“The Avengers” or the fanboi next to me just jizzed in his pants!

Well the long awaited “Avengers” does not disappoint.  From start to finish, the pace is fast, sometimes even brutal; with non-stop action and great moments of humor.  This mother of all sequels, being a sequel to no less than five films, brings together a multitude of powerhouse superheroes from the Marvel stable.  Even if you are not familiar with “The Avenger’s” world, chances are you know the characters individually from the movies and the comics or even just as pop culture references.  However, if you are one of the many, mainly young men who love and revere this world chances are you just spent two and a half hours in heaven.

I went to this movie with two friends of mine, both pretty much admitted fanbois and I have to say watching the one sitting next to me squirming and giggling like a seven year old girl with a new easy bake oven, was almost as entertaining as the movie, itself.  He was in ecstasy. 

And he was not the only one, this movie really delivers on almost every level.  The characters are complex, and familiar.  The story straightforward, but not too simple.  Conflicts exist between almost all of the characters, not just the “good” guys versus the “bad” guys.  These are not easy going relationships.  Egos and motivations conflict almost as much as humans and aliens do. 

Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston, is not just a super powered villain from another world, he is a man corrupted by disappointment and cynicism, who heedlessly unleashes seemingly unstoppable forces on the Earth as payback for real and imagined hurts inflicted on him by his brother Thor, played by the super hot Chris Helmsworth.   Soon it becomes apparent that Loki is not the biggest threat to the earth, that even if he is defeated the forces he has unleashed will continue on without him.

Chris Evans, as Captain America is even hotter than Thor.  With a butt that you can bounce a quarter off of  prominently featured in many of his shots, the girls will not lack for eye candy.  As is the case for the guys with Scarlett Johanssen as Black Widow in her skintight black jumpsuit.  Mark Ruffalo and Robert Downey Jr. as Bruce Banner and Tony Stark, respectively, provide the brains and a lot of the humor to the story.  Plus the up and coming Oscar nominated Jeremy Renner delivers as the surprisingly dangerous Hawkeye.

Altogether, this was two hours and twenty-two minutes packed with action and excitement.  Once again Joss Whedon proves that he is the baddest of the bad, when it comes to providing high-powered action with great emotional content.   I say you may want to see this more than once before you are done and if you are already a fan of this franchise, you may need to bring an extra pair of pants!

“Mirror Mirror” or I love your outfit, what else have you got?

Well, I guess I can only blame myself for wasting my own time.  My friends all seemed to feel that this movie was not worth seeing.  Apparently they were not the only ones.  I arrived at the theater, and I was the only one there to see this movie.  I guess that should have been a clue. 

The problem is I have really enjoyed Tarsem Singh’s previous movies.  They are usually very colorful, visually stunning and imaginative, with a bit of a dark disquieting undertone.  “The Cell” (2000), is a very beautiful and frightening look into the mind of a serial killer, “The Fall” (2006) is a visually intriguing story of an injured stunt man and the lies he tells to himself and others, and most recently “Immortals” (2011) showed us how simple, yet strikingly evocative set decoration and costuming can really elevate a good story to a great movie.

Then came “Mirror Mirror”.  A lot of people talking about it were not enthused.  I know some who said they preferred to wait for he next Snow White flick “Snow White and the Huntsman”.  But because I usually enjoy the vision of Tarsem Singh, I thought I would give it a try.  What a disappointment.  The interesting visuals consisted mainly of the costumes.  The special effects were blah, nothing new at all.  The accordion legs of the dwarves was an effect a high school film buff could accomplish at home.  The forest was uninteresting, the sets cliché.  Even the mirror, ostensibly the central thesis of the movie was nothing.  The queen’s entrance into the “world” of the mirror was derivative at best, an effect notably used in Jean Cocteau’s “Beauty and the Beast” (1946). Perhaps it was meant as a nod to the brilliant Cocteau, but if it was then Singh should have taken more pages from his book and infused his mise-en-scene with a more sinister or magical atmosphere.  Instead it read like a cartoon; brightly colored, and one-dimensional. Supposedly a comedy, it even lacked much humor.

The characters were uninteresting too.  Snow White was bland, if pretty.  Prince Charming was vapid and one note.  The dwarves were weird, with costumes resembling a cowboy, a frenchman, a conquistador, and a mountain man just to name a few.  The queen was angry and obvious. 

Ok, a non sequitur here, but when did Julia Roberts become so grim? I have noticed it for a few years now.  It seemed to begin some time after she did “My Best Friend’s Wedding” (1997).  She has lost her “sparkle” for lack of a better term.  She used to be able to play darker or sadder moments and yet retain that certain inner charm that would come through in lighter moments.  However, in all the movies where I have seen her in recent years, she seems to have lost that light.  Something about her demeanor just seems depressed or unhappy.  I don’t know, maybe I am just misreading it, but there you go.

Anyway, back to the movie, don’t go! You will be sorely disappointed.  If you want to see a good example of this director’s work rent “Immortals” (2011) out now on DVD.

“American Reunion” or S+B2=Π

OK, that is sex plus beer squared equals pi (it’s a pun, get it?), for those of you who are formulaically impaired.  In other words, American Reunion faithfully follows the American Pie franchise formula that has been so effective for all the sequels. 

Unfortunately I don’t have much more to say about it.  The movie was entertaining, but there is nothing new to really talk about.  The characters, like all of us, are older, and for the most part their priorities have changed, but they continue to get into the same messes and make the same mistakes.  The only difference is that instead of youth, parents and school interfering with their sex lives it is now stress, kids and work that interfere with their sex lives.  But Jim is still a dork, Stifler is still a putz, Finch is still searching, Kevin is still stuck on Vicky and Oz is still a jock.  Even Stifler’s mom is still the same.

So, if you are looking for something new to have happened to these characters, you will come away disappointed.  But if all you want it so see them again, have some laughs and enjoy the same goofy complications as always, you can still enjoy this movie for what it is, a formula that works, but doesn’t change.

“The Hunger Games” or can you say perfect?

Wow! That was wonderful.  This is exactly what a book adaptation should be!  I was really concerned about how this would turn out.  I am a huge fan of the books, and after the  “John Carter” fiasco I have to admit I was pretty nervous.  But this movie knocked it out of the park for me. Unlike the horrible “John Carter” adaptation, where the screenwriter apparently, (and mistakenly) thought he was a better plot writer than the original author (he wasn’t) and completely reworked the story in a way that was not an improvement, “The Hunger Games” was beautifully adapted.  It probably helped that the author Suzanne Collins worked on the screenplay with the director Gary Ross.  The result is a wonderful and accurate translation of the book to film.

The casting also played a big part in the success of this film.  Jennifer Lawrence was perfect in the lead role of Katniss Everdeen.  I was afraid that Josh Hutcherson, known for the “Journey to the Center of the Earth” and ”Cirque du Freak” would be too Disney for this role but he did a very solid and believable job as Peeta. 

Gary Ross captured the essence of the book very well.  Although some small characters were left out (I would bet because of time restraints) all of the major plot points were in place and even most of the small details.  Ross was not afraid to let the audience infer what was happening, especially in the flashbacks.  He did not try to over explain. He apparently understands that we are sophisticated movie viewers and can understand these ideas without heavy handed, over direction and that it was not necessary to explain Kat’s internal confusion about her relationship with Peeta, we understood.

I have to admit; this movie left me hungry for more, if you will pardon the pun.  Now I can’t wait to see “Catching Fire” brought to the screen.   I was totally drawn into the world of Katniss.  The long running time did not even matter.  It moved by so quickly I did not realize that two and a half hours had passed.  I just left me wanting more.  Well Done!!

“John Carter” of Mars or why I’m never happy with Edgar Rice Burroughs translations

Well, I went this week to see “John Carter”, I had been waiting for this for months, and I was very, very excited.  I love ERB and all his books; I have read and reread the Tarzan books since I was a kid.   And I thought the John Carter of Mars series was a great way to start a new Sci-Fi franchise.  Effects have finally gotten to the point where all of the great alien characters from the “Princess of Mars” can be believably brought to life.  And they were, but in a story really different from the one written by Burroughs.  I am not really sure why moviemakers always feel the need to rewrite his books.  They have remained popular for almost a hundred years, due in large part to their solid, engaging characters and exciting stories about men and women in situations completely alien to our experience, but still very recognizable to the reader.   The only movie that has ever been even slightly on target was the 1984 version, “Greystoke”, and even that took quite a few liberties. 

I wish “John Carter” had only taken a few liberties.  Basically they have taken ERB’s characters and rewritten the storyline almost completely.  If I, like the friend I went with, had never read the books, then I may have enjoyed the film (he did), but because I have read the books, more than once, all my brain kept telling me is, “this is wrong, this is wrong!”

John Carter became an angry PTSD suffer, obsessed with gold, instead of a highly competent, courageous, and experienced warrior.  His friend Powell became his enemy and the mysterious means of transport to Mars became an amulet (because we cannot leave anything unexplained, even though that is what ERB meant to happen). His super strength, on Mars becomes only the ability to jump incredible distances, and his military training does not even come into play.

Tars Tarkas and the green Martians became savages living in huts, instead of savvy, highly political movers, living in a marble city.  Sola, became a victim, instead of a strong female character. And even the story of the river Iss and their religious mythology was completely changed with the most important aspects left out.  (Apparently even alien stories that debunk religion are against the PC Disney mindset.)  And the war between the different factions is dropped as secondary to the “gladiator/arena” scene.  The friendship between Tars Tarkas and John Carter was never developed, even though that is very important to this story and later stories.  

I wish I could say I enjoyed this more, but I am hesitant to recommend not seeing it.  If you have never read the books it could be a very entertaining movie, however, if you have read the books and are a fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs, you may be greatly disappointed, I know I was. 

“Underworld: Awakening” or and….?

At 88 minutes “Underworld: Awakening” is rather underdeveloped.  I am not really sure why the makers of this film decided to go with such a short time.  There seems to be a lot of the story left out, and the character development just isn’t there, why didn’t they use the extra half hour to build the plot and the characters? WHY? WHY? 

Ok, seriously though, the newly added character, Selene’s daughter, is brought in with a sort of Ta Da!! flourish, but then they do next to nothing with her.  At one point Selene says “she has to be protected, she is more powerful than all of us.” Really how does she know? The little girl hasn’t done anything, in fact she doesn’t do much through out the whole movie, they don’t even give her a name.  She turns blue a couple of times but that is it.

Michael doesn’t even get any dialogue, except to say “we’ll leave when she gets here”.  Then he’s done, for the whole movie.

Admittedly I love Selene’s character, she has always been my favorite.  And I did enjoy the movie in a shallow way.  Watching Selene kick ass is always worthwhile.  But the story development just isn’t there.  There are even new character’s added to the story, i.e. the vampires living underground, led by a random elder.  But nothing about them is explained; who is the elder? are they all that are left? how do they survive? The movie doesn’t even try to explain anything about them.

At one point Selene’s daughter calls her cold, though even that is not demonstrated.  Apparently she is cold, because she hasn’t hugged her daughter or something?  However, at that point they have been running from the powers that be non-stop, so when should she have stopped that to have a tender moment, I don’t know. 

All of that said, I did enjoy the show in a very superficial way, but I was left wondering about way too much.

“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” or girl fight in the snow

Rooney Mara vs. Noomi Rapace, that is the question.  There is no real way to review this movie for me without comparing the two versions.   I really love the Swedish version, so I was a little hesitant about seeing the American remake.  However, a friend told me that is was good, and I should see it, so I did.   This is what I think; the American remake is a solid movie, and in some cases it may be more true to the book (that’s what I was told, though I have not finished reading it so don’t quote me on that), but it wasn’t quite as absorbing and atmospheric to me, though perhaps it is more linear.

The original Swedish film has a harder edge to it.  Noomi Rapace in particular plays a much harder character than Rooney Mara.  Mara seems to be trying to tap into Salander’s inner hidden sensitivity, while Rapace is showing us what Lisbeth wants the world to see, a tough, hard-shelled badass.   I have to admit, I prefer Rapace, she lets us see the seething lava of anger just below the surface waiting to explode, the result of a life filled with inequity and betrayal.  Mara, on the other hand seems a little more like a victim in her attitude (the lack of exploration about her back story contributes to that).  The rape scene is a good example, strangely the US version is more graphic, but I felt that Mara’s performance was more about the sexual violation, whereas Rapace’s was more about the loss of control. A small caveat, but there you have it, the nuances are where the Swedish version triumphs.  One other small factor is the chase scene toward the end, in the Swedish film that is a much more surreal moment, the chase lasts quite a bit longer and the way it is filmed is much more frightening, artistic and atmospheric, and the end of the chase much more deliberate.

Both movies have a very nice production value, and most of the other actors are fairly interchangeable, though I also prefer Michael Nyqvist over Daniel Craig (which is strange because I really, really like Daniel Craig), but Nyqvist seems more real as a reporter.  Craig looks a little too chic, like a male model in his winter wear.  Also, the Swedish movie concentrates more on the workings at Millennium, which is key to Bloomqvist’s persona.

The other thing that is really noticeable is Lisbeth back-story, or in the case to the US version, the lack thereof.  The Swedish movie moves back and forth through time, flashing back to bits of Lisbeth’s childhood and the pivotal moment that shapes her whole life.  The US version mentions once in passing, as pillow talk no less, that she set her father on fire.  It doesn’t indicate at all how central that moment is in her life.  Though the Rapace film doesn’t really give you much more information, it really gives you a feeling of how much that action impacted her life, and the flashbacks give you a better picture of her splintered psyche. You can see she is on the edge of losing it at anytime, and that all that prevents that is the iron control she keeps on her emotions.  

In the end, I am a little ambivalent about this movie, it is a good, entertaining movie, but if you have already seen the Swedish version it will not cover any new ground. So, in the final analysis, I will say, see it if you hate subtitles, but otherwise, the Swedish version is the one to see.