In Home Viewings: "The Woman in Black"

When his wife died during childbirth, Arthur Kipps (Daniel Radcliffe) sank into a deep depression that results in a distance from his young son and the derailment of his law career. Given one last chance to regain his footing within his fim, Arthur is sent to a remote village to sort through the personal papers of a dead woman and sell her house. It is a simple job designed to get his life back on track. But when he arrives, he discovers that the house has a dark history in which he soon finds himself engulfed. An evil presence runs roughshod through the very fabric of the town and threatens not only Arthur’s life but also the life of his son.

The Woman in Blackis a very straight-forward, simple film that tells a concise but worthwhile story in just the right amount of time. One of its strengths is the implementation of a very limited cast. This is basically a two man show, with Radcliffe either working alone or opposite Ciaran Hinds, who fits his part perfectly. The two work well together and by keeping the importance of the supporting parts to a minimum, director James Watkins prevents his film from falling into the cringe-inducing, “How does that person have a SAG card?!” performances that plague most horror movies. Much is put on the shoulders of Radcliffe, then, and as such, I’d call this a modest success for the young actor. This role is enough of a departure from his days as Harry Potter and yet familiar enough as to seem comfortable. It isn’t a stunning performance by any means but it is strong enough to hold water. The next two or three roles will be even more important for Radcliffe in terms of preventing himself from being type cast but this is a step in the right direction.

Watkins also succeeds in creating a terse tone from the very beginning of the film and carrying that through to the very end. The Woman in Black rarely holds back as the thrills and chills start early and come often. As a result, most of twists feel very natural, though the final turn seems a bit forced to me. I was legitimately freaked out at times and Watkins does a great jump of bringing the obligatory jumps and more drawn-out terror together into a mix that never really lets the audience get settled in.

I don’t much care for scary movies of either the spooky ghost or psycho killer variety and as such, I rarely enjoy them. When I do have a good experience with this sort of film, it’s usually one that features decent acting, manages to create a genuinely tense atmosphere, and relies on consistent terror over gore or cheesy jumps. The Woman in Black hits each of these marks and delivers a satisfying if unspectacular product that is filled to the brim with suspense. There’s nothing great or even entirely unique at play here but this film is good on many levels and that was enough to win me over.

Review: "Brave"

Over the last 17 years, Pixar has provided the world with some of the very best animated films that the genre has to offer. From Toy Story to The Incredibles to Up, the studio has put together a ridiculously impressive stable of films and basically didn’t miss between 1995 and 2011. Cars 2, though, was a huge disappointment and at the same time, only served to highlight just how good this studio has been over the years. If that film had been a DreamWorks or Sony Animation release, it would be considered a decent-enough throw away family film and no one would think twice about it. But because Pixar has set its standards so incredibly high, it seemed like a tremendous flop because it didn’t have the strength to match up against everything else these people have ever given us. Essentially, Pixar has become an entity that is judged more by its failures than by its successes. So the question is, to which side of that equation does Brave fall?

For lack of a better term, Merida (Kelly Macdonald) is a tomboy. The heiress to a kingdom within the Scottish Highlands, Merida has little patience for the duties of a princess and prefers to spend her time riding horses, climbing mountains, and shooting arrows. When her father King Fergus (Billy Connolly) and mother Queen Elinor (Emma Thompson) arrange for a competition among the suitors of the kingdom to win the princess’ hand, Merida takes her rebelliousness to a whole new level and upsets the careful balance of power her father resides over. Anxious to prevent the arranged marriage, she sneaks away into the forest and stumbles across a witch (Julie Waters) who creates a spell to change Queen Elinor’s mind and thereby Merida’s fate. But when the princess delivers the spell, Elinor is transformed into a bear, leading to a desperate race to find a cure before the queen is left a bear for eternity.

Brave is by far the most traditional film Pixar has made to date. From talking toys to a robot love story, this studio has always stayed away from fairy tales and the like instead choosing to push wholly unique visions that consistently hit the mark. As such, it took me a few minutes to adjust to Brave, which is much closer to a Disney movie than one from Pixar. That’s not a bad thing, mind you; Bravewould fit nicely alongside Tangledand the current Disney animation style. It isn’t, however, what you expect when heading into a Pixar movie and requires the viewer to adjust accordingly. Once I accepted what I was being presented with, my initial sense of disappointed faded away and I enjoyed myself immensely. And while Brave doesn’t quite stack up to most of the other films from the Pixar universe, it is still an excellent, if not entirely fresh, take on the fairy tale.

As always with a Pixar film, the visuals presented within Brave are stunning. There is less realism to the human characters than what we’ve seen in the past (that the studio could make Woody, Buzz Lightyear, and the rest look so incredibly REAL in 1995 is still uncanny to me), the work done on the bears, which play an increasingly important role in this film, is impeccable. There is no animal that fascinates me more than the bear (nerd alert, I know) and at times I was absolutely blown away by the lifelikeness of the creatures presented in Brave. It is a beautiful film with an impressive and subtle score that highlights the emotions of the film’s subjects wonderfully. The choice of setting, too, is a big check mark in the film’s favor, though perhaps I’m a bit biased toward the awesomeness of Scotland. There’s just something cool about the accents, music, and what have you. Behind the camera, Macdonald, Connolly, Thompson, and the rest of the cast provide a steady if underwhelming hand at the wheel of the film. None of the voice actors deliver a particularly stellar performance but all do their part to effectively balance the humor and seriousness required by the film.

Really all Bravelacks is the patented magic that I usually anticipate from Pixar and which the studio almost always delivers on. It seems to me that the filmmakers may have backed themselves into a corner from which they could not create a unique world in which to operate. There has been pressure for quite some time now for the studio to make a film with a female protagonist and I think perhaps that pressure forced their respective hands a bit, resulting in a storyline that really didn’t have as much range as the ones contained within the other Pixar films. In addition, there’s no novelty to Braveand I feel that hindered the development of both narrative and characters some. In The Incredibles for example, just by building a world in which superheroes are real and have been outlawed, you create a reason for serious development and for the audience to pay close attention and Brave doesn’t quite have that quality. Still, though, it is a strong entry into the genre and plays almost as a throwback or homage to the Disney films of the past, such as Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty.

Review: "Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted"

For someone who does not have any kids of his own, I end up watching quite a few animated films every year. I generally don’t expect much from these films (not including Pixar’s entries into the field) but as much as I love the complex, deeper movies the world has to offer, sometimes I like watching something that’s easy to follow and wraps up quickly. Madagascar, however, is one that surprised me and turned out to be much more entertaining than I would have guessed. As such, the third installment of the franchise holds a little more weight for me than the average DreamWorks animated feature and while it doesn’t quite measure up to the original, Europe’s Most Wanted provides a solid family adventure that everyone can enjoy.

With his homesickness deepening, Alex the lion (Ben Stiller) and his old chums Marty the zebra (Chris Rock), Gloria the hippo (Jada Pinkett Smith), and Melman the giraffe (David Schwimmer) decide to head to Monte Carlo to track down their friends the penguins and make their way back to New York. Upon arrival, the group is pursued by Captain Chantel DuBois (Frances McDormand), an overzealous animal control officer, who wrecks Alex’s escape plan and forces the animals to stow away aboard a train transporting a raggedy circus. With an audition for an American circus promoter on the horizon, Alex and his friends seize the opportunity and set about creating a new act that will impress the scout and buy their passage back to New York. But with Captain DuBois hot on their trail and time running short, Alex and his friends are forced to question the meaning of the word “home.”

The best thing about Europe’s Most Wanted (and the other Madagascarmovies as well) is that it moves at a brisk pace. No time is wasted in filling in the details of ridiculous plot points, such as how the animals swim from Africa to Monte Carlo. The filmmakers behind this franchise embrace the fact that their concept is absurd so there’s no point in trying to come up with a perfect narrative. Perhaps that sounds silly but often times I run into children’s movies that spend an inordinate amount of time working through a logical plot progression when the movie itself is about talking birds or a sword fighting cat. Everything about Europe’s Most Wanted is quick, easy, and breezy and never bogs down. Obviously that’s important for the attention span of the film’s target audience but it’s also vitally important for people like me who just want a 90 minute break from thinking.

This film also succeeds in keeping the premise fresh, always a tricky feat for a sequel to a sequel. At some point even (modest) fans of this franchise like myself will become tired of Alex and the rest of the gang but at least up to through this installment, the filmmakers have managed to keep things from becoming overly repetitive. Likewise, there’s still a fair amount of heart displayed by these characters and while you can see the change in attitude coming from miles away, it’s still a satisfying occurrence to watch Alex and company evolve. The additions to the cast of characters are all worthwhile and the assembled voice talent is even more impressive. Moreover, the focus is actually placed on the new characters, not on the actors who voice them. I have frequently complained that DreamWorks animation often falls into the trap of highlighting the men and women behind the characters at the expense of the characters themselves. But here, the new cast members, including Bryan Cranston, Jessica Chastain, and the immortal Martin Short, all blend in seamlessly and provide some excellent moments in their own right.

There are some definite flaws here and there and Europe’s Most Wanted certainly isn’t reinventing the animated wheel, but the film hits all of the applicable marks and I think it delivers the movie most will expect it to be. If nothing else, it is an acceptable bookend on a series that might not be beloved but certainly serves as quality family entertainment. 

Review: "Prometheus"

Between unending trailers, viral marketing, social media, and the abundance of movie-centric blogs, you almost have to deliberately stick your head in the virtual sand in order to avoid prior knowledge of a given film. I myself appreciate this for the most part; I like to know what I'm getting myself into before I step into a theater and spend my (relatively) hard earned money. On the flip side, however, the plethora of media sources leads to at least one nasty side effect: the Disease of Expectation. With each passing year, it becomes more and more difficult to enter into a movie theater without bringing in prior expectations and as a result, too many films fail to live up to the standard we set out for them in our heads months before the opening credits roll. Prometheus could be described as the poster child for the Disease of Expectation and I'd like to take a stand against this affliction right here and now.

In the year 2089, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and her partner Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) discover the last in a series of primitive cave paintings that point towards a distant star as the point of origin for our species. Their find leads to the commissioning of an intergalactic expedition on the scientific spaceship Prometheus, paid for by the Weyland Corporation. Along with a crew that includes Captain Janek (Idris Elba), Weyland Corp. representative Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), and a robot called David (Michael Fassbender), the doctors awaken from hyper sleep with the planet they believe holds the key to human life on the horizon. But when they arrive on the surface, it quickly becomes apparent that "the Engineers" (as the doctors call our would-be creators) aren't who they thought they were and the planet holds far more dangerous secrets than the crew could have ever imagined.

In many ways, Prometheus is the greatest sci-fi TV pilot of all time, and that is both its greatest strength and weakness. It's almost impossible to put this film in a box and title it unequivocally as a prequel or as a stand-alone film. It contains elements of both without ever completely drifting to one side of the coin or the other and depending on your interpretation of what's happening, this mix will either infuriate or transfix you. By the very nature of basing his film within the familiar landscape of the Alien films without forcing it to occupy the limited space of a direct prequel, Scott has, I think brilliantly, set himself up for what could become an addictive franchise. While it feels like an introductory course at times, Scott has essentially opened up the Alien universe to the creepy Pandora's Box within his mind and established the rules and mythology for a much more complex world than Alien ever aspired to dwell in. The most important thing I took away from this film is that the possibilities are literally endless for what can be done from here, whether in film, TV, or written form. As such, I think this is an incredibly ambitious piece of filmmaking that goes far beyond the somewhat limited reach of Prometheus itself.

That's not to say that there isn't anything to appreciate about the film on its own. The set pieces, both CGI and real, are gorgeous, drenched in a dark tone that perfectly suits the atmosphere of the film. A talented, if under-utilized group of actors all give quality performances, though they all could have been relied upon more heavily (more on this in a moment). Rapace brings a truly compelling nature to her character, reminding American audiences that she is in fact a legitimate movie star even if her body of work isn't as familiar on these shores. Fassbender, though, is the man of the hour as he absolutely nails his performance, bringing technical perfection and eerie hollowness to the role. To think that the average moviegoer (myself included) had no idea who this guy was three years ago is remarkable as he continues to make his mark as one of the very best actors Hollywood has to offer. Prometheus itself is a well-designed ship that harkens back to Serenity from the Firefly series. And of course, there are a host of CGI creatures that range from terrifying to just plain cool. I imagine a great deal of this film's budget was set aside for this department and that was money well spent.

But let's be honest now: there are some definite issues with Prometheus. The script comes across as choppy at times and the dialogue isn't anything to write home about. Basically all of the characters make poor choices at some point or another which inevitably leads to an escalation of the film's horrific events. Perhaps most egregious, Scott doesn't take much time to craft, evolve, and develop his characters and as a result there is a definite detachment between the audience and what happens on screen. In my mind, however, none of these issues come close to overshadowing the overall "good-to-great" feeling this film gives off otherwise. These certainly aren't issues that should draw the fierce, venomous vitriol that Prometheus has inspired across the ranks of fanboys and critics alike. And that's where we come to the problem with expectations: almost every decidedly negative review I've glanced through has come down, whether consciously or not, to the reviewers not getting what they expected to get from a movie that they thought was going to be an earth-shattering, game-changing film, which this simply isn't. 

I'd like to invite all of the haters (yes, I just used haters in what has otherwise been a fairly professional piece) to kindly jump off a cliff. To clarify: if you can honestly sit through Prometheus, judge it on its own merits, and tell me that you think it's a bad film, then I disagree with you but that's fine. My problem is with those of you who have picked this film apart based on the expectations you had going in. The fact that Prometheus isn't an epic achievement that inhabits the space set aside for the very best the sci-fi genre has to offer doesn't mean it isn't a quality film in its own right. Furthermore, if you're really this upset about the horror movie-like choices our characters make throughout the film, then I encourage you to go back and watch Alien, Aliens, and just about every other sci-fi movie of any substance and have a look at the miserable life choices the characters in those films make on a routine basis. This isn't a new phenomenon so let's all stop pretending that today's films aren't as smart as the ones we remember with fond nostalgia. 

All of that to say, I found Prometheus to be a bold and wholly engrossing film that had me riveted throughout despite its issues. I also firmly believe that the director's cut, rumored to be at least 20 minutes longer, will address some of these flaws and will end up being a much better film. Regardless, I woke up on the morning following my viewing thinking about this film and haven't been able to get it out of my head since and years from now, I think we'll be discussing the way in which a spectacular franchise got off to such an inauspicious start. 

In Home Viewings: "Into the Abyss"

In Conroe, Texas, 2001, Michael Perry and Jason Burkett broke into the home of an acquaintance, Jason Stotler, in the hopes of stealing a new car. When their plan began to unravel, Perry shot and killed Stotler’s mother. After dumping the body, they then killed Stotler and another friend in order to regain access to the house inside of a gated community they had been locked out of. Shortly thereafter, the duo was arrested after a haphazard shootout and brought to justice. Perry was sentenced to death, Burkett to life in prison. With Perry’s execution right around the corner, filmmaker Werner Herzog journeyed to the maximum security prison in Huntsville, Texas in order to interview the culprits, get the details of the case, and have a look at the concept of the death penalty.

Perhaps the preeminent voice in documentary filmmaking, Herzog has spent the majority of his illustrious career crafting his approach and that shines through once again here. What I love about Herzog’s documentaries is that there’s never any question as to how he feels about his subject matter and yet you never feel as if he’s forcing it down his throat. At the outset of Into the Abyss he states (off-camera) that he is against the death penalty and at times you can tell that his film is sliding toward his side of the argument. A very compelling portion of the film involves Herzog’s discussions with a man who spent his entire career strapping the condemned to a gurney until a series of events led him to jump to the other side of the argument. Still, however, Herzog allows the audience to judge for themselves, choosing to let the camera roll while laying out the facts. My impression is that Herzog would like to start a dialogue concerning the matter rather than shame proponents of the death penalty into submission.

At the same time, Into the Abyss pulls no punches in its portrayal of both Perry and Burkett. While both profess their innocence, Herzog quietly points out the holes in their respective stories and makes it clear that there is virtually no evidence to support their claims. These two were morons with a history of bad and violent behavior who finally escalated their actions. Perhaps their greatest mistake was being so stupid as to believe they could get away with their crimes when clearly neither one of them had the mental capacity to outsmart a brain damaged dog, let alone a team of police detectives. The film uses splices of the videos investigators shot at the crime scene and accentuates the footage with interviews with the detective in charge of the case and the family members of the victims. It is a dark light that is shed on Perry and Burkett and Herzog makes no attempt to turn them into the martyrs they would have you believe they are.

The issue I had with Into the Abyss is that it simultaneously tries to cover too much ground and doesn’t reach quite far enough. Herzog takes the time to highlight a fairly extensive interview with Burkett’s father, himself in prison, in an effort to illuminate Burkett’s difficult childhood but then doesn’t do anything with this information. It seems as if the film goes halfway toward building a bit of sympathy for at least Burkett, if not Perry, and then abandons the idea. There are also a handful of interviews that don’t seem to serve much of a purpose. At the same time, because of the nature of how Herzog shot the film, his “turn on the cameras and see what happens” style, there are times when Into the Abyss seems a bit purposeless. There’s no great statement made and again, while I appreciate that he didn’t take to the heavy-handed preaching tactic used too often in these documentaries, this leaves the film devoid of a lasting impression. It’s a good film and one that is certainly worth watching if for no other reason than the conversation it could lead to but it lacks the punch that I would have expected it to display.

Review: "Snow White and the Huntsman"

For many of us, the first time we were allowed to venture into the deep end of the pool stands out as a hallmark of our youth, a rite of passage if you will. We spend years engaging in harmless fun in the kiddie pool but that trip to the deep end requires preparation and hard work. The summer movie season is much the same. The warmer months provide endless opportunity for the meaningless, throw-away fun of popcorn films that occupy the shallow end and I personally enjoy these films. But much more attention must be paid to the preparation of a film that aspires to go beyond the standard blockbuster into the more mature territory of epic adventure. Snow White and the Huntsman misses the mark on some key elements and is therefore forced to don water wings in order to stay afloat in the deeper waters.

Shortly after the death of his beloved queen, a heavy-hearted king (Noah Huntley) falls for the unending beauty of Ravenna (Charlize Theron), a newcomer to his kingdom with a murky past and a connection to the dark arts. On their wedding night, Ravenna kills the king, allows her army inside the city gates to overthrow the kingdom, and locks the king’s only daughter, Snow White (Kristen Stewart), away in a castle tower. After 15 years, Snow White is able to escape to the dark forest. Needing the young girl’s heart in order to preserve her eternal youth, Ravenna sends a brave but troubled man known only as The Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) to fetch Snow White. But when the Huntsman finally tracks the princess down, he is swayed by her story and agrees to aid her in her quest to overthrow Ravenna and assert her claim to the throne.

On paper, there is an awful lot to like about Snow White and the Huntsman. The (much) bleaker take on the classic fairy tale was enough to pique my interest in the beginning and that inherent darkness embodies much of what works in this film. At times it appears to borrow heavily from the mind of Guillermo Del Toro and I mean that in the best way possible. Visually speaking, Snow White is often stunning, adding stylish but natural special effects to a vivid color wash that serves the film appropriately. It contains favorable elements of Willow and The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobewhile still managing to differentiate itself enough to stand on its own two feet. And with the exception of Stewart (more on this in a moment), the cast is superb. Hemsworth brings the requisite brash toughness to his role and yet again displays why he is a superstar in the making. Each of the seven dwarves is brought to life through a combination of great CGI and the liveliness of stellar actors such as Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, and Bob Hoskins. Overshadowing them all, however, is Theron, who completely owns every minute of her screen time, giving us a fantastic overall performance.

Unfortunately, the strengths of Snow White are undone by its glaring weaknesses. Stewart is the most readily apparent weak spot but this isn’t entirely her fault. I wouldn’t call Stewart a good actress but I believe she could be decent in the right role (see: Into the Wild). She is horribly miscast here, however. She’s far too wooden for the part and while she gives a valiant effort (I really mean this; you can tell that she’s trying to be good), her lack of charisma leaves a gaping hole in the film. Snow White simply doesn’t exude the charm or inspire followers the way the role is designed. Too much pressure is placed on Stewart and she just doesn’t have it in her to muster the strength to carry the load.

But I would say that Stewart is not so much the cause of the film’s issues but rather a symptom of a bigger issue. For a film that is all about romance, the power of the human will, and the triumph of good over evil, Snow White displays a startling and embarrassing lack of heart. Never is the audience given a reason to invest in the film and as a result, it seems to drag on and on. It isn’t boring so much as it is just an exercise in subpar writing. Everything is stated rather than felt and development of both characters and narrative is stale to say the least. First-time director Rupert Sanders seems content to letting his film tell a story rather than engaging the audience within the story, a pre-requisite for this sort of film. Snow White fails to show even an ounce of emotion and as such its beautiful appearance is wasted on its hollow, empty interior.

In Home Viewings: "Red Tails"

As America’s involvement in World War II deepened, military leaders became more desperate to find an edge and finish the fight. As such, the Air Force turned to a group of black pilots known as the Tuskegee Airmen. Having been previously shunned and denied the right to fight for their countries, these pilots, under the command of Colonel AJ Bullard (Terrence Howard), had been pushed to the limit and trained harder than virtually any group in the military. Finally given an opportunity to serve, the Tuskegee Airmen were thrown into the midst of the fray and given the most dangerous missions the war had to offer through which they were able to not only make a name for themselves in the sky but also to demonstrate the ignorance behind the discrimination they faced on the ground.

Most people these days know a thing or two about the Tuskegee Airmen. They are some of the bravest men this country has ever known and their legacy is one that will live on long after they themselves have gone on. They deserve much better than Red Tails.

There are only two positive things I can say about this movie:

1.) The dogfights are, at times, quite stunning. The vast, VAST, majority of the movie’s $58 million budget was clearly spent on special effects and while these shots don’t exactly operate with much realism, they are visually compelling.

2.) Red Tails tries hard. It is, if nothing else, an honest effort to honor the pilots and illustrate just what they went through. This is most readily evident in the earnestness of the narrative and the performance of Howard and a couple of others in the cast.

The problem is that everything else that does not involve this film’s special effects or its laborious effort is an absolute bloody disaster. Even for a George Lucas production, the dialogue is particularly atrocious in both actual terminology and general approach. It is perhaps the thickest, most heavy-handed script I could possibly imagine. Red Tails desperately wants you to know that these men faced a tremendous amount of racism and boy, does this movie lay it on thick when it wants to get a point across. Virtually every line spoken by a non-Airman is stripped down to its most basic level with no allowance for exposition or a differentiation in tone. Even the German pilot who vexes the Red Tails for a time speaks entirely in mono-syllabic, monotone terms, including such gems as “Those pilots are African.” In all honesty the worst dialogue from the Star Wars prequels is better than what Red Tails has to offer, a shocking statement that I never thought I’d never get to make.

Just like the script, the characters at work within Red Tails are overly earnest and paper thin. Nate Parker is decent in his role as the squadron’s leader but no favors are thrown his way by the rough plot points he has to work with. Most of the other actors, however, measure up to the level of the narrative and at times it was all I could do not to turn the TV off. I can’t really blame David Oyelowo, Gerald McRaney, Cuba Gooding Jr. and the rest for the various lackluster turns the actors provide as any movie that can make Bryan Cranston look bad probably wasn’t going to work even with Oscar-caliber performances. But at the same time, these portrayals are often cringe-inducing and they certainly do nothing to pull this movie up from the muck it seems all too content to slide around in. It really is a shame because, again, these soldiers deserve to be memorialized on film in ways that Red Tails can’t possibly hope to attain. In truth it really doesn’t get just a whole lot worse than this.

Review: "Men in Black 3"

There are a number of issues and questions that pop up when you set out to make a sequel or prequel to a franchise that hasn’t seen a new entry in a while. Do you reintroduce the characters to those who haven’t seen the previous films or do you dive in and pretend everyone in the audience understands the narrative? Do you jump the timeline forward a few years or start from where the last film left off? Do you mature your characters and plot points to reflect the years gone by or do you continue to harp on the same strings that worked so well before? Men in Black 3 wrestles with each of these questions and manages to come out relatively unscathed on the other end.

It has been 14 years since Agent J (Will Smith) joined up with Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) as a member of the Men in Black, a covert agency that serves as both an embassy for alien visitors and protection from extra-terrestrial attacks. The dynamic between the two is much the same as it always has been: J still plays the part of the wise-cracking young upstart while K serves as the crotchety old-timer. Things take a turn, however, when an old enemy of K’s, Boris the Animal (Jermaine Clement), escapes from a prison on the moon and jumps back in time to kill K, an event which in turn leads to the destruction of earth. As the only person who remembers K in the present, J has to jump back to 1969 and re-team with a younger K (Josh Brolin) in order to track down Boris before he can accomplish his mission.

The early scenes of MIB3, in which the audience is reintroduced to the characters, are at best misguided and at worst painful. This reintroduction is a necessary endeavor given that the first Men in Black debuted 15 years ago and everyone likes to pretend the sequel never happened since it is BRUTALLY bad but the execution in this phase is poorly written to say the least. There’s a distinct disconnect between Smith and Jones and whether that was done purposely to show the distance between the characters or not, it doesn’t work. At times during the first 15 minutes, it feels as if Barry Sonnenfeld and the numerous writers who worked on this project couldn’t decide whether to set the film years after the original or as more of a direct sequel taking place shortly after the ’97 film. As a result, the two main characters treat each other as if they’ve only been partners for a few months while the narrative is clear concerning the timeframe. I had a hard time getting past this disjointedness and began bracing myself for a disastrous 103 minutes.

Thankfully, however, MIB3 finds its groove when J jumps back to 1969 and from that point on it’s a fun ride. Throwing J into a drastically different environment brings about some interesting plot points and the film gets plenty of laughs based simply on the difference in technologies and attitudes. The handheld Neuralizer (the “flashy thing”) that J is used to in the present is actually a giant MRI-type machine in the early days of the Men in Black and of course J immediately gets himself into a spot of trouble pertaining to his race in a not-so liberated time period. The plot isn’t always the brightest spot of the film but it does do an admirable job of managing its own time travel mythology, a task which often proves too difficult for many films that revolve around the concept.

But as fun as the storyline and general hijinks of MIB3 are, the real value of the movie can be found in the cast. Sonnenfeld lets Will Smith be Will Smith and that boisterous enthusiasm that has marked his career plays well within this setting. At the outset, Smith almost seems rusty, though perhaps that’s just my subconscious taking over given how long it’s been since we’ve seen him on screen. As the film finds its groove, so too does Smith and before long he’s giving off the old vibes that have made him such a treat to watch over the last 15 years. But with all due respect to Smith, he is thoroughly overshadowed by his surrounding cast. Brolin is, simply, put, incredibly awesome in this role. His impersonation of Tommy Lee Jones is flawless but through a few plot points, he is able to make the character his own in ways that I didn’t expect. He demonstrates great chemistry with Smith that is wonderfully reminiscent of the original film. There are spots within MIB3 in which the novelty of Brolin being Jones working with Smith takes precedence over the plot but I found myself more than willing to accept this dynamic. Beyond Brolin, though, MIB3 is littered with strong supporting work from Will Arnett (brief but great), Bill Hader (whose appearance marks a strong turning point for the film), and most importantly Michael Stuhlbarg who steals every single scene in which he participates. Given his work here and his small role in last year’s Hugo (one of my ten favorite performances of the year), Stuhlbarg is becoming one of my very favorite character actors in Hollywood today.

It isn’t always the smoothest ride and some of the jokes fall flat (though perhaps that’s more a sign of my matured sensibilities) but the blend of action, comedy, and surprisingly good sci-fi makes MIB3 a solid, worthwhile film. Add in a thoroughly unexpected touching moment of genuine heart and it’s even enough to make on forget Men in Black 2 ever happened, a sentiment I think we can all get behind.

The Collected Works: Will Smith

It has now been four years since Will Smith last appeared in a film. For me, this has been a dark period of cinema as I’ve missed his smiling face and energetic brand of playful comedy. The longer Smith has been away from the camera, the more acceptable it has become to question his ability as an actor and that’s not okay in my book. Now to be fair, as a male in his later 20s, I have been in Smith’s key demographic for the entire length of his career and I admit at least part of my appreciation for the man is due to the memories of how awesome his movies were when I was a kid. Regardless, however, I’m of the opinion that Smith is an insanely talented guy with more range than he’s ever given credit for. Yes, he makes his most indelible marks by doing his standard thing and yes, he is certainly guilty of playing it safe rather than taking the chances that some of his contemporaries have jumped at. But at the end of the day, Smith brings an insane level of enjoyableness to his films and still belongs on the ever-shrinking list of truly bankable stars. With Men In Black 3 debuting today, I felt it pertinent to revisit an old standard, The Collected Works, and rank each of the films from Smith’s career. Enjoy.

(If you’re unfamiliar with The Collected Works, the object is to rank every film a given actor or director has worked on from the worst to the best. These ranks pertain to the films first and performances second.)

Movies I haven’t seen: Made in America (1993), Six Degrees of Separation (1994)

16. Men in Black 2 (2002) – Agent Jay

By Smith’s own admission, this movie (and the number 14 movie on this list) represents a career low. Coming off the unsuccessful Ali (his first dramatic role), Smith reverted to the safety (and paycheck) of a role that he knew. No one involved with this movie wanted to be on set and that showed in the finished product. In my mind, MIB 2 is one of the worst movies of the decade.

15. Wild Wild West (1999) – Captain James West

Because anytime you can build an entire plot around a giant mechanical spider tromping through the Old West, you have to do it. I can’t blame Smith for this one. On paper, Wild Wild West should have fallen right in line with Independence Day and Men in Black as a fun summer blockbuster with a wide range of appeal. Instead, it was a complete and utter disaster, though it did turn a healthy profit. I hold this movie responsible for creating a fear of Westerns in Smith and leading him to turn down a role in Quentin Tarantino’s upcoming Django Unchained.

14. Bad Boys 2 (2003) – Detective Mike Lowery

Bad Boys wasn’t awful (more on it in a moment) but this sequel was as much of a money grab as MIB 2 was and really doesn’t bring anything to the table worth discussing. It’s a bloated mess (147 minutes long!!!) that should have been a signal of what was to come in Michael Bay’s future Transformers franchise. Smith’s character is unquestionably the best part of this movie but that’s not saying just a whole lot.

13. Shark Tale (2004) – Oscar

Smith’s only foray into the world of animated features didn’t provide much to write home about. It is a prime example of the DreamWorks animation method: develop a decent idea, assemble a great cast, and piece together a soulless film that kids will watch and parents won’t hate but no one will really care about.

12. Bad Boys (1995) – Detective Mike Lowery

This one has some really strong moments and some great action sequences (the hallmark of a Michael Bay film, of course). It was also a pretty smart career choice for Smith who was wrapping up his run on the family-friendly Fresh Prince of Bel-Airand was provided an opportunity to show a little edge in the R-rated Bad Boys. But while the action is great, the movie as a whole it fairly lackluster. I will, however, watch portions of this one if it pops up on HBO while I will flip the channel immediately if the sequel comes along.

11. Ali (2001) – Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali

This one still hurts me. As a sports nerd, there are very few athletes who are more fascinating than Muhammad Ali. As a film nerd, the idea of combining Michael Mann (director of Heat, one of my ten favorite movies) and Smith was overwhelmingly awesome. And then the film was kind of a beating. I think Mann tried too hard to appeal to everyone (critics and moviegoers alike), probably due in part to the bloated budget ($107 million) and the Christmas release date. Ali is convoluted and boring and that’s a real shame because Smith’s portrayal is OUTSTANDING. This one should have been a great movie tied together with a great performance and instead it became a great performance in the midst of a middling movie.

10. Hitch (2005) – Alex ‘Hitch’ Hitchens

Hitch loses points in my book because it becomes less and less enjoyable with each viewing. In 2005, this was a solid date movie. Now that we’re seven years down the line and TNT replays it ad nauseam, I’m a little bit tired of Hitch. Smith is good, though, in his only romantic comedy to date and his charisma comes through in spades.

9. Seven Pounds (2008) – Ben

I’ve only seen this movie once and to be honest, I’m no longer sure of how I actually feel about it. At the time of my viewing I was completely haunted by both the film and especially by Smith’s performance. Since that time, I’ve seen many scathing reviews of the film that have become mixed in with my own interpretation. What I do know is this: Smith KILLED IT in this role. Pretentious as the film may be, the performance was one that stuck with me for a very, very long time.

8. Hancock (2008) – John Hancock

I could have moved this one up or down the list several spots. There are parts of Hancockthat I absolutely love. And then there are parts that beg for the cutting room floor. It is a slightly darker role for Smith which I greatly appreciate and that, plus a fun back-and-forth with Jason Bateman, makes this a solid movie on most days and if you’re in the right mood, it can be downright awesome.

7. Enemy of the State (1998) – Robert Clayton Dean

If this isn’t the prototypical Tony Scott film then I don’t know what is. By putting Smith on the run and teaming him with Gene Hackman, Scott gave the star a break from summer blockbuster fodder and put him a more serious (though still action-oriented) role. What holds Enemy back is the fact that I’ve always felt like Smith had trouble keeping up with Hackman and the movie suffers as a result. It has been a while since I’ve seen this, though, so perhaps it’s due for a review.

6. I, Robot (2004) – Del Spooner

I, Robot is the antithesis of Hitch for me. Whereas I enjoyed Hitch quite a bit initially but have grown tired of it over the years, I wasn’t all that enamored with Robot when it debuted but I’ve grown fonder of it since. I think the biggest issue for this one is that it was slightly ahead of its time. Many of the special effects shots just don’t work that well and with the $120 million operating budget the movie was blessed with, much more could have been done only a few years later. The storyline is strong, however, and Smith gives a good accounting of himself in a role that isn’t as easy as it might look.

5. The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) – Chris Gardner

If you think it is an uplifting tale about the power of the human spirit, then I say you’re right. And if you think it’s a cloying, over-emotional sap fest then I say you’re also right. It is both of those things and whether or not you like this film is dependent on how you respond to both sides of that coin. I personally fall into the prior group as I find Pursuit to be heartfelt and touching in spite of its obvious nature. It also brought Smith his well-deserved second Oscar nomination.

4. The Legend of Bagger Vance (2000) – Bagger Vance

If anyone ever read this space, I’m sure I’d catch hell for listing Bagger Vance so far up this list. There’s a very good chance that my dad and I are literally the only humans on the planet who like this movie. Bagger Vance has been lambasted for its failed Oscar aspirations and perceived dullness but nevertheless it speaks to me. I find it to be an eloquently written, beautifully shot film that is flush with quality performances (Smith’s is GREAT in my opinion) and powerful themes. I love this movie. LOVE it. (What say you to this, mythical readers?!)

3. I Am Legend (2007) – Robert Neville

These last three could have come in any order. I Am Legend gets docked points because the special effects are weak and it doesn’t hold up quite as well after multiple viewings. What does hold up is Smith’s performance. Really and truly, I believe this is Smith’s finest work. He’s basically working alone for 70 minutes and he completely owns the screen. With better effects, I think Legend is much more well-remembered film than it is.

2. Men in Black (1997) – Agent Jay

The great thing about MIB, and what makes it hold up 15 years later, is its intelligence. At times it gets lost in all the ridiculous entertainment and wise cracking but this is a smart, smart movie. It also has a nice touch of darkness to it that I think set it apart from the average summer blockbuster of the time. Director Barry Sonnenfeld probably deserves a great deal of credit for getting Smith to expand his range a bit and accentuated his intelligence. In truth, MIB is very close to a GREAT movie.

1. Independence Day (1996) – Captain Steven Hiller

All cards on the table: I have emotional attachments to Independence Day that prevent me from looking at it objectively. I’ve been ridiculed for the high place I give this movie before and I’ve tried to look at it from its detractor’s viewpoint but I just can’t do it. I was 12 or 13 when the marketing for this movie started to make the rounds and by the time it finally opened, I was more excited for it than any other movie ever (with the exception of Jurassic Park). I still remember sitting front row on opening weekend with my cousins and when Brent Spiner popped open the alien’s chest cavity on the operating table, my brother literally jumped up and ran out of the theater in fright. It. Was. AWESOME. As such, I love this movie. I love the anachronisms (Jeff Goldblum’s computer was SUPER advanced for 1996), I love Bill Pullman’s cheesy speech (“That’s right, President Whitmore! We WON’T go quietly into the night!”), and I looooovvvvve Smith’s ridiculously fun performance. If you weren’t 13 in 1996 then I completely understand not appreciating this movie but to this day it remains on my list of favorite films and I’ll stop down to watch it just about every time I stumble across it.

So there are my rankings. Agree? Disagree? Let me hear from you!

In Home Viewings: "The Three Musketeers"

In the midst of the French Renaissance period, a young swordsman named D’Artagnan (Logan Lerman) travels to Paris with the hopes of becoming a Musketeer. Brash and headstrong, within an hour of arriving in town, D’Artagnan draws the ire of Athos (Matthew Macfayden), Aramis (Luke Evans), and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and schedules duels with each of them. Only afterward does he realize that all three are former members of the ranks he so badly wishes to join. Through a serious of exciting events, D’Artagnan soon finds himself allied with his heroes and before long, they soon discover a plot designed by Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) to destroy the delicate peace between France’s King Louis (Freddie Fox) and England’s Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). With the interest of their country in mind and an eye on settling a score with an old nemesis (Milla Jovovich), the Three Musketeers (and their new recruit) undertake a dangerous plan that will put all of their lives on the line.

Everyone knows the tale of The Three Musketeers and whether you are more familiar with Alexander Dumas’ literary work or any of the prior cinematic adaptations, you get the gist of this movie. There’s not much that is new here in the way of story and if you’ve seen the 1993 Disney movie of the same name starring Keifer Sutherland, then you should definitely know what to expect from this version. In fact, this Three Musketeers appears to be based far more faithfully on the script from 1993 than it is on Dumas’ novel. At times it plays like a shot-for-shot remake with exceedingly worse actors in the lead roles. I’m not universally opposed to remakes but I quite enjoy the ’93 version for what it is and see no reason why it needs to be updated. This begs the question: Why make this movie in the first place? Ah, but that brings us to the gimmick! In order to trick the movie up enough to give it that new car smell, the people behind The Three Musketeers have introduced outlandish technology and fighting styles to the story! By throwing in Matrix-like special effects and stuff like giant zeppelins that carry Buckingham to and from England, Paul W.S. Anderson and his team of writers bring some supposed freshness to an otherwise rehashed vision. Now it’s a brand new movie that everyone will want to see…in 3D!!!

Now here’s the rub as far as I’m concerned: I’m cool with a re-imagined take on a classic story. If Anderson and his cronies wanted to jam-pack the Three Musketeersnarrative with modern technology and hip dialogue, then I would have been fine with that. (I probably wouldn’t have liked it but I could at least accept it as a nice try.) But instead of an alternative history-type film, we just get these random pieces of technology and out-of-place special effects that muddy the water and basically create an atmosphere in which the film cannot be taken seriously as either a period piece or a modern re-imagining. Very easily, The Three Musketeers could have been turned into a steampunk vision of the classic tale and at the very least that would have been worth trying. As it is, it lacks the balls to reach for anything other than what it is: thoroughly mediocre, late-night-cable, throw-away entertainment.

There are some decent moments here and there and honestly, I expected much worse in the dialogue department. This script really isn’t half-bad and it would have been enough to make The Three Musketeers at least passable if the cast wasn’t so lacking in charisma. But just as the concept lacks boldness, the actors are irritatingly middle-of-the-row. Stevenson, Evans, and Macfayden are all capable actors, while Waltz can be truly magnificent but here they are all going through the motions. (To be fair, they are light years ahead of what Lerman brings to the table. Sheesh. That kid cannot act.) There’s no charm to what they’re doing and a little charm would have gone a long way in this situation. All of this makes The Three Musketeers a sloppy, heartless endeavor that serves little purpose other than to fill a blog post during a slow week.

In Home Viewings: "J. Edgar"

In 1924, J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) became the director of the Bureau of Investigation and quickly began making his indelible mark on the country’s justice system. Hoover founded the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 1935 and maintained dictator-like control on the agency until his death in 1972. Told through the lens of an aging Hoover describing his career to an autobiographer, J. Edgardetails the controversial and sometimes blatantly illegal measures Hoover took during his rise to power and paints a (literally) dark picture of a man history doesn’t look upon fondly.

If you ever want to enrage the masses of critics and amateur critics that plague the Internet these days, the surest way in which you can achieve your goal would be to create a piece of failed Oscar bait. Nothing gets a critic hot under the collar like a film that aspires to win awards but doesn’t bring the goods required to secure such attention. Even if said Oscar bait turns out to be a half-way decent film, that won’t matter because it intended to be more and therefore should be held to a higher standard. I usually rail against this viewpoint as I feel a film should be judged based on what it is not what it isn’t. In this case, however, I’m jumping on the bandwagon and will now proceed to lambast J. Edgar.

Like any year, 2011 brought us a number of truly bad films. Everyone agreed that Priest, In Time, and The Change-Up were terrible and I especially despised The Sitter. But I would contend that the makers of each of these films knew they weren’t working on the next Citizen Kane and they each gave us a movie that was up to par with the time, effort, and money spent on the project. So while one could argue that there’s no way J. Edgar is worse than The Change-Up, I would argue that given its pedigree and the maddening ways in which it wasted my time in an effort to be “substantial”, this is the worst movie of the year (or at least the worst I saw). I’m not as universally on board with Clint Eastwood’s directorial decisions as some of my colleagues are but even still, I expect a great deal more from a filmmaker of Eastwood’s ability than what he provides here.

J. Edgar is a haphazard attempt at shedding light on a controversial figure but focuses so squarely on being revelatory and shocking that it forgets to actually tell the story it sets out to tell. As a result, J. Edgarcomes across as virtually toneless and painfully dull while at the same time layering itself in a pretentious importance that doesn’t measure up to the film’s protagonist (or at least he protagonist as portrayed here). The narrative, which jumps back and forth between Hoover’s last days and the events of his younger days, is structured in the most convoluted way possible. It’s as if Eastwood took the script, cut it into tiny pieces, threw it into a bag, and then pulled the pieces out one at a time and forced them together into a jumbled jigsaw puzzle that doesn’t make a lick of sense. It isn’t even that I couldn’t follow the storyline, it’s that after about 10 minutes I didn’t want to. Eastwood does nothing to make Hoover a compelling character which creates a Grand Canyon-like distance between the audience and the subject matter. On top of that, Eastwood chose to wash virtually all color out of his film resulting in a look that thoroughly matched the film’s dull tone. It is overly dark and ugly and it feeds directly into the grumpy old man perception younger viewers have of Eastwood.

For his part, DiCaprio brought his A-game to his performance and the role will do nothing but cement his stature as one of the industry’s very, very best. He appears to be all-in here and it’s just too bad that he’s completely and totally overshadowed by the miserable way in which this film is presented. Point blank, this is an awful film and only a great lead performance keeps it from taking up residence on the list of “Worst Movies Ever.”

In Home Viewings: "The Sitter"

After getting kicked out of college, Noah Griffith (Jonah Hill) finds himself aimlessly laying around his childhood home more often than not. When his mother’s friend needs a babysitter in order to get a night out, Noah begrudgingly takes on the task of caring for Slater (Max Records), Blithe (Landry Bender), and Rodrigo (Kevin Hernandez). But when his would-be girlfriend Marisa (Ari Graynor) asks him for a favor, Noah packs the kids into the family minivan and embarks on a foolhardy night of misadventures and self-discovery.

I expected very little from this film going in. I hoped for the standard “C+” level of comedy that seems to plague the industry these days and I would have been satisfied with that sort of return on my investment. After all, you cannot ask too much from a bottom of the barrel, “I’ve seen every other movie available for rent so I guess this will do” sort of movie, which is what The Sitter was for me. With expectations that low, I really didn’t think I could be too disappointed.

I was so very, very wrong.

Truth be told, this is one of the worst movies I’ve ever made it all the way through. The formula is simple: take Adventures in Babysitting, add in elements of School of Rock and then subtract all semblance of humor, fun, or general entertainment value and voila, you’ve got The Sitter. The plot is predictably brutal and paper thin but I could have accepted that if only the absurdities that Noah and his cohorts encounter throughout the course of the night had been even slightly humorous. Instead, the comedy within The Sitter plays like a film comprised of the awful moments edited out of the very worst Adam Sandler movies. As the night progresses, Noah’s shenanigans become more and more outlandish while the consequences seem to become less and less significant. I’m not opposed to ridiculous plot points in a movie like this and again, I wasn’t expecting an awards-caliber film. But what The Sitter turns into is a hodgepodge of stupid plot twists that are only vaguely connected and are never wrapped up sufficiently. It’s as if director David Gordon Green forgot about the various circumstances he puts his characters in then got bogged down in post-production and just said, “Ah, screw it” and sent it to print. (Of course, what else should I expect from the genius who brought us Your Highness and Pineapple Express?) According to this film, cherry bombs have the power to blow up a jewelry storefront but no one will be held accountable for such actions as long as the kids are in bed by 1 am. Clearly there was no point in the making of this film in which someone, anyone, stopped to think if any of this made even the slightest amount of sense. Or more importantly, if any of this was worth memorializing in film form in the first place.

The Sitter is rife with bland, sleepwalking performances that certainly do nothing to help the movie become passable. Hill is particularly uninterested but in all honesty, I can’t blame him. This was a train wreck from the moment it received the green light. Somehow, The Sitter is only 81 minutes long (it felt much closer to 256) and yet I spent the entire runtime begging myself to put an end to the madness by any means necessary. Do yourself a favor and stay far, FAR away from this shamefully stupid “film.”

Review: "Dark Shadows"

Frequent collaborations between lead actors and directors are always a risky proposition. For every De Niro-Scorsese, there’s a Sandler-Dugan. Even when the collaboration is working, at some point both parties have to step back and question if they are working together to make great movies or if they are working together because it’s comfortable. For Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, that point is Dark Shadows.

In the mid-1700s, the son of a wealthy Maine fishing magnate, Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), scorned the wrong woman, a young housekeeper named Angelique (Eva Green). Angelique, it turned out, was a witch and as a form of revenge, she destroys everything Barnabas loves, curses him to be a vampire, and then gets the townspeople to bury him in a coffin on the outskirts of town. 200 years later, Barnabas is unearthed by an unsuspecting construction crew and he returns home to find that his descendants have been reduced to only four dysfunctional members and their business has been all but obliterated by a rival company run by none other than Angelique. Seeking revenge and a way around his curse, Barnabas undertakes the task of returning the Collins name to prosperity while coming closer and closer to a woman (Bella Heathcote) who resembles his lost love.

On virtually every level, Dark Shadows is a failure. The few laughs that come along with Johnny Depp being Johnny Depp are often cheap and half-hearted, as if they were stumbled across accidentally. Every performance outside of Depp’s marginally effective turn ranges from below average (Jackie Earle Haley) to overdone (Chloe Grace Moretz) and even all the way out to full-on depressing (Michelle Pfeiffer). Honestly, Pfeiffer and Helena Bonham Carter both present their characters with a level of devotion usually reserved for those “$1 million for one scene” roles like Marlon Brando was rumored to get at the end of his career. The script, however, is substantially worse, continually presenting the audience with lackluster dialogue and BRUTALLY BAD plot points. The overall structure of Dark Shadows is equally bad, leaving me to wonder if this was some sort of passion project for a bedridden youth whom Burton took pity on. It is an absolute mess but worse still, it is a lazy mess.

Dark Shadows is a perfect example of what happens when a filmmaker becomes complacent and stops taking chances. There is a decisive lack of the trademarked “Burton Magic” that makes films like Batman, Edward Scissorhands, and even Big Fish such enjoyable endeavors. Instead, Dark Shadows plays like someone imitating Burton. Even the darker elements, which Burton usually does so well, are so bland as to come off as borderline kitschy in the worst way possible. Worse yet, Burton’s boring and stupid film brings Depp down to that same fat cat level of complacency, miring one of the industry’s best actors in a role that has no more ambitions than to simply exist. It isn’t a bad performance and whatever good that can be taken from Dark Shadows is there because of Depp and Depp alone but it is so perfunctory that I found myself questioning whether Depp would have taken the role if it wasn’t being offered by his pal Burton. Unfortunately, this is what comes with comfort: instead of pushing themselves to achieve more, Burton and Depp have chosen to make bad movies together rather than good movies apart. In essence, there’s no difference between Burton and Depp making Dark Shadows and Michael Bay’s next blockbuster, except Bay is at least honest about the sort of movie he’s trying to make.

I’ve never seen an episode of any of the various Dark Shadows television series’ so I won’t speak to its merits in terms of whether or not it held to the tone of the show. I will say that if this is in keeping with the show, I have no idea why it was made into a movie in the first place. I was more irritated, even offended, by this movie than I have been in a long time simply because talents like Burton and Depp should not be wasted on terrible productions like this one. Dark Shadows is pointless, brainless, and worst of all ambitionless and manages to make two hours seem like a week and a half as it wallows in the apathy of going through the motions. 

In Home Viewings: "Haywire"

Mallory Kane (Gina Carano) is not someone you want to mess with. A freelance special agent who performs a wide assortment of dangerous jobs from assassinations to rescue missions, Kane is one of the world’s best at what she does. After a job in Barcelona goes somewhat awry, Kane is immediately sent on a follow-up mission along with fellow covert agent Paul (Michael Fassbender). But as the job winds down, Kane realizes she has been double-crossed and that her boss, Kenneth (Ewan McGregor), has tasked Paul with killing her. Kane escapes her fate and returns to the US with nothing on her mind beyond revenge.

What you have to appreciate about director Steven Soderbergh is that, for better or worse, you never know what to expect from him. In a span of nine months, he will have released three films (Contagion, Haywire, and the upcoming Magic Mike) and all three are dramatically different. Contagion was all about narrative (even if it was a narrative I found to be exceedingly boring), Haywire is a straight action movie, and Magic Mikeis…well…the weirdest career choice Soderbergh could have possibly made. The point is, Soderbergh isn’t a director that has a distinct style that you can pinpoint from the beginning of a given film and he’s always capable of turning out a fantastic, unique experience.

Haywire isn’t exactly that transcendent film that I always feel like Soderbergh is capable of but for what it is, it’s not half bad. What you see in the trailers for this movie is what you get: all action, all the time. There is very little here in the way of plot or character development and from that perspective, I think Haywire succeeds in doing what it set out to do. It lives up to its promise to be exactly the type of throw-away action movie that you want to watch at home after a hard day’s work. Nothing gets in the way of Carano cracking skulls and beating down dudes twice her size from the outset and there’s no time wasted on mixing in the lazy plot points that you might expect from this sort of movie in the hands of a lesser director. For this, I am appreciative.

For their part, each member of the cast gives a quality performance. In addition to the aforementioned headliners, Antonio Banderas, Bill Paxton, Michael Douglas, and Channing Tatum all lend themselves to Haywire for a few minutes and each plays his role well. There’s nothing spectacular taking place on screen but for me it was enough that the actors didn’t seem to be mailing this in. Haywire always seemed like a “between projects” sort of movie that was thrown together in a relatively short period of time; those movies usually come across as paycheck jobs but this one displays solid effort from both the on-screen and off-screen talent. Even Carano, a professional MMA fighter with no prior acting experience, gives a better experience than I could have ever expected. I’m not sure you can really call it “acting” since she’s basically just doing her MMA bit against actors instead of actual fighters but she displays a bit of charm and a knack for bringing realism to her role. Add in a score reminiscent of the Ocean’s movies and you’ve got a decent-enough action film that doesn’t pretend to be anything it isn’t and which packs a modest punch.

Review: "The Avengers"

The formulation of The Avengers represents one of the greatest undertakings in the history of the industry, that being the tying together of five films and four separate franchises into one, cohesive, behemoth of a movie that combines elements from all of the previous entries. It was a risky formula but one that has clearly been proven worthwhile and could (read: “will”) change the landscape of how studios approach their tentpole franchises while forcing critics and would-be critics like me to reevaluate what the term “summer blockbuster” really means.

We begin shortly after the events of Captain America at a secret facility operated by SHIELD, a government agency tasked with preserving the world’s safety from otherworldly attacks. Enter Loki (Tom Hiddleston), a Nordic demi-god cast out of his home in Asgard, who uses an ultra-powerful device to transport himself from the depths of space in order to exact his revenge upon the earth. Sensing a need for greater allies, SHIELD leader Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) implements “The Avengers Initiative” which calls the universe’s greatest heroes to action. Fury assembles a team that includes Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Bruce Banner/The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Steve Rogers/Captain America (Chris Evans), Clint Barton/Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Loki’s brother, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), and tasks them with bringing down Loki before his evil plans can come to fruition. But with Stark and Thor clashing and Banner and Rogers unsure of their gifts, the question becomes whether or not anyone can put a stop to the lurking menace that Loki would bring into our world.

The amount of nerdy awesomeness contained within The Avengers is almost too much for me to handle. Like a good film adaptation of a beloved book, The Avengers works in concert with the preceding films of the Marvel universe while providing enough information to keep anyone unfortunate enough to have missed out on the other films from being left completely in the dark. Our reintroductions to Stark, Thor, and the rest are concise, providing a catch-up with where our heroes have been since last we saw them and laying the groundwork for the challenges ahead. But while character development is a key to why this movie works (more on this in a bit), I greatly appreciate the fact that writer/director Joss Whedon (and his writing partner Zak Penn) doesn’t spoon feed the audience with an hour of lead-up to establish the characters. Instead, he starts us where each character left-off and trusts that anyone who hasn’t seen the previous films is smart enough to pick up on their various personalities and abilities. As a result, The Avengers is able to get right down to business and spend 140 minutes rocking the audiences’ collective face off.

Basically from the word go, this movie is a rapid-fire thrill-ride that wastes no time in jumping right into the fray and mixing it up with Marvel’s biggest names. We jump from place to place as Loki wreaks havoc and the Avengers come together and quickly come to the big question at the center of the film: can all of these guys come together as one or are their combined powers simply too volatile to be put together? As pointed out by Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg in his near-iconic role), they need a rallying cry, a unifying event, which they receive when Loki attacks the SHIELD headquarters and nearly destroys the team before they can ever come together. From that point on, The Avengers turns into a smorgasbord of rip-roaring action sequences that would make Michael Bay salivate but is peppered with the witty, genuinely hilarious dialogue that keeps the laughs coming almost as frequently as the CGI explosions.

The thing that really sets The Avengers apart from virtually any other lighthearted popcorn flick that has come down the chute is the near-perfect script that Whedon and Penn put together. All of the previous Marvel films (the Iron Man films in particular) have featured comedy as a major part of their respective make-up but Whedon takes that to all new level. He never misses a chance to insert a joke and his cast delivers them in such a way that even the would-be cheesy one-liners come across as inspired. As King of the Nerds, it’s obvious that Whedon not only understands the universe in which his film takes place but also the psychology of each of his characters and maybe more importantly, the mind of the nerd, his constituent. Even still, instead of relying on the fanboys to be the sole source of support and gearing his film entirely towards that audience, Whedon crafts a beautifully paced, highly entertaining film that should appeal to just about anyone who isn’t AO Scott. Likewise, the cast of The Avengers appear to be completely invested in their characters and the film as a whole. Each actor is fully on-board for the ensemble-like approach to creating this film which is absolutely vital to its success. All of them (and I really do mean every single player in the main cast) give performances that are worth noting individually.

I had two big question marks concerning the cast and characters coming into The Avengers. For one, I wondered about the addition of Mark Ruffalo. I’ve never been a big fan of Ruffalo and The Hulk almost seemed like a cursed character coming in. But from the outset, Whedon and Ruffalo work in conjunction to turn Banner/Hulk into a much deeper, more impressive character than I could have ever imagined. In truth, for me The Hulk is probably this film’s most bankable player, a shocking statement considering how highly I think of RDJ and Tony Stark. The Avengers almost represents a story of redemption for a beloved comic book hero who’s never had much luck on the big screen. Second, I was genuinely concerned about whether or not Loki was up to the task of hanging with this team. In 2011’s Thor, I thought Hiddleston gave a good performance but that his character was weak and as we all know, a great superhero is only as good as the villain who opposes him. With a remarkable group of heroes like this one, you need a compelling villain and while Loki isn’t up to par with the best of the best, he is more than capable of holding his own in this setting. I give Whedon a great deal of credit for taking a lackluster character and making him substantially more relevant and menacing and this stands as just another example of how impressive Whedon’s work here really and truly is.

Any way you slice it, The Avengers is a massive achievement that will have a decisive impact on the culture of Hollywood in the years to come. Like Inception and The Dark Knight before it, this is a film that seems to suggest that it’s no longer enough for a film like Transformers to provide a bunch of explosions and grab a chunk of cash while drawing the wrath of critics and audience members alike and still be deemed a legitimate blockbuster. The Avengers is an absurdly entertaining film that forcefully lays claim to its spot among the elite summer blockbusters, along with the aforementioned Nolan films, Jaws, Star Wars, and Jurassic Park.

In Home Viewings: "Exporting Raymond"

In 2005, Everybody Loves Raymond wrapped up its ninth and final season, taking its leave after 210 episodes which led it to become one of the more beloved shows of the era. It was a show that highlighted the ups and downs of every day, married life, a topic which obviously the general public related to. Seven years later, you can probably turn your television on right now and find a syndicated episode of Raymond somewhere. Shortly after the finale, show creator Phil Rosenthal was approached by a SONY representative and asked to help the Russian television network create a native version of Raymond. Rosenthal brought along a film crew to document the events, revealing that comedy isn’t quite as universal as we might expect.

I’m not sure exactly what Rosenthal expected from his trip abroad but it becomes quite clear early on that he wasn’t prepared for this undertaking. He is thrown for a loop when he discovers that he has to invest in Kidnapping and Rescue Insurance, an issue he is assured never comes up; he astutely points out that if it “never” came up, there would be no need for the insurance. Upon arriving, he meets up with his private security guard/driver and their exchange soars right past the “awkward” stage and borders on becoming “tense.” He is undoubtedly a stranger in a strange land and it only gets worse from there.

Later, Rosenthal is brought to the studio (which literally looks like every depressing, dilapidated building you’ve ever seen in a Hollywood version of Russia) and introduced to the crack team of writers and crew he will be working with. They show him clips from American shows that have previously been remade and he is given a glimpse into what Russians find funny. In my opinion, this was the best part of the entire documentary. Rosenthal is shown a clip from the Russian version of The Nanny, one of the most successful programs ever, which was truly atrocious. If, like me, you believe there is no lower form of “comedy” than Fran Dresher and The Nanny, then allow me to burst your bubble: judging from the 30 seconds shown in Exporting Raymond, I would say the Russian version is approximately 37 times worse. That exact sentiment is written in bold across Rosenthal’s face as he looks around the room at his laughing coworkers and realizes he’s bitten off far more than he could possibly chew. It is moment that is both hilarious and a little bit heartbreaking.

As Exporting Raymond progresses, we see more and more conflicts unfold for Rosenthal. The casting process alone turns out to be a major hassle as the actor Rosenthal wants to play the Raymond character is unable to get leave from his theater company and he is replaced with an actor who appears to be the Russian equivalent of Paul Walker in terms of acting ability. To top it all off, Rosenthal doesn’t get along with the director of the pilot episode, who seems to regard him as a nuisance and refuses to listen to his advice, which is, of course, the only reason he was brought in.

The greatest strength of Exporting Raymond is its ability to point out the dramatic differences between the Russian culture and our own with a simple, understated style. This is a, “Let the camera roll and see what happens” sort of documentary and there’s very little in the way or post-production or narration; rather, for the most part, the audience sees what Rosenthal sees and his reactions which are generally priceless. There are times when the film loses focus and becomes somewhat dull and even at its best, there’s nothing excessively funny or definitively special about Exporting Raymond. But it still serves as a quirky, fun, and moderately insightful piece of work that is worth a viewing if for no other reason than to experience Rosenthal’s dumbfounded facial expressions for yourself.

Review: "The Five-Year Engagement"

The world of comedic film changed in 2005 with the premier of Judd Apatow’s The 40 Year Old Virgin. Since that time, the R-rated comedy has become a mainstay of the industry and Apatow’s production company has become the premiere destination for filmmakers looking to work within that realm. Apatow has a distinct style, both as a director and a producer, that can be counted upon to a tee and for better or for worse, The Five-Year Engagement falls right in line with the Apatow Stable of Films.

Our journey begins when Tom Solomon (Jason Segel), an up-and-coming chef in the vaunted San Francisco food scene, proposes to Violet Barnes (Emily Blunt), a PhD student in psychology. What starts off as a beautiful love story takes a turn when Violet is offered and accepts a position at the University of Michigan which results in a difficult move for Tom. The two put their wedding on hold until Violet’s time in the program ends, an indefinite date they continue to push further and further away. As Violet becomes more and more successful, Tom sinks deeper into his funk, putting a strain on the couple’s already contentious relationship. As the years pass, Tom and Violet are forced to question whether or not they should be getting married and if they were ever compatible in the first place.

I know that summary makes Engagement sound decidedly dramatic but I promise, it really is a comedy. This is a far cry from Blue Valentine or even 500 Days of Summerwhich was much more serious (if lightheartedly serious) than Engagement ever sets out to be. But it wouldn’t be an Apatowian adventure without a hearty dose of reality mixed in with all the crude words and raunchy jokes and this film definitely fits the bill when it comes to fleshing out true emotion and real drama. Engagement actually hits the mark as well if not better than any of the films in this category, featuring an excellent balance between heart and jokes. Its weakness, though, is the same weakness that virtually every Apatow production before it has had: the runtime-to-content ratio. 124 minutes is a perfectly acceptable runtime for a romantic comedy IF it keeps up its own pace throughout the entire (or the majority of) the 124 minutes. But like its predecessors (see: Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, et al), Engagement stalls out in the second act, leading to a sense of drag through about 15 minutes that don’t quite fit with the mold designed for the rest of the film. In essence, if this film had received just a bit more editing, it probably winds up being a much more impressive entry into the genre.

Again, however, I could say that about almost every movie that has come through Apatow’s house since 2005. You can always find 10 or 15 minutes here or there that either doesn’t work, doesn’t fit, or doesn’t live up to the standard set throughout the rest of the film which should have been left on the cutting room floor. The flip side of this argument is that Apatow allows his filmmakers (in this case Nicholas Stoller, whose films I truly enjoy) to make the movie that they want to make. I greatly admire this quality in a producer but at the same time, I’d also like to be able to really go overboard in my praise of one of his films and the lack of editing usually prevents that.

That said the unbalanced runtime-to-content ratio within Engagement didn’t keep me from enjoying the ride (though it definitely hampered the overall experience). This movie is chock full of noteworthy acting performances, particularly that of Segel. Tom runs a gamut of emotions throughout the five years depicted and Segel handles each of them wonderfully. He is at times downright hilarious and at others a genuine sympathetic figure. Box office totals notwithstanding, Segel has transformed himself into a bankable star in the dramatic comedy field. His co-star Blunt has moments in which she seems a bit out of her element but overall, she is delightful and holds her own within a role that isn’t as easy as it might appear. In less capable hands, Violet could become an unlikeable shrew but Blunt (and, I assume, the creative team behind the movie) keeps the audience on board with her endless charm and by exhibiting a genuine internal conflict within her character. It should also be noted that while Segel and Blunt have some natural chemistry, there’s also a slight amount of strain between their characters which makes their relationship come off as all the more real. The surrounding cast, too, is outstanding and they routinely steal the show. Chris Pratt and Alison Brie grab the majority of the attention (these two are rapidly turning into stars) but Mindy Kaling, Brian Posehn, and Chris Parnell all have stellar moments. Even Kevin Hart comes across as funny here, a feat I had previously thought he was incapable of.

These performances come together in a well-written and appealing narrative (again, outside of the extra scenes which need to be cut) that dwells in a surprisingly realistic atmosphere. In fact, there is a distinct lack of gags within Engagement as compared to past Apatow endeavors and I for one feel that the film is better for that as it really gives the audience a chance to buy into Tom and Violet’s relationship. There’s nothing especially unique or special about Engagement but I still found it to be quality, enjoyable film.

Review: "The Other Dream Team"

EDITOR'S NOTE: This film is currently making the rounds at various festivals after drawing attention at Sundance. I have no idea when or where it will open in your town but I implore you to seek it out whenever it does roll around. I only play the, "Go see this movie" card once or twice a year (the last one was Crazy, Stupid, Love which I think I was proven to be correct about) and I'm dropping it here: GO SEE THIS MOVIE. I could have written 2,500 words on its merits and I expect just about everyone would appreciate it. It is very similar in tone to the 30for30 series ESPN has been doing over the last couple of years and even my wife, a non-sports fan, loves that series. So, just go see the movie.

It’s fair to say that my two biggest passions in life (at least when it comes to pop culture, hobbies, etc.) are movies and sports. I’m a big fan of music, books, and eating large amounts of fatty foods, too, but they don’t quite compare to the level of affection I hold for movies and sports, particularly basketball. The combinations of those two passions often feels like someone in the world is secretly reading my hypothetical diary at night and creating programming just for me. Such is the case with The Other Dream Team, a powerful and insightful documentary that I imagine will stick with me for quite some time.

For many basketball fans, the 1992 Summer Olympics in Barcelona, Spain are considered special, maybe even sacred, as the team assembled to represent the US Men’s Olympic basketball team was unquestionably the greatest collection of talent in the history of the sport. Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird and eight other legendary players (plus Christian Laettner!) came together to form the Dream Team, annihilating every opponent that stood in the way of earning the gold medal and spreading the gospel of basketball to the world along the way. But while the Dream Team captivated a worldwide audience, there was a much more dramatic and significant story unfolding in the background. A group of players representing the small country of Lithuania which had only recently regained its independence in the fall of the USSR worked their way into the third place game and faced off with the Unified Team, the remnants of the squad they had been forced to compete with during the Communist reign. Weaving together the happenings on the basketball court with the rebirth of a small nation, The Other Dream Team expertly displays the importance of sport and the ways it can be used to inspire.

Going into this film, I had a basic understanding of what took place on the basketball court throughout this story. Like many other men my age, as a kid I was fascinated by the Dream Team. We’d never seen anything like that team and we never will again; they were literally that good. The Lithuanian team, though, always stuck out to me partly because they appeared to actually be good at basketball (whereas some of our other opponents looked like a bunch of middle school girls) and partly because their top two players, Arvydas Sabonis and Sarunas Marciulionis, were tremendous talents. In this summer’s Olympics, virtually every team that qualifies to play will have at least one or two NBA-caliber players but in ’92, that wasn’t the case. Sabonis and Marciulionis, along with Croatia’s Drazen Petrovic, were undoubtedly the best players in the tournament who weren’t on the Dream Team.

I did not know, however, the tumultuous background from which these players came from. At the time of the Olympic Games, Lithuania had only been an independent nation for two short years, two years which were trying to say the least. Amazingly enough, it’s tough to get a new country off the ground when you’ve spent 46 years under Communist reign (shocking, I know). The Other Dream Team heartbreakingly digs into the deeper elements of this fight for independence and paints a dark (and truthful) picture of what it was like to live through this period, both before and after Lithuania received its freedom from the Soviets. There are some truly devastating visuals and descriptions at play here and the film pulls no punches in ensuring that the audience understands not only what the players were going through but what every citizen of the country was going through. As such, the Lithuanian basketball team is simply the medium in which the filmmakers work to bring their story together.

By showing us the awful conditions which the players (and by proxy, their countrymen) lived through while under Soviet control and the immense struggle that was the fight for independence, director Marius A. Markevicius sets us up for a dramatic and deeply satisfying third act. Defeating the Russians to win the bronze medal was nothing compared to the hope their triumph gave a young nation and this is illustrated exquisitely through a mix of tear-inducing behind-the-scenes footage and touching interviews with both players and spectators. This is one of the more genuine sports documentaries I can remember and one that seems to really understand the significance of the subject matter it concerns itself with. It is a touching, at times quite funny, and beautiful example of the power of sport that will absolutely hit home for sports fans and non-fans alike.

Review: "Lockout"

The similarities between Lockout and 2008’s Takenare so abundant that it almost seems lazy to make the comparison (notice, however, how that will not stop me). Both come from the Luc Besson School of Filmmaking, both feature Maggie Grace in desperate need of some life savin’, and both center around tough guys who can kill you with a neck chop just as easily as with a machine gun. In theory, these two films are so close, in fact, that I’ve been referring to Lockout as Taken 1.5 or Taken in Space for several months. Really, besides the outer space setting, the one real difference between these films is that Taken is good and Lockoutis not.

Snow (Guy Pearce) is the prototypical anti-hero. He’s a bit of a loose cannon who plays by his own rules and he still smokes so you know he’s cool. After he is framed for the murder of his CIA superior, Snow is sentenced to a prison term on MS One, a prison that resides in orbit around the earth and houses the world’s worst criminals. But before Snow can be transferred to his new residence, an uprising begins on MS One and soon the prisoners have control of the space station. To make matters worse, the president’s daughter, Emilie (Maggie Grace), just happens to be aboard the station and is being held hostage along with a host of less important civilians. Given an opportunity to earn his freedom, Snow agrees to take on the rescue mission, though he has a much more important agenda for getting on board the station.

What you have to love about Lockout is its brazenness. There’s no pretense involved with this movie; if you ever saw one of the trailers, you know exactly what you’re getting. Much like its counterpart Taken, Lockout doesn’t take itself seriously whatsoever and as such, it invites the viewer to step into a world of complete absurdity in which we’ll have a few laughs while watching things explode. More often than not, that’s an invitation I can’t resist. And for its part, Lockout does its best to live up to the low-quality, high-fun standard it set for itself.

The problem is that that brazenness (which was Taken’s second greatest strength behind Liam Neeson) becomes this movie’s downfall. Lockoutis rife with bad shots, overdone supporting characters, and abysmal special effects. All of this is presented in a, “Yeah, this is terrible, so what?” sort of way that bothered me. I didn’t expect a Nolan-esque approach to action but there’s a limit to what I should be asked to accept from a film in the way of corner-cutting. The effects in particular were a tremendous letdown. With this sort of film I anticipate bad dialogue and paper thin characters but that those issues will be at least partially covered up with spectacular action sequences. The graphics within Lockout are some of the worst I’ve ever seen in a mainstream movie. And by mainstream, I mean anything higher in quality than the straight-to-DVD knock offs that find their way onto Netflix Instant a week after a big action flick debuts (see: Transmorphers). While Lockout wouldn’t work if directors James Mather and Stephen St. Leger had attempted to turn in a more significant, hardcore action piece, much of this movie comes across as if the filmmakers didn’t care about turning in a decent product.

That’s a real shame because Guy Pearce is an absolute riot in the lead role. Snow is irreverent, overly confident, and brash and completely unapologetic which, of course, makes him exceedingly appealing. Pearce hits every mark perfectly and he gives the character a lighter edge that works well in this setting and keeps Lockoutfrom becoming too one-dimensional. I expected Snow to be Pearce’s interpretation of Liam Neeson and while that might not have been a bad thing, what we’re really treated to is a character that is part Neeson (in any action movie) and part Captain Jack Sparrow. He’s got a Sparrow-like flowiness to him and while you can’t exactly call his one-liners witty, they are delivered with a pinpoint precision that drives the jokes home expertly. It’s unfortunate that this performance comes in a movie that doesn’t really deliver much else in the way of value but it is still a fun turn for a great actor and one that keeps Lockout from becoming a total loss.

Review: "Goon"

Doug Glatt (Seann William Scott) is the real-life personification of the term, “Black Sheep.” Coming from a family of well-respected doctors, Doug is a less-than-cerebral tough guy who works as a bouncer specifically called upon to rough up unruly customers. His luck begins to change, however, when his friend Ryan (Jay Baruchel) takes him to a minor league hockey game during which he lays a beating on an opposing player. This catches the eye of the team’s coach and soon Doug has suited up and become a local celebrity. Even more remarkable, Doug is soon called up to a real minor league team and tasked with protecting Xavier Laflamme (Marc-Andre Grondin), a young hotshot who has lost his way since a violent on-ice hit from longtime enforcer Ross Rhea (Liev Schreiber). While Doug initially struggles with his role as a goon who isn’t valued as a hockey player, he and his teammates come together with a playoff berth on the line, setting up a dramatic confrontation between the old veteran (Rhea) and the young upstart (Doug).

There isn’t just a whole lot that can be said about Goon other than this: it is fun. Not an excessive, “I can’t wait to see that again” amount of fun but a reasonable, “This just popped up on HBO and I have 90 minutes to kill” amount of fun. The movie doesn’t have much of an agenda and there isn’t much of a plot to speak of, but it sets out to cover the life of a minor league hockey enforcer and it does that quite well. I’ve never been much of a hockey guy so I have no idea where this movie ends up on the “realistic” scale but it is at least as believable as The Mighty Ducks which is, I think we can all agree, the gold standard for hockey movies. (I’m half kidding there.) Goon is predictable and overtly paint-by-numbers but it is not without charm and it handles its subject matter with a light-hearted affection.

What is not predictable about this movie is the strength of the performances provided by the leads. Scott is, in my opinion, one of the more underrated comedic actors of his generation. He’ll never be taken all that seriously because his most widely-known character (Stifler from American Pie) is an over-the-top, offensive buffoon but I’ve always been impressed with his timing and his ability to make a movie or scene funny when it really shouldn’t be. (Case in point: Cop Out.) Here he turns Doug into a likeable and appealing hero, a very important aspect in an underdog sports movie. Baruchel’s hockey fanatic with a Wayne’s World-like cable access TV show is ridiculous and absurd but he is nonetheless an entertaining and dare I say essential part of the film’s equation. And Schreiber, truly one of the great character actors of our time, contributes a solid and believably menacing performance that provides the genial Doug with a much meaner counterpart. I’m not arguing that Scott, Baruchel, or Schreiber should be given consideration during award season but the truth of the matter is low-rent comedies like this one are often rife with mailed-in, half-hearted performances. Instead, Goon offers stars that seem invested in the material and the film benefits substantially from their interest.