"The Lone Ranger" Plays Better Than Expected

The Lone Ranger is a gorgeously shot film and Johnny Depp's
shtick doesn't grate like one might think it would by this point. 

The Lone Ranger was ravaged by critics last summer, but it’s really not all that terrible. It’s pretty cliché and about a half-hour too long, but it has an enjoyably off-kilter personality and is book-ended by two dynamite train sequences.

Like the Will Smith vehicle Wild Wild West, the film is a tonally confused blockbuster update of an irrelevant Western brand that turned into a box-office laughingstock. But unlike that film, it doesn't deserve such scathing critical derision.

Actually, The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise is really a better comparison point. Not only is The Lone Ranger from the same studio (Disney), director (Gore Verbinski) and star (Johnny Depp), but it also follows the same narrative template.

As in those films, the focus here is on an upright hero in the classic mold (Armie Hammer subbing in for Orlando Bloom) joining forces with a kooky outsider type (Depp as a loopy Indian instead of a drunken pirate) to take down some bad guys. Even more specifically, it’s another mismatched buddy actioner in which a straight man driven by duty and love is corrupted for the better by a seemingly clueless weirdo who is actually a cunning, revenge-seeking superman.

Although clearly modeled after it, The Lone Ranger doesn't come close to capturing the magic or cohesiveness of the first Pirates film, but it does have the screwy charm, snappy direction and inventive action set-pieces that made the second one such a guilty pleasure.

With such concentration on trains, I suspect Big Thunder
Mountain Railroad at Disney amusement parks would've
been altered if the film had been a hit. Alas, it won't be.

Verbinski has a real knack for action and clear love for the Western genre, and that’s abundantly evident in the way he stages the bonkers train sequences and frames the gorgeous landscape. However, he has developed a tendency to over-stuff his movies to a bloated extent, and 149 minutes is just too long for a film like this. The movie would play a lot better without the unnecessary and intrusive framing device, and nothing would've been lost by cutting Helena Bonham Carter’s legless madame from the film.

The tone is questionable for a family film with the Disney label. At times the thing is a cute slapsticky riff, and at other times it digresses into extreme levels of violence. This, parents should be warned, is a film containing a massive body count, including the slaughtering of nearly an entire tribe of Indians, as well as an odd and unnecessary digression into cannibalism.

Overall, The Lone Ranger isn't a good movie, but it is an entertaining one. Depp, whose iconic role as Jack Sparrow has increasingly grown tired, actually does some interesting things here and, again, the train scenes are really quite thrilling. C+

"Catching Fire" Takes "The Hunger Games" Series to the Next Level

No that's not a scene from Black Swan. It's the latest Hunger Games.
Notice the guy in the corner with the purple hair?

In my review of The Hunger Games I called it “a solid double that, with exposition largely dispatched with, paves the way for an even better second outing.” The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the latest entry in the series, lives up to that prediction, deepening and improving what the first film did well, while simultaneously correcting its most problematic elements.

The film picks up with Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) back in district 12, living in the Victor’s Village alongside drunken mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson) and fellow tribute Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). She’s dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder and she barely even looks Peeta’s way following the events of the first film, but things are mostly going OK – her mom and sister are safe and living in luxury with her, and she’s getting pretty cozy with long-time friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth).

But, her defiant gestures from her time in the arena have bred hope of uprising within many of the districts. President Snow (Donald Sutherland) isn’t happy with her, and now she has to go on her victor’s tour during which she’ll have to confront the emotional fallout of her time in the arena with Peeta. Even worse, Snow threatens the lives of Katniss’s loved ones, implying he’ll do some pretty nasty things unless she sells the love story rouse believably enough to discredits herself as an instigator and symbol of rebellion.

Needless to say, that doesn’t go over well, causing President Snow to be all “I’m going to kill this chick.” But “Hey, not so fast,” says Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, brining the same icy calm and confidence he displayed in Mission Impossible 3), the man who took over as Gamesmaker after the last one was killed for getting Snow into this predicament in the first place. Heavensbee argues killing her outright would only make Katniss a martyr; instead, he suggests a plot that would have her return to the arena in a sort of Hunger Games: All-Stars Edition, pitting her against 23 former winners. He promises her death in a way that will invalidate her as symbol, while also offering the added bonus of eliminating 22 other victors, all of whom now pose a threat due to the hope they instill within the districts of Panem.

There’s plenty of interesting metaphorical subtext in all of this, particularly related to the way our society disenfranchises the lower class while placating them with false hopes and trivial preoccupations. I get that it’s easy to label all sorts of movies as allegories for the Occupy Movement, especially those with dystopian futures (Elysium, In Time, etc.) but there’s something that feels almost fresh about the way this series focuses specifically on “hope” as a weapon used for both oppression and revolution. 

Katniss's defiance has inspired revolt throughout the other districts.

Twilight has been an obvious comparison for this series since it was first announced, but as The Hunger Games continues to distinguish itself as one of the higher quality franchises of the moment, it seems clear that the more apt comparison may be the Harry Potter films. As with Potter, The Hunger Games is working from legitimately solid source material, and it is being treated with dignity by its filmmakers who have put a premium on talent and quality. Superb actor after superb actor populates these films (and will continue to do so as  Julianne Moore is set to join the final two installments), and the behind-the-scenes players are impressive across the board. Look no further than the screenwriters for proof – this episode has been adapted by Oscar winners Michael Arndt (Toy Story 3, Little Miss Sunshine) and Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours).

As with Harry Potter’s Christopher Columbus before him, writer-director Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit) has been unfairly maligned for his stewardship of the franchise’s first film, with most detractors focusing on the negatives (most specifically, his decision to go all shaky cam). But, it’s worth noting that launching a franchise like this is nearly impossible. Occasionally a bad one succeeds (Twilight) or a promising one fails (The Golden Compass), but young adult literature adaptations usually tend to be gross miscalculations along the lines of Eragon, I Am Number Four and The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones.

The fact that Ross delivered a hit, clearly established the world in an accessible manner and nailed the tone and casting is a pretty spectacular feat, and accomplishing all of that did a great deal of the heavy lifting for this second outing. For my Phillies fans out there, he’s basically what Ed Wade was to the 2008 championship – hamstrung by budgetary concerns and remembered for his miscues, despite planting the seeds for greater achievement.

But just as Pat Gillick deserves a great deal of credit for bringing a World Series trophy to Philadelphia, Francis Lawrence (Constantine, I am Legend) deserves his fair share for Catching Fire. A singular success along the lines of the Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe is rare enough, but even rarer is a franchise like Harry Potter – one that not only maintains a level of quality but continues to improve. Regardless of what you think of his previous output overall, Lawrence is experienced with the genre and a far more established visual stylist than Ross, and I think that makes a world of difference. He wisely abandons the shaky cam, opting instead for longer takes that make geographical sense of what’s happening while also allowing the camera to linger on actor reactions and the improved aesthetic of Panem.

Having most of the exposition out of the way is, as predicted, a major boon for the film. With the world established, screen time can instead be devoted to defining character moments. By necessity, the first film is laser-focused on establishing Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and the rules of the Games. The rest of cast did nice work, but all in support of establishing the lead. Here, they are far more prominent.

To be clear, Katniss is still the undisputed focus of the picture, and, Jennifer Lawrence remains the greatest asset this franchise has going. As Katniss, she manages to be difficult, uncompromising and closed-off, while still coming across as relatable, likable and desirable. It’s a great role and an even more impressive performance, and at this point in her career, Jennifer Lawrence is Hollywood’s Girl On Fire.

The bond between Katniss and Peeta is way better realized this time out.

But the world around Katniss begins to open up in Catching Fire, resulting in a greater sense that the supporting characters are living their own lives and that there’s vastly more at stake than the fate of 24 tributes. Returning costars like Donald Sutherland, Stanley Tucci, Elizabeth Banks, and Woody Harrelson are given more notes to play, and they make the most of them. Meanwhile, new cast members like Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer, Jena Malone, and Sam Clafin all get a chance to make an impression. 

However, Hutcherson is probably the greatest beneficiary amongst the supporting cast. Dude’s practically playing a saint in these films, and that could become awfully annoying, but the script invests great effort into Peeta, and Hutcherson sells the character’s inherent decency and wealth of emotions. As opposed to the first film, which botched the presentation of the bond between Peeta and Katniss, this one gets it right by highlighting several moments that emphasize why this woman might fall for the meek, unassuming baker’s boy when she has a big, brooding coal miner/hunter waiting at home for her.

Twilight has shown this “Who will the girl choose?” crap can be the worst, but this is a very thoughtful take on love triangles, one in which obligation, affection and empathy take the place of sneering and petty possessiveness. Peeta’s not the type a movie of this magnitude would normally pair with its heroine (as The Onion hilariously explored and NPR thoughtfully analyzed), but he has the capacity to comfort and understand her, and, perhaps more importantly, to surprise her. One particular moment of inspiration – having Katniss (and thus the viewer) actually see the picture Peeta painted of Rue, and not just hear about it later on as she did in the novel.

As far as other changes between the book and the film, I’d say the filmmakers make a lot of smart decisions here. It’s a shame to lose out on the stuff related to Haymitch’s victory in the 50^th Hunger Games and the early scenes with Twill and Bonnie, two runaways that hint at District 13 still existing as a place of refuge, but neither was all that necessary.

Just like in the first film, the biggest alteration involves repeated cutaways to Snow and his Gamemaker. Adding a granddaughter for Snow is a simple way to humanize the guy and further establish the fragile system he operates, but more important are the scenes showing Heavensbee convincing Snow to keep Katniss alive until the time is right to kill her.

One of my biggest problems with the book was the hard-to-shake feeling that Snow’s plan seemed a little over complicated, that a guy like him would probably just kill her, or, at the very least, her family. This is especially true given the way he treats others in Panem and the way Haymitch’s loved ones were dispatched with after his victory in the Games. These scenes do a nice job offering explanation for this decision, while also providing a bit more insight into the twist involving the rebellion’s daring plan to extract Katniss from the arena unbeknownst to her (another thing that annoyed me in the book, but that makes sense here).

Donald Sutherland and Phillip Seymour Hoffman are both so good
at acting.

Although I like that, and enjoy how the film shows Heavensbee conning Snow with misdirection, the twist is a great deal more confusing on film. In the book, the ultimate implication is that Heavensbee volunteers as Gamemaker to help carry out the plot to save Katniss after Snow has already decided to do Hunger Games All-Stars. The goal seemed to be saving the symbol of freedom at all cost, so as to save the revolution.

In the film, Heavensbee is shown to be a master puppet master, pulling strings from the very beginning with designs to embarrass Snow on live television and thus further spark rebellion. He’s the one who comes up with the idea of doing a Hunger Games with past victors, and although you could argue he only does that to buy Katniss time, I think there’s a lot more to it than that (after all, the rebels could’ve just picked her up earlier in the film if they were worried Snow would kill her).

Part of me likes this aspect – it implies that even the good guys are ruthless in pursuit of their goals since they are willing to put previous victors in harm’s way to galvanize the public – but part of me hates it because of how densely elaborate the con turns out to be. It’s hard to believe anyone could ever convince Snow to do all these things in this way, at least not if we're supposed to believe Snow is a cunning and worthy adversary.

Additionally, I imagine nonreaders were very confused by the way the end is handled, specifically related to what the plan actually involved. Obviously confusion is part of the point during the events within the arena, but I think more work could’ve been put into explaining what exactly happened once the film transitions to its denouement. A full on, Ocean’s 11 style reveal isn't necessary, but a few throwaway lines when Katniss busts in on Heavensbee, Finnick and Haymitch would’ve gone a long way toward providing clarification for the uninitiated.

Despite these hiccups, Catching Fire is a great time at the movies. It’s long, but it moves; it’s big budget popcorn, but it has some substance to it. I’m skeptical about splitting Mockingjay, the final book in the series, into two films, but the filmmakers have earned some good faith.  I’m genuinely excited to see the next entry, and in a world where so many sequels seem like inevitable chores, that’s something. B+

"Iron Man 3" Proves a Solid Entry to the Increasingly Popular Iron Man Series

Tony Stark spends a large portion of Iron Man 3 out of the Iron Man suit.

I saw Iron Man 3 a few weeks back and thought it was pretty good. It’s definitely better than the lackluster second entry, but not quite on the level of the original. I’d say it’s about on par with The Avengers, even if it doesn’t have the same inherent scope and nerd value.

My overriding takeaway is that it’s amazing how far the character of Iron Man has come in such a short time. Little more than five years ago, he was a second-rate super hero. Now, he’s headed up four films that have amassed more than $1.5 billion at the domestic box office alone and well over double that number internationally. That draw puts him in pretty elite company, shared only by the likes of Harry Potter, James Bond, Batman, and Darth Vader.

Impressively, it seems Iron Man is only getting more popular, as Iron Man 3 has already netted over a billion dollars worldwide* and is on track to make more money than the first two solo outings combined. At this point, it seems pretty clear that Iron Man resides alongside Batman at the tippy top of the super hero food chain. I guess people prefer their super heroes to be eccentric billionaires with no real discernible powers.

* An interesting addendum to the international success of the film revolves around a modified version for the Chinese market. The tailored cut contains four minutes of extra footage, including a subplot with popular Chinese actors and bizarre product placement for Chinese milk. This article does an extremely thorough job of exploring the gimmick.

Other than that, my thoughts on the film are all over the map and sort of hard to pin down in a traditional review. As such, I thought I’d post a point-counterpoint article on things I liked and disliked about the movie.

(Oh, and, ummm, spoiler warning).

The film successfully deploys a kid sidekick in the middle of the film.

Positive #1: The General Vibe

Shane Black has a very particular cinematic voice, and every minute of this movie projects his Shane Blackiness. Christmas setting, meta-voice over narration, witty wisecracks and repartee – all his staples are here. Black seems to have used this opportunity as a way to send up a number of action movie clichés (the precocious kid side kick and the righteous terrorist, in particular), and it’s just a whole lot of fun watching him do it. 

Also, I definitely got a welcome James Bond vibe from much of the film’s middle section, something that’s further evoked by the familiar beats in the score and the line at the end of the credits – “Iron Man Will Return.” I’m not sure if this was overtly intentional, but Marvel president Kevin Feige is talking up his plan to turn Iron Man into the next James Bond in terms of franchise longevity and the ability to keep passing the mantle to new actors.

Negative #1: Lackluster tie in to the Avenger Initiative

The movie very clearly positions itself as a sequel to The Avengers, as a great deal of Tony Stark’s personal journey revolves around what happened in that film. The man can’t sleep, is experiencing panic attacks, and is feverishly working to create an army of suits because of the possibility of intergalactic threat.

And yet, in no other way does the film even acknowledge how the events of that film have affected the world itself. I know the movie should be judged on its own merits, but when you open up the story like this, it’s hard not to be confused when the film treats Iron Patriot (formerly War Machine) as America’s only defense of terrorism. No mention of Captain America or any agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., despite the fact that a lunatic terrorist is killing people left and right, and the leader of the free world is kidnapped.

I’m not saying other Marvel heroes should’ve been in the movie, because I understand they would take away from more intimate story. I’m just saying a throwaway line or two explaining the absences would’ve gone a long way toward silencing the bullshit alarm.


Despite the inanity of this right here, Gwyneth Paltrow continues to add a

great deal of heart and wit to the Iron Man series.

Positive #2: Concentration on Tony Stark

This series has always been at its most interesting when focusing on Tony Stark, due in large part to the iconic performance of Robert Downey Jr., but here, an extra concentrated effort seems to have been put on echoing the final line from the first film – “I am Iron Man.” Unlike Batman in Christopher Nolan’s trilogy, Iron Man is not a symbol or a role that any man can take on. Tony Stark is Iron Man, and as a testament to this Tony spends a large portion of the film out of his suit, using ingenuity and intelligence to act the hero.

Of course, this exposure also highlights his humanity and vulnerability, an ongoing development that has been well handled as this series has played out. Not only is he in a mature loving relationship with Pepper Potts (something that makes him less immune to the threats around him), but he also is experiencing panic attacks related to traveling through the wormhole at the end of The Avengers.  It’s a nice beat for the character that can often seem a bit too unbeatable (he’s smarter, cooler, and just flat-out better than everybody else).

Negative #2: Convenient Plot Points

Throughout the film’s first half, a great deal of focus is given to Tony’s panic attacks, but once the film starts hurtling toward its conclusion, the whole thing is dropped, which seems like a missed opportunity. I’m thinking something like the moment when Pepper falls to her apparent doom (even though she was obviously going to be as indestructible as all these other Extremis folk), would’ve had more heft if it had been due to another attack.

There’s also the issue of why, if Tony has all of these great suits underneath his mansion, he doesn’t utilize them earlier. I suppose one could argue that until close to the film’s conclusion, they are trapped under the wreckage, but that doesn’t explain why he wouldn’t request their assistance during the assault on his home. But you know what does? Plot requirements. And that kind of sucks.

Iron Man 3 finally brings great action to an Iron Man solo outing.

Positive #3: Awesome Action Scenes

The first two Iron Man movies were largely devoid of great action scenes. Other than the decent raceway assault by Ivan Vanko in Iron Man 2, there’s not much memorable action in the first two films, probably because so much of the sequences just involved men in iron suits blowing things up or unimaginatively hitting each other.

That’s not the case here. Despite keeping Tony Stark out of his armor for most of the film, Iron Man 3 still manages three distinctly awesome action set pieces – the assault on Stark mansion, the skydiving rescue sequence and the climactic battle.

I know many corners of the Web have been unkind to this last one, but to be honest, I thought it was pretty solid. I didn’t like the silliness of blowing up all the remaining suits (this whole scenario showed how beneficial they can be, so, umm, WTF), and would’ve preferred Aldrich Killian’s death to be of the result of Stark’s very clever (and very well set up) method of throwing his suit on him and self destructing it to the silly and telegraphed Pepper Potts smack down. However, I loved that the sequence played down the importance of the hardware and made it very clear that Stark is the super hero by making each suit so dispensable.

Negative #3: Overreaching Continuity Angle with Rushed Epilogue

Third films often attempt to tie a great deal of elements back into the first movie as a way of indicating “See, you should be impressed, this was all one interconnected story.” This can be successful (The Dark Knight Rises), so-so (Die Hard with a Vengeance), or awful (Spider-Man 3). Hell, it can even be meta (Scream 3).

In all of those examples, the screenwriters tied the main villains from the first movie with those in the threequel. Iron Man 3 doesn’t really do that, but it does attempt to graft that type of thinking onto the film by giving our hero a previous connection with these bad guys, a connection that conveniently took place the same night Tony Stark happened to briefly encounter Yinsen, the man who would go on to help him forge the original Iron Man suit while hostage in a Middle Eastern cave.

Furthermore, it tries to put a nice little bow on the series via a rushed epilogue that explains Tony decided to have surgery to remove the shrapnel from his chest. This last point comes out of nowhere, makes Stark less interesting and renders pointless a great deal of the narrative from parts 1 and 2, both of which strongly indicated this was a medical impossibility. Nevertheless, the film rushes through this plot point as a way to thematically close the series, which isn’t really necessary and sort of works against the story overall.

Ben Kingsley's Mandarin offers a surprising element to the film.

Positive #4: Bad Guys

The greatest stroke of genius in Iron Man 3 is what it opts to do with the Mandarin character. When Ben Kingsley was first cast in the role, many wondered how Marvel would incorporate the character, a genius scientist and martial arts expert with 10 magic rings infused with various powers, into the mostly reality-based world they had created with these Iron Man films. The suggestion was that since Iron Man had now been linked to the more fantastical Thor, the door had been opened to continue down the rabbit hole.

In some ways, that would’ve made sense, as it would’ve built on The Avengers, thus addressing some gripes expressed in negative #1. Despite that, I thought what Black did was fun and fresh, even if it did piss off a number of hard core fans.

I also was quite pleased that the true villains of the piece were not just Iron Man knock offs. Instead, the Extremis villains seemed to evoke Spider Man’s the Lizard. Not entirely original, but at least it’s better than more of the same.

Negative #4: Bad Guys

I know, it seems odd to list the bad guys as a positive and a negative, but that’s just how it is. While, I really enjoyed the Mandarin bit, and was happy to be freed from the formula of iron baddies, Iron Man 3 continues the series’ trend of under whelming villains.

Outside of his excruciatingly over the top performance in the flashback sequences, Guy Pierce does a solid job with Killian, but his efforts don’t hide the fact that he’s just a mediocre compilation of former Iron Man foes. He’s a rich business rival (like Sam Rockwell’s Justin Hammer) with a cold-blooded thirst for power (like Jeff Bridges’ Obadiah Stane) and a personal vendetta against Tony (like Mickey Rourke’s Vanko).

All of these bad guys were well cast, but none were all that memorable, which is something that does leave a glaring hole in the Iron Man series thus far.  A quick glance at Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy highlights just how much a commanding and memorable bad guy can add to a film, but, excluding The Avengers (where he tussled with Thor’s baddie), Iron Man has dealt with boring, uninteresting adversaries. B+

“Oz: The Great and Powerful” Provides Good Family Entertainment

The production designers and special effects coordinators brought their
A game to Oz: The Great and Powerful.

I went in to Sam Raimi's Oz: The Great and Powerful expecting something awful. Despite the talent involved, the trailers made the movie look annoyingly frenetic, and the flying monkey sidekick appeared to continue the Jar Jar Binks tradition of adding a terrible CGI character to a beloved classic.

Fortunately, the movie is nowhere near the trainwreck I had envisioned. On the contrary, it’s actually a majestically beautiful, involving and even heart-felt film that pays homage to the 1939 classic while still offering a fun standalone adventure.

Although the original L. Frank Baum stories are now in the public domain, MGM owns the rights to many of the iconic aspects most associated with this franchise, and so Disney was unable to include references to ruby slippers or any of the classic musical arrangements and songs. However, Raimi and his crew pay tribute to the original version whenever possible.

Most obviously, the film starts in a black-and-white Kansas and concludes with a presentation of gifts. In addition, our hero goes on a journey to kill a wicked witch to get what he desires, during which he encounters several characters reminiscent of people from his life back in Kansas. There are even nods to the melting effect of water, flight via bubbles, and the Gale family, as well as the cowardly lion and scarecrow (but no tin man as far as I could tell).

The narrative basically presents origin stories for both the Wizard and the Wicked Witch of the West, and while it succeeds with the former, the film’s handling of the Wicked Witch is half-baked at best.

Somehow, both CGI sidekicks prove to be positive elements of the film.

As the titular character, Oscar “Oz” Diggs (James Franco) gets the bulk of the screen time, and the film effectively portrays his evolution from selfish scoundrel to sacrificing savior. Although he is an egotistical manipulator and two-bit magician, he also looks up to Thomas Edison and aspires to his level of accomplishment. “I don’t want to be a good man,” he says. “I want to be a great man!”

Once in Oz, Oscar meets Theodora (Mila Kunis), a witch whose father once ruled the land before being betrayed and killed. Theodora falls in love with Oscar instantly and takes him to the Emerald City, proclaiming him to be the wizard prophesized to restore peace in Oz and become king. Once there, Theodora’s sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) tells Oscar that he must find and kill her “evil” sister Glinda (Michelle Williams) to claim the throne. However, when he finally finds Glinda, Oscar realizes things are not as they first appeared.

The acting is mostly strong. Weisz and Williams fair best, which is hardly surprising given their impressive credentials and the fact that they basically each have one note to play. Franco, who was only cast after Robert Downey Jr. and Johnny Depp both turned down the role, proves a good fit for the character. The actor has received a lot of attention for his avant-garde career choices and incessant desire to be a Renaissance man with some praising him for his ambition and others criticizing his actions as phony and self-aggrandizing. That dichotomy is perfect for the role of Oscar, and Franco proves a solid anchor for the film.

The miscast Kunis doesn’t fair as well. I’m a fan, but the actress doesn’t excel at portraying menacing evil. That being said, she’s been saddled with an impossible character, whose motivations and mood swings are laughably presented.

Despite that developmental misstep, the rest of the project is a fine-tuned engine. The opening scenes in Kansas are filled with foreshadowing, and the film earns many of its best payoff moments due to the pipe work laid in those early scenes. The production design, score and 3D effects are uniformly excellent. Even the CGI sidekicks – a winged monkey (Zach Braff) and an amazingly rendered china girl (Joey King) – effectively avoid all the possible pitfalls and prove to be integral reasons for why the movie works. B-