had to learn how to work and fight alongside each other.  That’s important, in my opinion.  So while I wouldn’t say throw down all your hard earned cash on this one and take the whole family to see it at night, I wouldn’t feel bad recommending a matinee visit as long as you are comfortable with nonsensical spectaculars like John Carter or Battle: LA.  In other words, Gerard Iribe will probably hate it, but I think people like Aaron and I will appreciate Battleship for the “cheese” it is.  And there’s Liam Neeson!  While his screen time is almost non-existent, he still manages to seize every scene he is in just like the bad a$$ he always is.  The killer of wolves!  And oh yeah, before I forget, you’ll get my Iron Man title reference during the naval preparation for the final battle.  No spoilers from me, boys and girls!  Enjoy Battleship for what it is.  Eat Michael Bay and cheese!

Film  

Battleship stars Taylor Kitsch as Alex Hopper, the irresponsible and hotheaded little brother of naval officer Stone Hopper (Alexander Skarsgard).  Stone tells Alex to get a job, and some direction and the film quickly transitions to a short haired Alex who is now an officer as well.  Alex hasn’t been working and playing well with others and is about to be thrown out of the Navy.  He is also in love with the Admiral’s (Liam Neeson) daughter but can’t stop fighting long enough to ask for her hand in marriage, as she is demanding.

Naval exercises are in progress of the Hawaiian cost, and are interrupted by alien invasion from a small group of ships.  These alien vessels have traveled to earth after a signal was sent to a planet similar to Earth that appeared to have the requirements to support life.  One of the ships creates a force field separating most of the fleet from the boats the Hopper brothers are on.  In the end, the goal is to annihilate the aliens before they annihilate the navy and signal their friends to assist in wiping out mankind.

Watching the movie, you would think that Michael Bay had directed this film, but it was actually Peter Berg.  Berg however, must have taken Michael Bay’s “how to blow stuff up” class because there are numerous and massive explosions throughout the film.  If you’re looking for a big budget action film with big bangs – this is the film for you.  And thinking of it that way, I truly did enjoy myself.

If you think about it much further you might (and many will) pick apart the major plot points.  The main issues I saw with the plot are first and foremost that the clearly superior weaponry of the aliens should have taken out the navy in under 5 minutes.  While there was much destruction and plenty of deaths, I don’t think there would have been any survivors.  The second issue is the idea that the younger Hopper brother would have made it out of boot camp.  With his issues with authority and conformity, he didn’t stand a chance.  Overall, the plot is very contrived and you can often pinpoint details that are clear set ups for dramatic points that will come later in the film.  I also wanted a lot more info about the aliens and their ships, which oddly jumped through the water like giant metal fish.

Having said that, I enjoyed the movie thinking it was going to be full of explosions and in no way reasonable even if you ignore the aspect of the aliens all together.  What I can’t understand is how anyone could make a movie based on the game Battleship and not have someone exclaim “You sunk my battleship!”   I bet the Blu-ray special features will reveal someone thought of it and decided it was just too cheesy.  They did pay homage to the game with a grid-search pattern complete with someone on the deck to alert the crew of a hit.

My fellow movie goers were extremely into the movie clapping and cheering throughout – a nuisance to me in most movies.  They laughed and applauded the most predictable of plot points.  Everyone seemed to really enjoy Liam Neeson’s portrayal of the Admiral, along with all of the explosions.  If all the good things I mentioned don’t appeal to you, the Admiral’s daughter (Brooklyn Decker) might.  She spends a significant portion of the movie in short shorts and a tight tank top, and does have to run (and bounce) to save her life.  Overall, Battleship was a hit and a miss depending on what you’re looking for.  Those looking for a creative plot that’s believable will call it a miss.  Those who want to see stuff explode and some popcorn style action will think it’s a hit.  For me, it was a cross between Independence Day and Transformers whose plot needed a lot more development, but were nonetheless enjoyable like this one.

Battleship tickets on sale now!

Old Navy Guy: They’re not gonna sink this battleship!

That story thing that this film has involves a lot of setup. First – In 2005, NASA discovered a planet, which appears to have conditions similar to earth, so a signal is sent out from a communications array in Hawaii. Around the same time, we meet Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch), who is a rebel, blah blah, breaks rules, blah blah, impresses a girl, Samantha (Brooklyn Decker), and a few years later he is a lieutenant in the Navy. Alex also shares screentime with his older brother, Stone Hopper (Alexander Skarsgard), a Commander, and Samantha’s father, Admiral Shane (Liam Neeson), the Commander of the United States Pacific Fleet. Alex is of course smart and full of potential, but needs to learn the value of teamwork and leadership.

Fortunately, Alex will face his ultimate challenge, because during the RIMPAC naval training exercises, the world is finally met with a response from the planet they sent a transmission too. Five Four ships (one accidentally crashes into Hong Kong) arrive in the Pacific Ocean, near Hawaii. After splashdown, one of the ships erects an impenetrable force field around the Hawaiian Islands and a portion of the ocean, cutting off all but three naval ships. What follows is seemingly a big case of miscommunication, as neither the aliens nor the Navy fleet in the area seem to have a desire to destroy each other, but are faced with few options, as both groups find themselves launching all sorts of weapons at each other. Sticking with the Earth side of things, it will be up to the heroics of a few, which includes the crew of a destroyer, Brooklyn Decker, a double amputee, and a nervous scientist to prevent further alien destruction, cue the rock music.

Battleship is indeed every bit as silly and ridiculous as it looks and does not have much that is new to offer to the realm of the silly and ridiculous blockbusters that generally come out at this time of the year. Still, I was looking forward to seeing this film, mainly because of how silly and ridiculous it looked, and the fact that I tend to find things to enjoy in movies this blunt in their action exploitation. That is why I find it so sad that I did not have more fun with it.

There are many good ingredients here. Beyond the amazingly ridiculous premise, the excuse to see big Navy ships take on alien forces had some promise. Wanting to see how the actual game was incorporated into the film was another curiosity. In addition, I have liked Taylor Kitsch enough to want to see him succeed in his transition to a leading man. Adding Tadanobu Asano (a favorite Japanese actor of mine) to the cast was a nice touch as well. And of course, Liam Neeson tends to make everything better. Unfortunately, not many of these things paid off as well as I would have hoped.

I brought up the cast, but not a lot comes out of that. Kitsch is fine in a very standard role that is only aided by what I find to be his natural charisma. Neeson does nothing in this film, so no reason to mention him anymore. The same can almost be said for Skarsgard, who spends his time giving speeches to Kitsch about how he needs to shape up or ship out (easiest joke this week). Some people may want to make something out of Rihanna’s presence in the film, but she is just as ill-defined as everyone else and is probably the best out of the non-actor’s in this film. Speaking of non-actors, Gregory D. Gadson, a former field artillery officer and a real-life double above-the-knee amputee may get the chance to stand out in a film like this, which is fine, but receives no help from neither the screenplay nor his own rookie experience as an actor. There is the temptation to go into how I understand that a movie like Battleship is not one that really requires a strong delivery when it comes to character development, story, and acting, but I will just let this sentence stand and add one thing: I know.

Instead, rather than going into why this movie has an excuse to be stupid, I would rather talk about the directorial work of Peter Berg. I have liked many of Berg’s films and I believe he is a good action director. With Battleship, it feels like Berg was completely trying to embody the exact model of a Michael Bay film. If anything, I wished there could have been a somewhat mocking tone attached to that (which could have done wonders for a blockbuster film like this, were it to have a somewhat satirical edge), but it really does just stand as a barrage of loud special effects that look more than decent throughout, despite the lack of any real resonance. There is certainly a lot of action here, but beyond new shapes and sizes for the aliens facing off against old and new Navy war craft, not much of it felt memorable.

Fittingly or ironically, or hilariously, the best scenes of this movie are when it actually tries to resemble the board game that it is based on. One point in the film revolves around the Navy group having to resort to a method that literally involves guessing where the enemy is and firing rockets at points on a grid. This may sound ridiculous, but there is actually tension and fun to be found here (and in a few other sequences). Another I could name involves watching the destruction of a ship from the perspective of the people going through it. Where the film truly rides the line of how big and far off it wants to go overboard (another ship joke…I’m sorry) is in the last act of the film. This portion brings together everything that is ridiculous about the film along with all that Peter Berg wants to achieve in being able to respect military, while creating a silly action film about a board game.

The main takeaway that I had from Battleship is that it was very loud, something I have audible acknowledged several times now. There are certainly plenty of other things going on. The effects look about as good as $200 million can buy someone. The action is shot in a way where I could understand all that was going on amidst the chaos (which is a place where many action directors fail frequently), and the aliens fighting seamen portions looks cool and stuff. Still, I mainly learned that Battleship was an assault on the ears. So what does that mean? Basically, I just did not care. I may have chuckled at some of the attempts at jokes, let alone the over-the-top-ness of some of the film. Likewise, I may have admired some of the visual panache seen in the film; but overall, the film exists while only being somewhat fun and entirely forgettable. I can only hope that Monopoly and Candy Land: The Movie turn out to be much more entertaining.

Alex Hopper: You’re gonna die. I’m gonna die. We’re all gonna die…Just not today!

Aladeen:  Ahh…America, built by the blacks and ruled by the Chinese.

This time Cohen plays Admiral General Aladeen, the evil and oppressive dictator of the North African Republic of Wadiya.  After some setup that establishes Aladeen as a cartoon version of many infamous dictators combined, the film’s story gets underway.  As it is revealed that Aladeen is developing nuclear weapons and is a terrible person in general, he is forced to travel to the UN Headquarters in New York to address the council.  Upon arriving, Aladeen’s traitorous uncle, Tamir (Ben Kingsley), sets it up to have Aladeen assassinated and replaced by a double.  Aladeen’s signature beard is shaved off, but he manages to escape; though finds himself trapped in New York with no recognizable identity.  An activist, Zoey (Anna Faris), befriends Aladeen and offers him a job at her vegan-lesbian-immigrant-friendly co-op or something like that.  Aladeen now has few options, but does manage to find aid from a man he thought he had executed in the past, Nadal (Jason Mantzoukas), and the two plan to find a way to get the true Aladeen back in the public eye, before Tamir and the decoy turn the nation of Wadiya into a democracy.

Among other reasons, The Dictator falters for me by taking away the aspect that at least provided Cohen’s previous films with a credible level of shock-value entertainment.  I am referring to the idea of having this be an actual film, as opposed to planting one of Cohen’s characters in the real world and getting real or “real” reactions.  That element of Borat and Bruno made them a bit more enjoyable for me, mainly because I could not only enjoy the comedy at times, but also admire how brave Cohen would have had to have been in the process of taking his characters as far as they could possibly go.  Stripping that away, what is left is how well Cohen and his collaborators could function based on how clever their screenplay for the film is, how effective the direction manages to be, and how willing the participants are in joining in on the “edgy” fun.

Regarding the comedy and its purposefully offensive nature, I found it hit or miss.  That said, the hits work well, while the misses are not so bad.  When the film is good, it is very funny and those moments are usually within the very quick jokes that appear on screen for a few seconds, before moving on to something else.  One of The Dictator’s best aspects is that it only clocks in at around 80 minutes.  The less exciting jokes come from feeling like they are telegraphed and not all that clever.  I would not really say The Dictator gets away with taking crazy turns as to how the humor is approached, which ultimately works in the film’s detriment.  Given that it has a very standard plot (mistaken identity, supported by the obligatory romance aspect), the room to play around is there, but it will come down to how well one responds to the jokes.

The idea of playing up the offensive angle on this film’s comedy does not really add too much to the proceedings.  The Dictator comes of more like a modern age Marx Bros. film, with the added incentive to offend people, except it is not all that offensive.  You would have to be incredibly sensitive and have no familiarity with Sacha Baron Cohen to really feel shocked by what goes on in this film, because the whole tone is way too playful to feel biting.  There are some subtler moments here and there, as well as a couple bits that really do work at combining political satire with some smarter ways to be offensive, but the film is mainly just trying to have R-rated fun.

Quite the big cast shows up for The Dictator, which ranges from a number of funny cameos (Megan Fox plays a convincing whore) to Ben Kingsley (slumming).  The two key supporting parts come from Faris and Mantzoukas.  Faris is fine with what she has to do, which is a mix of having confused reactions to her wacky Wadiyan friend and getting a few humorous moments of her own, given the extreme activist nature of her character.  Mantzoukas is a lot of fun, namely because I like him in general, but also because his character is a Wadiyan who is able to provide an informed perspective in regards to Aladeen, as opposed to more and more characters that find him so “crazy”, and is thusly able to provide a fun sort of chemistry with him.

I will be curious to see what the reaction is to this film.  Despite being an R-rated comedy, mainly due to vulgarity, it is too light-hearted to be controversial.  It also has too much structure and conventional elements to convey shock comedy effectively, in the same way that Borat achieved.  I remain fairly in the middle on all of these, despite finding The Dictator to be the weakest of all these films, but it will be interesting to see how this film fares with those who really enjoy these types of Cohen’s film.  Still, I will happily look forward to the upcoming choices that Cohen makes for his future starring projects.  While The Dictator felt slight to me, Cohen is certainly capable and has an inspired comedic mind, especially if he can apply it well.

Nadal:  Don’t do anything to arouse any suspicion.
Alaadeen:  Don’t worry; I am Wadiya’s number one actor.  You don’t win four Wadiyan Golden Globes for nothing.
Nadal:  Yes, you do, because you gave them to yourself.

A great deal of the public’s first exposure to The Dictator came about at this year’s Oscars when Cohen, in character as his dictator character, navigated his interview in character with Ryan Seacrest while holding an urn with the fake ashes of the late North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.  Cohen purposefully spilled the ‘ashes’ (which turned out to be pancake mix) on Seacrest’s tux, creating a moment of discomfort for Seacrest and viewers alike.  Bad start.

Here were are today with the movie’s release, and as a fan of Cohen’s, but very turned off with his Bruno movie, I held caution going into this.  That caution turned out to be extremely warranted as the film was an awful mess of forced humor.  As previously mentioned, Cohen plays fictional middle east leader Admiral General Aladeen.  The United Nations has threatened military action against his country for its creation of weapons-grade plutonium.  In order to temper the situation while attempting to maintain his own agenda, Aladeen heads to a UN summit in New York City.  His plans get derailed when an attempt on his life leaves him without his trademark beard.  In lieu of this, Aladeen is forced to blend with NYC’s populace while trying to regain access to the UN.

The premise is certainly do-able for a comedy, but it just comes together has one big forced mess.  I have no problem with vulgar humor and taking something to the limit in order to achieve a laugh.  However, I can’t reiterate enough just how forced the material is here; vulgar, mild and anything in between.  Yes I got a few laughs out of it (more so than that horrible Dark Shadows I experienced last week), but if I can count those laughs on one hand, then the movie failed and the $8.50 I paid for a matinee was a hosing.  I liken Cohen’s future in film to M. Night Shyamalan. Shyamalan wowed audiences with his ability to tote them along on a path of intended misguidance, only to offer sizeable shock value at the end.  Unfortunately, audiences grew tired of this after a while because they pretty much knew what to expect.

Cohen is taking a similar road in the sense that his style is a one-trick pony.  You get vulgar, no longer surprising comments, then it’s on to the next scene.  In Borat, he tells a manner-proper woman to wipe his behind after he finishes his business in the bathroom. That’s humorous because it was unexpected, though in context and still had a least a little shock value to it.  Then in Bruno he’s flashing his penis and pushing the sexuality envelope to new horizons.  Ehhh, not my thing.  It’s got shock value yet it’s not funny.  It worked for some, not others.  Now we’ve got The Dictator and it feels like an extension of the Borat character with elements of the crude, once shocking material he could surprise audiences with.  The Dictator is anything but shocking and certainly isn’t an engaging comedy.  Throwing crude lines or actions out there without a factor of cleverness or proper placement renders a scene unfunny, not to mention useless.  There are some funny (though far from hilarious) moments in this movie, but the bottom line is, if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve seen the movie.  Not even the great Ben Kingsley, nor the cameos of a few well known actors, could resuscitate any lingering breath into this film.

Film: 

Frank: I wish I was a super-genius inventor and could come up with a way to make a telephone into an explosive device that was triggered by the American Superstarz voting number. The battery could explode and leave a mark on the face, so I could know who to avoid talking to before they even talked.

The film stars Joel Murray as the ever-embittered Frank.  That may be a bit strong.  Frank has been having it rough dealing with what the rest of the country seems to enjoy.  We get a glimpse of all the nonsense Frank tries to avoid, as he skips through a bunch of reality TV shows (not too far removed from ones that actually exist), while up late due to his annoying neighbors putting in no effort to keep their baby quiet.  During one terrible day, we see the extent of what Frank puts up with.  On this day, Frank first tries to deal with his ex-wife and his spoiled daughter, who wants no involvement with her father, because he is poor.  Later, after ranting about how stupid reality television is, Frank is fired from his job and diagnosed with a brain tumor.  As I said, it is a terrible day.  After Frank arrives back at home, he decides that maybe suicide is his only escape.

Before pulling the trigger, however, Frank makes a decision.  In the process of planning to kill himself, Frank had the television on and watched another reality show where a teenager threw a tantrum because her parents would not get her exactly what she wanted.  Figuring that he has nothing to lose, Frank decides to steel his neighbor’s sports car and drive hundreds of miles to kill this teenage girl, before killing himself.  Frank succeeds in the first part of this plan (with some bumbling in the process), but before he kills himself, he is interrupted by Roxy (Tara Lynne Barr); a teenage girl who saw what Frank did.  She thinks he could do more “good” by taking out other “not so good” people, and bring her along to help.  Therefore, the two set out on a bizarre road trip/killing spree across the country.

The problem with this movie is how it does not really settle on anything, as opposed to simply providing sequences where characters can openly rant about what they hate about society in general.  Goldthwait, who wrote and directed this film, seems to clearly enjoy having a platform of sorts to really go into why he finds reality television and a lot of what goes on in American pop culture to be insipid and dumb.  Unfortunately, the film just feels like many various rants, with obvious setup for when these rants will occur.  Goldthwait’s past films have tended to start out with some key ideas, only to reveal themselves as something more introspective.  God Bless America does not really get to that place.  It just continues along the same path for the duration of its runtime.  However, it does help that, despite being a series of rants and murderering mayhem, they are entertaining rants and scenes of murdering mayhem.

Roxy: You really had the chance to do something awesome here. But you’re blowing it, Frank. Now you’re just gonna be remembered as some creepy old stalker dude who was in love with some young twat on a television show. Just a pervy old dude that killed that girl and then himself when he couldn’t have her.
Frank: I didn’t kill her because I couldn’t have her. I killed her because she wasn’t nice.

While something like Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers may have done what this film has attempted nearly 2 decades ago, there still is a sort of twisted joy in seeing a deranged couple (they’re friends, nothing more) go off and provide a kind of sick wish fulfillment of having obnoxious and mean people get a comeuppance of sorts.  I am of course not in support of murdering people because I do not like them or am annoyed by them, but in the realm that this film exists, there are some funny, exaggerated sequences that depict this.  ‘Exaggerated’ is a good term to stick with too, because this film really does not exist in a real life sort of world.  It is exists because of a convenient screenplay, as opposed to being something grounded in reality, which is to both the film’s benefit and its detriment.

It helps that the two main performances are quite good.  Joel Murray does a great job at embodying a man who does not necessarily think he is better than anyone is, but does feel he has the right to speak against the stupidity of a lot of what the country seems to enjoy.  This role could have been played with a much darker cynicism that would have sucked the fun out of this movie, but Murray’s take on the performance does well at combining his sad sack nature with an angry, but likably warm presence.  There could have been more development for Roxy’s character, but at least Tara Lynne Barr’s performance brings a fun character for Frank to interact with.  Combining that with her psychotic pleasure that she gets from offing the idiots and hate-filled folk of the country (which is encapsulated just as much in her grin as it is in her actions) allows the movie to at least move along at a breezy pace.

The other movie I could refer to, which this film may owe a bit to, is perhaps one of the best films from Joel Schumacher, Falling Down, with Michael Douglas as a man who goes on a violent rampage during particularly hot day in Los Angeles.  That film tackles many similar issues, but was better for really delivering on the main character and having the story be about something overall.  God Bless America does not quite get there.  It has many scattered moments drenched in satire and likes speaking out against things going on in America currently, but it does not really wrap up into a story that completely comes together.  It is still a bit of fun; a twisted dark comedy, with a couple memorable moments, but the film does not amount to more than just an average story.

Frank:  [after finishing shooting practice] You did a good job.
Roxy:  I have a good coach. That and I was pretending the targets were the cast of Glee.

Note:  After writing this, I heard in a hilarious interview with Bobcat Goldthwait that he hates Falling Down.

God Bless America is currently available on Video On Demand

Dark Shadows

Barnabas Collins: How soon can the horses be ready?
Elizabeth Collins Stoddard: We don’t have horses, we have a Chevy.

Based on the cult classic soap opera of the same name, which ran from 1966-1971, this theatrical adaptation of Dark Shadows stars Johnny Depp as Barnabas Collins.  We learn early on that the Barnabas’ family helped developed the town of Collinsport, Maine and he was the master of Collinwood Manor, up on Widow’s Hill.  During his time as a playboy, Baranabas makes the mistake of breaking the heart of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), a witch, in favor of another woman, Josette (Bella Heathcote).  As a result, Angelique curses the Collins family and forces Josette to jump off a cliff.  Barnabas attempts to kill himself, but finds that he has been cursed to be a vampire and live for an eternity.  To make matters, Barnabas is buried alive in a chained-coffin by angry townspeople.

Nearly 200 years later, Barnabas is finally released from his prison and makes his way back home.  Upon returning, he finds a few remaining members of the Collins family still residing at the manor.  This includes the family matriarch, Elizabeth Collins (Michelle Pfeiffer); her brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller); Elizabeth’s rebellious daughter Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moretz); and Roger’s son David (Gulliver McGrath).  Also at the house, Elizabeth’s hired live-in psychiatrist, Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter); the manor’s caretaker, Willie Loomis (Jackie Earle Haley); and the new governess, Victoria Winters (played by Heathcote again), seemingly a re-embodiment of Barnabas’ lost love.  As Barnabas attempts to adjust to life in the 1970s, which includes restoring the family name, things become much more complicated as Angelique is still in town and still hopes Barnabas has a change of heart, even though she’s cursed it for all time.

I have no issue with the fact that director Tim Burton, Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham Carter continue to work together.  If they all get along and like making movies together that is fine.  I actually think the movie is benefitted by the presence of these people.  Depp brings a lot to the role of Barnabas Collins, with his best scenes in the film revolving around the fish out of water notion of him being a very old-fashioned man/vampire now stuck in the 70s.  Bonham Carter has a smaller role, but I did enjoy what she tried to do with her character, despite some of her motivations feeling a little undercooked (a common problem with the characters in general, which I’ll get to).  Then you have Burton, who at least makes this film feel like something clearly in his wheelhouse.

Regardless of how much one likes Tim Burton’s work as a filmmaker, one of his greatest accomplishments as a director is the fact that he is one of the few current filmmakers whose stamp someone can instantly recognize.  With Dark Shadows, while not even close to being one of his best films, Burton at least seemed to be able to inject a lot of his personality into an expensive looking studio feature.  Pale faces, gothic interiors, an almost too colorful town mixed with a darker setting outside town (akin to Edward Scissorhands), and of course, the Danny Elfman score (which is forgettable) all do a lot to make this feel like a Tim Burton film, but also apply an effective amount of style to the feature.  Burton seems more involved here than he did on Alice in Wonderland, which was nice to see, but unfortunately, there were still issues with how this film was structured.

Basing this off a soap opera that had 1000+ episodes, there was certainly plenty of story to cull from, but unfortunately the story by John August (Big Fish and other Burton films) and Seth Grahame-Smith (Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter) is excessively busy, despite having many characters that do not add much to the story.  Despite having a great cast, the majority of them are only defined in very broad terms and we learn very little about them.  For example, Jonny Lee Miller is defined as greedy, Jackie Earle Haley is a drunk, and Michelle Pfeiffer simply exists as the head of the family, but has little else to do beyond believe in the family.  The other characters that we do learn a bit more about mostly have developments that either come too late in the film or do not amount to much that is interesting.  Namely the Victoria Winters character, who seems to be introduced as the lead female character of the film, before disappearing into the background for a good majority of the film.

Fortunately, Eva Green at least seems to be trying to have a lot more fun, which is nice given that I do not think I have ever seen her smile before this film, as Cheshire Cat-like as it may be.  She provides a level of menace that is welcome and shares one of the film’s funnier sequences, involving Depp and a full use of one specific room.  I also enjoyed the interactions between Depp and Chloe Grace Moretz, which was a good way to emphasize the massive generation gap.  Again, no one is particularly bad in the film, there are just a lot of instances where characters are not given much to do or written too thinly to make us care for their parts of the story.

The story plays out awkwardly as well and not at a decent pace.  I felt a lot of drag in various points during the film, which was not aided by the fact that the humor could be very hit or miss at times.  The attempt to really balance the campy tone and dialogue with some of the film’s darker sensibilities unfortunately did not pay off as well as it has in other Burton films where the macabre and the comedy felt like a more natural mix (i.e. Sleepy Hollow or even Beetlejuice).  If Tim Burton wanted to reboot the actual TV show (direct the pilot, scale down the star power, expand the story), I could have easily seen this working out better, but as it stands, there are just a lot of good elements not coming together to really deliver on the promise of the idea of turning this show into a movie.

Dark Shadows is certainly not an insult to its TV counterpart (I watched a few episodes, so I am not speaking blindly), it just feels like many good ideas did not come together quite right.  Johnny Depp is good, as one would expect, but why couldn’t I get to see more come from his perception of Alice Cooper?  Why did I not care more for Victoria?  What else was going on in Collinsport.  Too much of what this film showed me ended up not being interesting enough, while many people involved in this film ended up not having enough to flesh out what had been vaguely developed.  I will continue to entertain the idea of Burton and Depp working together; I just hope we get more interesting stories (hopefully original ones) to sink our teeth into in the future.

Barnabas Collins: What is your age?
Carolyn Stoddard: Fifteen.
Barnabas Collins: Fifteen, and no husband? You must put those childbearing hips to good use.

Marciano: Is that all?
Vincent: The rest is in a safe place.

The film begins with a drug heist that goes wrong. Two men attempt to rob two drug carriers, but one of the carriers stabs a robber and is killed, while the other gets away. The drug carrier that escaped even managed to see the face of one of the robbers. The robbers did manage to steal the drugs however, which becomes more interesting once we learn that the robbers are in fact two police officers. Our lead, Vincent (Tomer Sisley), was the one who was stabbed, but finds that he has even more to worry about, due to what happens next.

The drugs that Vincent and his partner stole belong to a powerful mob boss/nightclub owner, Jose Marciano (Serge Riaboukine), who kidnaps Vincent’s son in an effort to force Vincent to give back what he stole. Vincent now has until the end of the night to return the drugs and save his son. This leads to a long and exhausting ordeal, which finds Vincent losing control of the situation frequently, as returning the drugs is not as simple as it could have been, given the presence of a couple internal affairs officers that follow him to the nightclub. Tired, wounded, and relying only on his wits, Vincent will have to do whatever he can to get his son and leave safely.

While films like Die Hard and Taken clearly come to mind when watching and describing this film, the other clear influence, right from the start, is The Dark Knight, which I found equally intriguing. The opening heist, right down to the score, is very similar to how The Dark Knight opens, and there is a way in which the action is filmed, which continues that notion. There is a realistic element to how things play out, which keeps it in the same realm as a lot of these Die Hard-like films, but it tries to setup a lot of the tension through the use of its music and various reactions to what is taking place, in addition to the actual action that occurs.

Having spoken about the action, Sleepless Night relies less on actual fights and gun battles and more on cat and mouse-related thrills. Given the nightclub setting, that makes the film even more intense, as we see Vincent barrel his way through huge crowds, with the camera following him at a close distance. It certainly appears to be a complicated film to have shot, given the vast amount of people present. Observing the way that the film establishes its location is a compliment to the film as well, since the geography of the film seems so clear. The nightclub has plenty of areas for Vincent to either evade his foes or fight them, and we are quite clear on where the locations are in relation to the characters. In addition, when there is violent action in the film, it is intense. One sequence features two people improvising their way through a kitchen, using all that is at their disposal to try and takedown the other person. When this film wants to get more hectic, it goes there and does it well.

The biggest reason as to why Die Hard is such a key film to reference is the nature of our lead character. Vincent is very human. He bleeds, he makes rash decisions, he is vulnerable, and nothing is ever easy for him. The added difference is the fact that Vincent is a little more morally questionable, given that we are not quite sure how on the level he is. We know that he cares for his son, but the reason as to why he steals the drugs is never completely made clear and we also see him take some questionable actions towards others in the nightclub. With all of this in mind, Tomer Sisley is fantastic in the role. He does well at portraying the heavy amount of stress his character faces, which really worked in keeping me incredibly engaged with how the film would play out.

The other focus of the film concerns the various other characters involved; namely the villains, which supplies both positives and negatives for the film. On the one hand, the fact that they are not very confident keeps the film set in a semi-realistic world, from an action film standpoint. Still, there is no question that some poor decisions are made by many of these people over the course of the night. The plot never becomes too overly complex, but the various character relationships becomes a pretty twisty ordeal to keep up with and it somewhat distracts at times or makes you question better ways one could have handled a situation.

Getting back to the direction and construction of this film, writer/director Frédéric Jardin did some great work for a film whose tagline states, “He took their drugs, they took his son!”. On the one hand, the premise is very simple, but Jardin did a lot of solid work in complicating things for Vincent and the other characters, without making anything far too complex for the audience to work out. Despite questionable choices, we understand the motives of the main players involved and get to enjoy a lot of the clever setups that have interesting pay offs as the film moves along. A lot of credit also goes to how well the tension is built in this film, which is a real key to making Sleepless Night such a success.

I really enjoyed this film for what it accomplished. Despite the references I have made, Sleepless Night does not feel like a knock-off of any of them, but rather a strong, well-made entry into the genre. It provides a cool and claustrophobic location (despite the presence of so many people) to base an action film in and a morally ambiguous hero (approaching anti-hero) to follow. The film is tightly paced, especially once we get to the nightclub, and provides plenty of clever thrills throughout. It is a solid film that I hope people go and seek out.

Vincent: Thomas…I’m coming to get you.

Sleepless Night is currently available on Video On Demand:

Dark Shadows, on the surface seemed to be a great vehicle for director Tim Burton’s unique talents.  In his hands, Dark Shadows could have been a straight up dark thriller, a comedy, or a hybrid of both which is his usual modus operandi.  Once again, Burton has crafted a darkly humorous tale about a bunch of misfits that don’t easily fall into society’s stereotypes.  If you wonder what the final result of this movie is, imagine if you combined the atmosphere from Sleepy Hollow, the fish out of water antics from Edward Scissorhands, and the pitch black humor of Death Becomes Her, the end result would be very close to Dark Shadows.

After being buried for two centuries, Barnabas (Johnny Depp) is accidentally discovered and freed by a construction crew.  He’s quite thirsty after all of this time and he quickly kills all of the men after apologizing in advance.   Now that it’s 1972, Barnabas has a lot to catch up on and that’s the best part of the movie and the main source of the movie’s many humorous scenes.  Simple things like roads and the sight of a McDonald’s sign throw him into a tizzy and Depp is at his best conveying his horror or fascination at each of these new changes.  When Barnabas returns to his ancestral home Collinwood Manor, his bewilderment only increases when he sees that the estate has fallen into disrepair and that the once-booming family business has been mostly crushed by his old nemesis Angelique (Eva Green) who is still very much alive and running the town.

The remaining Collins are a mixed bunch with secrets of their own, including family matriarch Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), her loser brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller) and his children Carolyn (Chloe Grace Moretz) and David (Gully McGrath) as well as the family pyschiatrist Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter).  Barnabas confides his true nature to Elizabeth in order to convince her that he is the original Barnabas who belongs in the manor and once he also shows her his hidden treasures, she agrees to keep his secret and allow him to stay with the family.  The rest of the family warms up to him once he reverses the family fortunes and rebuilds their business.  That success doesn’t go unnoticed by Angelique (now known as Angie) who isn’t happy to see the Collins family make a comeback.  Having cursed Barnabas because he loved Josette instead of her, Angie’s fury is reawakened when Barnabas falls in love with Victoria (Bella Heathcote) who happens to be a splitting image of Josette.

The rest of the movie is basically the battle between Barnabas and Angie with little more involved.  There isn’t a deep plot in this movie and there’s many plot-lines that go nowhere like the ghost Josette who not only grows up with Victoria and the unexplained fact that Victoria is a doppelganger of Josette.  There must be a lot of deleted footage that contained other paths that were left unexplored.  Dark Shadows is fun to watch but it’s also somewhat aimless and simple, which is a shame since this could have been even better.  This movie also serves as Burton and Depp’s eighth collaboration and the movie is a who’s who of other past Burton favorites including Danny Elfman.  While I like seeing Burton and Depp work together, it’s starting to blend together.  It’s almost as if there’s a checklist between them that they follow for each film including having Depp wear white face-paint fo every role (at least this time it’s for a good reason).   Despite the film’s shortcomings, Depp and the rest of the cast are a lot of fun to watch but fans of the original TV series may not be as pleased to see this more comedy-centric remake.

Buy your tickets today!

In 1752 the Collins family set sail from Liverpool, England to America.  They built a successful fishing business.  Life is good for the Collins family, until Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), a young bachelor/playboy, betrays the love of Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), an evil witch.  Angelique takes vengeance on him, but death would have been too good for him.  Scorned, she turns him into the undead, a vampire, and curses the Collins family.  Barnabas was entombed by Angelique and the town people to spend eternity alone.  You are going to love to hate Angelique as she really is an evil witch.  However, she’s  every bit as beautiful as she is mean and nasty.

Two hundred years later, Barnabas is unearthed by construction workers.  The year is 1972 and boy have things changed.  It’s hilarious watching this blood covered vampire walk through town confused, not understanding the things he is seeing.  Barnabas makes his way back to the manor only to find it run down and neglected.  The manor is occupied by his distant dysfunctional relatives, and psychiatrist, Dr. Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter), hired by Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer) to help with the family issues.  And boy are there ever a lot of them!  Victoria Winters (Bella Heathcote) has just been hired as a nanny for David Collins (Gulliver McGrath).  Victoria has her own dark secrets that she is hiding as well.  She also becomes Barnabas’ love interest.  Victoria seems to be in and out of scenes.  She’s not one of my favorite characters, but the lucky girl does get to kiss Mr. Depp.  She also plays Josette DuPres, the woman that Barnabas fell in love with long ago.  Carolyn Stoddard (Chloe Moretz) plays Elizabeth’s daughter.  Needless to say, she’s a troubled teenager.  She is into music, and wants to move to New York when she is 16.  Chloe’s character has a dark secret also, but on the plus side she has “good birthing hips.”  Next to Johnny, Chloe gave the next strongest performance.

Barnabas vows to restore the family business and bring the mansion back to its original glory.  But Angelique is every bit determined to destroy him unless he gives her his heart and vows to spend eternity with her.  This poor vampire is trying to win a girl’s heart, lose a witch, restore the family manor, rebuild the family business and still trying to adapt to the 70’s. Wow!  In his adjustment to everyday life in 1972, Barnabas encounters a McDonald’s sign, lava lamps, resin grapes, macramé owls, hippies, the book Love Story and even Mr. Alice Cooper.  Wow again!  Doesn’t that sound like a mouthful?  I have to admit I felt at times it was all over the place, but all in all I enjoyed Dark Shadows.  It was fun, made me laugh and best all…there was Johnny Depp’s performance.  Look for a cameo from Jonathan Frid (the original Barnabas Collins) and few of the original series cast at the beginning of the ball.  However, I hate to end this review on a sad note, but proper respect must be given to Jonathan Frid who passed away this past April on Friday the 13th.  He will be sadly missed.  Now go buy your tickets!

Save the Date stars Lizzy Caplan as Sarah, the manager of a bookstore and a somewhat aspiring artist, who is moving in with her boyfriend Kevin (Geoffrey Arend).  Kevin is the lead singer/guitar player in the band Wolfbird, with his best friend Andrew (Martin Starr) on drums.  Andrew is currently engaged and living with Sarah’s sister, Beth (Alison Brie).  Moving in with Kevin is a big step for Sarah, who has issues with the closeness of relationships, but things become disastrous almost immediately, when Kevin (very unwisely) decides to go for it and ask Sarah to marry him during one of his band’s performances, in front of a large audience.  Sarah declines, breaks up with Kevin, and moves back into her own place.

This fortunately comes as good news to Jonathon (Mark Webber), who has had a crush on Sarah (he visits her bookstore, not because they have the books he likes, but because she is there), and this leads to him starting up a relationship with her.  Meanwhile, Beth is dealing with sorting out her own wedding, while also trying to help Sarah along in her own romantic entanglements.  Things become tricky, as various forms of drama revolving around Sarah’s own issues with commitment put her at odds with the different people in her life who care about her most.

Having sketched out a plot, aside from a few details here or there, it is sort of easy to understand what kind of movie Save the Date is, how it will progress, and possibly how it will end for everyone.  The movie does not necessarily revel in clichés, but it does have a familiar structure.  What kept it a worthwhile feature for me, much like a number of the other recent and similar films that I have seen, is the strength of the cast.  This is a good group of people, with some cast members playing off of their charm, while others play off their sardonic sense of humor to great effect.

I was pleased right away to have Lizzy Caplan in the lead role in this film.  Given that I am a fan of hers in general (notably in the series Party Down, which also starred Martin Starr), getting to see a full length feature with her as the lead was a good way to get me into my seat.  I enjoyed watching Sarah for the most part, even though some of her actions became incredibly frustrating during later points in the film.  Having Alison Brie in this film (who currently pulls double duty on Community and Mad Men) was also a pretty nice plus.  She is in the role of the more responsible sibling, but gets to balance some of her overbearingness with chances to shine comedically.  Mark Webber (from Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, further proving that this film has a desire to truly please me) is also welcome, embracing him a role that allows him to have an effortlessly cool persona, which is washed over by the occasional nervousness that makes him into a generally likable guy.  Geoffrey Arend has the somewhat unfortunate task of playing the ex-boyfriend character, which basically means that we get just enough to know that he’s probably not right for Sarah, but not a whole lot more.  That said, he has a number of moments in this film that provide nice little bits of shading to his character, so we at least never see him as unlikable.

Two more performances of note.  The first is Timothy Busfield, who enters into the film a bit later as the father of Sarah and Beth.  I don’t know what it is, but in the few scenes he has, Busfield nails what is required of him and his purpose for being in the film.  The other is Martin Starr who I found to be quite fantastic.  He and Brie’s character play a very believable couple, who are clearly in love with one another, but have arguments just as well, and also have conversations that go well in strengthening who they are.  Brie is very good in her role, but I thought Starr really nailed his performance.  Coming off roles like Party Down, which I mentioned, or the underseen film Adventureland, I think it is clear that Starr is very capable in providing more than just a biting sense of humor to fill in with supporting character work.

The film itself is well made.  Sarah’s artwork comes into play, in a way that establishes a nice sort of quirky touch, fitting for this kind of film.  The various ways in which this film jumps into showing us time passing and the relationship between Sarah and Jonathon evolving is done well enough.  I do think the film goes into pretty heavy territory towards the end, which comes off as somewhat irritating, given the reason of why a certain level of darkness is being revealed, but for the most part, there is a fair share of humor that surfaces throughout.  The script by Jeffrey Brown, Egan Reich, and Michael Mohan (who also directed) is thought out enough to keep the film interesting and not too much is done to make the film seem overly hip with unfavorable “indie” notions.

So I found myself enjoying yet another comedy-drama based around the romantic pursuits of a flighty female lead.  There is not much wrong with that.  Save the Date has a strong, likable, and funny cast and that really goes a long way for these types of movies.  The story goes through some familiar motions and does not quite nail the tone in a more consistent fashion, but I still was able to really enjoy myself, while watching this film.  And I also just really liked Sarah’s drawings.

So as I mentioned, Save the Date was the last film I saw at the Newport Beach Film Festival.  It was a fun, but exhausting week for me and I hope others are able to check out some of the film I managed to see and enjoy.  Click on the poster to visit the Newport Beach Film Festival website and feel free to find the rest of my coverage of the festival HERE!

Check out director/co-writer Michael Mohan talking about Save the Date:

The film begins interestingly enough, with Karl (Tygh Runyan) delivering a note to Paul (Brad Dryborough), with information regarding what Karl has been doing.  Karl has been following Paul from a distance, believing him to be his doppelganger, the mirror image of himself.  This letter exchange was anonymous, which leads to Paul responding by leaving a note in the same spot where he first received his.  Despite initial confusion and hostility, Paul is intrigued enough to eventually meet up with Karl.

Upon meeting up with one another, (aside from the humorous realization that neither of these people really resemble each other) a bizarre chain of events begins to occur, which revolves around these two forming a strange sort of bond, as they deal with a new path for them to take.  This path leads to the divulging and releasing of Karl’s manuscript to the public, a piece of work that was 25 years in the making.  The issue here is that the manuscript was not released by Karl or Paul, but a random, separate party, after having been edited down into something much different than Karl’s intention, given that he was detailing why he hates himself.  As a result, Karl and Paul set out on a journey together to confront the issues they are facing, be it related to the lack of credit for the work that has been published or on a level of self-revelation.

Given the nature of the majority of films I have been seeing at the Newport Beach Film Festival, I was pleased to see something different.  Doppelganger Paul very much operates on the level of an offbeat, independent feature; complete with quirky characters, an inherent strangeness in where the story takes the viewer, and an improvisational tone to how scenes play out.  This film revels in being a lot of the things that either brings in or distances people from these types of art house films, but I never found myself thinking that the movie was being strange and different just for the sake of being that way.

I was intrigued by where this story was going and it was mainly due to the approach to these characters and how they attempted to embody the second part of the title of the film.  Given that Karl and Paul are guys who apparently are displeased by so much about themselves, the fact that I was able to see humor and various positive aspects in them kept a certain flow of the film alive.  I would not necessarily bill this film as a straight up comedy, but it is a human comedy that gets away with being somewhat mordant, due to the fact that I liked watching these people.

Both Runyan and Dryborough made for interesting characters, with Drborough’s Paul bringing a sort of nervous intensity, while Runyan gets away with all of his oddities based around his dryly humorous delivery of a great majority of his lines.  It becomes very interesting to see where these characters end up as the film goes on, given how the act shifts have a pretty particular way of breaking the film up into specific parts.  It is also worth noting the two supporting performances from Ben Cotton and Matty Finochio, who serve as the characters who claim false credit over Karl’s manuscript.  Their scenes mostly served as comedic divergences from the main narrative, but they brought a fun, broader sort of feel to a film that was spending most of its time in such a detached state, despite being a weird kind of enjoyable.

There are a few different themes explored in this film by directors Dylan Akio Smith and Kris Elgstrand (who also scripted the film).  I would be very intrigued to learn more about what went on in the development of the feature.  The concept of questioning the state of one’s identity (let alone the various odd touches further applied to the film) easily brought to mind people like Charlie Kauffman and Michel Gondry, despite the less pronounced style seen in ‘Paul’.  There is a notion that made me want to question more about how this film develops however.  While enjoyable for a variety of reasons, it does move at a fairly slow pace for an 84-minute film.  Certain scenes are easily more enjoyable or fascinating to watch, but I get curious as to how the editing process was in sorting out the overall arc of the film (which, I guess, is similar to how Karl’s manuscript gets pared down in the film).  Gathering a film together out of what seems to be an exploration of a particular motif, with humorous intentions, must certainly have been a challenge, just not a completely sound one.

Doppelganger Paul was an interesting change in pace for my Newport Beach Film Festival viewing experience.  Definitely sitting firmly in the realm of obscure indie films, there may be certain people who don’t quite have the acquired taste to really get into this film, but being open-minded has certainly held up for me in the past, just like it has here.  It is a different sort of film, but the premise goes into interesting and amusing territory and I had a good time.

Click on the poster to visit the Newport Beach Film Festival website, and be sure to check back to Why So Blu throughout the week for more of my coverage of the festival!

Check out the trailer for Doppelganger Paul:

Gerwig stars as Lola, a nice enough person, living with her boyfriend Luke (Joel Kinnaman) in New York.  At the beginning of the film, Luke proposes to Lola and the during the entire opening credits montage, we see Lola getting ready for her wedding.  Reaching the end of this sequence, Lola comes home to an upset Luke, who breaks off the wedding entirely.  Smash cut to the title.  Lola is understandable devastated, but at least has good support coming from her best friend Alice (co-screenwriter Zoe Lister-Jones), the mutual, but sweet friend Henry (Hamish Linklater), and her caring parents (Debra Winger and Bill Pullman).

In the months that follow, Lola gets into some messy situations, as she deals with her break up somewhat haphazardly.  As Lola deals with being single for the first time in nearly a decade, her decisions lead her to hooking up with some less than ideal people, as well as people she never really considered to be possible suitors.  Her friends try to help her along, and even Luke still attempts to forge some kind of friendship with Lola, despite the way in which he hurt her.  However, Lola needs to work on moving on and getting out of the rut that she was forced into.

The main appeal of this film, for me, was Greta Gerwig.  I have been an admirer of the various films Gerwig has been a part of for a while now (Greenburg and The House of the Devil, among others) and I was happy to see a film that puts her in the starring role.  Aside from a key issue I had with the film, which I will address later, I was happy to have found plenty to enjoy in her performance.  Gerwig has a way of handling her characters in films with a sense of honesty, which is reflected in the way she reacts to other characters.  Having been a part of so many independent features, it is a natural sort of approach, which allows her to have believable chemistry with the various other characters.  She also has a nice smile, which is important in two ways.  Gerwig is an attractive, leggy blonde, yes, but she has a way of putting a lot of emotion behind her smile, which does not always suggest happiness (especially in this film).

The other characters were well played, for the most part, as well.  The character of Alice is an expected, but appropriate type of friend that Lola would have in a film like this.  She gets to string out a number of one-liners that are fun and adds to the supporting the lighter moments of a film dealing with Lola’s romantic troubles.  Hamish Linklater is incredibly sweet and laid back in the role of the male friend, who balances teetering on becoming too close with a person he is not sure about becoming so close to.  He has a way of equaling the natural sort of chemistry that Gerwig creates, which is neat given that he’s balanced doing independent films with a lot of TV work.  Debra Winger and Bill Pullman have the pretty simple task of providing support and sage wisdom to Lola, which is fine, because I liked the sort of breezy relationship their characters had with their daughter (Pullman in particular).  And lastly, Kinnaman is fine in the role of the man who dumped Lola in the first place.  Knowing him mainly for his much darker role in The Killing (though it should be noted that he’s coming up in the film world, with a number of big parts coming his way), it was at least nice to see him clean shaven.  That said, there is a lot to be said about how irritating his character is, given the decisions he has made and how he goes about trying to still be in contact with Lola.  It is fortunate that Kinnaman at least sells the role of being so unsure of himself.

As mentioned, the film was co-written by Zoe Lister-Jones, along with writer/director Daryl Wein, and the two manage to do fine work in making this a film about a woman caught up in despair due to her tragic and abrupt breakup, while still managing to inject the story with plenty of humor.  I would not necessarily say that I found the film to be deeply poignant (which can easily be attributed to the fact that I am male and have not gone through an intense breakup ordeal that preceded my approaching wedding), but I was also happy that Lola Versus didn’t plunge itself down too deeply into dramatic territory.  I did get caught up enough in the emotional journey of Lola to appreciate what she was going through, but I was happy that she found herself in humorous and awkward situations as well.

The main issue I had with the film revolved around the progression into the third act.  The film reaches a point where Lola finds herself at a very particular point in her life (and in the structure of this somewhat familiar story) and she needs to take some certain actions in order to grow and recover as a character.  I was put off by the way the film decided to handle this area of the story, where Lola essentially has certain developments that come from a place that is not fully developed and leads to a closure of the film that feels somewhat unearned.  It basically felt like the film cut off some bits in an attempt to rush into its finale, which rubbed me the wrong way.

Aside from the conclusion, which unfortunately did not feel fully developed (although I did enjoy the final minutes), my overall takeaway, regarding the film, was a positive one.  I like Gerwig and her relationships with the cast.  The script, for the most part, was pretty sound in portraying an entertaining take on a breakup story.  I also want to mention the music by the band Fall on Your Sword, which I was a fan of and am happy to see them scoring more films (they also provided the score for Another Earth).  I would be curious to see how people that have been in similar situations will react to this film, but I hope it is positively, as the film is charming enough in playing this character off of her friends and allowing her to stumble along the way, before finding her balance again.

Click on the poster to visit the Newport Beach Film Festival website, and be sure to check back to Why So Blu throughout the week for more of my coverage of the festival!

Check out the trailer for Lola Versus:

Film  

Like most guys my age, I grew up watching admittedly crappy animated shows like the “Super Friends” or “Spiderman and his Amazing Friends” just to see superheroes team up.  It didn’t matter if it was Marvel or DC, I just wanted to see the all-star superheroes join forces to defeat evil enough to put up with bad writing and terrible characters (remember the wonder twins and their stupid monkey?) just to see it.  For most part, if you wanted to see something like the Avengers or the Justice League to fight alongside each other, you needed to buy the crossover comics which were always better than any of the animated shows.  There’s been countless crossovers between the superheroes and even between Marvel and DC characters (which are my favorite), but there’s never been a high quality live action film to do so.  DC Comics came close once, when George Miller almost made a Justice League movie, but that movie fell apart at the last minute.  So at long last, Joss Whedon had the honor and the challenge of coming up with a movie that would not only meet the sky high expectations from fans, but also one that would be true to the characters and their prior individual journeys that occurred earlier.  I am ecstatic to report that Whedon has done just that.

With The Avengers, Whedon not only skillfully handled the directing duties, but he also wrote the script as well. Whoever made the decision to hire Whedon should be commended since he was the perfect choice for this movie. Not only does he have a lot of experience in writing and directing fun, humorous, and action-packed story-lines for his previous shows like “Firefly”, “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, and “Angel”, but he’s also a well-regarded comic book writer who had a fantastic run on The Astonishing X-Men among others.  Whedon specializes in writing for a large cast of differing personalities and viewpoints, which was essential for The Avengers to be successful.  Whedon not only had to reintroduce the characters to an audience that may not have seen their origin movies beforehand, but he also had to continue their personal story-lines in addition to moving their combined experiences forward for this movie.  I don’t know how he pulled it off, but he did with admirable results.

The movie opens with Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) being called into one of the S.H.I.E.L.D. bases because the Tesseract (or the Cosmic Cube) which had been discovered in the ocean near where Captain America was recovered is seemingly acting on its own free will.  Fury had tasked Eric Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) with trying to harness the potential limitless energy to provide both a new source of energy and also to develop some new “Phase Two” weapons that could be used against non-human foes.  With the Tesseract emitting low level gamma radiation and getting worse, Fury orders that the base be evacuated but before that can happen, the Tesseract opens a portal to allow Thor’s (Chris Hemsworth) evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) to arrive on Earth.  Loki wastes no time and he begins killing S.H.I.E.L.D. agents left and right and even uses magic to covert Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Selvig to join him as he steals the Tesseract.  Knowing full well the consequences that would result from allowing a being as powerful and angry as Loki to have something as powerful as the Tesseract in his hands, Fury has no choice but to activate the dormant Avengers Initiative.

To make that happen, he instructs Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) and Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) to bring in Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) and Bruce Banner/The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) respectively.  While Stark is still unhappy with being previously rejected by Fury as a candidate for the Avengers, he still is willing to listen and offer his expertise.  Banner on the other hand, has spent years avoiding the authorities and is currently hiding in Calcutta and trying to do some good by providing his medical skills to those that need it.  Banner has come a long way since the events in The Incredible Hulk (when he was played by Edward Norton) and he’s learned to cope with his alter ego better and has even learned to control him better.  It’s been a year since he last turned into the Hulk and in that time S.H.I.E.L.D. has kept an eye on him and helped keep others away from him.

Fury goes to talk with Captain America/Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) himself and tries to convince him that his country, indeed the entire world needs him back.  Rogers is still adjusting to his new reality after being frozen for sixty years and he isn’t too happy with how things have changed.  Being the dutiful soldier he is though, he agrees to return and he’s sent to confront Loki once the villain is spotted in Germany.  Loki ends up being a lot tougher than he expected but Iron Man arrives to help out and Loki is captured and then transported by plane to be placed into custody.  Thor arrives and removes his brother from the plane since he believes that Loki needs to face Asgardian justice instead of S.H.I.E.L.D.’s and Iron Man and Captain America follow in pursuit.

In one of his many genius ideas, by setting up this conflict between the heroes, Whedon gets to have his cake and eat it too.  Fans love seeing superheroes duke it out with each other and we get to see Iron Man take on Thor with spectacular results as well as seeing just what would happen if Thor’s hammer Mjolnir hit Captain America’s shield.  We also later get to see the Hulk vs. Black Widow, and the Black Widow against Hawkeye, but the real treat is seeing the Avengers fight as a team against Loki’s army of space aliens known as the Chitauri.  The cast does an amazing job bringing their characters to life (especially my favorite Robert Downey Jr.) and showing off their differences and flaws which makes them relatable and believable, especially when it affects their attempts to form a new group.

This film has so many iconic images and moments that I don’t want to spoil but I have to mention.  Finally seeing all of these superheroes not only in the same frame but fighting alongside each other is a wonder to behold for those of us that have always dreamed of this happening.  Whedon has captured the characters’ voices perfectly and has made an epic action packed movie, that is so full of humor and emotion that it will turn even non comic fans like my wife into true believers.  Marvel gambled big and is poised to win big and they have definitely thrown down the gauntlet to DC Comics which other than Christopher Nolan’s amazing Batman movies and the recent Green Lantern movie (which should have been better), they can’t seem to get their act together.  They have to be at least a decade behind Marvel at this point movie-wise since there can’t be a Justice League movie until they too establish their characters in stand alone movies first which is really depressing.  It has to be doubly depressing for DC since at one point Whedon was going to make a Wonder Woman film for them until that fell apart.  Seeing how well he executed The Avengers has to have some WB executives feeling pretty low at this point.

I can only hope that Marvel is wise enough to hire Joss Whedon to write and direct the next installments in this new series.  What would be even better is if the success of this movie gives Whedon the clout to bring back Firefly/Serenity in some fashion.  Hint.  Hint.  Another hope I have is that after audiences see how the Hulk is portrayed in this, that he will get another shot at a solo movie with Mark Ruffalo.  But then again, I would like to see more solo movies of all these characters. The Avengers will be the movie to beat this year and the only other movie that I think has a chance is The Dark Knight Rises which will mark the end of the Nolan trilogy.  The fact that The Avengers started off this strong with their first movie will only make future sequels have almost impossibly high expectations and excitement which isn’t a terrible way to start a new franchise.  The Avengers is without a doubt, the best movie I have seen in a long, long time and one that not only met my impossible expectations, but actually exceeded them.  Run don’t walk to the theater and see this on the big screen right now!  Excelsior!
 

Film  

Luckily for me, The Avengers did an excellent job telling you everything you need to know.  For the most part, my basic knowledge (being able to recognize and name the characters) was more than sufficient.  For the real comic buffs like my husband I’m sure there were numerous subtleties that went right over my head, and that’s fine.  I got all the information I needed from the movie, without it having to over explain things.

Having just seen (and loved) Cabin in the Woods, which Joss Whedon co-wrote and produced, I was for the first time excited about a movie based who directed it.  The Avengers is very well written by Whedon and it has the same witty humor that made me love Cabin in the Woods.  Each of the characters is showcased in different ways, but I especially enjoyed all of Iron Man’s banter and I now have a new appreciation for The Hulk.

As I said, I’m not into details with this kind of film, but I’ll do my best to summarize.  The Avengers stars Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, the head of S.H.I.E.L.D who has been looking into harnessing the power of the Tessaract, an energy cube.  Loki (Tom Hiddleston) he plans to steal the Tesseract to give it to some bad guys waiting to wipe out the Earth.  Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) reluctantly team up to save the world.  At first they spend more time fighting each other than anyone else but once united, they are an unstoppable force.

One of the most amazing things about The Avengers was the 3-D, which I actually enjoyed it.   I complain profusely about all 3-D movies being full of cheap gags where you could spot in the 2D version every stupid thing that was flying at your face for the benefit of the 3-D audience.  If given the choice, I will almost always take the 2D version in the theater over the 3-D version since most of the time I feel as though the 3-D effects take away from the film.  In The Avengers, that was not the case.  The 3-D action complimented the film and helped immerse the viewer in the action.   I forgot I was sitting there in those 3-D glasses and didn’t notice the two hour film fly by.  This is definitely the first time I have praised a 3-D movie and will recommend that everyone see it that way.

The hype surrounding this film is justified and Marvel’s The Avengers lives up to every bit of it.  Even for a non-comic book person and someone who clearly didn’t pay attention to the individual movies that occurred before this, it was an amazing movie.  I can only imagine what a true fan would take from it.   As expected, don’t get up and leave when the credits start or you will miss an additional scene – one for the true comic junkies, because I couldn’t recognize the character I was looking at.

Nick Fury: There was an idea to bring together a group of remarkable people, so when we needed them, they could fight the battles that we never could…

In breaking down the story, it is actually incredibly simple to explain.  Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), leader of the secret peacekeeping, law enforcement organization known as S.H.I.E.L.D., is forced to recruit all of the known super-powered heroes from around the world and beyond (Iron Man, Hulk, Thor, and Captain America) in an effort to build a super team strong enough to stop Thor’s evil brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) from destroying the Earth.  As Earth’s mightiest heroes all eventually gather, it will serve as a challenge to not only stop Loki, but to successfully work together as a true and capable team.

To give a bit of a roll call:  Iron Man (aka Tony Stark, played by Robert Downey, Jr.) is all about using his smarts and his wits to help supplement his super suit.  Captain America (aka Steve Rogers, played by Chris Evans) is still getting a grasp on existing in present time, after having woken up from a rest that started back during WWII, but he at least knows what his true duty is.  Bruce Banner (aka Hulk, played by Mark Ruffalo) seems to have found peace in helping others at a great distance from the rest of the world, but is still smart enough to know he needs to help S.H.I.E.L.D., even if he risks having another angry incident.  Thor (aka the Asgardian son of Odin, played by Chris Hemsworth) has traveled a great distance to deal with his revenge-minded brother, as he wishes to protect the Earth from harm.  Additionally, a few S.H.I.E.L.D. assassins, Black Widow (Scarlet Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), are caught up in the action as well, because it will truly take a highly skilled and powerful team of people to stop Loki, the power he wields, and the army he has brought with him.

It truly is some sort of miracle that this film exists; however, when you get a clip of the film that literally has a 360º shot of all of these superheroes, it is safe to say that Marvel Studios and everyone else involved was able to pull it off.  And really, who better to be at the head of this massive comic ship than Joss Whedon?  Whedon, known to many as a comic book writer, along with the creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, and Firefly (he also co-wrote and produced the recent release Cabin in the Woods), is who many would consider a perfect fit for a live-action Avengers film.  He has most clearly established the usage of wry bits of humor in his dialogue, but his work also always does well in establishing true drama buried beneath all the fantastic that is going on.  He is also always one to bring an incredible fairness in his balance to women (a notably great aspect, as The Avengers consists almost entirely of supermen).  Putting all that forward, it really is great to see Whedon emerge so successfully, as he was basically given the keys to play in the castle filled with comics and toys that he is very familiar with already.

I most admired the balance in this movie.  Given that The Avengers has to do a lot to not only establish that there are four main superheroes, a few supporting characters, and a lead villain, I was really thrilled to see that no one got short-changed.  Especially in the case of dealing with the very different personalities clashing, this film could have easily become the Tony Stark show featuring a few other super folk, but it didn’t.  This is a film about the Avengers, and as such, we spend the right amount of time with each character and can properly witness a specific arc for each.  As fun as it is to spend time listening to Tony Stark banter with others, it is just as engaging to see Thor deal with a fairly emotional issue of stopping his own brother, or having to relate to the attempts by Bruce Banner in his struggle to maintain his solace, let alone deal with the repercussions of the raging alter ego lurking within.  Even the master archer Hawkeye (aka Clint Barton) has his own arc, as he deals with Loki’s manipulation.

Steve Rogers: Big man, in a suit of armor… take that away, what are you?
Tony Stark: Uh… genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist…

The actors are certainly up to the task of delivering big for this film.  Robert Downey, Jr. continues to embody Tony Stark tremendously, even managing to add a few layers, while still providing plenty of humor.  Chris Evans continues to capture the same earnestness that makes Cap such a strong character, even if some reported scenes of him further dealing with his present reality were left on the cutting room floor.  Mark Ruffalo is maybe the best Bruce Banner of the recent three (though I did like Bana and Norton, regardless of the films), providing the proper sense of reluctance and struggle in balancing the two sides of himself, while still being fun to watch (the intro scene of him with Johansson is great, as is watching him talk smarts with Stark).  Hemsworth also continues to make Thor just incredibly fun to watch, as he gladly embraces the fish-out-of-water aspects of being a super-powered being interacting with earthlings.

As for the rest of the cast, Renner is basically great in everything he does, so watching him basically play cool as ice was very satisfying.  I liked Johansson more here than I have in anything in a while, which I think is a testament to the strong role that Whedon has afforded her.  Samuel L. Jackson, after practice rounds with the Nick Fury character in small portions for the past four years, gets more to do this time around and certainly maintains a certain badass stature, though I am hoping to see more from him in the future with more regard for the deeper layers of someone in charge of a super-secret organization.  Clark Gregg, who has slowly built plenty of charisma as S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson, gets in his moments as well; playing up his dry humor, while also hiding the excitement of seeing all of these guys come together (he collected Captain America’s trading cards).  And lastly, Tom Hiddleston continues to make for a wonderfully complex villain, as his Loki is still both duplicitous as well as crushed and conflicted on an emotional level, filled with anger and a desire for power.  Hiddleston makes Loki a villain that is fun to watch an interesting when it comes to seeing him interact with the others.

As there are plenty of highlights in this film, which I have not spoken of yet, let me first address some of the poorer aspects of this film.  To start, the beginning feels pretty bland.  Essentially a 10-minute cold open, the start of this film feels off-balance in how it sets up the remaining 2+ hours.  The dialogue doesn’t come off as strong and there’s a certain “whiz bang” factor that isn’t fully there, despite some expensive looking stuff going on.  Mirroring that response, the very end of this film sets up fake and somewhat predictable suspense, followed by a summation of things that occurred, which could have been better handled.

It does also seem almost too simple in how the plot has been realized.  By that I mean the film doesn’t do much beyond establishing that a bunch of really powerful guys (and some gals) need to get together, work together, and stop evil.  Now I don’t need much more than that, when it comes to something like The Avengers, but knowing that Whedon could have easily delved into some stronger additionally themes (which we only see in small doses), it does make me hope that future Avengers films will have more to say.  This could be partially blamed on the plot, which is simple, yet busy in the way it constantly adds various details onto the basic design of the film, which leaves little time for added motifs.

Lastly, as seen in all the previews, we know that the third act of this film is an epic battle that pits the Avengers against an extraterrestrial force, but those enemies, while intimidating, have little to offer in terms of getting us to see much in what they are fighting for.  The cheap and easy answer for this is that power always makes everyone want more, but given that the film starts off with Loki describing his plan to some unfamiliar character and then rides on without further exploring who this army is that is supporting him, it left me with wanting just a little more justification for their presence.

Getting back to why there is still an incredibly strong 2 hours of film to enjoy, I think a lot could be made from the fact that people are basically supposed to have seen five different films in order to fully enjoy The Avengers, but I do not think that is necessarily true.  Of course, it does help to be familiar with the people you are going to be following for the length of an entire film and each character has had one or two films of their own; however, Whedon (as well as story developer Zak Penn) has done a pretty great job of creating a film that is able to establish who these characters are well enough, without dragging the flow or spending too much time with any one character.  I will say that Thor is the one film (and Captain America to an extent), which really should be watched in order to be the least confused about what is fully going on, but this really is the kind of blockbuster film made for mass audiences to enjoy and not just all of the comic geeks that have been salivating for a film like this for decades.

Now let’s get down to that other thing, the part that relates to that epic 360º shot of all the Avengers.  When this film fires on all cylinders and has all these heroes doing things that they are known to do, the film truly shines.  A few pretty astounding scenes involve Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Hawkeye, and Black Widow all performing the incredibly feats and signature moves they are capable of and it is freaking awesome.  Seeing Iron Man bounce lasers off Captain America’s shield into a bunch of enemies or the Hulk bounding great heights and landing his fists into enemies or seeing Thor’s Hammer and Hawkeye’s arrows all aid in doing crazy things is simply fantastic.  The action in this film is wonderfully realized, never hard to understand, always clearly presented, with fantastic moments that feature long shots zooming between our different heroes.

The effects are top notch as well and kudos to ILM, among the other special effects studios, for really delivering the goods.  Putting it simply – Hulk looks great in this film.  The interaction between humans, heroes, aliens, and buildings feels consistent enough and does well to communicate a good sense of weight.  It is always cool to see Iron Man flying around, Cap’s shield bouncing around, and Thor’s hammer traveling great distances on its own.  And seeing the S.H.I.E.L.D. Heli-carrier (a flying aircraft carrier) in action was wonderfully satisfying.  Even the 3D conversion is strong enough to not make it too much of an issue.

Thor: He’s my brother
Black Widow: He killed 80 people in 2 days
Thor: …He’s adopted

In addition to the great deal of action in this film, it is just a lot of fun seeing all of these people interact with one another.  I have already mentioned the Whedon dialogue, which serves this film well, but actually seeing Stark and Banner talk science, Thor and Cap argue for their causes, or Nick Fury tough talk all of them, is just a lot of fun to listen to and rewarding to see witnessed in an actual, live-action film.  A benefit of this film is how it feels like a comic book in the way scenes are presented.  Dialogue comes fast and quick, framing is set up in very particular ways, and action, in various forms, is properly punctuated throughout.  Few films that ride under the “comic book movie” banner gave me that similar feel (which includes the ambitious, but much maligned Hulk).

In praising how this film feels like a comic book come to life, that should not rule out the fact that the dramatic moments and stakes in this film registered just as important as the ridiculously fun aspects of the film.  Putting the Earth in peril is one thing (the darn planet can never stay out of trouble), but dealing with a character like Thor, who is worried for Loki, despite having to deal with fighting against him or Captain America, who learns to what end times have changed, or even Black Widow, who holds a strong concern for Hawkeye, when things get turned around on them, is important stuff that is not simply looked over.  One particular dramatic beat does a lot to stir this group together in an effective way that has come from crafting together an assembly of well-drawn characters.  This film has a soul and does not just play out like an empty-headed blockbuster film, with little concern for the characters we are rooting for.

Some other odds and ends before I close.  I mostly enjoyed the score by Alan Silvestri.  It brings a vibe that contains themes for each characters and does well at adding to the moments, though I wish a bit more was done in creating a strong theme for the Avengers as a team.  Maintaining the cinematic continuity between films was also a great touch.  While I may have missed seeing certain other heroes join the fight (what was War Machine doing, was he busy?), I was happy to see that the previous films were properly respected with regards to this film that unites everyone.  And lastly, I can’t emphasize enough how cool Hulk is.

The Avengers feels like some professionals managed to gather a bunch of the best Marvel Comics and toys and let a bunch of fans in on seeing how well they know how to play with them, and then let them see that again and again.  The film delivers in all sorts of awesome ways.  Coming off of an ambitious investment, this is a film that brings together every one of these recent Marvel heroes for the film that is the culmination of a lot of hard work and effort.  The payoff is a hugely entertaining spectacle, which is benefited by wonderful action, fun dialogue, fine work by the actors involved, awesome special effects, and some other ingenious elements that make this film all the more satisfying to behold.  The Avengers have certainly assembled and this is a fine adventure that will be enjoyed by many.

Tony Stark: When they come, and they will come, they’ll come for you.
Loki: I have an army.
Tony Stark: We have a Hulk.

The film is setup pretty quickly.  We are introduced to five teens, who are supposed to be serving time in detention.  They include the geek, Eddie (Jacob Zachar); the jock, Brad (Jayson Blair); the cheerleader, Janet (Christa B. Allen); Brad’s jock friend, Jimmy (Max Adler); the goth girl, Willow (Alexa Nikolas); and the stoner kid, Ash (Justin Chon).  As detention gets started, the group notices that one guy in the corner isn’t looking so good.  He reveals a giant wound on his hand and soon enough, he turns into a zombie and bites the English teacher, monitoring detention.  Everyone is understandable shocked and even more so once they look outside and see that the school is being overrun with zombies.  Despite the differences seen between the different characters in this group, they are going to have to band together if they want to survive.  Luckily Eddie and Willow are zombie experts (based on movies, comics, and video games), but plenty can easily go wrong if these guys are not careful.

Getting to the main criticism I have first, the main issue I found with Detention of the Dead was the notion of setting up characters that claim to be experts in the field of zombies.  Characters like these can only be as smart as the screenwriters creating them, which tends to have a way of backfiring on how they have been setup.  Despite the film being very aware of what it is and having the characters make references to various forms of zombie lore, be it very obvious or more subtle, there are still choices made that reflect poorly on people like Eddie and Willow, when it comes time to making the right call.  I am very aware that the movie does not strive to be very serious, but I still took issue with things that one clearly wouldn’t do were they to be actually stuck in a zombie apocalypse and have full knowledge of that scenario, based on the various forms of zombie media the characters are supposedly obsessed with.

Getting back to the positive aspects, Detention of the Dead is apparently based on a play by Rob Rinow, which is supposed to rely on more of a sketch comedy-type structure.  Because of that, I can admire the way this film has ended up working, for the most part, as a narrative driven feature that contains various bits of comedy set pieces scattered throughout.  The story is incredibly straight-forward and does not really contain any surprises, but it creates a solid enough base and brings in the purposefully stock character-types to form a feature that plays out in an entertaining enough manner.

The characters in this film really do fall straight into the molds of the standard characters one expects to see in this kind of film.  After Cabin in the Woods, it is especially difficult to really accept what is being portrayed, but given that the film is coming from an independent world and seeks to simply be a breezy comedy filled with zombies, I was able to go along with it well enough.  It helps that the cast featured a decently fun group of individuals, with some working better than others (the stoner was annoying, but I enjoyed the over the top antics of Brad and the character of Willow in general).

It also helps that the film does well when deciding to be about zombies.  While the film is definitely a comedy at its undead core, there is plenty done here with gore to satisfy the fans of zombie movies who want to see people getting ripped apart or dismembered.  Especially given that the film was shot on a low budget, I was impressed with the makeup work and the sound effects used to convey deadly flesh-eaters taking over a school and devouring teachers and students alike.  I was also pleased that Detention of the Dead was smart enough to follow along with the “Romero Rules” when it came to handling the zombies.  They were slow moving, but deadly; and when people were bitten, they came back as zombies.  These are small details, but as a zombie fan myself, I was happy to see these choices made in the process.

Furthermore, I enjoyed the soundtrack and overall style of filmmaking.  The way certain songs were juxtaposed over the action occurring on screen was nicely handled and kept me entertained.  There were also bits of editing that worked for me, such as some of the rapid-fire cutting that occurred, which was of course calling back to The Evil Dead films, which I love.  And lastly, again, when being treated as a zombie film, as opposed to a straight comedy, there were ways in which the film felt appropriately lit and shot to feel like an actual creepy zombie movie.  This certainly is not a scary film, but it did know how to establish some suspense during a couple moments of peril.

Detention of the Dead is a very light film, which does not take itself seriously.  The characters are very deliberately designed to function a certain way.  The story is crafted to be just enough to allow the film to progress down a linear path.  And even some of the humor can be hit or miss.  Still, the film is also quite likable and features some pretty solid zombie effects work, given the independent nature of the film.  There is not much greater depth to be found here, but it is an easy enough way to spend 90 minutes, were one to be seeking an amusing zombie comedy.

Click on the poster to visit the Newport Beach Film Festival website, and be sure to check back to Why So Blu throughout the week for more of my coverage of the festival!

Here is the trailer for Detention of the Dead:

The film begins with a woman boarding a train with her family.  After some irritating business that involves a few individuals on board the train not behind kind enough to allow the family to sit together, the woman flashes back to her own memories of a time when her entire, extended family got together for a reunion.  At this point, the film jumps back to 1979.  The woman we began with is now 10-year-old Albertine (Lou Avarez) and she arrives in Brittany, France with her parents, played by Julie Delpy and Eric Elmosnino, for the celebration of her Grandmother’s birthday.

The large family arrives as well, which includes several aunts and uncles, all of whom have their own various quirks and personas about them.  The film is largely set during one day of this eventful weekend, where some truths are revealed, personal rivalries are renewed, and Albertine experiences the painful delight of first love.  She is also convinced that an orbiting space satellite will crash down on their heads, which is what the title refers to.  The film serves as a retro slice of life that communicates the importance of celebrating family.

Watching this film, it would be very easy to be convinced that these people must be friends or spent plenty of time working together, as the script is quite solid and the cast does well to make you believe that they are all one big family.  The best aspect truly is how natural the family dynamics feel, regardless of how wild some of the humor may be, or how intense some of the rivalries become, or how poignant some of the more dramatic moments seem.  This group of people, which consists largely of well-regarded theater actors, all have very good chemistry together, which serves the film well, whether they are have scenes that revolve around everyone having a good time or if they are getting into big arguments with one another.

I also really enjoyed that this film was set in the 70s.  As Julie Delpy used a lot of her own experiences and memories that recall this time period, the setting allowed for a familiar but nuanced way of handling a big group like this interacting with one another.  So rather than having individuals acting in a more conservative manner or participating in activities that are less interesting, were the film to be placed in modern times, we get to witness a period that allows for adults and children to interact on a unique sort of level.  Adults do not do much to heed where their conversations take them, regardless of being in the presence of their kids.  The kids lack the technology of today and we get to watch them play around with each other outside, tell each other stories, and deal with pre-teen emotions.  There is a solid level of authenticity to all of this that better communicates the idea of all of these people really acting like a family and providing enjoyable moments for this film to revel in.

Further adding onto my appreciation of the time period, Le Skylab is a great looking film.  The characters have fitting costumes, clothing, and other various accessories.  The setting is appropriate, with a country home that is busy enough to show off the farm in the background, the style of décor within and around the home, and the nature the activities that these folks can participate in.  A late scene that involves the younger members of the family all going to a party together was also a fun and realized mini-adventure, getting a feel for the nighttime activities that kids can be involved in.

And lastly, the setting also provides a reason to bring up the various social norms and politics of the people involved.  Delpy’s character and her husband are portrayed as being strong supporters of the leftist political party, which becomes an issue for a few of the other family members.  In particular, this upsets the character Roger (Denis Menochet, who was featured in the opening of Inglourious Basterds), an ex-soldier that clearly has issues with living a civilian life.  It is the way that things like this and other differences that reflect the time period continue to make the film an interesting watch and provides for ways to give nearly every character an important scene or two (at least) to work with.

I mentioned early on that the story is essentially aimless, choosing to indulge in watching conversations between characters play out and observe the various family dynamics with undercurrents of humor or drama cutting through.  Albertine is basically our central character, but once the film settles into the reunion aspect, it has a pretty fair balance all around.  As a result, the film is a little long, choosing to better flesh out the majority of the cast, without speeding up some of the proceedings to make for a tighter picture, but it’s not something that bothered me too much.  It is a film that practically knows it is overindulging in showing us all these characters, but also understands that the family is working well enough at seeming like a real one.

Le Skylab was an enjoyable and interesting film.  It makes great use of the ensemble cast and their dynamics with one another.  The period setting adds a refreshing quality to how the interactions, activities, drama, and comedy play out.  And the film gets by on its charming nature (even when some of the darker elements factor in), despite the tendency to let things play out a bit too long in spots.  Entertaining, touching at times, and very well made overall.

Click on the poster to visit the Newport Beach Film Festival website, and be sure to check back to Why So Blu throughout the week for more of my coverage of the festival!

Here’s the trailer for Le Skylab (Unfortunately, I could not find one with English subtitles):

Alex Karpovsky and Tarik Lowe star as Nick and Darryl, two friends who work on movies together as editors.  The project they are currently working on is a romantic comedy, which has been taking an extended amount of time to cut down to a reasonable length, while pleasing the various producers and filmmakers involved.  This has not been the best experience for the director, Adrian (Kevin Corrigan), and it has also annoyed Darryl, as he doesn’t like seeing certain characters get cut out.  Nick has been having a slightly better time in this process, as it has allowed him to meet the female star of the film.  Popular actress named Jamie Kirkland (Arielle Kebbel), spends plenty of time in Nick’s company, which she seems to be enjoying quite a bit.

I should mention that Nick is also currently engaged to Amy (Sophia Takal), who is currently living with him and getting ready to kick wedding plans into gear (after the discussion of possible prenup arrangements, of course).  Meanwhile, Darryl is having relationship issues of his own, as his girlfriend, Liana (Melonie Diaz), claims to love him, despite the fact that the two of them constantly argue.  The rest of the film revolves around Nick and Darryl working on the movie together, as well as working on their relationships and giving each other playful grief along the way.

Supporting Characters is a very low key film overall and that is a lot of the reason as to why I enjoyed it.  There is not a lot of time spent of making this film seem particularly flashy in any way and the characters do not really speak in dialogue that suggests they are overly knowledgeable or hip.  The film simply follows around these two main guys during a stressful (and fairly humorous) time in their lives and it has an all-around authentic feel, with maybe a slight edge, given the scripted nature of the dialogue.  It is not a film about large narrative turns, but a simple human comedy that provides a lot of space for the actors to cleverly and effectively bounce off of one another.

Karpovsky and Lowe have fun chemistry together, conveying a friendship that seems very natural.  I particularly liked the interplay they had together when it came to scenes that involved them at work in the editing room.  The various relationships in the film were also interesting to watch.  It could be easy to write off Liana as irritating, but I liked the way it made Lowe’s character have to work to try and keep the peace between them.  I also enjoyed a lot of the laid back charm in Nick and Amy’s relationship and even with him and Jamie, despite how easy it was for Nick to seemingly convince a “hot” actress to desire him so much.  Kevin Corrigan also provides fun support in his small role.

Tarik Lowe was also the co-writer of this film, along with his friend and director Daniel Schector.  The two apparently made this film, using a lot of their own personal experiences in the process to develop the story.  Shot for around $50,000, the film works at being a somewhat offbeat, slice of life-type film, which is semi-autobiographical, but not really overdone in any noticeable way.  The use of New York as a location grounds the film in a certain reality, but the photography is never too flashy to really emphasize where these characters are, rather than what they are getting done in the film.

The only real problem I found with this film was the way it basically stumbles through the notion of having a plot to wrap itself up in.  The film is not necessarily aimless, but it more or less follows a specific period of time and details the main events that occur.  By the time it gets around to sculpting a supposed narrative for the film as a whole, it brings in a couple elements that are established a bit too late, without giving the audience a good chance to take it in.  It is a minor gripe however, as I was happy to go along with these characters throughout the film, based mainly around the appropriate chemistry I found them to have.

Supporting Characters works well with what it has.  There is a good cast here, made up of talented young actors, who bring a nice liveliness to how the script and dialogue has been assembled.  The film thankfully does not revel in hipster New York culture either, instead playing out as a film with grounded characters, dealing with adult issues in a serious, but still humorous sort of way.  It is an entertaining film that works as a solid indie comedy/drama.

Click on the poster to visit the Newport Beach Film Festival website, and be sure to check back to Why So Blu throughout the week for more of my coverage of the festival!

Here’s the trailer for Supporting Characters:

Jewtopia follows the stories of Chris (Ivan Sergei) and Adam (Joel David Moore).  The two were best friends from childhood, though Chris was a gentile with redneck parents (played by Peter Stormare and Nicollette Sheridan), while Adam was Jewish (his very Jewish parents are played by Jon Lovitz and Rita Wilson).  This should not be an issue, but it becomes one, as we see that Adam has heavy anxiety issues, while Chris is used to roughhousing with his brothers and his father does not really enjoy Adam being one of Chris’ friends.  As time passes, the two sort of drift apart.

In their adulthood, Adam has somehow landed a trophy fiancé, Hannah Daniels (Jamie-Lynn Sigler), who is Jewish and quite wealthy due to her and her parent’s (played by Tom Arnold and Camryn Manheim) work as successful gynecologists.  Adam has stuck with the family business of professional embroidery and is bossed around constantly by his bride to be.  Meanwhile, Chris has his own plumbing business, but is in search of love in the form of a Jewish woman.  You see, Chris had a Jewish girlfriend in college, who dumped him, but since Chris loved having all his decisions made by her, he hopes to find someone that can fill that same role.  Naturally, after meeting the perfect Jewish woman, Alison Marks (Jennifer Love Hewitt), Chris decides to pretend to be a Jewish doctor and goes to seek advice from Adam for how to properly act like a Jew.  And the “hilarity” ensues.

I have not been masking my opinions about this film already, but I will say it again – I really disliked this movie.  I thought it was terrible.  Everything about how this story unfolded was pathetic.  None of the characters are particularly strong or likable.  The jokes are never clever and have no subtlety to them at all, working instead as bad pandering that makes constant use of the lowest common denominator type of humor.  Whether it is an attempt to make various Jewish references seem funny or just lay deep in various raunchy bits of humor, the film never rises above any level that hints at any sort of sneaky intelligence lurking underneath.  Everything just falls flat instead, and left me bored and displeased with having to slump in my seat and hope it would end sooner rather than later.

I won’t say that this movie is offensive.  Jewtopia is way too stupid to be offensive or have me care about the various Jewish stereotypes that are portrayed with an over-the-top sense of bad taste.  And of course, given that the filmmakers are Jewish (as am I), I know that this film was trying to essentially dare people to laugh at how ridiculous the stereotypes being delved into on screen are.  With that said, the film still failed in creating any sort of effective comedy out of  the types of jokes they were going for.  None of the same old jokes are ever given any sort of fresh life; no, instead we get funny accents, jokes about acting neurotic for no apparent reason, fun with circumcision humor, and various uses of old Yiddish terms to emphasize all of this “amusement”.  If Jewtopia was attempting to be some sort of satire, knowing how bad these jokes were and playing off of that factor, then the film definitely failed in every way possible.

There is not too much to say about the actors, other than the fact that few of them escape without embarrassing themselves too much.  Ivan Sergei basically serves as a substitute for a Brendan Fraser-type character, accept with no real charisma and the status of playing a pretty terrible person, who learns practically nothing over the course of the film and does not deserve his happy ending.  Joel David Moore reaches a point where he must hump a plastic dolphin for…I don’t know why.  For whatever reason, Peter Stormare is given the chance to flex his chops by donning a southern accent, which goes over terribly, while Tom Arnold and Jon Lovitz do their best at hanging around the film long enough to cash their paychecks.  Jamie Lynn-Sigler gets the chance to put her comedic timing to work; as she deals with being overly concerned about how pretty her vagina is (I can’t make this stuff up).  And Jennifer Love Hewitt apparently plays an idiot who can’t figure out what’s going on with her silly “Jewish” boyfriend.

Anyone that really loves movies like Epic Movie or Meet the Spartans will probably feel right at home with Jewtopia and for those that do have fun with those kinds of movies, let alone this movie, I can assure you that I have no problem with that.  It is not a matter of me being better than the humor that is presented here; I just don’t find it entertaining at all.  The film combines a slew of ridiculous raunchy humor, cracks at Jews vs. Gentiles, and various other jokes that I could see coming a mile away, with hopes that it would go another direction, but doesn’t and just left me feeling more numbness than anything really.  I have so far seen other films at the Newport Beach Film Festival that I enjoyed and I am sure the play must be something that is far more enjoyable, but Jewtopia gave me nothing to enjoy.  A great, big dud.

Click on the poster to visit the Newport Beach Film Festival website, and be sure to check back to Why So Blu throughout the week for more of my coverage of the festival!

Alex Rosen: You’ve got huge balls.
Luke Wright: Yeah, it’s amazing I can even walk.

The Stath stars in this film as Luke Wright.  The film’s first act is cleverly layered and chaotic, so bear with some the description.  We first see Wright as a man down on his luck.  Jumping back a year, we see that Wright was an underground boxer who fails to go down in the second round of one particular fight, as instructed and the results are disastrous.  Wright has everything taken away from him by the Russian mob and is forced to live his life in solitude, if he doesn’t want anyone else he meets to get hurt.  We learn even more about who Wright is later on.

Concurrently, we learn the story of Mei (Catherine Chan), a Chinese girl, very gifted with numbers, who is abducted by Triads in order to memorize everything regarding accounts and profits from their various connections, in an effort to keep their organization electronics free and off the grid.  Getting past this setup up, things really take off when Mei learns a highly desired string of numbers, only to have her protectors attacked by the Russian Mafia.  Mei manages to escape both, but before she is captured again, a chance encounter with Wright has Mei suddenly under his protection, as the two try to make it through the city alive, despite the precious information in their possession.

It is surprising how effective the first act is.  I really loved how the film is set up, effectively combining a kinetically achieved series of flashbacks with a hardboiled, noir-ish type of plotting.  The early goings of Safe play out a lot like an ambitious 70s action film as well as it does a 40s crime film, with an added does of ass kicking.  A lot of action films take their plots for granted, which is not a terrible thing (The Raid: Redemption is light on story, but still amazing), but Safe treats its story with a level of respect that is appreciated, even if the film does settle for plenty of clichéd dialogue in the process.  Writer/director Boaz Yakin clearly wants to do more than just have a reason for Jason Statham to beat up people and look cool, he wants to add some layers and have you root for the character based on more setup than just his natural charisma.

Statham really is quite solid in this role.  There is not a lot to distinguish the various characters that he has played throughout his action star career (though I could personally cover what distinguishes the attitude and fighting style of Chev Chelios in Crank versus Frank Martin in The Transporter), but Safe provides Statham with a role that is up to the level of The Bank Job in terms of layered characters you feel sorry for.  After the first twenty minutes of the film, you really have to hope Statham is going to be alright, because the film does a lot to provide some emotional depth for him, before deciding to let him unleash some rage and pound in some faces.

And speaking of pounding faces, once this movie does get into the action stuff, it is rare to let up.  Safe puts its R-rating to use by not delivering on too much blood, but making sure that when hits land and people get shot, they stay down.  Luke Wright has nothing to lose and is plenty angry, so watching him delivery beatings to those who are in need of them is pretty satisfying.  The action scenes themselves are somewhat stylized, a bit over-the-top, and at times too hectic (an early one is done so on purpose and it is effective), but, for the most part, there is a lot of entertainment value to be had with how some of these fights, car chases, and gun battles play out.  The use of New York locations also lent the film a sense of authenticity to better emphasize some of the craziness of the action in general.

I will say that while there is a bit of maturity in the Statham character, the film is pretty busy throughout and eventually comes to the point where I knew it was never going to quite ascend to peaks greater than standard action fare.  Frankly, the best portions of the film come pretty early on, with the later action in the film being sufficient enough (Statham kicking ass is satisfying in general), but nothing more than a fun way to see how things play out for the rest of the flick’s runtime.  I would also call into question the total number of dead bodies in the film, as there is a lot of death distributed throughout and not much time spent reflecting on that aspect.

Safe is overall a fun time at the movies that front loads itself with a surprisingly strong setup, before letting all hell break loose.  Statham does more than just play it *ahem* safe this time around, but later manages to provide all the fisticuffs people want to see.  I guess I would be remiss to not mention James Hong somewhere in this review as well (check out his awesome filmography), so to close, I will just say that this 83-year old Asian American actor brings a sturdy and effective presence to a film that deserves it.  It has an overall average sort of quality, but it is aided by the hardboiled tone and willingness to layer its story.  And Statham rocks.

Mei: I’ve seen him fight.  Bad business for you.

Suzie: This is supposed to be exciting.  This is your wedding.  You only get a few of these.

The film begins with Tom Solomon (Jason Segel) proposing to his girlfriend Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt).  She accepts and the two are on course for marriage.  Following an engagement party, which leads to Tom’s best friend Alex (Chris Pratt) and Violet’s sister Suzie (Alison Brie) hooking up and delivering a surprise series of events on their own, Violet receives game-changing news.  Having applied to various colleges to pursue further education in psychology, she gets accepted in the University of Michigan, which has a post-doctorate program that lasts for two years.  Tom is successfully employed as the sous chef at a fancy restaurant in San Francisco, but decides to stick with his love and move to Ann Arbor with her, effectively delaying the wedding.  It is only after he makes this decision that he learns he was in line to be made head chef at a new restaurant.

In moving to Ann Arbor, Michigan, Violet settles in quickly with her new professor, Winton (Rhys Ifans) and the other students she will be working with, while Tom seeks a new chef job.  Tom ends up working at a sandwich shop with friendly enough people, but even as time passes, Tom does not find himself satisfied.  Things get more complicated as Violet’s work in school proves to be successful enough to extend her stay in the area.  This delays the wedding further and leaves Tom in a difficult position.  The rest of the film balances the difficulties with Tom and Violet’s relationship with the scattered laughs found in their interactions with the various other cast members.

Scattered laughs are problems that this film deals with throughout much of its runtime.  The first half hour is pretty solid, working well at establishing all that is going on, with a genuine likable quality, despite the drama that lurks beneath.  Segal and Blunt have good chemistry together, which works well in grounding the film.  However, after arriving in Ann Arbor and then really settling into this location, the film stretches the story out for way too long.  As a result, despite bouncing humor around throughout, the inherent nature of the drama unfolding and the thin ways in which the story progresses gives the film an uneven issue when it comes to keeping the comedy alive.  The humor is there and it even becomes more assured again during the later parts of the third act, but this is definitely a case where less would have been more.

There are quite a few highlights, which all stem from the large comedic cast involved with the film.  A solid group that includes Kevin Hart, Mindy Kaling, Randall Park, Brian Posehn, Chris Parnell, and David Paymer, among others, all provide a lot of great supporting character work that ranges from quick one-liners to fun instances of jokes that pay off well.  The best work in this category comes from Chris Pratt and Alison Brie (quite a lot of NBC players in this film), who get a lot of space to play out their arc of the film.  As the film was way too long anyway, I can easily see the axe taken to any of these characters, without much loss, but at least there was a lot of good comedic support to achieve laughs within all the film’s excessive padding.

The Five-Year Engagement comes from the Judd Apatow world of comedy (he produced) and has the familiar issue of these films having a lot of raunchy-but-funny comedy, a lot of heart and dramatic tension, but being too long overall.  There are examples where this has worked in spite of the issues (everyone has their own favorite), with my favorite example being Forgetting Sarah Marshall.  Somewhat coincidentally, the team behind ‘Marshall’ is the same group behind ‘Five-Year’, Jason Segel co-wrote this film with writer/director Nicholas Stoller (who are also coming off of their wave of success, after writing/producing The Muppets), but unfortunately, the results are not as effective this time around.  I think the difference surrounds narrative focus, as the film simply drifts along and pads out space with random bits of comedy and redundant amounts of drama, as opposed to handling a familiar premise with any sort of interesting take to make it better.

Two more things to point out about this film.  The first is the weirdness that goes on in it.  Despite being a ultimately forgettable (yet mildly entertaining and warm romantic comedy), we get to see strange moments like Tom’s decision to really let his beard grow at one point, during his lowest points of living in Ann Arbor.  There is also the decision to have at least two moments of severe bloodshed occur.  It is moments like these that really make the film feel unbalanced, despite how “funny” some of these ideas may have seemed in the writer’s room.  The other thing is the soundtrack.  Either Stoller or Segel, or both, made the choice to populate the film with Van Morrison songs and covers.  This is not at all a bad thing, so even during times when I was not to fond of how the film was progressing, at least I had a solid soundtrack to work with.

The Five-Year Engagement is basically a miss for the Apatow Productions team, but not a strong miss.  I would have been happy to appreciate this film more if it took better notice of how everything was balancing out.  I did like the cast and found a lot to enjoy in the many comedic supporting performances, but overall the film is just as I have already described it – mildly entertaining, with a layer or warmth in the chemistry, but ultimately pretty forgettable; unlike the past work that has come from Stoller and Segel working together.  It is unfortunate and although I did not have a terrible time, I hope these two do something again that I can really enjoy.

Tom:  I hope you know that I deserve to get like super-laid for this.
Violet:  What?  Do you want me to wear a cape or something?

The film stars Askel Hennie as Roger Brown.  Roger’s profession is a headhunter, who is looking to find the perfect candidates to become a part of the corporation he represents.  Roger also moonlights as an art thief, in order to cover his expenses and keep himself and his oblivious wife Diana (Synnøve Macody Lund) living a fairly high class lifestyle.  During the opening of Diana’s first art gallery in Oslo, Roger meets Clas Greve (Game of Thrones’ Nikolaj Coster-Waldau).  Clas is a former soldier and, until recently, a successful senior manager at a corporation that rivals Roger’s own place of business.  These various facts make Clas very qualified to be recruited by Roger.  The biggest kicker is that Clas is also in possession of a very rare painting, which Roger could easily help himself to, once he has the chance.

Roger has been having financial issues as of late, so stealing the painting from Clas is definitely a priority, but upon doing so, Roger discovers something very alarming.  With little time to really process what is going on, Roger finds himself in some serious trouble and is forced to go on the run, with not much hope in trusting anyone around him.  All he wanted to do was support himself and his wife, but Roger is going to have to use all of his cunning, if he ever wants to continue on with his desired lifestyle.

I hate being so vague in the twist that occur, but the film did well by me for not completely telegraphing how it was going to play out in the early goings.  I knew that the film was a thriller to some extent, but the way the plot unfolds was done so in a fairly entertaining way, as the thrilling aspect is essentially thrust upon Roger and the audience, with little warning beforehand.  Once the plot really kicks into gear, the film rarely lets up and instead has Roger basically suffering for a large portion of the film.  The man gets beat up in all sorts of ways, with only his fairly clever mind working to get him out of some pretty crazy situations.

On the whole, this story is not very deep.  Headhunters is based on a book by popular Norwegian author Jo Nesbø, which seems to have taken a cue from various other pulpy crime novels of the past.  It sets up the characters, some various pieces of information that may or may not be important down the road, and then provides various thrilling scenarios for Roger.  That said, there was a good amount of creativity and solid filmmaking at work to keep the film moving and myself engaged in the action.  Some bumps here or there in how to make some of the action-type scenarios more watchable, but I did admire the way Roger was forced into a number of do or die situations.

The film itself is never overly serious, which is reflected in the way the film bounces around some extremely violent scenarios with a filmmaking style that almost revels in the way the over-the-top nature of some of the thrills takes hold.  I could not help but think at times that the film was one of most violent live-action cartoons imaginable.  Headhunters is ostensible a chase film, with Roger on the run and in hiding for a large portion of the runtime, but the extent to which he needs to get out of precarious situations is at times almost too ridiculous, with moments that are resolved through pure luck.

One thing that really worked for me in this film was Nikolaj Coster-Waldau.  The blond, Danish actor was solid in the role that requires him to essentially only speak when he has to (and when he does, he’s actually pretty charming), but provide plenty of menace in the way his role plays out.  While Roger is basically a really lucky (and occasionally very clever) dweeb, Coster-Waldau’s Clas is a man on a mission, who has the know how to accomplish his goals.  I also appreciated the humor that came from the character Ove (Eivind Sander), Roger’s crime partner in the art theft world, who brought some lightness early on to the film.

Headhunters is a fine thriller overall.  It manages to be quite violent and stirs some tensions in various moments, but is entertaining to watch.  If one were to step back and think about how some of the twists in the story would work from a logical perspective, there is the chance that one could be less impressed with it, but I was caught up in the moment enough to not really focus too hard on the various and inherent flaws in a story built around many plot reversals.  The film is plenty fine in being a fun enough chase thriller.

Click on the poster to visit the Newport Beach Film Festival website, and be sure to check back to Why So Blu throughout the week for more of my coverage of the festival!

Here is the trailer for Headhunters:

Det. Fields:  Are there any other stories in the collection?
Edgar Allan Poe:  Many.
Det. Fields:  Specifically about murder?
Edgar Allan Poe:  I’m afraid so.

John Cusack stars as Edgar Allan Poe, the somewhat famous, but struggling writer/poet/critic, who resides in Baltimore, drinks when he can, thinks himself a great mind, and finds plenty of interest in the macabre.  When a group of women are found brutally murdered, Detective Emmitt Fields (Luke Evans) realizes that the crime resembles one of the gruesome stories authored by Poe.  As Poe is brought in for questioning, another murder occurs soon after, with the same modus operandi.  It would seem that there is a killer on the loose, with a desire to use Poe as their inspiration.

Things become even more complicated when the woman Poe intends to marry, Emily Hamilton (Alice Eve), is kidnapped and a note is left, telling Poe that he must participate in the killer’s sadistic game, if he ever wants to see her alive again.  It will now be up to Poe and Fields to follow the bodies and the various clues in an effort to stop the mad killer and rescue Emily in time.  Still, in following these clues, it also means that Poe may have the chance to live some of his own work and come up with even more stories.

I really wanted to like this movie more, based on what Cusack was bringing to the role.  Given his look and general attitude, I honestly felt he was channeling Nic Cage in both spirit and hair, which was serving the character well.  Cusack seemed to be down with delivering on what Poe was, which was essentially a 19^th century rock star, as the written word was the main way of becoming that sort of celebrity during that time.  Poe’s status as a social pariah made him tough to be around, but also an intriguing individual to watch and Cusack really seemed to be getting into that aspect of the character.  It is a shame that we didn’t get to see more of who Poe was, as this film is definitely more a mystery/thriller and not meant to be a biography (it is essentially a fictitious chronicling of the last days of Poe that led up to his mysterious death in real life).

Unfortunately, the rest of the cast does not prove to be as interesting.  I have liked Luke Evans in his various roles recently.  He has a rugged quality to him, which is admirable, but in this film, he does little beyond act fairly assured and concerned towards the beginning, only to turn into a man constantly yelling goofy lines in the script by its end.  Similarly, Brendan Gleeson shows up in this film as an antagonist to Poe, as he is the father of Emily who cannot stand the man, but later switches his attitude in a fairly abrupt fashion.  Alice Eve does not get a whole lot to do, besides look good early on and seem very uncomfortable for the rest of the film.  And then Jack Sparrow’s First Mate, Mr. Gibbs (Kevin McNally), is around as the editor of the Baltimore newspaper, who constantly reassures us that Poe is a good guy, despite being a little different.

I did mention that the film is fairly slick.  Director James McTeigue (V for Vendetta, Ninja Assassin) tones down some of the more kinetic aspects of his visual style in order to stay more conventional and not overwhelm the period setting with too much flash, but the production values of the film are quite solid and plenty bloody.  Despite my issues, the film does not mess around being too slow or not delivering on the gruesome nature of the setup.  But I do find it unfortunate that the script by Ben Livingston and Hannah Shakespeare could not really match up.

The way this story plays out makes for great ways to see lazy bits of writing not provide the film with more satisfying moments.  The dialogue is, at times, way too on the nose (“Oh Emily, you are so full of life!”) and the over-elaborate nature of some of the murders (the pendulum) practically undoes what makes the tension involved so palpable.  Stopping to think about things is not going to do The Raven any favors, as the second you think of the enormous lengths the killer would have had to gone to in an effort to achieve certain aspects of their plan, it is also the second a lot of the film easily falls apart.

Some of this would be more acceptable if the film was, as I stated in the beginning, more fun.  Early on, it seems as if Poe’s unconventional behavior (he is frankly an unlikable character at the start of the film), would have been able to put the film at a different sort of level.  It could have been like watching House in a period setting (though I guess we have that with the various versions of Sherlock Holmes these days), but instead, after the initial introduction of Poe, the film settles for much more conventional territory, with a 19^th century, R-rated coating layered on top and everyone else acting too stern, without the help of anyone choosing to ham it up for the sake of over-the-top entertainment.

The Raven has some fun ideas that it did not want to make fun enough.  It could have taken a number of different turns to serve as a wilder ride through the works of Poe’s literature come to life, but it instead stands as a middling thriller.  Cusask is good enough here and the film does look good, but there is not really much else to it that makes it satisfying overall.  Even with mention of one of my favorite works of Poe, The Cask of Amontillado, the film does little to really ignite its intriguing central premise.

Edgar Allan Poe:  I’ll send you to hell!

Pirate Captain: Behind every captain, there’s a crew. Sure, some of you are as ugly as a sea cucumber, some of you are closer to being a chair or coat rack than a pirate, and some of you are fish I’ve just dressed up in a hat…

This is the story of Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) and his quest to win the Pirate of the Year Award, which he has lost out on 20 years in a row.  Despite having his loyal crew stick by him, which includes Pirate with a Scarf (Martin Freeman), Pirate with Gout (Brendan Gleeson), Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate (Ashley Jensen), and The Albino Pirate (Anton Yelchin), Pirate Captain is determined to really prove himself.  As he is constantly made fun of by the other pirates for his lack of booty and the small bounty on his head, Pirate Captain is willing to go to great lengths to finally succeed at being the real deal.

Pirate Captain soon gets his chance when he crosses paths with Charles Darwin (David Tenant), who informs Pirate Captain that his beloved parrot Polly is in fact a dodo bird (presumably the last).  Darwin tells Pirate Captain that Polly could easily win the grand prize at a science festival, were they to travel to London and present the bird to Queen Victoria, who is notorious for hating pirates (it’s on her family crest).  Given what Pirate Captain will need to do in order to succeed, he will have to decide if it is truly worth certain sacrifices to achieve glory, as opposed to respect from his crew.

The film is based on the first two books in The Pirates! series by Gideon Dafoe, which I am not familiar with, but certainly believe must be a lot of fun as well.  Even the simple idea of not really naming characters, but instead identifying them by what is the visual about them that stands out is a lot of fun to me.  There is a lot of fun humor throughout this movie that does not really speak to a certain age, per se, but simply seems like a generally acceptable movie that works on many levels.  Some animated films work for everyone based on having jokes that are more for the kids and others that are for the adults, so what I am saying here is that the appeal seems practically universal, which is a neat way of seeing things.

The voice cast is pretty delightful, with Hugh Grant, in particular, doing great work in adding a layer of sweetness to a character who is so vain and self-deluded.  Other fun comes from the various cast members filling in as the supporting members of Pirate Captain’s crew, as well as David Tenant as Charles Darwin and Imelda Staunton as a raging version of Queen Victoria.  I am aware that a few actors were changed between this U.S. version and the U.K. version, but regardless, I can imagine I had the same level of fun with those involved.

Animation-wise, this film is certainly a pretty stunning piece of work.  Delivering a stop-animation film that is set in a world of Pirates, with all of the ships, various locations, and water involved, I am happy to see what I presume was a huge undertaking become so fully realized.  I am a big admirer of stop-animation filmmaking and I have always been enamored with the Aardman Animation-style of characters, so I was quite pleased with the ambition shown in putting together this film.

I think what stops me from having enjoyed this film just as much as something like Wallace & Gromit in the Curse of the Were-Rabbit is how the humor is distributed.  There is something about the rapid fire one-liners that feels off in comparison to the drier, calm wit that comes from some of the previous Aardman work that may be just as zany, but less busy with action.  It is in the smaller moments of humor in Pirates! that the movie shines the best, so I would have to say, even with the larger scope, the simplicity remains a key way for these types of films to work best.

That aspect aside, it is hard to think anyone would come out of this film at the very least a little enthusiastic.  There is a lot to admire in how it has been put together, but more importantly, it is a breezy slice of swashbuckling entertainment, which relies on a solid voice cast and a lot of visual gags to develop some fun and witty comedic moments for its entire 88 minute runtime.  Given that many will have to wait until June for Pixar’s Brave to provide another acceptable and well-crafted film for all audiences, I am certainly happy with the charming nature of The Pirates! A Band of Misfits.

Pirate Captain: Fire all things that go bang!

Peter:  Somewhere in the valley, there is a woman living in a basement.  She’s amassing followers; people believing that she will lead them to salvation or whatever.

The film follows a couple, Peter and Lorna (Christopher Denham and Nicole Vicius), who have managed to work their way into the inner sanctum of a cult, led by a mysterious, mystic-like woman, Maggie (Brit Marling).  The other members of the cult are not aware that Peter and Lorna are actually amateur documentarians, looking to expose the cult to the public.  What Peter and Lorna learn, upon their initial arrival into the heart of the cult (which was preceded by a lengthy process of showering, being driven while blindfolded, and lastly – a very elaborate handshake), is that Maggie claims to be from the future.  What follows is the struggle for Peter and Lorna to maintain their covers within the cult, while getting deeper involvement.  While the overall goal continues to be a mystery, the challenge of separating true intentions from going along and drinking the Kool-Aid becomes a challenge.

Sound of My Voice premiered at Sundance last year, along with Another Earth.  Brit Marling starred and co-wrote both and each film managed to get picked up by Fox Searchlight.  While Another Earth was given a lot of acclaim last year (it was also in my Top 10), Sound of My Voice is opening this year and has been touted with a more strategic viral campaign to get the word out.  I like what I have seen, with a key part being focused on releasing the first 12 minutes of the film online.  That’s a pretty solid way to sell the film, because if an audience is not drawn in by how the introduction to the film plays out, I doubt it will really be for them, were they to see it in its entirety.  Given the mysterious nature of Marling’s Maggie, I was easily drawn into this story, but continued to be engaged based on how Marling elaborates on who this character is and coming up with ways to have me decipher whether I should be in belief of who she is or not.  Marling has a soft presence on screen, which is to this film’s benefit in playing Maggie, especially when it is time to see her emotions shift.  Also welcome were the other actors appearing in the film.

Maggie:  What are you hiding from me Peter?

In particular, I found Christopher Denham to be particularly strong in what is essentially the lead role of this film, as the skeptic.  The information regarding his motives to get inside this cult were an interesting way to turn this story, but upon learning more about his character and understanding a certain emotional connection to his reasons for being involved further helped.  The added layers to this story regarding this character, along with some of the other instances of shading to the few members of this cast were a nice way to develop aspects of the film, without delving into too much needless exposition, though I would not have been averse to a bit more texturing for some elements.

As mentioned, Marling co-wrote this film with director Zal Batmanglij.  As far as debut theatrical features go, I certainly found a lot of assuredness in the direction.  While I wish the film was a bit less hushed, Sound of My Voice does do a good job at taking an appropriate amount of time, without feeling too slow-paced.  Given that the film was handled with practically a guerilla-filmmaking-like approach, I was happy to see this low budget film register well as far as realism seems concerned.  There were very few moments that registered as slightly false, as I admired the actors involved and was fine with the deliberateness of the pace of the film.  Given that one of the best assets of this film is how it toys with what is being shown, matched by character reactions, I was quite pleased with how well a lot of the pivotal scenes played out in terms of the performances and filmmaking involved.

I do think the film has some issues with balancing great scenes up against some that are merely decent, as the dialogue approached low levels of awkwardness.  That said, there are very few of those moments.  A bigger issue is how well the film pays off certain aspects of its story.  While I was not expecting a ton of facts to be laid out for me by the end of the film, I do feel like a lot was set up, but not enough was really explored to further prod the enthralling aspects of what is going on.  Additionally, I do think the ending is abrupt.  Given the nature of how the film progressed throughout its running time, the way it arrives at its climax, and then decides to simply end so soon after left me wanting a bit more, mainly so I could better process how the closure of the story fit for me.  Though, knowing of early rumblings of future installments of this story in some manner, I guess I’ll be able to learn more in some way.

Despite minor quibbles, I found a lot to admire in Sound of My Voice.  I think Brit Marling has proved herself to be quite capable, both as a story teller and as an actress.  The intrigue created by how this film sets itself up and how we learn about the mysterious Maggie character made for quite the interesting experience.  The way the story evolves is also quite interesting, with a number of standout scenes that really delve into some neat layers of the film.  While I wish a bit more was done to expand on what I was seeing, there is still plenty to recommend here for those seeking an offbeat, independent drama.

Maggie:  We are survivors beyond your wildest imagination.

Without a doubt, African Cats is my favorite nature documentary of all time (yes, even slightly more than BBC’s very comprehensive Planet Earth).  Remaining on that high of just watching African Cats again recently, I eagerly approached Chimpanzee with the same skybound expectations.  Tim Allen returns to Disney after the Toy Story trilogy, taking on the role of narrator here.  He does a proficient job guiding audiences through the story that focuses on a little chimpanzee, affectionately known as Oscar.  Without giving too much away, I’ll simply say Oscar and his clan/family find themselves at odds in the dense rainforest with a rival clan of chimps.

While drama and encouragement fill the landscape of this film, it just didn’t have the pop that African Cats did.  Perhaps I’m not doing it justice by consistently comparing this documentary to that.  Still, I really wanted to love this movie.  After all, the crew that shot Chimpanzee went through hell and high water to accomplish this project.  Unfortunately, it was nowhere near my level of expectations.  The footage is exceptional as far as chimpanzees go, though there is something that significantly hampers capturing them on camera versus big cats on open plains.  The dense jungle regularly hampers movement shots, which basically means there’s usually a tree in the way.  It’s much easier to capture a cheetah running through flatlands versus chimps in a jungle on a frantic scatter and climb.  It’s certainly not the crew’s fault, just the nature of the beast (literally).

Chimpanzee just didn’t have the engaging qualities its predecessor did.  Maybe it was an appreciation for one animal (big cats) more than others (chimpanzees).  Maybe it was truly lacking that extra something, but I felt the same underwhelming emotion walking out of this just as I did when I watched Disney’s Oceans. There was something lackluster in this film, like the lack of variety here versus other documentaries.  I would still say this is a quality film that provides great educational content and outstanding cinematography, but there are several other nature films I would put before this one.

Film:

Beth: Why did you come here?
Logan: To find you.

The story involves U.S. Marine Sergeant Logan Thibault (Zac Efron) returning from his third tour of duty in Iraq.  With him, he has the one thing he credits with keeping him alive—a photograph he found of a woman he doesn’t even know.  After having trouble readjusting to life back in Colorado, he manages to discover where the picture was taken and then walks to North Carolina (with his lovable dog, of course).  Discovering her name is Beth (played by Taylor Schilling) and where she lives, Logan shows up at her door, and ends up taking a job at her family-run kennel. Despite Beth’s initial mistrust and the complications in her life, a kinship eventually develops between them.  This is good news for Beth’s shy son Ben (Riley Thomas Stewart) and her mother, Ellie (Blythe Danner), but a problem for Beth’s ex-husband Keith (Jay R. Ferguson).  Regardless, plenty of emotions will fly, as this story goes through its inevitable romantic process.

I went into The Lucky One with no real expectation.  I had only just seen The Notebook a few days before watching this movie, simply so I could get a feel for what films based on Nicholas Sparks stories had to offer.  For the record, I thought The Notebook was pretty good (I’ve yet to see Gosling give a bad performance in something), but The Lucky One does not quite reach the same height.  Still, going in with no expectation, I can’t say I was really disappointed, even if the most impressive aspects still only let it sit as a mild recommendation.

I have nothing against Zac Efron.  From what I can tell, the dude has talent when it comes to singing and dancing, even it if applies to TV/movies that I have no real desire to see.  I am clearly not the key demographic for the types of roles that he has mainly been in thus far (let alone this film), so I have no reason to dislike the guy.  So in saying that, I found him to be perfectly adequate in The Lucky One, though I would not say that he really knocks the role out of the park.  The two modes that he has here revolve around showing a certain amount of happiness, which Efron pulls off; and delving into a stoic, loner mode, which Efron has not quite mastered.  A lot of scenes feature Logan staring off either into the distance or at someone with what is supposed to be intensity, but that unfortunately does not quite come through as well as it should.  Essentially, I wish there was more to glean from a supposed war veteran, but again, I found him adequate overall, not bad.

The rest of the cast equally feel like they provide enough to keep everything satisfactory.  Schilling is certainly good looking and does enough to show that she’s had trouble in the past regarding where her feelings have taken her, what has gone on in her own family life, and how she wishes she could keep everything in her life happy.  Jay R. Ferguson (who also currently stars on Mad Men) gets the antagonist bully role and manages to make him very easily hated by audiences, without much that really supplements why.  And then Blythe Danner manages to be plenty of fun, mainly because she’s the old pro of the bunch and gets all of the “wise ol’ granny lines”.  All of these people do what they need to, which is fitting of the story that is told, but there was little to really elevate them to a higher level.

This goes to what I consider to be the main flaw of the film, which is how there is little in the way of issues for these people in a grand sense.  Now of course, there is the plot of this film, which has various dramatic stakes involving Logan keeping a (fairly minor) secret from Beth and the issue of Keith being a threatening individual (only due to petty jealousy), but besides Keith, these characters are all regular, nice people.  Logan is a great guy who could easily be loved by anyone (even all of the dogs) were they to stare into his blue eyes long enough.  Beth is ostensibly a happy individual when she gets to hang with her son or work with those dogs as well.  When these two get together, it’s due to the lack of complexity in the script that takes away from adding further depth to the film’s key relationship.

So I say all that, but still, I did like this film.  Regardless of how simply presented everything is, I enjoyed spending time with these characters…and Keith.  Beyond Efron’s lack of making a more interesting character, I did find him to have solid chemistry with Schilling, Danner, and the young boy who played the son.  The film was also quite well shot.  There is a lot of beautiful cinematography in portraying the familiar Sparks setting of North Carolina.  Even the opening scenes that take place in a war setting, followed by Logan’s various issues of PTSD were captured well enough.  Director Scott Hicks and his crew seemed at least interested in putting together a confidently made movie, even if the script seemed a bit perfunctory (and I say that, knowing that most of my words are null in the case of huge Nicholas Sparks fans).

The Lucky One did not so much surprise me as it managed to keep me fairly involved.  It is a plain romantic drama that looks nice enough, even if there is little underneath, when you start to peel back the layers.  The emotional stakes of the film are enough to keep an audience entertained (especially for those who are devoted to Nicholas Sparks’ work or films that are similar).  The film looks good too, which I think is an added bonus, given that the warmth of the camera work reflects on the warmth of these characters.  It is decent stuff and does have enough sincerity in what it is trying to do, but it’s still just vanilla.

Ellie: Start appreciating the memories you have and stop begrudging the ones you never got to make.

Snow:  Don’t’ get me wrong, I mean it’s a dream vacation.  I go inside the maximum security nuthouse, get past all the psychos, save the President’s daughter, if she’s not dead already…I’m thrilled you would think of me.

Set in 2079, the film begins with Guy Pearce as ex-CIA Agent Snow, recounting to the secret service why it is that he is now in their custody.  We see a flashback that quickly establishes the tone of the film – an over-the-top exercise in action shootouts and chases.  We see Snow on the run, after fending off some assailants; fall from the top of a building, before continuing to run away, only to find himself in a hectic motorcycle chase, before managing to ditch the precious briefcase in his possession, right before he is arrested.  We now know Snow can handle himself in all sorts of situations.  That is a good thing too, because Snow now has two options.  He can either waste away in prison, for crimes he has been wrongly convicted of, or go on a suicide mission to rescue the president’s daughter.

How did this suicide mission become an option?  The president’s daughter, Emilie (Maggie Grace) was on a humanitarian mission to research the conditions of an outer space prison, only to have the prison become taken over by the violent inmates.  The prisoners now have Emilie and several others as their hostages, with the leader, Alex (Vincent Regan), proving that he is ready to kill (his crazy subordinate, Hydell (Joseph Gilgun), is way past this point already, as well).  Snow, of course, chooses to lend a hand in this situation, learning that he has something else to gain by stepping aboard a space prison filled with plenty of violent, degenerate scum.  So now, it is going to take plenty of Snow’s abilities (which also includes heavy sarcasm, smoking, and a way with explosives) to properly rescue the President’s daughter and hopefully escape space jail for good.

It truly is the energy that made me enjoy this film.  Even with a film like The Raid: Redemption simply existing to show that other action movies are going to have to step up their game, I still had a lot of fun watching Lockout, simply because the film did not let up in its pacing.  There is very little downtime in this movie, as there is always something happening in the way of action, minor suspense, or Guy Pearce digging well into his role as a jerkishly lovable badass.  Often times, movies of this nature fall apart mainly because once the premise has been established, the filmmakers seem to forget about having more fun with it and just have everything play out with perfunctory effort shown.  I am not saying that Lockout really delves deep into its premise or defies the ways of less entertaining action films, but I am saying that the film is consistently entertaining because it makes good enough use of its resources.

Snow:  Here’s an apple and a gun.  Don’t talk to bad guys, shoot them.

The film comes from the mind of Luc Besson, who has delved into the world of sci-fi before with The Fifth Element, but now mainly serves as a producer who develops stories for action flicks and passes them off to his various director protégés (Taken, The Transporter series, District B13, Unleashed).  This time, writers/directors James Mather and Stephen St. Leger have stepped up to produce Lockout as their directorial debut and I will be curious to see where they go from here.  The film has all the plotting it needs, without fleshing out what really doesn’t need added coloring and keeps everything pretty focused in one direction.  At the same time, the direction is not super flashy, but felt confident enough (despite some editing comments, which I will address).

Lockout is certainly as much an action film as it is a sci-fi flick, so seeing the ways these characters get to fight, chase, and shoot at each other, while aboard a space jail was entertaining enough.  The biggest concern I had was with how clear it seemed that Lockout had to have been a much more R-rated film, before being cut down to a cleaner PG-13.  As a result, it is very noticeable that various edits have been made to shy away from some of the more violent moments of the film, which is unfortunate, given that it makes it difficult to properly assess how good the direction really is, if a studio was largely responsible for making the film slightly less comprehensible than how it originally came out.  Given that I was quite entertained, I can at least say that I am looking forward to the “Unrated Cut” of the film on Blu-ray.

Early on I brought up John Carpenter.  While the film’s plot does evoke that of his ‘Escape From…” films (it is in my title for the review, after all), I still believe the film is akin to a different time.  Lockout is not so much like a Carpenter film due to the fact that the pacing is so much more hectic.  Carpenter is more deliberate in his pacing (a lot of his more action-y flicks have a Western motif).  This film does have the same kind of deliberate characterizations for the various individuals, but is also fitting of its status as a Besson-produced flick that seems to be coming from the excessively, yet stylish days of 90s action cinema (another reason why the R-rating is missed).  Plenty of people are killed, with little time to reflect on it and the various characters involved have just enough swagger to keep you more interested in them, without adding on much shading to it.

Casting was a big part of why I enjoyed the film, with the majority of fun mainly revolving around Guy Pearce.  Having played more serious and tortured characters in the past (Memento, LA Confidential), seeing Pearce play a guy who doesn’t take any crap, mouths off to everyone, and knows how to handle himself in a fight is a lot of fun.  The added bonus of this film being almost as a much a dark comedy, filled with one-liners from Pearce, is a great way to emphasize the fact that this is a movie about a freaking space jail.  Then you have the presence of the rest of the cast, including Maggie Grace, who manages to have some solid chemistry with Pearce; Lenny James and Peter Stormare, proving to be character actors qualified in just the right ways to make the film work, and the capably intimidating Vincent Regan, stepping away from being too over-the-top as the lead inmate/hostage taker and showing that he will do what he has to.

Really though, if you can’t get past the opening five minutes of this film, especially the motorcycle chase, which is almost completely CG and bordering on incomprehensible, this film may not be for you.  I can say that I may have questioned this moment, but I was quickly back with it, once the real plot of putting these characters into space jail really took hold.  I refrained from addressing the sci-fi-ness of this movie, because it is really beyond reasonable logic that space travel is so easily accomplished a mere 60 years from now.  I also did not really address the generic aspects of the overall plotting.  What matters is the attitude and energy of this film.  It is not one that takes itself seriously, lasts just as long as it needs to, and has a lot of fun in finding ways to play around with its concept and give Guy Pearce witty things to say and do.  For silly, sci-fi action, Lockout is disposable but entertaining.

Emilie:  What if this doesn’t work?
Snow:  Well, then we’re probably gonna die.

Film  

By sheer dumb luck I knew almost nothing about Cabin in the Woods going into it.  I had seen a teaser trailer but it gave very little information.  Since I record all of the television shows I watch on my DVR, I always skip the commercials so I hadn’t even seen a trailer for the movie.  The only thing that I  did know about the movie was that Joss Whedon was involved, so I expected a few laughs along with a traditional horror flick.  Not long after arriving at the screening I quickly realized that I was one of the few people, especially among the reviewers, that was not on pins and needles waiting to see what Cabin in the Woods had to offer.  While I thought it would be just another movie about some teenagers getting in trouble in the woods and that it wouldn’t be that special, I’m now happy to report after seeing the movie, that I was woefully wrong about my previous assumptions.

Indeed, director (and co-writer) Drew Goddard and producer/co-writer Joss Whedon have come up with an imaginative and unusual take on one of the most overdone tales in the horror genre – a group of kids in a cabin in the woods.  It’s certainly no spoiler to tell you the group includes all the stereotypical victims – the hottie and her boyfriend, the good girl, the boyfriend’s hot friend who has a serial killer vibe going, and the obligatory stoner.  While the characters may have similarities to ones you’ve seen before in countless movies, Cabin in the Woods is like no other horror film on record.   It’s got the sense of humor an Army of Darkness fan would definitely appreciate, but it doesn’t lose the scariness by getting silly.

If you count yourself as a fans of the Scream movies, you will also enjoy Cabin in the Woods, but what’s really frustrating as a reviewer is that I can’t find much of a way to tell  you about it without spoiling it…I feel like everyone needs to see this one for themselves and then talk afterwards.  Be warned though, as for those people who are hoping for a funny and bloodless  movie will be disappointed.  The bloodletting is significant, but in my opinion it’s not as gory as a lot of other horror movies.  With Cabin in the Woods, I never found myself thinking oh my God, that’s so gross I want to look away, so I think the more squeamish types will be able to watch it, or will at least think it’s worth watching.

Cabin in the Woods is a unique, humorous and extremely entertaining horror film.  Fans of Joss Whedon’s other work will appreciate the cast for the movie, as both some of the main characters and secondary ones are veterans of his past efforts.  Unique is something I’ve rarely said about anything in the horror genre and its even rarer for me to say that it’s good too.  I’ve seen the same kind of horror movies recycled over and over and remade, rebooted, revamped and repackaged to the point of utter ridiculousness, but  I absolutely loved Cabin in the Woods.  It’s a campy horror flick in all the best ways possible, with some twists and turns that require an open mind.  Some viewers might think the ending goes a little too far into left field, but I implore you to have an open mind and enjoy the ride.

Buy your tickets today!

Curt:  The wind must’ve blown it open.

Skipping past the opening of the film, which already could potentially spoil something about the film, the flick really begins with a very familiar premise for a horror film – a group of college kids taking a weekend trip to an old cabin in the woods, thanks to someone’s random, older family member.  This group includes the bookish Dana (Kristen Connolly), the jockish Curt (Chris Hemsworth), the effervescent Jules (Anna Hutchison), the genuinely nice Holden (Jesse Williams), and the stoner Marty (Fran Kranz).  Despite encountering some warnings, the group makes it to the cabin in the woods.  From there, standard horror plotting applies in regards to trying to survive the night, but some added twists definitely make this a unique situation for all involved.

The Cabin in the Woods was developed by Joss Whedon (Producter/Co-Writer) and Drew Goddard (Director/Co-Writer), who wanted to make a horror film that plays around with a lot of horror conventions by both making fun of some aspects of the genre, while also deconstructing and riffing off of it in many ways.  Even if the movie did not have some of the early indications that things are not quite as they seem, the film is plotted out and plays almost too straightforward in the early goings to be a pure, on-the-level story of kids going to the woods to have fun and be murdered by some sort of supernatural force later in the night.  This sort of story has been done in a lot of other horror films before (Evil Dead immediately comes to mind), but there is a definite level of freshness that comes from the likable cast and the insane twists in the story, which I will not reveal here.

I can certainly talk about the tone.  The film exists in a place where fun can easily be had.  The Cabin in the Woods is as much a horror film as it is a comment on horror films, and it is a lot of fun to watch in both regards.  The characters in this film straddle a line that matches up with the standard caricatures of the kind of people that would end up in this situation, while also having a lot of individual elements that make these people unique and fun to watch.  Given that horror movies often have dumb characters doing even dumber things, I was glad to see a cast of characters who were likable and fun to be around; along with fairly smart in how they handle situations.  There is a grain of salt to take with that last bit regarding “fairly smart”, as this film has characters existing in a world where these kinds of movie do not exist, but that said, the way certain situations are approached makes for a movie that is a lot more fun than seeing unlikable characters make the worst possible decisions.

Given the nature of the twists and turns that this film has, it certainly has the DNA of something completely fitting of Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard.  Both are huge horror film geeks and their involvement in other largely geek-oriented properties (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Lost) is clearly reflected here as well.  This film is not necessarily packed with various other references to other horror films, but one who is familiar with many similar horror films can easily understand how homage is being paid in many instances.  With the way The Cabin in the Woods plays out, it pulls off the kind of success that involves acknowledging all of what makes these kinds of films work and not work, while also becoming a successful entry into the genre.  The added twist is how the film does not just enter into one singular genre, as the large elements I have avoided talking about bring the film onto a whole new level, with the various additions to cast and tone making this film far deeper when considering its broadness.

I should also point out that the film is quite funny and bloody.  The ways these various characters comment on the situations that they arrive in are quite humorous in many instances.  Some of the jokes play out exactly as they should, given the kind of horror movie that is ostensibly being represented on screen.  However, the added help comes from how the extra layer that this movie has brings on a whole other level of comedy, which does the job of being funny on one level and subversive on another.  The added bonus is how even after seeing the film and understanding various aspects of the story, there is a definite replay value that will surely turn this film into a future cult classic.  And at the same time, the various ways we see horror elements factor in and watch as the body count starts to rise, it is a mix of some standard horror kills with a lot more creativity and much bloodier moments as the film goes on.  Again, the horror aficionados will have plenty to chew on with this film.

Explaining any flaws this film has can be just as aggravating as it has been writing a spoiler-free review, but fortunately this is an area I do not have much to expand upon.  The Cabin in the Woods is such a delight to watch (in a very R-rated horror film kind of way), so various moments where the joke doesn’t carry quite as much weight as it could or areas where the impact is not quite as strong as it should have felt did not really hinder my admiration for the film overall.  Once I caught a good enough idea of what this film was, I can say that some of the surprises were less surprising, but it did not take much away from how I reacted regardless.  I can imagine some of these vague descriptions must have been insufferable thus far, but given my lack of being able to clearly explain why I loved this film and only found some minor quibbles, I just hope that the amount of intrigue and enthusiasm I have expressed is enough have people go out and see this film, especially horror fans.

Given that I still cannot easily explain what goes on in this film, recommending it comes down to letting people know that sheer admiration for horror films that have a clever and imaginative edge to them is what makes this film so worthwhile.  I mentioned briefly that the film was delayed for quite a long time, which is quite the shame, as it is well worth seeing.  Fortunately, the film is in no way the product of re-shoots or anything of that nature, it was just an unfortunate casualty of business.  The great thing is that everyone can now finally go and see this film.  People that want to have fun with a smart, funny, and witty horror film will easily be satisfied with what The Cabin in the Woods has to offer.  And regardless of whether or not one has watched the trailers of this film beforehand, it certainly has everything it needs to stand as a fresh and fun take on an old story, with plenty of other surprises in store.  It is a crafty piece of work that was well worth having its secret discovered.

Marty:  Something weird is going on…

Jim’s Dad:  It seems like only just yesterday when bought all these for you…boy these pages are all stuck together here…

American Reunion picks up 13-years after the gang graduated from high school.  Jim (Jason Biggs) is still married to Michelle (Alyson Hannigan) and they now have a child together.  Kevin (Thomas Ian Nicholas) is now married and works from home, allowing him to watch plenty of reality TV with his wife.  Oz (Chris Klein) lives in Malibu and works as a sportscaster (and also participated in a humiliating celebrity dance show).  Finch (Eddie Kaye Thomas) leads the mysterious life of an adventurer.  And Stifler (Seann William Scott) continues to be his crude self, even after having gotten a job at an investment firm.  The gang all reunite back in their hometown of East Great Falls, Michigan, for their high school reunion (conveniently stated to have been a few years late, because people kind of forgot about it, uh-huh).

Upon arriving back home, Jim and Michelle stay with Jim’s Dad (Eugene Levy), now a widower, who can hopefully find comfort in the company of his family.  During this time, Jim also manages to reconnect with the girl he used to babysit for, Kara (Ali Cobrin), who is quite willing to please Jim.  This couldn’t come at a worst time, given that Jim and Michelle are having relationship troubles of their own.  As all of this is going on, various other past women enter back into the picture, with the reunion so close, including Kevin’s former flame Vicki (Tara Reid), and Oz’s ex-girl, Heather (Mena Suvari).  Shenanigans may be the lightest way to describe what follows, as the boys all spend an exciting weekend together, filled with plenty of laughs and debauchery, mostly instigated by Stifler.

Getting past being a cynical jerk that just wants to look at this film as a cash-in for both the stars and Universal, what it really comes down to is how enjoyable this movie is.  I had a lot of fun watching American Reunion.  It played around a lot with the fact that these guys were once in high school and are now in their adult years and the film does a very good job at alerting us of how things have changed for them, while reminding us of who these guys still are.  The American Pie series has always managed to find a balance between being very broadly funny (mostly in a raunch-filled way), while also providing enough heart to keep us from finding these guys unlikable, which is something many raunchy comedies have a lot of trouble with.

Kevin:  Were we really just as obnoxious as all of these kids back in the day?

The film does have a lot of the same issues as all of the others.  Chris Klein is still a terrible actor.  The drama that revolves around Kevin and Vicky is still incredibly boring.  And the majority of the woman are still fairly one-dimensional, save for Jessica (Natasha Lyonne), the one girl who was always full of knowledge and advice, who is criminally only in the film for one scene.  Writers/directors Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg (the creators of Harold and Kumar) managed to be a pretty good fit for this series, given that they have both fallen into the same traps of the other films, while also mining all of the good comedy out of the chemistry that this cast has together and the dirty R-rated hijinks that comes from it.

Three key culprits are put to great use in this film.  The first is Jason Biggs, the protagonist of the series.  Once again, Biggs has no shame about making himself as awkward and embarrassed as possible, but he is so sweet-natured that it is hard not to love him.  Next up is Eugene Levy, who gets credit right away for putting his eyebrows to great use as we see actual pain in his expressions when addressing his character’s deceased wife, only to have us laughing again, as he and Jim share a good talk with one another, leading up to Levy breaking back out into the party scene.  Finally, you have Seann William Scott’s Stifler.  Those who remember should know that Stifler really was not in the first American Pie all that much, but his presence has certainly grown throughout the series.  I think it is a credit to how the character is written that he has yet to grow old (both as a joke and as a character).  Seann William Scott, to his credit, has been able to make a solid career for himself, without being labeled Stifler for the rest of his life, but he so easily climbs back into this role, that it is quite rewarding to see this character, in all of his crudeness, feel quite welcome in the film.  I should note that this film really is a reunion too, as there are plenty of cameos from past cast members, with John Cho nearly stealing the film for me.

The film is quite funny to watch, which is due mostly to the work of the cast, who are quite game to jump in on a lot of great comedic set pieces.  An entire sequence involving the distraction of parents, while Jim sneaks a drunk girl into the house; and another scene revolving around a party at Stifler’s place are just great moments to watch in general.  It is a shame that the actual high school reunion portion of the film was not a larger focus and merely exists to wrap up all the plot lines.  There is also the notion of this film being a bit too long, which is mainly due to some of the key principle characters not being as interesting as some of the others, despite having all of their own subplots.  Additionally, I also found there to be somewhat of an over-reliance on audiences being reminded of the past films, as opposed to introducing new ways for everyone to really enjoy all that is offered up.  Still, the film provides plenty of dirty laughs and captures the spirit of the series quite well, given that it is coming a decade since the last time these guys all got together.

Being a reunion film, American Reunion was rewarding in providing audiences with a fresh look at a group of people that were generally well liked when they were first introduced.  Even if I have some problems with a few of the subplots in this film, getting this whole gang back together ended up being for the better.  The film has plenty of laughs, while providing a fairly nostalgic experience, and not forgetting the sweetness that exists at the core of this series.  Unlike the pie, I ate all of this up and had a good time watching the film.  It’s a fun comedy about friendship, growing up, but not forgetting who you are, and of course – MILFs.

Stifler:  Let’s make this weekend our bitch!

Thomas Andrews:  I’m sorry that I didn’t build you a stronger ship, young Rose.

Let’s just skip past the plot, shall we?  We all know it; first class passenger Rose (Kate Winslet) and steerage passenger Jack (Leonardo DiCaprio) fall in love, while aboard the maiden voyage of the “Ship of Dreams”, Titanic.  Emotional and disaster drama ensues.  Getting past that, I have to say that I still genuinely find Titanic to be a pretty fantastic film.  I admire the film as a whole, not just due to the final hour, which is filled with tension and excitement, but the entire body of this film, which adequately handles what is essentially a romantic sidestory occurring, while we witness the doomed voyage of Titanic.  Regardless of the backlash that this film has since received, which I will address, Titanic is a film that still holds up pretty spectacularly as an epic drama.  Regardless of the melodramatic romantic plotting and occasionally wonky screenplay (one of the few awards it wasn’t nominated for), there is so much to admire from a technical standpoint, along with the way it delves into class relations, and in several of the film’s performances.

Addressing the most notable aspect of this release, the 3D is about as good as you can expect for a film of this nature and of this age to be, as far as conversions go.  James Cameron, who knows a thing or two about 3D, has already stated that he is aware that Titanic is not capable of being presented in true, 100% 3D, but merely “99.9%”.  With that said, it is very apparent that this is not the kind of engrossing 3D that made Avatar such a unique experience in theaters.  This is due to a very simple reason – Titanic was never meant to be presented in 3D to begin with.  Given that many months were spent on producing this version of the film, it is certainly not a rush job (I should note that the film has been re-mastered as 4K resolution, which makes the film look better than ever anyway, especially if one were to see it in 2D), but the film can only perform so well in this format.

The lack of truly astounding 3D is the most notable early on and in shots focused on the characters.  While it is an epic, there is a lot of character-based drama going on throughout the film and as good as the cinematography of the film as a whole may be, the 3D does little to bring out the environments of close-up shots.  It is also quite noticeable at how lacking some of the 3D is when portraying many of the on-deck daylight scenes, which mix various amounts of CG with reality.  A lot of this comes off as flatter than one would see in a regular version of the film.  Some scenes that involve the interiors of the ship, dining halls, lobby areas, etc. do work well in providing depth, however.  The best examples of the 3D effect are obviously related to the disaster portion of the film.  Seeing people helpless tumble off of Titanic looks decent enough, but watching corridors as they flood with water and seeing the various characters in the foreground, with more and more water filling the background is where the added format truly shines.

One final note regarding my viewing experience, having seen the film in a Regal theater, which has served me fairly well when dealing with 3D features, I can say that I was very pleased with the lighting throughout.  James Cameron was known for making sure all prints of Avatar were handled just right in regards to the brightness and I have a feeling he was quite involved with this for Titanic as well.  Given that a lot of the big moments come during nighttime and indoor scenes, I was pleased that the film did not look nearly as dim as it could easily have.

As many no doubt know, I am a movie fan, as in I like the theatrical experience.  It’s my preferred way of watching films.  Some can pick or choose whether or not seeing a film on the big screen is really worth it, but I don’t function that way.  I also really admire Titanic as a film.  It was always strange to me that the film almost feels underrated as of now; given that it was a success in its time in every possible way.  Regardless of the unnecessary (but adequate) 3D conversion, getting the chance to view the biggest blockbuster of the 90s on the big screen again was an experience I easily wanted to take part in.  It is hard for me to say that the extra surcharge for 3D is definitely worth it (Hugo and I guess Avatar are still the only films that I could say that for), but I would say that experiencing this film (which is in 2D in some locations) on the big screen again or for the first time certainly is.

Rose:  Jack, this is where we first met.

Note: I wanted to mainly focus on the 3D, but I will happily entertain more discussion about the film in the comments section.

For those completely unaware, San Diego Comic-Con is a yearly event that used to be about comic book enthusiasts gathering for a convention, in which they could trade/sell/talk comic books with one another and perhaps get to meet famous or more renowned artists/writers.  This event has since grown into the pop culture event of the summer that is influenced by nearly all forms of entertainment and is attended by over 140,000 people (who range from wearing a Batman T-Shirt to dressing up in full Storm Trooper costumes).  We get to see some of the history of Comic-Con in the film and are also treated to various one-on-one interview segments, featuring people that range from regular attendees who like to dress up, to known comic book authors/artists (Robert Kirkman, Frank Miller, Todd McFarlane), and to actors/filmmakers (Edgar Wright, Kevin Smith, Seth Green).

The real core of the film revolves around several individuals who have various arcs over the course of this film, chronicling their 2010 Comic-Con experience.  There is Eric, an aspiring illustrator, hoping to impress publishers and land a job.  Holly is a costume and creature designer, with hopes that the work she and her team did on a Mass Effect 2 presentation will win big at the annual Comic-Con Masquerade Contest.  Chuck is a long-time comic book dealer, hoping to pull off a big sale, in order to pay off some debts.  We also have Skip, an amateur illustrator hoping to make his big break at this year’s event.  Then there is Alec Calderon, an avid Marvel comic and toy collector, desperately hoping to obtain a Comic-Con exclusive Galactus figure.  And lastly, James, a young Comic-Con fan, who hopes to surprise his girlfriend with a proposal during a popular event in Hall H, in front of over 6,000 people.

Noticeably, Morgan Spurlock stays completely behind the camera for this documentary.  He directed the film and co-wrote it with Jeremy Chilnick (which I assume means editing together the main aspects of the story and adding the various filler information).  The film is also notably produced by Stan Lee, Joss Whedon, and Aint It Cool News’ Harry Knowles.  I add all this, because it seems quite apparent that everyone involved with the film certainly has a passion for an event like Comic-Con, let alone geek culture in general.  Listening to the various interview segments, it is very apparent that a lot of passion is trying to be captured in the words of so many different types of people, all essentially uniting to enjoy the same basic thing.  Watching both someone dressed as Batman and someone who has written/published stories of Batman talk about what Comic-Con means to them is interesting and worthwhile.

At the same time, this passion is matched by a lot of the humorous candor from a lot of the people involved in the interviews.  It could have been very easy to simply have the film make fun of an event like this and the people who dress up in “silly” costumes.  Sure, there are some easy moments, where the camera lingers a bit on some situations that call attention to themselves visually, but a lot of this is made up for by what is spoken of in the interviews.  Namely in the case of naturally funny showbiz people like Kevin Smith (there is plenty of him here), Seth Rogen Joss Whedon, Paul Sheer, and more.

To speak more about the key attendees we check in with throughout the film, it is a strength of ‘Comic-Con Episode IV’ that the people we are following have somewhat compelling stories.  In a strictly humorous sense, James was maybe the most fun (bordering on irritating), due to the process involved in escaping his girlfriend long enough to prepare the elaborate surprise for her (and Kevin Smith plays a surprisingly large part in this as well).  I believe the most significant stories revolved around Holly, Eric, and Skip.  For Holly, seeing her bring a passion to life, designing elaborate Mass Effect 2 costumes, and preparing to present them; this was the most engaged I was in any particular story and was excited to learn what has come as a result.  For Eric and Skip, it was interesting to see how their aspirations turned out, after presenting their work to real professionals.  Whether or not either of them succeeds in their goals, I’ll lead to the viewer, but while I found Skip to be a bit arrogant and naïve, I was genuinely concerned for how Eric’s story would turn out, given his status as a husband, father, and former military man, hoping to succeed with his true passion.

Where I think the film falters is in the way it examines Comic-Con.  As I have stated, I attend Comic-Con and have an understanding of what it is.  This documentary only manages to do an okay job of really explaining what it is versus what it used to be.  By that, I refer to how it has evolved from being focused on the world of comic books and graphic novels into being completely focused on everything pop culture being presented at a big event, as studios use the event as a way to provide elaborate marketing campaigns to the attendees, shoving the comic book aspect largely into the background.  This is an area that is touched on in the film, but I wish it was delved into more.  Given the nature of the film, the overall tone, and the way it has been edited to focus on some key stories, I can understand why this isn’t as large a focus, but I still think there were missed opportunities in better tackling this subject matter.

As it stands, Comic-Con Episode IV: A Fan’s Hope is a good enough documentary to entertain people who have both attended Comic-Con and those who have only heard about it.  While the film has managed to assemble several satisfying arcs for various people portrayed throughout the film, I still wish the film was more substantial in terms of really delving into Comic-Con.  Truly analyzing more of what Comic-Con was and is would have easily made this a more informative feature.  I do recognize the lighthearted nature of the film, so it is hard to fault it for that reason, but I still think I was able to see through a lot of the slick editing and comedic moments to see that the film does come up a bit lacking.  Regardless, this is a documentary that doesn’t make fun of its subjects and is much more inclined to have fun with them, while exploring one of the biggest pop culture events of the year.  Excelsior!

Alex: I feel like I belong somewhere else.

The documentary is set during one school year (2009-2010), following several students from schools in Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas.  Set within the film’s focus, there is a disabled student, who is made fun of and physically accosted by many of his peers, a gay student who is basically dealing with the entire school singling her out, and a student who decided to take matters to an extreme by threatening her bullies with a gun.  The film is also very focused on the parents perspective in all of this, providing one on one interview segments, as well as following them to parent-teacher conferences with school officials.  And the film, as a whole, is centered on a campaign being started in the wake of two students who committed suicide due to the excessive amounts of bullying that they were subjected to.

It is a bit irritating to have to apply some of this context, but I’m sure many have heard of the controversy surrounding Bully.  The controversy has come due to the fact that it has been rated R by the MPAA, solely because we see real kids swearing, but that would prevent kids that can relate to what is depicted in this film from actually seeing it without parental supervision.  I do not want to get into the humor I found in the irony of Harvey Weinstein (who’s Weinstein Company is responsible for distributing the film) essentially trying to bully the MPAA into releasing Bully as a lower rated film for all to see and what has resulted (yes, people can go see the movie, just as long as you have permission), but it did make me think of one issue.  I think Bully is ok as a film.  I think it has a strong message that is worth getting out there, but I am also curious as to how well this film could have done, had none of this supposed controversy occurred in the first place.  As it stands, Bully has been quite well received, but I know I am also not alone in thinking it misses some more interesting points, while striking the proper emotional cords at just the right level.

For me, it came down to what I assume was shaped in the editing, along with how things are perceived.  Watching a boy like Alex, who is essentially teased due to the way he looks and his smaller stature amongst his peers, get horrifically bullied is not right. That is made quite clear and I naturally feel bad for him.  However, I had concerns as to how we were able to see this footage of him being bullied.  From what is shown, was there really a documentary filmmaker on a bus, filming a group of kids mercilessly picking on another student, while aware that a camera was on them?  The validity of the documentary is certainly not my main concern, but it did make me wonder.  The film wants to stand back and observe the kids, while interspersing various interview segments throughout, yet I am not quite sure how to register some of what I have seen, after the supposed shock of what I am seeing has worn off.  Perhaps more setup to how this film was put together may have helped.

I have brought up a particular example, but there were other concerns as well.  I was also curious about getting to see the sides of the actual bullies.  I can understand if they or their parents would not want to be interviewed, but I think the film comes up lacking in really exploring why bullying is an issue from an important perspective.  Possibly establishing who these kids are and why they do what they do, beyond vague thoughts suggesting possibly how they were raised or self-esteem problems, could have added more depth to the film as a whole.  At the same time, the rise of other forms of bullying, such as cyber-bullying, is almost completely omitted from the film; at a time when that should be just as important a concern.

As it stands, Bully, to me, has an issue of feeling a bit too long, due to the fact that some of the film’s points feel redundant, as opposed to further exploring the problem.  That said, I do think there are a lot of affecting moments in what is presented.  It is of course sad to see and hear about the various problems that these kids and the parents have had with dealing with bullying.  That said, my emotional engagement to the film was hampered by the fact that little else was done, beyond going over some of the same basic issues, as opposed to delving into something deeper, beyond having scenes that are designed to provoke a response from the audience and have them angered on an instinctual level; enough so to rightfully visit the site this film promotes – http://action.thebullyproject.com/.  We are given a statistic early on that 13 million kids in the U.S. will be bullied this year, but have no real source to connect that figure to.  Again, the message is there, but so is a feeling incompleteness.

Issues aside, I do think the film works as something important enough for audiences to seek out, as there is a clear message that this film manages to put out there.  Regardless of my thoughts on the needless controversy over this film, I would happily entertain the idea of putting Bully in schools for kids to watch, let alone encourage parents to take their children to see this film in theaters (as it is ending up either R-rated or unrated – requiring either a note or parental supervision).  My criticisms have mainly stemmed from wishing this film did more with the subject matter, but that said, I do think the film is strong with what it does present and deserves enough recognition to certainly continue spreading the message.  While lacking in various ways, there are a lot of good and affecting elements in it, and speaks loudly enough about something important.

Vice Principal: Tell me how to fix this.

Cyril: Dad! I’m here.

The film is set in Seraing, Belgium.  It begins with a boy hopelessly trying to call his father’s phone, which has been disconnected.  We soon learn that this 11-year old boy is Cyril (Thomas Doret) and he has recently been placed into foster care.  Not taking this easily, however, Cyril is set on finding his father and his lost bike.  After various escape attempts from the foster home, Cyril manages to get far enough to reach his old apartment building, only to confirm that the room is in fact empty.  During all of this, Cyril tries to evade his caretakers and at one point runs into a doctor’s office.  There, he runs into Samantha (Cecile de France), who owns the local hair salon.  Having been taken back to the foster center, Cyril is relieved to find that the next day Samantha has brought him his bike.  At this point, Cyril likes Samantha enough to ask if he can stay with her on weekends.  From this point, Cyril continues to search for his father, while also dealing with his new relationship with Samantha, along with other kids who live in the area.

As I’ve stated, I think The Kid with a Bike is very good.  I have particular regard for the two lead actors in this film.  Starting with the young boy, Thomas Doret does what I believe to be pretty fantastic work in this film, conveying a confused amount of emotions throughout, as it becomes more and more clear to him that he needs to set his focus on new relationships.  There is also the issue of his petulance, which I can see as being understandably grating, but I also see as an understandably identifying characteristic of a young boy not quite knowing how to deal with the rocky state of his living situation.  All of this and Doret also manages to bring a certain level of physicality to his role.  For being a dramatic feature, watching Doret ride his bike, evade his caretakers, and climb up and down various obstacles, I could totally picture this little boy growing into the role of a young action hero.  That might sound absurd, but given how much I felt the physical performance was nearly just as strong as the emotional one, I would say that I am not entirely unfounded here.

In regards to Cecile de France, this is a woman, whose character may be trickier to fully comprehend, but at the same time, the ambiguity of some of her choices makes the film all the more intriguing.  While watching the film, I began to wonder why Samantha would agree to make certain choices and felt distracted by the film for not properly establishing this.  However, I soon also began to think that the film really did not need to explain so much and I felt more strongly towards forming ideas of a backstory on my own.  With that said, Cecile de France did some great work throughout this film, as she deals with her new role as guardian to a child she hardly knows.  The way her understanding of situations comes into play during this film is quite affecting; with a key example occurring during a scene when a very particular, impromptu choice needs to be made.

As for the rest of the film, its construction is quite sound.  With few exceptions, I feel the supporting cast was fairly strong throughout.  I enjoyed the fairly free-flowing nature of the plotting.  Yes, the film does have an arc of sorts, in terms of how Cyril ends up in his journey, from attempting to find his father to learning to adjust to a new sort of life, but this is all handled in a way that feels natural, as opposed to necessary plot mechanics forcing the film down a certain path.  There is very little music in this film, with big moments of score only coming in to further emphasize key moments in the film (still not too sure how I feel about that) and everything else basically working with sounds occurring in the moment.  I am aware that the Dardenne’s have done similar things in their past films, with The Kid with a Bike being probably their most accessible film yet, but I certainly think they have done quite a good job here.

One thing I did not really get to was addressing the bike’s role in this film.  I believe there is obviously a lot to associate with this item that the boy is so desperate to cling to (and who wouldn’t? It’s your childhood bike).  It is an easy way for one to latch onto and associate many thematic points of the film to.  I am not going to shed much more light on this, as I feel The Kid with a Bike is a fine feature that deserves to be seen by those seeking a strong drama, featuring an engaging story, full of emotion and seemingly natural performances.  Additionally, when one does see this film, given how much the Dardenne’s have personally stripped away to better set someone up to think for themselves about the film, I would encourage deciding what one thinks about the bike’s role in this story.  That said, maybe I’m over-thinking it and Cyril’s just a big fan of Pee-Wee.

Cyril:  You won’t be calling me?

Film  

Tarsem Singh brings a feisty new Snow White for a new generation that focuses on female derring-do and an abundance of humor that skews young and old.  In this version of Snow White, Snow (Lily Collins, daughter of Phil Collins) grows up as a shut-in thanks to her evil stepmother the Queen (Julia Roberts) who doesn’t want the fair Snow to detract from her own charms.  Snow’s father, the King (Sean Bean), has been missing for years after venturing into the dark forest in search of an evil encroaching on the land.  With the King out of the way, the imperious Queen has taken over the kingdom and rules it with an iron fist.  When she isn’t having someone executed for displeasing her, she enjoys playing human chess (the chess pieces are her subjects) and throwing lavish balls.  Unfortunately, all of that is apparently expensive since she’s bankrupted the kingdom.

Young Snow is now eighteen and curious about the world and the opposite sex.  When a party is thrown at the palace, which happens to be Snow’s birthday, she sneaks down to check it out and is caught and threatened by the Queen.  The palace servants are much nicer to Snow and they throw her a surprise birthday party where she discovers just how bad off the villagers of the kingdom really are thanks to the taxes imposed on them by the greedy Queen.  Snow ventures out of the palace for the first time since her father’s disappearance to see just how much suffering actually exists and learns that the people are starving.  During her trip, Snow runs into two men hanging upside down from a tree who have been robbed of their belongings and most of their clothes by seven bandits.  One of the men is Prince Alcott (Armie Hammer) although he doesn’t tell her that at first.

Hades:  You sweating like a human, brother.  Next, it will be tears.

The story picks up 10 years after Liam Neeson’s Zeus declared the immortal phrase, “Release the Kraken.”  Perseus (Sam Worthington), the Kraken Slayer, despite his status as a demigod (as he is the son of Zeus), has decided to continuing living his life as a simple fisherman, with his 10-year old son, Helius.  Meanwhile, due to trouble arising in regards to the fading supremacy of the gods, as humanity’s lack of devotion is now taking away their power, Zeus, along with Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Poseidon (Danny Huston) travel to the dungeon of Tartarus, in an effort to find a way to keep the imprisoned Titans at bay.  However, Zeus and Poseidon are betrayed by Hades, who has teamed with Ares (Edgar Ramirez), the god of war and the (apparently under-appreciated) son of Zeus, who have made a deal with Kronos, leader of the Titans, to capture Zeus and siphon over his powers.  As these power shifts are occurring, evils from the underworld begin to be unleashed upon humanity.

While Perseus has previously rejected Zeus’ call for help, foreboding dreams that involve his son force him to no longer ignore his calling.  After slaying a Chimeran threat (my enjoyment of Greek myth is making me use such specifics), Perseus travels on his trusty steed Pegasus to enlist the help of Queen Andromeda (Rosamund Pike), who has been heading up her own army to combat the evil threats; as well as Agenor (Toby Kebbell), the demigod son of Poseidon, to assist in a quest to travel into the underworld and rescue Zeus.  Despite having to deal with many obstacles along the way, stopping the rise of a Titan who threatens to destroy all of mankind is the most important goal of all and Perseus must once again choose to accept his role as hero.

I give some credit to the writing team in this film for coming up with some decent ideas.  The thought of the Greek gods disappearing from existence due to humanity’s lack of faith in them any longer, along with the notions of having these gods, demigods, and titans dealing with the bonds that tie family together, as they are forced to hurt/murder one another are intriguing.  Unfortunately, this film does not really think so, as all of these plot beats are thrown out there and rushed through, in favor of delivering a 90-minute (without credits) experience that is filled with CG monsters, some neat production design, and a lot of good actors delving into campy territory.  It is just also too bad that the film still doesn’t fully embrace its cheesiness, instead trying to strike a balance of epic cheese and grittiness (an admittedly terrible-sounding snack food).

I want to address these gods.  It would be hard to argue that Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes are anything but very talented actors, who bring a certain level of gravitas to the roles they tend to play.  In this film, as Zeus and Hades, the two get the chance to really dig into terrible dialogue and participate in moments so cheesy that I wish more 80s synthesizers could have been brought into the score for this film.  If this film series really wanted to embrace the idea of being a fun blast that unites all of the greatest hits of Greek Myth into one film, there should have been way more scenes involving all out God battles, with lightning bolts being fired away at multi-armed creatures.  As it stands, we get too few of these types of sequences, though watching Ares and Perseus engage in a wrestling match to see who can destroy more of the set with their head was quite nice.

With that in mind, a lot of fun that I had with Wrath of the Titans did extend from my level of appreciation for a lot of the big action set pieces that occur.  While the first film felt much more closed off (bad sign when Titans should supposedly be clashing and Krakens are being released), this film does a lot to establish a much larger scale to what’s occurring.  I still could not say that I really cared too much for or felt very connected to some of the set pieces, in terms of what it means for the characters involved, but watching Perseus and various soldiers interact with raging Chimeras, Cyclopses, and the towering Kronos himself, among other things, was certainly a lot of fun.  Additionally, seeing lots of wide shots of the environments these characters were supposedly in was refreshing.  Director Jonathon Liebesman brings a little of the same down ‘n dirtiness of his previous film, Battle: LA, to this film, but manages to not forget that this is a big film with large CG creations in it.

Speaking of the CG and the production work on this film, I think Wrath of the Titans does a pretty solid job at delivering a lot of good looking spectacles.  My favorite would have to be the design of a labyrinth depicted in this film.  It is fittingly overwhelming to watch and comprehend, as it constantly shifts itself and features many, seemingly deadly, twists and turns, but it was certainly a creative thing to add to the film.  However, on the other side of this praise, I did wonder why there wasn’t more to a place like this (Is there really just one Minotaur lurking around a huge environment such as this?).  Other areas, such as the Temple of the Gods, were also interesting to see, mainly due to seeing the setup of such an area, only to see it demolished later on.  And finally, the interactions between live action characters and various CG monsters was something to admire.  Watching Perseus face off against a Chimera, which managed to incorporate a number of long shots, where the two interacted, was another way I think this film succeeded in spectacle.

Addressing the other actors is somewhat of a lost cause, as very few of them make the film feel more alive.  Sam Worthington continues to fill the role of action lead, minus a whole lot of charisma, but at least his physicality is put to use throughout the film.  No sign of either female actress (Gemma Arterton or Alexa Davalos) from the first film, but Rosamund Pike’s presence (playing the Davalos role in an entirely new way) at least gives us a good-looking companion.  The film does get to have fun with Toby Kebbel’s performance, which brings a nice amount of lightness to a story that deserves to take itself less seriously.  That aspect is only amplified further with the surprise addition of Bill Nighy as the god Hephaestus.  In a performance that almost tears away the serious reality that this film is trying to exist in, Nighy gets to have almost too much fun at calling attention to how silly the film really is.  I’ll also call a little attention to Edgar Ramirez as Ares; not because he is particularly good in the film (he’s certainly decent at slumming), but mainly because it is nice to see a seemingly random, but talented actor be cast in such a prominent role (check out Ramirez in Carlos or Che).

Given that this film wants to play fast and loose with Greek Myths, I couldn’t help but think of a similar property, the God of War video game series.  The interesting thing is, I was more invested in the story and characters in that game than this film.  Wrath of the Titans gets enough right to be an entertaining film.  It is a slight step up from the first film, given that everyone seems to be having more fun this time around.  However, the plotting and attempts at creating serviceable characters are basically inconsequential.  The film is an excuse to put of plenty of CG beasties in and allow good actors to speak in godly accents.  That continues to sound like a fun idea; I just wish it was more fully embraced.

Zeus: You will learn someday that being half human, makes you stronger than a god.

[Official, Ultra Important 3D Rating: it’s a conversion where things popped out at me sometimes, but not laughably bad, like the first film.  Overall, pretty good…I guess]

Wrath of the Titans reunites the big three, in my opinion, Sam Worthington, Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson, and also stars Rosamund Pike, Bill Nighy, Edgar Ramirez and Danny Huston.  Sadly, and I mean with the utmost sincerity, one of the main reasons I loved the 2010 remake so much, the stunning Gemma Arterton, is nowhere to be found in this feature.  Not even in a fricking flashback!  Come on!  And last but certainly not least, helming this project is Jonathan Liebesman in the director’s chair working from a screenplay hatched by Dan Mazeau and David Leslie Johnson (a personal favorite of mine).

Wrath of the Titans picks up a decade after the events in the first film where Perseus (Worthington) has forever become known as the Kraken slayer.  Gemma’s character (Perseus’ love interest in the first film), I don’t know how, has already perished from this fictional world and Perseus is trying to live a quiet life as a fisherman in addition to being the sole parent to his 10-year-old son, Helius.  Life seems okay and complacent for the two, but hark!  Who goes there?!  Fear not…danger looms!

People don’t pray anymore.  That’s the trouble with this world, right?  I don’t know, but that certainly seems to be the dilemma here where our three Gods, Zeus (Neeson), Hades (Fiennes) and Poseidon (Huston), have become weakened by humanity’s lack of devotion and faith and as a result, they are losing control of the imprisoned demons/titans of the underworld, most notably their father…Kronos, who has been long overthrown by their sons and left in the abyss of Tartarus.  Wow!  That was a long a$$ sentence!

In our story, Zeus comes to Perseus for help, but he dismisses his father’s plea.  His warrior days are long over and he just wants to be there for his son.  Wow!  Kids really do make a person soft, don’t they?  I thought that was only women who make men weak in the knees, but I digress.  Perseus really can’t ignore the events not only unfolding right in front of him, but also engulfing him and his son too.  He quickly realizes he has these powers for a reason and has a duty to use them when he is made aware of the simple fact that his son is in more imminent danger than if he remained ignorant of the situation and also when he learns that Hades and Ares (Ramirez) made a deal with Kronos to capture and drain Zeus’ life power, not to mention mortally wounding Poseidon.  You lost yet?  The choice is made easy for Perseus as you can see.  He must muster up enough strength to endure and salvage what fighting skills he remembers if he is going to propel this story into Act 2…and that he does.  And so our story really propels forwards and begins here.  This is the Wrath of the Titans.

I ws entertained.  I give it that.  I was dead dog tired, but not once did I drift away into private sleep sanctuary.  I had a fun ride with Wrath, but I couldn’t help feeling that it was ultimately just ordinary and nothing too special.  I realize that it’s also the preconceived state of mind I had going into this one.  I mean, how do you top the classic moments and events of the original film that everyone knows and loves in mythology?  I’m not convinced you can.  You just kind of have to give your core audience much of the same that they came to expect from the first film instead of playing a bait and switch like Lucas did with The Phantom Menace.

The action, battle and thrills are just kind of felt helplessly forced and lackluster.  I did not notice anything here that hasn’t been done already.  At least they got Hades hairline right this time around, but nevertheless there were still some bad hairpieces too.  Perhaps what I loved best about the film was Perseus’ undying love to do whatever he must in order to protect his son.  That relationship was heartwarming and made this feature human, but why the hell do I keep thinking Helius is young Ron from the Harry Potter franchise?  Oh well…that’s irrelevant for the moment.  LOL.  And I guess what I liked second best about the feature was the “Fun and Games” section of the screenplay where Perseus must relearn what he forgot in terms of fighting.  I tell you…that kid and ten years of fishing really took its toll on the man.  Let that be your contraceptive warning of the day.

I can’t end this review without mentioning Perseus’ cohorts.  Before embarking on this treacherous journey to the bowels of the underworld, Perseus enlists the help of Queen Andromeda (Pike), you’ll remember her, and Poseidon’s bastard son (oops…I mean demi-God), the hilarious Agenor (Toby Kebbell).  Like Dan Fogler to Dane Cook in Good Luck Chuck, Kebbell stole the show here at times, in my opinion, as the hilarious wise-cracking, comedic sidekick.  Along their journey they meet up and interact with “The Fallen One.”  No, this isn’t Transformers, The Fallen One is named Hephaestus (Bill Nighy), and he’s the one who skillfully crafted all the God’s weapons.

So that’s about it.  Long review, huh? Wrath of the Titans is no magical trip like its predecessor, but it’s a far cry from the atrocity of the battlefields scorned in last years Conan reboot.  Wrath has charisma and heart, but lacks the necessary triumphant and epic cinematic ingredients necessary to rival the big boys like Empire Strikes Back or The Dark Knight in the sequels category.  However in hindsight, I have a feeling this gritty action piece is going to sound bombastic and make a beautiful addition to my Blu-ray collection one fine day.  Bring it!

Is it wrong to want the Kraken back over Chronos?  Give it a watch and let me know.  I’ll be waiting.

Tama:  Good morning everyone.  We have some guests trawling the halls today.  Now go to work.  And please enjoy yourself!

Describing the plot of the film really won’t take too long, as it is quite simple.  In a slum neighborhood of an unnamed city (The Raid is Indonesian) exists a near impenetrable apartment building, which has become home to a nasty drug lord, who resides on the 15^th floor.  An elite SWAT team is tasked with raiding the building, in an effort to capture this man.  Despite attempts to be as covert as possible, a chance encounter with a spotter blows their cover and news of their assault reaches the drug lord.  The unit must fight their way through a near unending supply of vicious criminals and killers in order to survive their mission.  Within all this exists a rookie member of the SWAT team, Rama (Iko Uwais), who has his own reasons for being on this mission as well as the skills he needs to take down a lot of bad guys.  Of course, with all the exits being sealed and 15 floors worth of deadliness all around, Rama is going to have to work extra hard if he wants to make it home in one piece.

There is very little setup in this film, before the action kicks into gear, and once it does, it hardly lets up.  The Raid clocks in at about 100 minutes and about 85 of those minutes are action oriented.  This film is incredibly economical, to say the least, when it comes to delving into the depths of the story that takes place, but that is not at all what one should focus on.  This is a film that is designed to be a thrill ride of the highest caliber in the ways that it delivers a full on action experience, which ranges from having martial arts fights, fights with knives, machetes, gun battles, straight-up brawls against multiple foes, and other sorts of violent, improvised craziness (refrigerator bombs).  The fact that the film does devote a little bit of time to some sort of story is frankly a bit of a way to create moments to catch one’s breath while watching the film.

Director Gareth Evans is a Welsh writer/director, who has based himself in Indonesia in order to create the films he wants to on a small scale budget.  For The Raid, he has managed to make a pretty incredibly looking film all for the price of around $1 million.  One thing is certainly clear; Evans has a deep admiration for traditional martial arts films, among other classic action genres.  The way he has made this film gets a huge amount of enthusiasm from me, due to the fact that all of his action sequences are clearly defined, despite taking place amidst chaos, featuring numerous participants, and moving at lightening fast speeds, as we see plenty of attackers performing multiple moves, many during a lot of single takes, before cutting to the next shot.  The fight choreography is spectacular here and the cinematography and other factors that went into capturing these action scenes do an outstanding job at showing it.  Given how brutal and ugly some of the violence is, there is true beauty in the carnage displayed.

I have recently been called into question regarding my thoughts on the Navy Seals film Act of Valor, given that I pointed out how the acting and story are essentially nonexistent, despite having plenty of technically detailed (and fairly accurate) action sequences.  One could point out that I may be being slightly hypocritical in praising a film like The Raid for being very much the same type of experience, given the equal lack in deep storytelling and characters; however I do find there to be a difference.  In both films I acknowledge that deeper meaning and character are not things I went to see, but The Raid gets much higher regard due to the fact that I was way more invigorated by what was taking place on screen.  Act of Valor had its fun moments, yes, but I also found some of the action filmmaking to be a bit clunky when it came time to spot clear direction or even separate who was who.  The Raid has no problem with this.  The filmmaking is fantastic, clear, and has no additional baggage of being a former recruitment video or trying to stay rooted in realism.  The Raid is a film that wants to be as entertaining as possible and does so by keeping itself rooted in a frenzy of riveting suspense and action sequences that are edited to be as effective as possible (and to be fair, the performers were more effective here as well).

Regarding the style of this film, The Raid can be easily described as a hybrid of the kinds of films John Carpenter and John Woo have made, with a heavy dose of elbow and knee poundings from Muay Thai superstar Tony Jaa.  The simplistic storyline with extended sequences of pure fantastic, creative, and brutal action beats work very well together.  And again, the notion of old fashioned martial arts films is quite apparent here as well, given some of the fights (and especially one fighter), which are staged to be focused on hand-to-hand fighting with an added sense of whatever these people consider as honor, given the desire to not use guns if they are not needed.  Of course, this being quite the cynical film, the real bad guys don’t have any sense of honor and seeing their terrible actions take place as they go against the “good guys” of the film is just as exciting, simply because the results and takedowns in this film generate so much bloody joy.

Given the nature of the story and setting, this is of course a film with plenty of grit.  Set decoration was probably not something that needed to much thought, were this to be filmed on a specific location, but were it to have been done on a set, Evans certainly nailed his vision of ugly corridors being torn up by thugs and SWAT units fighting and blasting away at one another.  Given the hyper reality that this film exists in, it seems apparent that the mix of the various filmmakers I have referred to and the nature of old school side-scroller fighter video games (Final Fight, Streets of Rage) complement each other well in the case of The Raid.  The score added to this U.S. release of the film by Linkin Park’s Mike Shinoda and composer Joseph Trapanese only helps things further by supplying a series of beats that function just as much as scoring for the scenes as they do as sound effects to further punctuate the moments that matter.

I would be surprised to see any mainstream studio film this year tackle action sequences with as much well-choreographed fluidity and crazy, visceral, bloody violence as The Raid (even Dark Knight Rises will still be contained in a PG-13 world).  The Raid is a blast to watch and it benefits well from its rapid pacing being applied to nearly every aspect of the film.  Setup takes almost no time.  The action sequences move with amazing speed, while maintaining clarity.  The sense of immediacy seen in the elaborate nature of these sequences is very apparent.  And the sense of editing matches the riveting nature of this film as a whole.  While certainly brutal and offering few characters to sympathize with, The Raid is still a blast to enjoy and is well worth it for anyone that wants to check out an awesome and insane action flick.

Mad Dog:  Squeezing the trigger is like ordering takeout.

Katniss Everdeen:  Wanna see what I got you today?  It’s a mockingjay pin.  As long as you have it, nothing bad will happen to you.  I promise.

Let me get through some set up here:  The film is set around 100 years in the future.  North America has fallen to ruins and now exists as the nation of Panem, which is split into districts, and is led by a controlling city known as the Capitol.  Due to an unsuccessful uprising, all of the districts are now forced to suffer a punishment that has morphed into popular live broadcast of a yearly competition, which pits one boy and one girl (between the ages of 12-18), from each district, against each other in a fight to the death.  This competition is known as the Hunger Games.  There is only one winner in these games, who goes on to receive fame and fortune, in the wake of the other 23 deaths that have occurred.

16-year old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) lives in District 12 (one of the poorer districts) and on the day of the drawing (known as “the reaping”) for the next Hunger Games, she volunteers in place of her 12-year old sister, Prim, whose name is initially drawn.  Katniss, along with Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), the boy who was chosen, are then forced to head for the Capitol, leaving everything they know behind.  Once in the Capitol, before the games begin, Katniss and Peeta must deal with gaining popularity from those who bet on the games, while also training and putting on a display of their skills.  Helping their cause is Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), their chaperone; Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), a stylist; and Haymitch Abernathy (Woody Harrelson), a previous winner of the games and the mentor for Katniss and Peeta.  As the Hunger Games require a level of skill, while also showing the importance of providing a good show for audience (everyone is forced to watch), Katniss will need to rely on her abilities (which includes her prowess as an archer) in order to hopefully come out alive.

I don’t want to be the guy that keeps referring back to the novel and how the movie went one way, while the film did the other.  So to that extent, I will just try and keep those thoughts simple.  I found the film to be a successful adaptation, utilizing the source material properly enough to convey the same story cinematically.  While there are a number of various omissions and changes, there are also some additions that I think do well in further expanding on the world and getting across explanations of certain details in other ways beyond simply having Katniss explain everything (given that the book is told entirely from her perspective).  So in this regard, I would say that while neither the book nor this film is perfect, I think they both complement each other quite well.

Now, speaking (hopefully exclusively) about the film, the best thing about it is Jennifer Lawrence’s performance as Katniss Everdeen.  Already an Oscar nominee (Winter’s Bone), Lawrence brings it just as good in a much larger, spectacle film such as this, as she did in that Ozarks noir.  The vast majority of The Hunger Games is based around her and she sells this character, who is forced into a literal live-or-die situation and must make do with what she has and what she is capable of.  Early on, Lawrence sells her role as an unfamiliar figure entering a lavish world, only to later show off a sense of assuredness in the wild, as she faces off against the others.  Throughout all of this, it is easy to see the persona of an independent survivalist, whether she needs to prove herself to the gamemakers or simply work to survive amongst cutthroats.

Gale Hawthorne: Okay, listen to me, you’re stronger than they are. You are. They just want a good show, that’s all they want. You know how to hunt. Show them how good you are.

Additionally, the various other actors that appear in this film are mostly well placed.  Of all of the older actors we see, Harrelson gets the most to do, as he plays the Obi Wan of the film.  Harrelson is always fun to watch and he gave this film the amount of levity that it needed in spots, given the fairly serious tone.  I also quite liked Lenny Kravitz in his role as the stylist for Katniss and Peeta, mainly due to how well I though he sold his positive reassurance during his scenes with Lawrence.  There are smaller roles filled out by Elizabeth Banks, Wes Bentley, and Donald Sutherland, but I have a feeling their gaudy outfits and hairstyle choices are more of a takeaway then what they have to provide in the film as actors.  Good thing we get a nice dose of Stanley Tucci to liven things up, as he steps in as the Ryan Seacrest of this children death-a-thon.  His character, Caesar Flickerman, is delightful to watch, mainly due to how it’s fun to watch Tucci chew up the screen, while wearing a wig that stands so blue and tall.

Hutcherson is a key role, as he is ostensibly the male lead and love interest of the film.  While he is good enough for what this film requires of him, I think it is a testament to how good Lawrence is, that he comes off as not too important.  Nor does Liam Hemsworth as Gale, the boy Katniss leaves back in District 12, who watches as she and Peeta get fairly close to each other, during the games.  Still, Hutcherson does have some moments, establishing his nature and what he is capable of, but it seems quite apparent that he has come off weaker in this film than some may like.

The Hunger Games was directed by Gary Ross, who previously directed Pleasantville and Seabiscuit, along with being an Oscar nominated screenwriter for a few other features.  I was not sure what to expect with the decision to have him working on this film, but I really appreciated a lot of what he was going for.  Ross also co-scripted the film with Billy Ray and the author of the series, Suzanne Collins.  It seems like these combined efforts did a pretty fine job with achieving the intended tone, even when the film stumbles in some areas (which I will get to).  In regards to Ross’ direction, once again, I think he managed to find a good balance of bringing out the drabness of the world Katniss comes from, the lavishness of the Capitol, and the stark and intense nature of the actual battleground for the games.  Ross goes for an up-close and personal touch with a lot of his camera work, which is chaotic at times, but seemingly fitting in others.  And the way he and his crew managed to build the sense of this world that these characters exist in was done well enough to have me curious to learn more.

To speak of the action in this film (basically once the games begin), there is a definite sense that Ross is just starting to get his feet wet with how he should handle it.  This is basically his Batman Begins, as he puts the camera very close to all involved, very much on purpose, in order to convey that sense of chaos and uncertain terror, as kids who have both been trained to kill and thrown into an impossible situation are forced to fend for themselves.  It works in a key sequence early on, but the further into the film, the more distracted I was with how the action was handled.  I can only hope that the future entries in this series find Ross settling into a better defined groove of how to handle the action.  Still, given that this subject matter could have gone decidedly darker, I was pleased enough with how it stayed within the realm of a PG-13 zone, while not flinching too much when it came to the whole “children dying” aspect of the story.

Speaking of the subject matter, it is easy to acknowledge the story of The Hunger Games as a parable and as an allegory in regards to themes of government control, poverty, the effects of war, the role of reality television, etc.  While one can certainly see that the film acknowledges that these themes are present in the story (Ross has proven in the past that he’s more about making an effective an entertaining film, regardless of subtlety), there did not seem to be much of an attempt to really explore them.  The film is very much a sci-fi/thriller and display of Katniss’ character first, with everything else coming up second.  Not a bad thing, but especially given some of the imagery we see and the kinds of emotion that come up on how the characters in the film react, set against how the audience reacts, I wish there was a bit more of a challenge in placing us in a world that should be having us question the nature of a survival game show, featuring children and coordinated by the government.  The film may have some effective emotional beats, but at the same time, having the characters and the audience explore more than just visceral reactions might have given more long-term meaning.

Haymitch Abernathy: This is the time to show them everything. Make sure they remember you.

Some other questionable areas regarding the film:  I found issues with its pacing and the mad rush at the end.  This film clocks in at around two hours and twenty minutes, which is lengthy.  I think the problem with this was not due to trying to fit in things for the sake of fan service, but rather, there is simply a lot of story to tell and Ross in his team were either not quite judicious enough in condensing some elements or not focused enough on expanding some of the more rushed areas that could have better served the film as a whole.  There is also the notion of having this film do what it needs to, in order to set up what occurs in the eventual sequels, but focusing on this first feature and finding that proper balance could have been handled a bit stronger.  I feel that these issues become quite apparent in the final 10 minutes of the film, which feels so much more rushed than what preceded it.  Given that there is basically an extended first act leading to the games, which does a pretty solid job at establishing the stakes, followed by a second game focused entirely on the bulk of the games, there was a bit of an issue with having such a rushed finale in a film that already had length issues.  Given that enough setup has been done for the next entries, I can only hope that this problem will be less of an issue next time around.

So it sounds like I have been ranting for the past few paragraphs, but this mainly stems from the fact that I really did enjoy this film.  Picking it apart is easy enough, only because I had a lot of fun examining the various aspects of it.  In truth, I believe there to be so many great aspects of The Hunger Games, that I really would rather not ruin some of that for people and simply say go out and see it.  I mentioned that some of the action cinematography was not exactly top notch, but I would still argue that it is quite exciting to watch and be involved in (and there may have been some shaky-cam usage, but I was happy to watch the film in glorious IMAX 2D).  I would also say that Lawrence’s performance throughout this film, alone, is worth it, but the addition of people like Harrelson, Kravitz and Tucci (there’s a combo) make it more so.

I am not sure how “doing the impossible” would apply to a film like this, simply because I am not quite sure what “the impossible” would be in the case of The Hunger Games, even if it is one of the biggest film events of the year (though the return of that phrase will certainly be debated by the time The Dark Knight Rises comes out).  As it stands, however, The Hunger Games did leave me full of anticipation for more, as I got a lot out of this film and found it to be a notable accomplishment.  Regardless of the hype, whether or not the book reading the book was important, or whether I am on “Team Peeta” or “Team Gale”, I was simply happy to not only enjoy the film, but be impressed by what I saw; especially since the marketing has done a great job at not spoiling the majority of it.  Engaging, smart, and featuring a strong lead performance, The Hunger Games definitely delivered.

Effie Trinket:  May the odds be in your favor!

DEA Agent Parker:  Do.  You.  Speak American?
Armando Alvarez:  No sir.  I don’t speak American.

The film has a very simple story, acting as an overdramatic telenovela (a Mexican soap opera-type story).  Armando Alvarez (Will Ferrell) has lived and worked on his father’s ranch in Mexico throughout his life.  Armando has been witness to the evil being committed by men out in the middle of country, but he only wishes to keep things simple.  Armando’s younger brother, Raul (Diego Luna), shows up with his new fiancée, Sonia (Génesis Rodríguez) and shows off how successful he is, with Alvarez senior rewarding Raul with much praise.  It seems that Raul’s success as an international businessman means an end to the ranch’s troubles, as he pledges to settle all debts his father has incurred.  However, when Armando falls for Sonia and Raul’s business dealings turn out to actually revolve around dealing drugs, things take a violent turn, as they find themselves in a war with Mexico’s most feared drug lord, the Onza (Gael García Bernal).

I do not think I will see many other people make this comparison, but The Artist came to mind for me, as I watched this film.  I say that because both that film and Casa de Mi Padre seem to utilize a very specific type of acting.  In both films the actors are playing in a world that is very stylized.  The Artist required Jean Dujardin to play a silent movie actor, acting in a silent movie and that is just among other various details involved in putting this homage to silent films together.  For ‘Padre’, Will Ferrell and the other actors are specifically trying channel a low budget soap opera by playing the characters in this film completely straight, despite going to overdramatic lengths, in regards to their performance.  Ferrell, in particular, is essentially the straight-man of the film, without actually saying lines that are jokes and more or less relying on his straight readings of Spanish dialogue to provide for humor.

So yes, to address the main gimmick of the film, it is completely in Spanish, despite having Will Ferrell as the lead star.  The most curious question I have in this regard is whether or not the translation of the film is slightly different from what the actors are actually saying.  I do not speak Spanish (and neither does Ferrell, who spent a month learning his dialogue for the film with the help of a dialect coach), but I did view the film with an audience full of Spanish speakers and found the laughter to signify the possibility of getting more out of both hearing and understanding the language, along with reading the translation.

The other key element of this film is its purposeful choice in looking like a very low budget film.  Casa de Mi Padre was made for $6 million, but the effort was definitely made for it to look cheaper.  Fake backgrounds, pretend horse-riding, missing scenes, deliberate continuity errors, etc. are all factors in making this film seem incredibly cheap to better capture the tone that it strives for.  To add another layer, the film also manages to contain a lot of straight-up weirdness.  Spirit animals to help guide Armando, multiple music breaks, and slow motion gun battles are all here to further amplify the experience.

The problem that this film has is making everything else, beyond the gimmick, work.  By this I refer to the lack of any real depth to the film beyond what is presented.  If all of these flavorful (and admittedly humorous) aspects were taken away, there is nothing to really grasp onto.  The story is shallow, the jokes that are not visually-based are not that funny, and once you get the humor out of seeing Will Ferrell speak Spanish for a while, the effect kind of wears off.  I would not go to the length of saying this feels like an extended SNL sketch, but with recent “grindhouse” films like Machete and Hobo with a Shotgun already providing, Casa de Mi Padre feels more like a step down.

With that said, I did like the performances in this film.  Ferrell is fine at throwing himself into being a straight character, only turned loose occasionally when it becomes to dial up the weird.  The true joy comes from seeing Diego Luna and particularly Gael Garcia Bernal dive into their roles.  Luna gets to have a lot of fun playing the confident older brother, almost always with a drink handy, while Bernal is relishing the chance to play an over-the-top villainous character (so villainous, he smokes two cigarettes at once).  While the film may not hold up well overall, it at least has some inspired casting choices in the form of actors who seem to be in on the joke without betraying the fourth wall.  And Genesis Rodriguez is not bad to look at either (and she also seemed plenty game to be in on the fun as well).

Overall, I would not say that this was a missed opportunity, just an idea that never became more interesting.  It provided some laughs here and there, with some inspired and humorous moments to play with the concept of being a cheaply made feature, but had little else to offer.  Casa de Mi Padre is short enough to not overstay its welcome, but too lacking to gain a significant following.  Now having said all that, I do enjoy the idea of Will Ferrell doing something like this and I would much rather see the actor take chances like this, rather than see him go the route of someone like Adam Sandler, who has been recently churning out consistent, mainstream crap.  Not necessarily a very good film, but it at least had some ambition involved in its creation.

Armando Alvarez:  My woman, Miss Lopez, must love the land as I do.

Those of you not familiar with the 80’s, series young police officers go under cover in schools to investigate various crimes. Those of you familiar with the series keep your eyes open for some cameo appearances from a few of the original cast members.

The movie opens in the year 2005. Schmidt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) are seniors in high school. This sets up the two characters for us, the unsure intelligent nerd and the cocky unintelligent jock. Hold on to your seat this non stop laugh fest is just the beginning of the tongue and check humor that is throughout the movie.

Flash forward to the present, Schmidt and Jenko are in the police academy together. They help each other with their own weaknesses and in the process become best friends. After graduation the two are assigned to bicycle patrol, this is where they botch their first arrest. As punishment they are sent down to Jump Street. Captain Dickson (Ice Cube) gives them their first assignment to go under cover as high school students. A new synthetic drug is being sold, and their job is to infiltrate the dealers and find the supplier.

Schmidt, not having fond memories of school is hesitant to go back while Jenko who ruled school is excited to return. But school has changed since they graduated, and the roles assigned to them get mixed up so they are out of their comfort zone. The kids are not the same anymore, the sensitive, tree huggers are the cool kids now. It doesn’t take long for the undercover partners to find the school’s drug dealer; but now they need to find the supplier. Schmidt becomes close to Eric (Dave Franko) who is the main dealer, so that he can find out who is supplying the drugs. As the partners separate bonds grow with their classmates, the bond between Schmidt and Jenko starts to crumble. Schmidt hangs out with the cool “in” crowd and get sucked back into school life, a school life that he dreamed of having while he was in high school while Jenko hangs with his new over achiever friends and learns that they are cool in their own way.

Take a ride back to high school with Schmidt and Jenko; this is a movie you’re not going to want to miss. 21 Jump Street doesn’t have a great plot but it is a fun movie, and it seems like that was the writer’s intention. Hill and Tatum and the supporting cast keep the laughs coming, which makes this comedy a laugh out loud hit.

While attending Fantastic Fest 2011, I caught the one and only screening of Adam Wingard’s You’re Next. Ever since that screening, I have ranted and raved the film to no less than two dozen people.  Usually I’ll say something like,  “You’re Next is an exceedingly excellent horror flick, one I’m convinced is destined to earn a sprawling contingent of fans when it opens in 2012”, but it’s true that I’ll sometimes just break down in joyous tears at the thought of Wingard’s film.  It’s really that good.

Then, when Sundance 2012 kicked off earlier this year, I was happily surprised to learn that Wingard was involved with another horror film that would be screening at that Festival, a found-footage horror anthology called V/H/S.  I also learned  that directors Ti West (House of The Devil), Glenn McQuaid (I Sell The Dead), David Bruckner (the underrated The Signal), Radio Silence (newcomers), and internet punching-bag Joe Swanberg were involved, and that each had crafted a short film for inclusion in VHS.  As it turned out, Wingard’s contribution was the wraparound segment that connects these shorts.  To my ears, all of this news was reason to celebrate.

And then, the screening took place.  We heard that people threw up after some of the film’s grislier images unfolded onscreen, that people had fainted (or were on the verge of fainting;  I’ve heard both versions), that the audience went absolutely apesh-t when the film wrapped, applauding and hollering, which is what the audience I’d seen You’re Next with did when that film came to an end.  Again, all of this sounded like good news to me.

Then again, how many horror films have inspired vomiting or fainting at film festivals over the past decade?  That seems to be the go-to marketing stunt (or is it?!) these days, a sure-fire way to get media coverage of your film while also implying that the movie-in-question is destined to be embraced by “real” horror fans.  There’s no way to know if these incidents are staged or the real deal, but after loving a big chunk of the work done by the directors behind VHS, I was inclined to buy into the hype.

“Besides”, I thought, “The critics—many of whom I tend to agree with when it comes to film—loved it.”

Well, as I learned with SXSW 2012’s John Dies at The End, it’s possible to disagree with anyone, even the guys who you agree with most of the time.  With Don Coscarelli’s John, I felt that the film wasn’t “bad”, but that it was the victim of an extreme case of overhype.  I walked outta that movie with an advanced case of disconnect, wondering if everyone else had seen the same flick I’d just seen.  I didn’t quite have that same feeling of disappointment with VHS—far from it, in fact—but I certainly think that a little expectation-curbing is in order.  If the reviews out of Sundance are to be believed, VHS is slated to be the year’s biggest horror film…and I simply don’t feel that this is the case.  It’s good, really good in spots, but—let’s be frank here—it’s no You’re Next.

And given the directors involved, I think it’s fair to make the comparison.  Joe Swanberg (a guy my buddy Chris just can’t get enough of), Ti West, Adam Wingard, and David Bruckner are all part of a new wave of horror filmmakers, and each seems to be involved in the others’ films in one capacity or another.  They appear to be a tight-knit little group of horror enthusiasts, and—for the most part—I’ve enjoyed their output thus far, particularly West’s House of The Devil, Wingard’s You’re Next, and Swanberg’s segment in VHS.  Their films carry a very specific aesthetic, and they’ve incorporated that aesthetic into every segment of VHS (one critic’s review called the film “mumblehorror”—a play on the oft-spoken but universally despised term “mumblecore”—but I think that’s more clever than it is correct).  And so, given the people involved, the timeframe in which the films were made, and the way both films feel, I don’t think it’s unfair to make the VHS/You’re Next comparison.  If only I could rave about both.

Anyway, VHS follows the typical horror anthology format:  you’ve got a “wraparound”/”bookend” segment that ties a number of other segments together, and—in-between those segments—we see the “wraparound” story progress.  Here, Wingard’s “bookends” tells the story of a group of hoodlums (imagine the Jackass guys on angel dust and with less morals) who we meet smashing windows in what appears to be an abandoned warehouse of some sort.  They then move on to a parking garage, where they forcibly drag a random woman in front of the camera and expose her breasts.  The point is made:  these aren’t good guys.

Soon enough, our band of heroes is tasked with tracking down a mysterious videotape, one that’s apparently locked inside an extremely creepy house somewhere on the other side of town.  Upon entering the house, they discover a dead old man in a recliner, a stack of videotapes, and a bank of TV monitors.  In an attempt to track down the tape they’ve come for, the guys start watching the dead guy’s tapes, and—perhaps as expected—it becomes clear that the recently deceased was a big fan of…well, in the film’s mythology, these are snuff films.

Each of the “tapes” that the guys watch is one of the film’s segments, a clever little device that I quite enjoyed (I wasn’t so fond of the wraparound story itself;  I just think the delivery system VHS uses to get us to these segments was very smart).  As with most anthology films, the segments themselves are a mixed bag, which means that you’re going to spend a lot of time after the film ends debating which one was “the best” with your friends.  Right now, the consensus seems to be that the “best” segment is—in typical anthology fashion—the last one, which oddly enough is the only segment directed by a newcomer.

That’d be the “haunted house” segment of the film, which was produced by a collective of short-filmmakers who go by the name Radio Silence.  As is the case with most of segments here, this installment is difficult to describe without spoiling things:  a quartet of dude-bros head out to a Halloween party, arrive at what they think is the correct house, and things go South from there.  There’s a twist here, but that’s also something that runs through each of the segments.  Clearly, this is an homage to the horror anthology work done by EC Comics, the sort of stuff that HBO used to mine to such wonderful effect on the dearly-departed Tales From The Crypt, and one can’t help but agree that the addition of a “twist” to each segment provides a little extra bang for the audience’s buck.

Here’s what happens in the other segments:  a trio of dude-bros go out for a night on the town, only to encounter more than they bargained for with a chick that—at first glance—appears to be nothing more than a garden-variety harlot (note:  I have been waiting to type the phrase “garden-variety harlot” for at least twenty years;  optional phrases included “bog-standard ho”, “everyday strumpet”, and “typical slut”, and—as an added bonus included with this review—all of those are yours to use as band names as you see fit);  a guy on a road trip with his girlfriend runs afoul of a drifter with a penchant for videotaping his (or is it a her?) crimes;  two guys and their lady-friends head into the woods and discover that the stated purpose of their hike was a flat-out lie;  and an out-of-town medical student chats on Skype with his girlfriend, who’s at home in her apparently haunted apartment (this was my personal favorite).

All of these segments contain a “twist”, but—far more importantly—all of these segments are shot in the found-footage style.  Some of the segments (particularly the Skype segment and the opener, with the garden-variety harlot)(that’s twice!!!) employ some pretty clever reasons for being found-footage in the first place, while others will give you that “Why is someone filming this instead of fleeing in terror?” feeling that many found-footage horror projects come pre-packaged with.  On the one hand, I thought that the found-footage format worked more than it didn’t in VHS.  On the other hand, I felt that some of the segments were almost too shaky, and I completely understood when a few friends who attended the screening told me that the film had given them motion-sickness.  I’m not prone to that while watching found-footage stuff, but if there was ever a film that could inspire that dreaded “seasickness” for me, it’d be this one.

I really, really liked VHS, but I didn’t feel like it was balls-out amazing.  It’s certainly gory, and it’s got some really effective moments that’ll stick with you long after you’ve seen it, but with You’re Next just a few months down the road, I can’t in good conscience slap VHS with the “year’s best horror film” label that some of my critical brethren are placing upon it.  Definitely be excited to see it, but definitely temper your expectations a bit.  Some of the reviews I’ve read have been hyperbolic, but it’s worth noting that I’ve yet to read a single review that’s dismissive of the film entirely.

By the way, I’d like to add this:  I saw VHS at midnight after standing in three two-hour lines throughout my festival-going day.  It’s entirely possible that I would’ve liked VHS more if I’d seen it at, say, three in the afternoon without having waited in a line dominated by loud-talkers and hygienically-challenged film geeks, and so I have every intention of seeing the film again when it hits theaters.  Also, see the hell out of Wingard’s You’re Next when it arrives:  you might just pee your pants with excitement.

Jenko:  Always one strap it.  Always

The film begins in the mid 2000s, where we meet Morton Schmidt (Jonah Hill), a spitting image of a young Slim Shady…except with braces and about 50lbs heavier.  He is taunted at high school by the dumb, long-haired jock Greg Jenko (Channing Tatum), but the two have separate issues when it comes to girls and grades.  Cut to present day, the two have become friends, after discovering each other again, while at police academy.  Upon graduating, the two spend their first duty as bike cops, looking for action.  After unsuccessfully stopping a gang of drug dealers (Schmidt can’t shoot and Jenko can’t remember the Miranda rights), the two are given new orders to report to 21 Jump Street.

At their new headquarters, Schmidt and Jenko are given a new mission from their Captain (Ice Cube).  The two will pose as high school kids and work their way into the various networks to find out who is supplying a new drug that is spreading wide amongst the kids.  In taking on this mission, the two immediately screw things up by not only making bad assumptions about high school, not being aware of how things have changed, but by accidentally switching their cover identities.  Schmidt is now supposed to pose as a popular jock-like kid, while Jenko is supposed to be a book-smart, chemistry nerd.  Regardless, the two will have to do their best to make connections with the popular kids to complete their mission, while also getting another chance at reliving their high school years.

As mentioned, the origins of 21 Jump Street stem from an 80s TV series, which is what initially brought Johnny Depp into the public eye.  That series was a serious procedural that dealt with topical issues and crimes that faced teenagers in high school.  This reboot is anything but that.  Where the original series may have dealt with kids with alcohol or drug issues, this film has Hill and Tatum purchasing alcohol and stealing drugs from an evidence locker in order to throw a party to gain popularity.  The 2004 reboot of Starsky and Hutch came to mind, as that film similarly threw away the serious aspects of the series that inspired it and went for being a goofy comedy instead.  The difference between that film and 21 Jump Street, however, is the R-rated nature of the shenanigans and action that Hill and Tatum’s characters involve themselves in.

The true joy of this movie really does belong to what these two leads are capable of.  It is not too surprising that Jonah Hill was able to supply a lot of laughs.  Even now, as he is notably trim, the guy is fun to watch, whether he is faking his way through theater class or trying to maintain his cover by physically threatening an elderly neighbor.  The real surprise is Channing Tatum, who is not simply a dumb and pretty weight to attach to Hill.  I may have gone from ‘meh’ to acceptable regarding Tatum in general, but after this film, I am all over the Channing Tatum train.  The dude made me laugh a lot in this movie.  Regardless of how scripted his work may have been, Tatum showed true comedic timing throughout and tossed out hilarious one-liners and bits of banter very well.

The supporting cast is also pretty fun.  Notably Ice Cube, who is very aware that he’s playing the angry, black captain (he’s literally acknowledges this), but is so foul in this movie, it’s hard not to laugh at his ridiculousness.  Then you have small roles filled out by Rob Riggle as the gym teacher, Ellie Kemper as Tatum’s horny teacher, and a few other brief cameos.  Brie Larson and Dave Franco come in as high school students, with the former serving as the required love interest, who provides a fun balance for Hill, while Franco works well as playing up a particular image of what is ‘cool’ for high school.

This film was in planning for a while before Jonah Hill finally helped developed the story; eventually having it scripted out by Michael Bacall (who co-scripted Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, as well as the recent Project X).  The aspect that had me most excited about all of this was the fact that Phil Lord and Chris Miller were handling directing duties.  Lord and Miller were previously responsible for the short lived, but hilarious MTV animated series Clone High, but also made the much more successful film adaptation of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, which has become one of my favorite animated films, let alone comedies of the past few years.  With these two arriving in live-action, R-rated territory, I was happy to see a lot of the same style of humor in the visual gags and some of the dialogue coming through.  Given that the film has a satirical bent to handling its clichés and openly acknowledging the very fact that it is a reboot, a lot of scenes take a few turns that feel random or obscure, but in a very funny way.  There is some fine comedic craft at work here, which makes me excited for eventual repeat viewings, to catch more of the gags overlooked, let alone the Blu-ray release, which will no doubt be packed with cut footage.

If there is anything to comment on, it is in regards to how much this film tries to do.  There is so much material packed into this film, as it is essentially putting in a lot of elements from a season of the show or at least a multi-part arc, that it feels like there were a few loose ends and lack of resolution for some of the little details introduced into the story.  Additionally, while mostly well-paced, the action sequences in this film (which are fun) seem to drag down the film in a way, given how much comedy-related energy it has.  With that said, some of the visual gags that come as a result of the action in this film provides for some pretty hilarious results.  There is also something to be said for the level of sweetness found in this film, which is actually significant, even if it also moves the pacing down a bit.

With two hilarious leads, a fun take on an old TV series, and a very heavy emphasis on being very silly, while adding a dash of wit, have made for a pretty successful comedy.  The laughs come frequently and everyone seems to not mind both being in on the fun and making fun of themselves in the process.  This film may not take the premise of the original series very seriously, but I cannot imagine anyone really caring that much.  This is a funny film, with some pretty great laughs throughout.  And one of those laughs involves Channing Tatum saying “F*** you” to science.

Schmidt:  When did I get stabbed?  That’s awesome!