Video Review: Surprise, "This Means War" Stinks

Yes, Chris Pine has a swimming pool in his ceiling that he

stocks with hot women. Needless to say, CIA gigs pay well.

This Means War mostly sucks. It’s an action comedy with sporadically tepid action and a modicum of lukewarm laughs, and it fails to offer even one standout scene. Still, the film is inoffensive, easy-to-follow and features three attractive and charming leads, so it’s not a total bust. It’s just the type of movie that’s best viewed as ancillary stimulation while you’re busy doing something else like building furniture from IKEA, writing holiday cards, or, I don’t know… cross-stitching.

Sadly, I was not multitasking during my viewing of This Means War, which focuses on playboy FDR (Chris Pine) and sensitive Tuck (Tom Hardy), two best buddy CIA agents vying for the affection of Lauren (Reese Witherspoon), unbeknownst to her. Since the movie had my attention, I was able to notice several indicators that the filmmakers were most likely keenly aware of the film’s destiny as nothing more than background filler.

Take for instance a car chase sequence in which Tuck tells Lauren to take the wheel so he can assist FDR in shooting at their pursuers, but instead of saying “Take the wheel, Lauren,” he says “Take the wheel, Reese.” Then there’s a gag at the end of the movie, where FDR reveals he once slept with Tuck’s baby-mama (whom Tuck has resumed a relationship with). On its face that would seem fine, except for the fact that it is strongly hinted earlier in the film that this woman is FDR’s cousin. 

"Steal a lame action comedy? Don't mind if I do."

I like to imagine that someone caught these issues, but that, when brought up to director McG, he responded by saying, “Seriously? Nobody’s going to remember Reese’s character name – I’m directing this movie and couldn’t tell you the name. I’m not making Tom do another audio dub. It’s pointless. And we need a last gotcha line in this thing, because audiences, they love those kickers. We don’t actually come out and explicitly say the woman is related to Chris’ character, so let’s just roll with it. I mean do you really expect people to use simple context clues here when they’ll probably be 80 to 90% preoccupied with something else like making homemade guacamole or playing Jenga?”

That’s really my take away from this movie, but I guess it’s worth pointing out that Chelsea Handler does some nice work here as Lauren’s vulgar and encouraging friend Trish. Any humor in this thing is mostly due to her, and IMDB indicates she adlibbed much of her lines, so nice work there.

And, can someone please explain to me what is happening with Angela Bassett’s career? She’s a fantastic actress, and I know good roles are hard to come by for women as they age, but the last few roles I’ve seen her in aren’t just bad; they’re so paper-thin and throwaway that it’s insulting to her talent. As in The Green Lantern (check my review here), Bassett is cast as a high-ranking official in a government agency, and yet the film totally drops the character, giving her even less to do that that film did.

McG and the screenwriters did Angela Bassett a disservice 

here. The hair and wardrobe people -- they did nice work.

Looking at her upcoming slate, it looks like she could be in store for more of the same, as she’ll be playing the Secret Service director in the Gerard Butler thriller Olympus Has Fallen. What gives here? How exactly did the star of What’s Love Got to Do With It, Waiting to Exhale, and how Stella Got her Groove Back become typecast as a government agent head (a role she also filled in an even more nonexistent part in Mr. and Mrs. Smith)? I know she’s in her 50s, but she’s got chops and is still stunning, and I have to think her name still has some cache with audiences. Somebody needs to give this woman a meaty part on a cable drama or something. Sigh… at least her other upcoming film Black Nativity seems a bit more interesting and challenging.

OK, I’m done with my Angela Bassett rant. Getting back on point: This Means War is a bad film, but would do in a pinch if you need something to “watch” while e-filing your taxes. D-



Despite Being a Muddled Mess, “Prometheus” is Still Worth Catching



As the ambiguous android David, F-bender continues to

prove why he's one of the most exciting actors around.

Going into this summer season, Ridley Scott’s Prometheus had about as much heat as any movie not named The Dark Knight Rises. A pseudo prequel to the Alien franchise Sir Ridley helped launch 33 years ago, the film was clouded in mystery and had built some great momentum with a slew of viral ads (one of which acts as a worthwhile epiologue to the film) and some haunting imagery.



I was one of the many who were pretty pumped to see the film, and, in fact, I saw it at an advance screening prior to its June 8 opening. And yet, here we are, over two months later, and I’ve still yet to write a word about it.

That’s partly because I’ve been busy with school and moving into the new house, but it’s also because I wasn’t sure exactly what to say. I didn’t have passionate love for it, but I also didn’t hate it, and so it sort of just receded to the background. In the end, I mostly agree with what is currently written on the Tomatometer consensus over at the film’s Rotten Tomatoes page: “Ridley Scott's ambitious quasi-prequel to Alien may not answer all of its big questions, but it's redeemed by its haunting visual grandeur and compelling performances -- particularly Michael Fassbender as a fastidious android.”

The film certainly is ambitious, and I can say with confidence that I was engrossed while watching it. The visuals are undeniably stunning (more on that in a bit) and there are two sequences in the film – the surgical abortion scene and the first foray into the Alien caves – that are just absolutely masterful, specifically the abortion one, which could go down as the best scene of the year. And while I wouldn’t say the performances are universally compelling (almost every character is vastly underdeveloped), Noomi Rapace certainly brought it and Michael Fassbender outright stole the film (this guy IS the next great Hollywood actor).

But, man, this is a problem movie. Generally speaking, I think the film faces unfair hurdles related to expectation. People expected an action movie in the vein of Alien and instead were presented with muddled existential ruminations strung together by a few action set pieces (at least one of which – the scene where Logan Marshall Green’s Charlie goes all Event Horizon on the crew – seems out of place and solely included to up the action quotient and off most of the cast).

This right here is in the running for best scene of the year.

In that respect, Prometheus was bound to disappoint even if it did deliver on all the esoteric stuff, and that kind of stinks, because I really liked the fact that Scott was willing to revisit Alien (and in fact, lift the film’s structure) with a completely different goal in mind. Still, I can tell you that the majority of the audience I saw this with seemed pretty annoyed by the film’s tone, which isn’t really a fair film criticism, as much as a practical reality.

Having said that, there are a whole lot of actual flaws here that bring the movie down a few pegs. First and foremost, while I like that the film ambitiously attempts to tackle big ideas, the undertaking is undercooked, with plenty of unanswered questions, poorly developed characters, plot holes and confusing character motivations that make the film nonsensical (and even borderline incoherent) at times. I don’t really feel like listing them all to prove a point, but this video here does a pretty good job highlighting most of them, so if you’re interested, check it out.

Then, of course, there’s the whole approach the film takes in mostly being one long set up for a potential sequel. I’m not totally against that on occasion, but generally, that type of approach compromises a film. When it’s a franchise with an individual episode that mostly stands on its own, that’s ok, but when it’s this type of mindbender, it feels like a cheat.

Despite all of these problems, the film deserves major plaudits for its transcendent visuals. Prometheus marks the third film to use 3D in which I actually enjoyed the technology and thought it added to the experience (the first two being Hugo and Avatar).* The ability for the camera to exploit depth and spatial nuance here is striking and so realistic that at one point I got annoyed that a woman’s head was blocking my view until I realized that was actually Charlize Thernon, obstructing the camera’s view of the video feed she was watching as her character Mereditch Vickers.

*Is it just me, or is it odd that the two filmmakers to fully utilize and take advantage of the 3D advancements made in the post Avatar world are 69-year-old Martin Scorsese and 74-year-old Ridley Scott? Isn’t this the type of thing one would expect younger, less established directors to embrace (ala when George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, and Cameron himself were leading the charge on special effects advancements throughout their 30s and 40s)?  Instead it’s the old hands who are pushing the new medium, and I guess that’s not about to change, as the 58-year-old Ang Lee (same age as James Cameron) seems destined to join the group with Life of Pi.

In the end, the movie features too many positives – the sublime Fassbender, that abortion scene, and some Oscar-worthy visuals – to totally disregard. Prometheus is somewhat of a failure, but it’s a noble and interesting one that can really stir a lot of rousing debate, and that earns it a certain level of respect in my book. B-

Video Review: “In Time” Wastes Interesting Premise With Lazy and Contrived Approach



Timberlake runs a lot in his first action outing, but fails to

run even a fraction as well as top-grade action star Tom

Cruise. If you're not a Bruce Willis, it's all in the running.

Science fiction is generally ripe for allegory and metaphorical overlay.  

At its best, the genre tends to package interesting and exciting action with thought-provoking ruminations on heady topics like political corruption, government surveillance, class warfare, the perils of technology, and environmentalism. As a testament to this we can look toward the works of George Orwell and Isaac Asimov, and, more recently, films like The Matrix, District 9 and Wall-E.

In Time aspires to this level of sci-fi greatness, and it seemingly has all the pieces in place to achieve such heights. The premise, cast and crew are uniformly excellent, and then, of course, there’s the presence of writer/director Andrew Niccol, whose Gattaca and The Truman Show were diverse and excellent entries in the genre.

Here, Niccol skews closely to Gattaca in terms of theme and content, albeit with more commercial leanings and a very specific allusion to the 99% movement. None of that is bad conceptually, but it all leads to some pretty generic and lazy scripting that works to torpedo what could’ve a pretty awesome ride.

The film takes place in a dystopian future where people stop aging at 25 at which point a clock on their arm begins counting down the remaining time they have left to live – one year. The catch is that, in this reality, time has become currency, and so it can be earned, traded, spent, stolen, or donated. A cup of coffee costs four minutes, 10 minutes with a hooker goes for an hour, a month of rent runs about several days – you get the picture.

The story focuses on Will Salas (Justin Timberlake), a 28-year-old slum dweller, who, like many (including Olivia Wilde as his mother and Johnny Galecki as his pal), wakes up each morning with less time on his clock than hours in a day.

Meanwhile, fat cats like wealthy bank owner Philippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) live life in slow motion – with thousands upon millions of hours, the rich content themselves by attending parties and spending lavishly in an attempt to enjoy immortality.

And then there are the Timekeepers and the Minutemen, the former being a police force of sorts that monitors time and the latter being a gang of thugs who rob slum dwellers of their time, effectively murdering them.

The film takes off when a mysterious 105-year old man (Matt Bomer) who has become disenfranchised with immortality gifts Will a century before effectively committing suicide. The gift doesn’t come in time for Will to put it to good use in saving his mother (in need of a recharge, she reaches him a moment too late), and, inspired by her death, he decides to take on the system, which allows many to die so that a few can be immortal. Populating this

Will ventures to an upper-class zone where he attends a few parties, plays cards with Weis, and makes googly eyes at Weis’ daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried). When he draws the attention of Timekeeper Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) he takes Sylvia hostage and soon they are on the run from the Timekeepers and drawing attention from the Minutemen. Sylvia very quickly joins Will in his mission, love blossoms, and they go all Bonnie and Clyde by way of Robin Hood, robbing her father’s banks and giving the proceeds out to the poor.

Accoridng to In Time, bank robbing ain't a thing.

This all reads fine, but the way it plays out is just horrendous. A big reason for that is the dialogue, which, even excusing the litany of bad time puns, is still awful through and through (click here to get a taste). But even more problematic are the generic plot contrivances and shortcuts that repeatedly make the bullshit meter sound off.  For starters, there’s the way Sylvia so instantly and inorganically joins Will and turns on her seemingly loving, if overbearing, father. And then there’s the fact that Will and Sylvia easily rob bank after bank with seemingly no issue at all, despite no indication they have the requisite skills.

And don’t even get me started on the Leon character, who I’m supposed to believe forgets to recharge his time, despite at least half a century of living this way. It’s supposed to say something about the character that he only ever carries a small amount of time, which allows for the climax to play out as it does, but that’s bullshit. If I’m meant to believe in the integrity of this world, how can I possibly believe this guy would forget to recharge? It’s not quite as silly as forgetting to breathe, but it is damn close.

There’s other annoyances too – the way Will and his mom find each other and she runs out of time just a second too soon; how Galecki’s character drinks himself to death because he just had so much time on his arm; the clunky way the political message is handled – but really it’s easier to just stop here.

Timberlake isn'r all that bad, but the script gives him little to play, and he doesn’t compensate for it the way some bigger personality actors might. After breaking through as an actor with his vulnerable Alpha Dog performance, he’s cultivated a screen persona as a fast-talking, slickster type (The Social Network, Friends with Benefits), and provided some nice shading in doing so. Here he still exhibts screen presence but is miscast as the stoic unflappable antihero. It's possible the guy could do well in an action role (he’ll need a few more duds before he certifies, like Ben Affleck before him, that it’s not for him), but this time out, he manages to offer up his least impressive film work to date.

The cast is filled of some solid actors, but none offer standout work. The best that can be said for the likes of Murphy, Kartheiser, Bomer and Wilde is that they don’t do much to embarrass themselves. The same can’t be said for Seyfried. I want to like her because her presence is particular and strong, but she really has found a way of picking bad projects and then being downright awful in them (i.e. Red Riding Hood). Of course, it doesn’t help that she has the flimsiest character and gets some of the worst dialogue.

All of that said, with Roger Deakins on board, the film does look great. So, that’s something I suppose. However, for those that don’t care about such things, In Time has very little to offer outside of disappointment over the wasted possibilities the premise offers. It’s mostly just laughably bad dialogue, mediocre action and a half-baked allegory that is… well… a waste of time. D

Video Review: Beginners Offers Low-Key Entertainment But Doesn't Stay With You

One thing I didn't mention in the review is that the dog

occasionally has subtitled thoughts. It's sort of cute.

Beginners is a low-key movie about real people and real emotions, the kind of piece that never really grabs you but that still impresses with its style, restraint and attention to detail. That said, it’s definitely not for everybody. My wife drifted to sleep about half way through, and while I liked the movie well enough, it’s left little lasting impression.

Going in, I’d expected a genial movie with a tour-de-force supporting performance from Christopher Plummer (it won him the Oscar), but that’s not what this is. Plummer plays Hal, a man who decides to come out of the closet at the ripe age of 75 only to soon discover he has terminal cancer. Despite the overt theatricality that could come with such a role, Plummer’s performance, like the movie itself, is delicate and restrained.

The veteran actor does a lot with very little, and is particularly adept at communicating the joy and comfort he takes in being “out,” as well as the underlying regret about having limited time to experience it. This is far from the crowning performance in his legendary career (The Insider really should’ve been the one to bring him the gold*), but it’s an affecting and worthy performance, especially considering his career excellence and the relatively weak competition he went up against last year.

*It’s worth noting that Plummer wasn’t even nominated for his towering performance as Mike Wallace, despite four of five nominees offering inferior work (Tom Cruise’s career-best work in Magnolia is the only one in the same class). The ultimate winner was Michael Caine, an all-time acting great who nevertheless managed to do far less to win that Oscar than Plummer

does here (despite already having one and therefore not having the caveat of being “due”).

Written and directed by Mike Mills, Beginners is a somewhat autobiographical film that focuses on Oliver (a typically strong Ewan McGregor), a sullen artist dealing with the coming out of his elderly father (Plummer) and his subsequent death. Actually, it’s more than that. The film jumps back and forth in time, showing Oliver in three distinct time periods, while also utilizing narration stylistically intercut with Oliver’s sketches for an album jacket and time-appropriate photos from each of the three periods to explore ideas of love, sadness, loneliness, and commitment.

Goran Visnjic plays Hal's young boyfriend. He was on ER.

The time periods include:

·        Oliver’s youth, during which he was far closer to his lonely eccentric mother (Mary Page Keller) than his distant father.

·        The period of time from his father’s coming out to his death, during which they grow far closer and warmer than they ever were.

·        The period of mourning after his father’s death in which he finds himself caring for Hal’s needy dog, attempts to make a grand statement with his art and falls in love with Anna (Mélanie Laurent), a quirky French actress.

A great deal of the action occurs in the final period, which is actually the one fictional part of the film. I’ve heard complaints that this portion is too twee, but the connection between McGregor and Laurent is powerful and I found myself enjoying it as much as the section featuring Plummer. It’s mostly an examination of Oliver’s ability to take a cue from his father’s decision to break free from the distancing loneliness of repression and open up to the possibility of love and happiness. Because of that, Anna isn’t fully fleshed out, but Laurent is alluring and relaxed, and contrasted with her excellent work in Inglorious Basterds, her work here is even more impressive. Like Marion Cotillard before her, Laurent is a French actress with real charisma and talent, and I hope to see more of her work.

As I mentioned at the outset, Beginners isn’t all that gripping, but it offers great subtle acting and some well-observed and affecting moments. For Mills, it’s a major step up from his first full-length feature Thumbsucker, which, despite being similarly low-key, quirky and character-focused, was far less effective. B

Magic Mike Effectively Straddles the Line Between Camp and Art



This pictures captures the first of many, many stripping scenes.

With Magic Mike, director Steven Soderbergh and producers Channing Tatum and Reid Carolin (who star and write, respectively) pull a pretty neat trick.

This is a male stripper movie headed up by Tatum and Matthew McConaughey, and it delivers the goods promised in the trailers. Unsurprisingly, it’s bound to repel straight men, while also providing guilty pleasure to countless women (and gay men) hoping to ogle, hoot and holler with a group of friends.* 

* This really is the type of movie you want to see in a packed theater. In my theater, groups of women and gay men were out in droves and their good natured glee was infectious. Even better: the response of a straight man that came unaware of what he was in for. Somewhere in the middle of the first stripping sequence, when a character disrobed to a thong and jiggled their ass at the camera, he stood up, screamed "Hell no!” and marched out of the theater. Laughter followed.

At the same time, this is a Soderbergh film, and although he doesn’t shy away from offering the audience multiple helpings of manmeat, he also injects Magic Mike with his patented clinical approach and indie sensibilities. The end result is a fun raunchy romp that simultaneously plays as a dark and shrewdly observed slice of life that is as revealing in its details and character moments as it is in its lively and numerous stripping sequences.

The movie tells a pretty simple and formulaic story. Mike (Tatum) is a self-described entrepreneur who has his hands in a variety of businesses in the hopes of raising enough money to eventually start his own custom furniture business. His main source of income just so happens to come from his role as Magic Mike, one of the "cock-rocking kings of Tampa" at Xquisite, a male strip club owned by stripper mentor and emcee Dallas (McConaughey).

In his seven years as a stripper, Mike’s only saved $13,000 toward his dream, but he has created a portfolio, moved into a fairly luxurious pad, and led a high partying lifestyle that includes, as we see in his introductory scene, three-way flings with fuckbuddy  Joanna (Olivia Munn)** and random girls whose names neither can recall. 

** Guys wary of all the male skin, may be interested in the fact that the popular Munn does show off her assets in an early scene (they are displayed shortly after Tatum shows off his behind).

While working his roof tiling gig, Mike befriends Adam (Alex Pettyfer), a 19-year-old who threw away a football scholarship and is now adrift and crashing on the couch of his sister Brooke (Cody Horn). Mike eventually takes the kid under his wing, and it isn’t long before he’s impressed Dallas and joined the crew of Xquisite, alongside Mike and the likes of Ken (White Collar’s Matt Bomer), Big Dick Richie (True Blood’s Joe Manganiello),Tarzan (former wrestler Kevin Nash), and Tito (CSI: Miami’s Adam Rodriguez).

As the story progresses, we see Mike toying with the idea of life after stripping, pursuing his business interests and falling for the straight laced Brooke, all the while Adam begins to venture further and further down a sordid path that not only includes stripping, but also druggy sexual encounters and even some ecstasy dealing.



A girl fails to resist the charms of the guy who brought her kid

brother into the world of stripping and drug use.



The narrative setup isn’t exactly original, but the dialogue and characters are finely written and the execution so assured that there’s no mistaking this for a gender-reversed Showgirls. The film, which is reportedly inspired by Tatum’s previous life as a male stripper, really embraces the little details, showing Mike in a quiet moment flattening crumpled dollar bills or a bespectacled Bick Dick Richie working on a thong with a sewing machine.

It also offers Tatum, who impressed earlier this year in 21 Jump Street, his best role to date. Hollywood is starving for a young movie star, and given the 2012 he’s had and the projects on his upcoming slate, the quickly rising star may be it. Like Brad Pitt and George Clooney before him, he started his career as a sex symbol, but has consistently sought to grow as an actor, seeking out interesting projects, many of which have been headed by fantastic directors. None of them have been better than Soderbergh (who, incidentally helped legitimize Clooney as a big screen force), and it’s worth noting that he saw enough in Tatum when working on Haywire, to work with him on his last two theatrical releases before his much-discussed retirement/break from film.

Tatum rises to the challenge and really digs in with a winning performance that exploits and fine-tunes the laidback charm and restless vulnerability he’s showcased in his better roles. What really makes the performance is how effortless and naturalistic Tatum comes across, whether he’s donning a suit and glasses to talk equity with a loan officer, break dance stripping in the club (displaying moves kept under wraps since his breakthrough role in Step Up), or falling over his words as he tries to convince Brooke (and himself) that he “is not his lifestyle.”

The question of whether or not Mike is, in fact, his lifestyle provides the backbone of the story. He talks about starting his own business and works hard, and yet he’s still living vicariously and has only saved $13,000 in seven years. For a guy brining in several hundred a night tax free, that’s not exactly a lot of money. We’re told Mike has bad credit (and thus can’t get a bank loan), so the implication is that he, like Adam, may have made some dumb decisions when he was a young, wide-eyed party animal and has fallen into a slippery slope situation. 

McConaughey is awesome.

If Adam is the Mike of days gone by, Dallas is set up as what lies ahead for Mike if he doesn’t get off his current course. Dallas is a successful and astute business man, but he’s also a self-deifying blowhard who relishes his seedy existence. While everyone around him gets plenty of chances to strip on the catwalk, the movie wisely saves McConaughey’s big number for the film’s final moments, setting it as the backdrop during which Mike decides whether or not to withdraw himself from such an undesirable future.

The key supporting players are strong.  Pettyfer understates the melodrama nicely, while Horn, despite getting stuck playing the nag, grounds the film and displays excellent chemistry with Tatum. Meanwhile McConaughey, who has unjustly gotten a reputation as a bad actor due to years of mailing it in with generic romantic comedies, reminds how sly a performer he can be, offering up an interpretation that is equal parts magnetic, hilarious, creepy, and delusional. This is a bold performance that literally peaks with McConaughey bending over in from of the camera, and the fact that he was willing to put himself out there, while also delivering on the acting front, is laudable.

Tech aspects are excellent across the board. Serving as his own DP, Soderbergh employs a sepia-tinged filter and offers up some pretty atypical shot selections. Some of these are beautifully evocative and disarming, but the most memorable uses a widescreen frame to depict Adam stumbling upon Big Dick Ritchie fluffing himself prior to a performance (leave it to a craftsman like Soderbergh to shoot a demonstration of penis enlargement both humorously and artfully). 

Having said all of that, the movie isn’t perfect. It’s at least 10 minutes too long, and while almost every scene has a refreshing authenticity, Adam’s first few scenes in the club (particularly the one that necessitates he must go on stage) are silly and poorly constructed. 

And although the casting director deserves plaudits for brining in an eclectic group of beefcakes (particularly Manganiello who has become a major object of lust for the many True Blood fans and Boomer who’s probably one of the most popular gay icons out there right now), they are vastly underused. Initially, I suspected the movie would give them something to do (the first scene with the crew is funny and the roles feel lived in), but they devolve into nothing more than window dressing. Surprisingly, it’s Nash who leaves the greatest impression, injecting a Mickey Rourkeian vibe into his role as Tarzan.

Soderbergh and Tatum will team up for a third time in next

February's The Bitter Pill.



Overall, this is a really strong effort from all involved. There’s obviously a level of camp to the film, and most of the plot beats are formulaic, but the care put into the characters, dialogue, acting and craft aspects enable to film to transcend the core material. It’s a simple story with familiar themes, but Soderbergh and Tatum really hit it out of the park. Their next team up, The Bitter Pill, will see them working with a script from frequent Soderbergh collaborator Scott Z. Burns (The Informant, Contagion), as well as a cast that includes Jude Law, Catherine Zeta Jones and Rooney Mara (in her first performance her Oscar-nominated turn in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo). The film his theaters in eight months, and seeing what the duo has accomplished here, I’m anxiously anticipating it. A

Video Review: Get Him to the Greek is Solid, But Struggles to Break Away the Forgetting Sarah Marshall Mold



P. Diddy becomes an angry Terminator-type when
he's trippin' in this movie.

In his first venture behind the camera, Nicholas Stoller gave us Forgetting Sarah Marshall, which, for my money, is a romantic comedy classic.  Co-written by Stoller and star Jason Segel, the film offers a brutally honest and moving look at a man in post-breakup freefall, while also providing a constant barrage of laughs from a large cast of talented performers. It doesn’t quite reach the heights of the genre where the likes of Annie Hall, Manhattan, When Harry Met Sally, and The Apartment reside, but it certainly gets in shouting distance.

With his follow-up Get Him to the Greek, Stoller has gone back to the well… sort of. Not only does the film spinoff one of the principle players from Marshall, but it also employs the same basic premise of a man in post-breakup freefall.  The result is a decent comedy that doesn’t quite live up to the first film.

Aldous Snow is a fantastic comic creation, and Russell Brand deservedly became an overnight sensation here in America for his performance in Marshall. A lesser movie would’ve established Aldous as a villain or used him strictly for jokes, but Stoller and Segel opted for something a bit more ambiguous, and Brand really ran with it. While they didn’t exactly make Aldous three dimensional, he was given an appropriate amount of shading, making the lament “Fuck you're cool! It's so hard to say, because, like, I hate you in so many ways” ring true not only for Segel’s Peter Bretter but for the audience as well.


That tiny hat is pretty tiny, but can't compare to the ones
Kristen Wigg has in her collection.

In Greek, Stoller (writing solo this time) outfits Aldous in three dimensions, equipping him with daddy issues, a child he adores, and a crushing breakup of his own that has led him to fall off the wagon. Brand does some nice work in illuminating the depths of Aldous’ pain (he really is great in this role, despite how annoying he can be on award shows), but conceptually the character worked better when he was more enigmatic and carefree.

 As Aldous’ ex Jackie Q, Rose Byrne takes the Sarah Marshall role of heartbreaker, albeit with plenty of madness thrown in (with Snow given more heft in this outing, much of the vapid, sexually-charged pop star humor falls to her). As her best-in-show performance from Bridesmaids proved, Byrne is a game comedienne, and she’s in fine form here. However, unlike the antagonists in the first movie (Sarah and Aldous), the role of Jackie Q is nothing but a joke, and so it’s hard to see why a free-loving guy like Aldous would ever want to settle with her in the first place.

Whereas Marshall had Mila Kunis’ Beth help Peter work through his issues, Greek focuses on the developing bromance between Snow and Aaron (Jonah Hill, portraying a different character than the one he did in Marshall), the record company suit tasked with escorting Snow from London to the Greek Theater for a 10^th Anniversary concert. The two performers are very good together, and the relationship they build is complicated and interesting.

The film is less successful in developing Aaron’s personal journey, which finds him simultaneously dealing with pressure from his unhinged boss Sergio (a funny P. Diddy Sean Combs) and a rough patch in his relationship with his doctor girlfriend Daphne (Elisabeth Moss). As I’ve said before, Hill’s greatest strength is his ability to play off of other actors, and he works well with both Combs and Moss. He has a particularly palpable chemistry with Moss, but their issues as a couple seems forced and then impossibly resolved in a way that’s phony and undermines the emotional credibility of the characters.

The presence of Elisabeth Moss would add a whole half star

grade to this movie if I gave star grades. I <3 Peggy Olsen.

As with Marshall, Greek has a number of side characters played by a slew of talented people (Colm Meaney, Ellie Kemper, Nick Kroll, Aziz Ansari, and a slew of celebrities, most notably Lars Ulrich, as themselves), but the film doesn’t given them nearly as much to work with as its predecessor gave Paul Rudd, Hill, Jack McBrayer, and Bill Hader.   

And that’s really this movie in a nutshell. It’s trying so hard to do so many of the same things Marshall did and constantly coming up short in comparison. Hell, it even has some original songs from Segel (as well as a slew form various writers, including producer Judd Apatow), but nothing that quite measures up to “Inside Of You,” little lone “Dracula’s Lament.”

Generally, I don’t like to judge movies in comparison to other movies because it can be unfair, but when a movie so closely emulates its predecessor, it’s hard not to do that. As a result, Greek just seems to be lacking.

To be clear (and fair), the movie is pretty good and does distinguish itself in some ways (this isn’t a Hangover and Hangover Part II situation). I do admire some of the screwy and dark places Stoller was willing to go, but really, that’s part of the problem. This movie could’ve been its own entity – a far weirder, more detached look at the corrupting nature of showbiz, for instance – but instead it mostly has been forced into the mold of the first movie. The end result is a comedy that is consistently entertaining, but not much more than that.

Greek is at its best when it gets weird, as it does in the "Stroke the Furry
Wall" scene.



The Avengers Proves Worthy of the Buildup



The Avengers possess some amazing talents, but none more so that their abilities
to strike heroic poses in the midst of a world-threatening battle.



The Avengers is not so much a film as it is a spectacle. It doesn’t offer much of a story for the superheroes it pulls together, as much as it provides a generic doomsday scenario that allows them to come in and play off one another.

I don’t mean that in a bad way. There’s a lot of value in what this movie offers. It’s a fun and witty crowd-pleaser, an entertainment of the highest order. And, because of the way Marvel studios has approached their whole business plan, the movie has the leeway to get by on the charm of its writing, performances and special effects.

Seeing all the box office records The Avengers is obliterating, it’s difficult to remember how much of a chance Marvel was taking when they first journeyed down this road of interweaving franchises. Outside of the Hulk, none of these characters had previously proven to have major crossover appeal, and his recent foray into theaters (Ang Lee’s Hulk) had been met with great indifference.

However, in hindsight, the approach was ingenious. In Iron Man, Thor and Captain America, the studio offered up three great films, each one of which was highlighted by a nuanced and character-driven story brought to life by a well-chosen director and a nicely distinguished lead performance. The Incredible Hulk was satisfactory at best, and Iron Man 2 buckled under the weight of shoehorning S.H.I.E.L.D. into the narrative as a set up for The Avengers, but having now seen the culmination of the plan, it’s hard not to be impressed with what was accomplished here.

Most of the heavy lifting was done last summer by Captain American and Thor. With those films offering up MacGuffin (the Tesseract from Captain America) and the main villain (Loki from Thor), Joss Whedon was able to hit the ground running with The Avengers.



Nick Fury doesn't really get in on the action in The Avengers,

but does get to blow up a plane with a rocket launcher.

And he certainly does just that. With most of the plot already nailed into place, Whedon devotes the bulk of the runtime to character interaction and action sequences, the two things fans really want from this thing anyway. I had a slight problem with how much of the film felt like kowtowing to Marvel mandates (the fights between our superheroes aren’t entirely organic to the script and feel included solely because it would be cool), but if not for that, most of the movie would’ve just been discussions on an airship, and, in the end, the fights are cool, so what the hell?

Whedon delivers exactly what he aims to with this film. The action sequences are uniformly fantastic, especially the finale, which uses some impressive camera trickery to create the illusion of a long take that interweaves throughout the mayhem occurring throughout Manhattan.

Even more importantly, no character feels marginalized. Yes, by and large, the star is Iron Man, but everyone gets a chance to shine. With so many characters, there are a lot of various story threads in play in the movie. I thought it best to take them one at a time.

·    Captain America vs. Iron Man: A lot of time is dedicated to the stylistic clash between the humble, patriotic Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) and the flashy, egotistical Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), both of whom are at the forefront of the action for much of the movie. Rogers feels largely out of place in this modern and cynical world that Stark very much personifies, and I think this was a great dynamic to play up in the film especially given Cap’s familiarity with Stark’s father. The whole thing works really well, but the one bit of this thread that bugs me is the conclusion of Rogers’ whole thesis about Stark being a selfish man who can’t make the truly heroic sacrifice. The script literally takes the ending of Iron Man, substitutes a nuclear device in place of Warmonger, and calls it a day, which seems a bit uninspired.

Robin Scherbatsky has some pretty big shoes to fill.

·    Agent Coulson Gets a Spotlight: One of the pleasant surprises of The Avengers is the enhanced role of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg). The character has featured in more of these Marvel movies than any other character, and because of that (and Gregg’s winning performance) he has endeared himself to fans while also helping to tie the films together. Here, Whedon shows Coulson to be a fanboy of a Captain America, which at first works on a cute level, but later becomes far more meaningful. When Coulson dies attempting to thwart Loki, his death becomes the catalyst for the group – particularly Stark and Rogers – to put aside their differences and come together. Although, I wasn’t a fan of the line “they needed something to Avenge,” particularly because dozens of other agents were being killed, it certainly works for the movie audience. Coulson is a beloved figure in the Marvel movie universe and a fanboy to boot, and so his death actually hurt. It’s sad that Gregg won’t be dropping in and out of these movies anymore (especially if the plan is for Agent Maria Hill to fill that slot, since as good as she is on How I Met Your Mother, Cobie Smulders was totally blah here), but it was an expertly crafted mini-arc.

·    S.H.I.E.L.D’s Motives: As I indicated above, I wasn’t the biggest fan of S.H.I.E.L.D’s involvement in Iron Man 2, but Marvel did successfully use what was established there to set up an interesting arc in The Avengers. The familiarity Tony Stark has with Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and his mistrust of the agency’s intentions gives the piece a sort of lived in feel, while also justifying all the mistrust and turmoil that keeps the team from stopping Loki’s (Tom Hiddleston) meddling earlier in the film.



Hulk Equation: Mark Ruffalo > Edward Norton + Eric Bana.



·    A Rejuvenated Hulk: Whedon and star Mark Ruffalo’s handling of the Hulk has received a lot of press since the movie’s debut, focusing on the idea “finally, they got the Hulk right!” There’s a lot of truth to that – the decision to play down the tortured element and have Bruce Banner be more put-upon and world-weary was a wise call. The movie embraces the fact that he is the most badass, dangerous and indestructible member of the team, playing it for some quick pathos (we learn Banner tried to commit suicide but found it an impossible task) and big laughs (“Puny God” is the best one liner in a movie choke full of good ones). All that being said, I do have a problem with the consistency of the character. The big secret Banner carries throughout the film and reveals at the end is that he is always angry and thus has learned to control the Hulk within (to the point that he can cooperate with a team and even save Iron Man on his fall back to Earth). However, earlier in the film, he loses control and attempts to kill Black Widow, a defenseless woman who has done nothing to him. I’m sure there’s a way to explain this away (i.e. if he chooses to turn, he can control it, but if not, look out…), but it seems like a cheat of some kind that allows the film to have its cake and eat it too (not only do we get a throw down between an unstable Hulk and Thor, but we also get an awesome, in control Hulk who can fight alongside his pals).

·    Brotherly Interactions: Even though his brother is the main villain of the piece, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) takes a back seat for most of the movie. He doesn’t show up until the midway point, and when he does, he gets very little time devoted to him outside of fight sequences. What he does get is a few choice scenes with Loki that prove to be the most emotionally resonant things in the piece. Even though Loki’s tried to kill Thor and his father, is now attempting to destroy a world Thor holds dear, and isn’t even his real brother, Thor wants to move past all that because he truly cares for Loki. It’s a good angle for the film to take, because unlike the humans, Thor doesn’t have as much at stake personally – it’s not really his world, and he’s indestructible. As such, even though his is far from the flashiest part, Hemsworth is my pick for best in show because of how much complexity he brought to his limited screen time (and now with the success of Snow White in the Hunstman, I hope the guy blows up in a big way and gets offered some good parts– he has loads of movie star charm).

They just get each other.

·    Mere Humans: Both these heroes were sort of doomed to seem second rate. Not only have they not gotten their own showcases before, but both seem like mere mortals in this compared to the big boys on the team. Making matters worse, their introductions in other movies were a botched (Black Widow in Iron Man 2) and a pointless easter egg (Hawkeye in Thor). Here, Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) is brainwashed by Loki and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) feels an obligation to get him back due to a complicated history together. This thread is only okay, but I do think it was a wise decision to lay these seeds if Marvel wants to do a combo spinoff down the line. Also, while Renner is underused, it was nice to see Johansson deliver here, both as eye candy (a confrontation between her and Loki lingers on a shot of her ass for a knowingly and humorously long amount of time) and as a real presence. Her standing as one of the great actresses of her generation has taken a hit in recent years, but she’s definitely a major talent, so it was nice to see her putting forth an A-effort here.

That’s a lot of words on The Avengers, so I’m going to wrap up now. In the end, the film isn’t the best Marvel film, but it’s a ridiculously fun ride that successfully rehabilitates it’s previously problematic characters (Hulk and Black Widow), while bolstering the Q rating of its moderately successful ones (the sequels for Thor and Captain America will probably make twice as much as the first entries after getting spotlight roles here). At the end of the film, every character is left in a pretty interesting place, and I’m excited to see where Marvel goes from here in expanding their ambitious movie universe.