Marvel's Avengers

Having seen the Box Office Returns and watched the TV for the last few days, I doubt that many of you have waited to hear my point of view on this film before you went out and saw it. It was pretty obvious that this was going to be one of the big films of the summer, what was not as obvious was whether it would be any good. I won't hold you in suspense about my assessment, It's terrific entertainment and the kind of summer popcorn movie that should keep the theaters busy until the next big blockbuster shows up. This movie has a cool factor all over it, all the comic fans and casual fans and their families are going to have a good time at the movies.

Marvel has been building to this film for several years now. As new super heroes from the Marvel Universe have made their way on to the screen, there has been an attempt to connect them with the thread of SHIELD, as the agent that will bring them all together. This has been a grand idea much like the Harry Potter films managed to follow one another with a good deal of consistency, the Marvel Super Heroes have stayed mostly true to their origins and layered on a bit more for the coming climax. While the Potter films have had the advantage of being true chapters in an ongoing narrative, the Marvel characters have had to live in their own worlds and break into a story that could bring them into one universe together. The first film to plant that seed was the excellent "Iron Man". It was followed up by the reboot of the "Hulk" franchise which was launched without the desired success earlier and needed a more consistent tone. The reboot with Edward Norton worked, but it did not break any box office records, it was perhaps about the same in financial return as the Eric Banna version had been, but it did water the seed of this particular concept. The second "Iron Man" movie was a disappointment but it did introduce a new character or two who would make more memorable appearances in the current film. Then, last year, we got a double whammy with the very serviceable "Thor" and the truly excellent "Captain America". Each film set up a small connection to the Avenger's Initiative that makes the current movie the capstone of the series.

 The writer/director of "The Avengers", Joss Whedon, understands what the comic book crowd wants and delivers it in abundance. There are several smackdowns between our main characters as the story is being set up. Each gives the geeks the kind of moment they have wanted since the characters first showed up on the page. We get to see Ironman face off with Thor, and then Thor match fists with the Hulk, and Captain America take them all on in one form or another. Those are the sugar bombs placed around the story that draw in the comic book crowd. After all you can't expect this group of larger than life figures to mix perfectly right off the bat. Eventually they will come together but it will not be a smooth transition nor will it be one without loss. There is a threat to the planet that only our heroes will be able to respond to. They need some motivation, and while there are a lot of ways this could have gone, I think the idea that finally triggers it works because of some of those links set up in other films. Once you have seen the movie you will know what I mean, but I am not going to give anything away.

 All of the characters get a chance to have some moments of glory. The least developed is "Hawkeye" played by Jeremy Renner. This is an actor I like more every time I see him. He was really solid in the last Mission Impossible movie and will be the featured star of the "Bourne" reboot coming later this summer. He has the smallest amount of dialogue and the least developed of the characters in the movie but manages to hold our attention every time he is on screen. When he pulls out his bow and gets ready for business, we all anticipate some Robin Hood type moments and are not disappointed. Part of the reason that his character is underdeveloped here is that he is playing for the wrong side for the first half of the movie. It is a little complicated but it does set up some revenge factor in the second half that makes us root for him. Marvel is going to have tons of money to spend on new films featuring these characters, in using Hawkeye they have a film that could be told with a smaller budget and a much more dark story.

 Scarlett Johansen's Black Widow is a spy character that would need to be modified a little to make a whole film. There is an excellent set up of her skill set early in the movie, but she really is a comic book version of a spy and there would need to be an outlandish over the top story to justify her presence. The fighting skills would make it seem too much like the "Electra" spin-off of "Daredevil". It would all be about hyper fighting skills. The better story is the other set of skills she has, I just don't see how you could get a whole movie out of that trick. Her character is good for the background of these hero movies but would struggle to meet the needs of a stand alone movie. There is however a satisfactory payoff of her manipulative skills in this film, one that justifies here in a featured part. At the end of the movie it was hard to find something for her to do and that may be the one weak spot in the story telling.

There is a lot of humor in the interaction of the main hero characters. Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is his usual smug but charming rebel. He provokes all the others at some point or another, and it is his conversion to the cause that makes the team finally come together. He of course has all the best jokes as well, stealing the function that Tommy Lee Jones had in "Captain America" last year. The vast majority of humorous dialogue is his or it is connected directly to his character. He is well used in the story as a point of conflict and for comic relief. While I am on the subject of comic relief, I want to mention the character of Agent Phil Coulson. The actor Gregg Olsen has played him for several films and he has always had the right dry delivery for his lines. His role has been to stand in for us mere mortals while still being able to carry off a stoic expression in the face of billionaire genius arms manufacturers, monster green scientists and demi-gods from another world dressed as background scenery from Wagner Operas. After Tony Stark, he gets the best jokes, but they are humorous only because of his delivery and timing. This was good casting from several years ago that is paying off in this film.

Thor and Nick Fury are along for the ride. They move the plot when it needs to be moved and there are places that the story depends on them for a dramatic intervention, but they are the two characters that stay the most on the surface of any of the main players. This is an ensemble piece and everyone has a contribution to make, they can't all be equal contributions. The work of both actors is fine and there are some good lines delivered by Samuel Jackson, and some nice visual images with Thor, but none of their character's roles were meaningful outside of the confines of the ensemble. Everyone gets a moment here and there and both of these characters shine in their moments, the moments are just not as memorable as those for other players.

My favorite Avenger is "Captain America". I liked the stand alone movie from last year the best of all of the others with the possible exception of the first Ironman. Chris Evans Cap is still a straight shooter, who when moved to modern times can see the hypocrisy of the new world more clearly than others can. He is disillusioned by what his country and the world have become. His lack of cynicism in contrast to Tony Stark sets up a very effective conflict for the middle section of the film. His heroic persona is mocked, but then shown to be exactly the kind of thing that can make a difference when the chips are down. He is an argument for patriotism even in the muddled times we currently live in. Steve Rogers also knows how to lead, you make decisions that you hope are right and then follow through the best you can. His character has the initial fight with the evil "Loki" early in the movie, but after that, he has to be everywhere as part of a team and his stand alone moments are fewer as a result. His orders to the defenders of the Earth are clearly needed and there are two swell payoffs that provoke smiles from the audience. The second one gets a cheer from all the comic book geeks because it is a favorite saying from the Marvel Universe.

 After two prior attempts to make the Hulk a success as a screen character, the writers, director and casting finally pay off. Mark Ruffalo is a great Bruce Banner, disheveled, world weary and with an anger problem that makes him the focus of much of the movie. When everyone is not walking on eggshells and the Hulk finally comes out, we get a much more successful version of the green monster that Dr. Banner discretely refers to as "the other guy". There is clearly a problem with having an uncontrollable monster on your side. The story acknowledges that this is a complex nut to crack and finally does. "Loki" as played by Tom Hiddleston, is not perturbed or threatened by any of the other heroes. Even his brother Thor is viewed as just another threat. The one character he does seem worried about is the Hulk, and in the biggest cheer in the whole movie, we get to see why. Tony Stark and Bruce Banner make a connection in the movie, and I would not be surprised to see them team up again, but if I were Robert Downey Jr., I'd watch out for Ruffalo and the Hulk stealing his thunder in another movie. The film is nearly two and a half hours long. It is packed with a number of story lines and characters and comic book conflict set up. Yet despite the possibility that it could end up a bloated piece of junk like "Batman Forever" and "Batman and Robin" or "Spiderman 3" were, it manages to tell a story quickly and efficiently with a lot of humor and plenty of fireworks. You get a lot of bang for your buck with "Marvel's The Avengers". It is an unashamed piece of pop entertainment that delivers for the audience the elements they want in a summer movie. Just try not to get sick from eating too much popcorn in the theaters this summer.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter - Featurette

Found this on Ain't It Cool and Thought I would share. This is the movie I am most looking forward to after Prometheus. The book was a real kick, a clever mash up of history and fiction.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

I have always loved stop motion and claymation in movies. The original King Kong still delights me with the quirky movements of Kong, and Ray Harryhausen is a genius as far as I'm concerned. I know that the modern versions of this style are largely done through computer animation but the creativity still impresses and the look is so retro that it feels like it is still a throw back to the old days of Gumby and Pokey although no clay figurines were actually involved. "Chicken Run" and "Curse of the Wererabbit" are two of the best kids animated movies of the last dozen years and the Aardman Studios has another winner with the new "Pirates, Band of Misfits". This movie comes in 3-D and it might have even more charm in that format, we saw it in a regular 2-D format because some of our group have trouble with headaches after a 3-D experience.

The look of the film is the starting point for those things that are most pleasurable about the movie. The characters are rich and quirky with details that harken back to childhood memories of pirates on the high seas. Cutlasses fly, limbs have been replaced with wooden pegs, and pirates have lush beards that you can hide just about anything in. Does it sound silly yet? OK, the first fight the pirates have is not over a damsel in distress or how to divvy up the booty, it is a brawl based on a dispute over what is best about being a pirate. When you see the answer, if you don't laugh with delight, you should leave the movie theater immediately because that is the way the rest of the film is going to go. The traditional touch points of a pirate movie are juxtaposed with a cartoon version of buccaneer lunacy. As an added bonus there is usually a silly song to go along with the crazy.

Kids films sometimes repeat patterns so obviously, that a smart child could get bored because they can figure out what is going to happen next. While the plot of this movie may have some of those drawbacks, it never the less manages to keep us hooked by the outlandish way in which those well worn paths are tread. A put upon hero, betrays his true self and his friends but later redeems his actions and reaps the rewards. This sounds familiar right? Well, in the process we get a Pirate Award Show, a Scientist Award Show, a showdown on a blimp and a Dodo thrown in for good measure.  Oh and Charles Darwin is a part of the mix as well, and he is both foil and comic relief. The path of this story is never as straight as the morality play seems to suggest it will be and along the way we are treated to completely silly visual gags that provoke laughter and surprise most of the time.

The background images in the movie are especially worth mentioning. If you pay attention to the bills posted all around London, you will get some extra laughs. Don't worry if you don't see them all the first time, there will be a recap in the credit sequence, making this another one of those movies that you want to sit through the credits for. The music is rousing and silly at the same time. There is a nice mix of  recycled pop tunes and original movie songs. The pop tunes evoke moods as the images fit with the lyrics or the sound. The Clash almost certainly did not have a movie like this in mind when they penned "London Calling". There is a wonderful lament from "Flight of the Concords", that should be the Academy Award winner for Best Song at next years Oscars. I loved the disguises that the pirates resort to in several scenes, they are completely British in their execution. The sad efforts of the Pirate Captain to plunder treasures from the ships they board are also plenty amusing. There is one unfortunate change for political correctness. If you look at the trailer above, you will see a leper drop an arm on the deck of the ship the captain boards. Apparently, lepers in Great Britain (who would have thought that was a special interest group?), objected to the visual joke. So in the film, it is referred to as a plague ship rather than a leper ship. It makes no sense but at least all the lepers out there will not be humiliated at being the butt of a cartoon joke.

All the voice work of the actors is spot on, while none of it calls attention to itself. Unlike "Rango" from last year, this is not a star vehicle for an actor looking to do animated voice work. This is a story that focuses on the characters and their efforts to solve their problems. The kick here is not listening to Hugh Grant do a pirate character, it is a pirate character that is so clearly a parody of himself that makes us laugh. There are plenty of quick jokes for the adults in the audience as well, the movie is not just for kids. It will however appeal most to kids because it takes a big pile of imagination to come up with some of the stuff here and only someone with a child's wonder could manage it.

The Raven (2012)

There are movies that draw you in on the basis of the premise, some on genre and some use stars. "The Raven" is a genre picture that attempts to use the serial killer taunting the authorities premise as it's hook. It features a star as the author Edgar Allen Poe, and it features gruesome images to pull the horror crowd into the theater. As I was watching this movie, I was struck by the notion that it feels less like an exploitation film and more like a real "movie". The pacing and imagery is much more in tune with a serious drama, or maybe a biopic on the famous author who basically created the horror field. There are times that the planning of the shots reveals an ambition to be taken as a true artistic enterprise. Unfortunately all of this is the weakness of this movie. Instead of horrifying us, it tries to titillate and comment on our obsession with horror. Instead of providing a full fledged story about Poe, we get a cliche based murder mystery. Finally, instead of having fun with the outlandishness of it's premise, it takes itself too seriously.

I like John Cusack as an actor. He has a laconic manner and hangdog expression that have appealed to me on screen since "The Sure Thing". The look should fit a story about Edgar Allen Poe, but Cusack is a tall guy and he makes Poe look much too healthy for a drunken, TB ridden, poverty stricken artist. The opening sequences of Poe in a bar trying to get some recognition and some credit to drink, are rushed and overdone. His lines stem from an acting exercise rather than a character. The performance settles down after that but the tone has already been set, Cusack is going to treat this pulp material as if it is meaningful. This seems like the wrong way to go, there is no chance for insight into Poe. This is a story about a serial killer, re-enacting scenes from Poe's gruesome catalog, with a race against time to save the imagined love interest. Every time there is some discussion of literary pretension in the movie, it takes us out of the horror plot we are supposed to be engaged in.

The makers of this movie are hedging their bets, they never commit to one particular point of view for the movie. I think they might come close to getting a gruesome procedural out of this, but every murder save one, is revealed so quickly and in such a perfunctory manner that the horror element fails to develop. There is no dread sustained, no vicious act to pull back from. It simply comes on screen and then is rushed off for another sequence of Poe trying to write and understand the killer. This movie is probably budgeted in a moderate range, they needed to have the budget cut to force them to use some sensationalism to make it work. The admirable shots of a nineteenth century Baltimore, can't make up for the lack of terror on the screen that a better developed scene of sick murder could bring to the story. It is not as if they did not have horrific ideas, they do. The problem is that instead of dwelling on the horror elements, there is a focus on action chases and inner turmoil. The lovestruck, writer with a creativity block is the lynchpin of the plot, but it is also the weakest element of the story.

Many things in the movie work well. After the histrionics in his first few scenes, Cusack begins to feel more real as Poe. The movie is nice to look at and there is a serviceable mystery plot to follow. There are some disturbing visual images and nice references to Poe's works, but without any anticipation of what is coming, we are mostly left with looking at what has already transpired. That seems to be one of the elements that keeps this movie from working as well as it should. There is simply something not quite right about how it fits together. In the hands of a director who specializes in this kind of material, it could work well, here it simply feels workmanlike. As I said before, I felt like I was watching a movie that the film makers wanted people to see as a real film, instead of an entertainment piece. With this sort of material, I think the audience will feel a little cheated on both sides.

There is some nice writing in the story. I liked the idea of Poe having to write himself into the plot to be able to solve and resolve the mystery. The final shot resolution turns out to be satisfying as well, although it is not very well explained. Too often the movie relies on action sequences and chases to tell a story that does not really require them. I thought it particularly odd that a brilliant serial killer would count on his ability to be slightly faster than a police inspector in running through the water works catacombs under Baltimore, in order to deliver his next clue or see the reaction to his last one. There was no reason for him to be anywhere in the vicinity,except to put a little action tension into the film. "The Raven" is not a failure as a movie, but it is not as satisfying as it ought to be. If it sounds like I did not like the movie, that is wrong. I just wanted to like it more. In order for me to do, "The Raven" needed to be less middle brow and more exploitation.

The Three Stooges Movie

Sometimes the world comes together in a great way and all the stars line up for you. Other times, the fates conspire to trip you up and leave you in a more desperate situation. It was the later of these two scenarios that lead me to the new Three Stooges movie. In all honesty, I am looking forward to four movies that opened wide today, and I am looking for a couple of smaller films if I can just work out some timing. But instead of watching Jason Statham hand the bad guys their asses, or relaxing with claymation pirates on the high seas, I ended up at this movie. Those of you who have read at this site before may be aware that my film enthusiasm is shared by my youngest daughter. She is currently working a job that keeps her out most nights well past 2a.m.. That means that there is not always a chance to sneak off with her and catch some piece of trash that we both enjoy, or discover a treasure in a film that we had mild expectations for. I finally talked her into letting me take my wife out to the movies without her and she even agreed that we could see one of the major releases this weekend. So we headed off to run errands, and then we dropped by the theater to see if "The Five Year Engagement" was starting any time soon. Well we had missed it by twenty minutes, but I'll be damned if I was going to walk away without seeing something.  My wife and I have been going to movies as a date since 1975. She was all set to sit down in a dark theater, share some popcorn and enjoy each others company for a while. She simply looked at the marquee for the next available show (that is the next available show that our daughter had not forbidden us to see without her) and said, let's see the Stooges movie.

If you watch the trailer above and laugh at some of the slapstick, then you will be able to get some pleasure out of the film. If you look at it in horror and see it as a sacrilege, then you better stay away because the trailer gives an accurate feel for the movie that I am talking about here. I like the Stooges well enough. I enjoyed the shorts when I was a kid and whenever I run across one while waiting for something else on the satellite to start, I will stop down and watch. I am not however a stooge aficionado, I don't know all the routines, quotes and inside references. I just like watching grown men poke each other in the eye, bash each other in the head and generally spread mayhem wherever they happen to go. From my point of few, this should be good for a few laughs.

I started to worry early on because the first part of the film does not feature grown men doing all the stupid head butting and nose gouging,  instead the Stooges are introduced as kids. These kids have the same mannerisms, looks and physical routines as the adults, but it does not work because the humor in most of the stooge material I have seen is based in large part on the fact that these are men who ought to know better but act like kids. Kids acting like kids just sort of falls flat. Once the adult versions of the stooges hit the screen the effect is a lot more promising. Instead of one out of five physical gags provoking a laugh, which was the ratio in the kids section, you get three out of five hitting the mark.

The Three actors playing the stooges actually do a remarkable impression of the original clowns. The guy who plays Moe has the right kind of bluster and aggression and the physical resemblance was very effective. Sean Hayes plays Larry, and he has always been a great comedic actor, here he disappears into the look, voice and general persona of the one non-Howard stooge really well. I was most impressed with Will Sasso, doing a great version of Curly in his footwork and pun laden comebacks. The script got the tone of his rejoinders right the great majority of the time. The script itself was no great shakes, but most of the Three Stooge's shorts were not all that well thought out either. The stuff that works the best here is not surprisingly the same stuff that worked for the the real Moe, Larry and Curly, lots of slapstick physical humor combined with some good sound effects to get a laugh.  I will say I laughed out loud several times, but they were so dispersed throughout the film that they felt less intense than they needed to to be entirely successful.

There was one long sequence that was staged like a stooge gag, but felt too much like a modern gross out comedy to really feel stooge-like. I know why it was included, and it was funny but it took me out of the fantasy a little. It does have to be a fantasy to imagine the three Stooges working again in the movies. If the Farrelly Brothers really want to revive the stooge tradition, put these guys in some shorts and find a way to attach those shorts to some other big release. I think the reaction would be more positive and the laughs would be sustained for a realistic amount of time rather than trying to make it work as a feature. I appreciated the effort, I just wish I had appreciated the movie a little more.

MovieClips.com

Intro to MOVIECLIPS
Movieclips at MOVIECLIPS.com

This is the site my daughter Amanda is working for right now. They do some very cool things and it is all on the up and up.

Lockout (2012)

There was no way this movie was going to be much good. It came out of no where, was made by nobody and had virtually no publicity around it. Hell, I did not even know it existed till I saw the trailer a month ago. So if all of that is true, why did I go and see it? Simple, Guy Pearce. I have been a fan of his since I first saw "The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert". There he was the screwed up drag queen, who did not know when to shut his mouth. Here he plays the same character, except that he is not a drag queen and is fighting convicts in space rather than backwards yahoos in the Australian outback. OK, maybe there are a few other differences as well.

From my point of view, he is the actor from L.A. Confidential who got screwed out of completing the L.A. Confidential Academy Award, Best Actor trifecta. Kevin Spacey won the next year for "American Beauty", Russell Crowe won the year after that for "Gladiator", and Pearce not only did not win for his brilliant performance in "Memento", he did not even get nominated. He did however appear in the Academy Award winning Best Pictures for the two years prior to this. That gives him some professional cred. So what is he doing in this slice of sci-fi /action mash up? Hell, Michael Caine has made a lot of crummy movies over the years as well, sometimes you just have to pay the mortgage. Plus, he does get to be the lead in an action film which let's him channel his best Kurt Russell snarl and Bruce Willis bravado and play cops and robbers in space.

The set up of the movie is made clear in the trailer. A top security prison in space is taken over by the inmates and the President's daughter is one of the hostages. Enter tough guy, rogue spy/cop to infiltrate alone and try to save the day. It's basically "Escape From Space", minus any John Carpenter competence. The story is boiler plate action spy nonsense which has a mysterious briefcase being sought after but it largely turns out that is simply an excuse to make us suspicious of everyone's motives. Plot is not really where this movie is going to leave an impression. The script also does not treat most of the characters as if they have any common sense. The one main exception is the dialog that spills out of Pearce's character Snow's mouth. He has a wisecrack for every occasion and an insult for everyone in sight. Listening to him spit out a punchline or mutter a crack under his breath is what makes this work at all. He is not some unbeatable robotic character like Arnold, he just happens to be the right kind of guy they need and he gets lucky, the script fixes most of his problems so he does not have to get by trying to out tough the scum of the Earth.

The effects on the shoot seem to be a mix of well done space backgrounds, lousy action CGI, and endless soundstage tunnels that allow the characters to get from place to place without being seen by every convict on the prison satellite. This was the first time I saw in the credits, every name of every member of the orchestra that played the score; including the instrument they played. As I looked at the credits, it was clear that most of the below the line talent came from somewhere in Eastern Europe. I never saw so many names ending in "vic" in my life. The two main bad guys in the prison, sounded like they had heavy Scottish brogues or were such drunken Irishmen that no one could understand most of what they say. Peter Stormare plays the head of the Secret Service/Security Service, and he has little to do except glower at other characters. The lead actress looked familiar but I had the cheat and look at IMDB to see she played Liam Neeson's daughter in "Taken".  So basically she is being typecast. You actually sort of hate her character anyway because she is so oblivious to the world she lives in. By the end of the movie though, she is supposed to be the smartest person in the story.

The movie was not something I could recommend to anyone except those who have a taste for dumb Saturday matinee fare. This was a low budget action film that needed to get the most out of it's main asset, the lead actor. Guy Pearce delivers but it is something that you wouldn't have ordered if he was not the deliveryman.