Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

***1/2 (out of 5)

Directed by: Brad Peyton

Screenplay by: Brian Gunn, Mark Gunn

Story by: The Gunn’s, Richard Outten, some hack named Jules Verne

Can you pop your pecs? There was much debate on the car ride home about who in the extended family could pop their pecs. This is a movie for kids. No more, no less. My tween girl and young son enjoyed it, as evidenced by their obsessive talk on pecs popping. For those unfamiliar, a man who can alternate the flexing of their chest muscles is popping their pecs. According to one character this is a sure way to a woman’s heart. Or was it pants? Something like that.

This movie just wants to please its target audience, and falters when it tries too hard. Sean (Josh Hutcherson) is snide and mopey, as much as a kids’ movie allows, around Best Stepfather Ever Hank (Dwayne Johnson). Sean and Hank experience a rapprochement over Jules Verne and code breaking which naturally means they need to go to an uncharted island to find Sean’s grandfather. You know Grandpa’s going to be British because he has the fanciest name, Alexander (Michael Caine). There’s an attempt at some depth with Hank being the kind, involved but rejected father figure and Alexander being the family-abandoning, remote but hero-worshipped father figure but then OMGOSH LOOK AT THOSE HUGE BUGS!!

I’m not sure what to think about Luis Guzman’s Gabato, the man so desperate for cash to send his daughter to college that he agrees to fly Sean and Hank to an uncharted place. Gabato’s not as brave as the other men, and although he can fly a plane through epic storms he doesn’t seem to have other skills except for falling down and making I’m scared faces and noises. Occasionally funny, but why did the comic relief have to be the one with the brownest skin? I think that’s a legit question, one to think about discussing with the kids.

Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens) is Gabato’s beloved daughter and Sean’s love interest, a token tough girl who still needs rescuing every now and then. Do I need to mention that her outfit involves PG-13-friendly cleavage and short shorts? Didn’t think so.

This is breezy action-adventure for the younger set, the actors involved seem determined to deliver a good time. Dwayne Johnson AKA The Rock is charismatic and likable here, just as he always is. There’s something about him that makes me want to root for him, and I hope he has a long and fulfilling career, whatever that means to him. And no I’m not referring to his pecs.

Thoughts on Colorado

“And can it be that in a world so full and busy the loss of one creature makes a void so wide and deep that nothing but the width and depth of eternity can fill it up!”– Charles Dickens (1812-1870)

I’m keeping in mind that there was one shooter, but many responding to help. One who went to the theater with ill intent, but many who went with friends and family to enjoy a night’s entertainment. A few who post snarky comments about the tragedy in an attempt to gain attention, but hundreds (thousands?) who post closely-held thoughts and feelings for those impacted. Thinking like this keeps me from wanting to barricade my children from the world, from the unthinkable. Thinking like this keeps me from despairing in my own sadness and anger, and keeps my thoughts on the those who died, who survived, who are suffering, and who are caring for them. May they all find comfort, may they all find peace.

Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted (2012)

***1/2 out of 5
***** out of 5 for marketing

Directed by: Who cares
Written by: Some dudes
Starring: Alex, Marty, David Schwimmer & Gloria

I’m confused. I thought I was seeing a kids’ movie & somehow wandered into a Fellini film.

Or was there LSD in my snacks? Where was that suave Italian guy from La Dolce Vita? This review will take its cue from Madagascar 3 and play fast & loose with reality. No! I regret nothing!

This colorful confection of a movie has none of the heart of a Pixar film, it doesn’t aim that high. It does have slapstick laughs aplenty for the kids and smart dialogue and visuals for the adults. I assume Noah Baumbach got tired of complicated storylines and took this screenwriting job.

The kids loved it and the adults were entertained. Plus there was a very special guest appearance by Elton John starring as the debauched chimpanzees. Strike that, reverse it.

I attended this with my young son as part of a child’s birthday party. Every one of them knew all the words and sang along with Chris Rock’s Marty as he rhapsodized about circus Afros. Bravo DreamWork’s marketing department.

The Madagascar movies always offer multiple films in one movie, as was the case here. We have the main storyline, King Julian & his entourages’ storyline, and those lovable, borderline psychopathic penguins’ Dirty Dozen storyline. Often the lemurs and penguins are the most entertaining for me, being unencumbered by plot. This trend continued here.

Some of the humor did mine stereotypes, such as the scary grumpy Russian tiger. Quit harshing my mellow, scary grumpy Russian tiger bra!

The over-emotional under-cerebral Italian sea lion channeling Roberto Benigni and the rich, white American cowboy patriot dude.

Then of course Edith Piaf crossed with a psycho lady gendarme who sings the Fench Foreign Legion’s rallying song, “Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien” (No, I regret nothing) in a totally respectful manner.

Then there was a love affair that wasn’t weird at all between fan fave King Julian the lemur and a she-bear who inexplicably cannot talk. Their romantic ride through Rome as Andrea Bocelli’s warm voice envelops them…kinda sweet in a not weird at all way.

Overall, I’m pleased my child was entertained, will be nonplussed by future viewings of Italian surrealist film, won’t need to experiment with hallucinogens to experience trippy visuals, will be familiar with broad assumptions about other cultures, and will have joining Cirque du Soleil as a man dressed as a monkey dressed as Louis the XIV singing French Foreign Legion songs as his lifelong ambition.

Do I regret anything about this review? Oui! Ou est les photos de ce bel homme Marcello Mastrioanni?

Brave (2012)

**** (out of 5)

Directed/Story By: Brenda Chapman

“If yeuh culd chaynge yur fayt, wuld yeuh?”

Brave departs somewhat from prior Pixar efforts. This yields the studio’s first female-centric story, but also a more conventional film. Pixar giveth, Pixar taketh away.

I’m reviewing this having missed the end, my young son was scared of the big loud demon bear and was afraid Merida’s mother might get hurt or killed. He snapped. We left.

It’s got the Pixar heart, humor, & lovingly rendered visuals. I adore standing stones & Scotland’s terrain and culture so really enjoyed those aspects. Indeed, Scotland is investing £7 million in tourism, hoping for a boost.

Merida, the young lady and star of the film, and her family, reside in DunBroch Castle. Scotland’s Dunnotar Castle is said to have inspired DunBroch’s cliff-top location, while its interiors are said to be modeled on the castle of Eilean Donan.

Will O’ The Wisps, depicted as sprite-like in the film, are real phenomena, a form of swamp gas. What is not well understood is why they seem to always move just ahead of their observer, then disappear.

The film’s stone circle, an integral location, is based on the 3000-year-old Callenish Stones, located on the Isle of Lewis. Ok that’s the end of the travelogue, on to the movie.

Merida is a young lady evidently of marrying age, and her mother invites the three surrounding clans to a contest. Whichever of the clans’ first-born sons wins the contest wins Merida’s hand. Merida would rather be in the woods than take her mother’s how-to-be-a-lady lessons, and none of the suitors suit her. Merida then makes some ill-considered choices that endanger her family’s lives and the region’s peace. Oh, and she’s an archer, like everyone else this year.

The visiting clans were kind of goofy and fun but made me wonder if humans can ever truly progress past tribal inclinations. Or gender roles. The men were depicted as hyper-masculine, rash, always spoiling for a fight, and well, stupid, while the Queen was the ultimate authority through her dignity, intelligence, and calm. I have always found the idea that as a female my job is to be a civilizing force on men confounding. That’s a big reason why I love inappropriately wacky female characters like Elaine from “Seinfeld.” You be crazy girl. It wasn’t anything that detracted from the movie, just something noticed.

I am getting tired of “I’m a tomboy & revolt against gender expectations blah blah blah.” Why must the girl defy expectations through physical activity? Why not other ways? Being consumed with books, science, etc.? Stories about these other, non-tree climbing girls do exist, just not to the same extent. Watching Merida impossibly climb towering rocks made me very, very bored. Tres cliche. But her hair was fabulous.

Overall the film entertained, someday I’ll see the end, and I hope Scotland gets its tourism boost.

What I’m continuously surprised by is how deeply mother-daughter storylines cut me to the core as my tween daughter gets older. She’s like me in some ways, but so different in others that I don’t know how she came from me. Things I planned to help her work through I will never need to, she’ll avoid some of my problems but will have others I never faced. Did I expect a mini-me? She is the swine to my pearls of wisdom anyway, how can I help her when she won’t listen? But do I really listen to her? What pearls has she cast that I’ve missed? What do I expect from her? Her from me?

I asked my daughter what the movie made her think and feel and she wrote the following. Yes it ends abruptly but she said that’s it she’s done. I’m just glad she wanted to share anything:

It made me sad to think about what life would be like without u or dad and really that everybody messes up and sometimes u mess up big time and u have to tell the truth when u mess up and u got 2 make things right, and that you need 2 appreciate all the privileges u have & u can’t trust a with

Prometheus (2012)

**** (out of 5)

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Greek mythology. Mysterious ancient cave art. David Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia. Gorgeously rendered visuals. Those expecting a straightforward prequel to Alien, heavy on action in a grimy future, will be disappointed. This film has received mixed reviews from critics and may have underperformed at the box office. This is a film that revels in the cryptic, that raises big questions it may not be interested in answering. Is this to its detriment?

I cannot resist an opportunity to delve into the mythic, so this will begin with Prometheus himself. He is from Greek myth, and is associated with creation and striving for knowledge. He is a favorite subject in art, with the gold statue at the base of NYC’s Rockefeller Center being a familiar rendition.

Of course there are differing versions of his story, a Titan who in one version is a trickster who competes with Zeus for head god status, and in another a wise ally who aids Zeus in overthrowing his own Titan family. In either case, Prometheus creates humans out of clay, then steals fire from Mt. Olympus and gives it to mankind. In some versions he also gives knowledge, an effort to help prevent Zeus from destroying humankind. Zeus is enraged at this theft and interference.

As punishment Zeus orders Prometheus to be chained to a rock on a mountain top. Every day an eagle comes, pecks out, and eats his liver, which regenerates every night due to his immortality. Zeus punishes us by sending Pandora and her box of woes. Hercules (Heracles) frees Promtheus in one version.

There are elements in the Prometheus myth that are near universal. What does Prometheus have to do with the film? Viewers may differ on their answers.

A plot summary that doesn’t spoil the moviegoing experience is somewhat tricky. What can be said is that Drs. Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), a romantic pair, find the same pictoral configuration in ancient art across the world. Smaller figures, bent down before a larger figure, pointing to six orbs in the sky. This is interpreted as an invitation to find other beings who may have visited Earth long ago.

The scientists find a galaxy (never mind how) corresponding to the orbs, with a moon that could sustain life. This moon’s name is LV-223. Some critics ponder if this references Leviticus 22:3. I like that this question is even raised, although it seems like overthinking even to me.

The Reyland Corporation, headed by an elderly man wanting to aid in the quest to find these other beings, finances their expedition. A disparate group of scientists, pilots (led by Idris Elba), a robot manservant (Michael Fassbender), and the tightly wound captain (Charlize Theron) of their vessel, the Prometheus, land on this moon and seek answers. Did these beings visit us? Create us? Why? Is this truly an invitation?

Some critics say the film suffers due to thin characterization, but I didn’t find this true of two of the characters. Dr. Shaw is intelligent, inquisitive, a gentle soul who wears a cross, but who can call on inner fierceness when needed. Rapace convinces in all aspects of her character, an extraordinary actress. She has a unique ability to play characters who have a hardness and softness to them at the same time.

David is the most enigmatic and complex character. His creator, Dr. Reyland, says David has no soul. Does David feel emotion? Does David have his own motivations? He is a being created by humans, who are in turn seeking their own presumed creator. How do the other characters treat him? David is obsessed with the film Lawrence of Arabia. He dyes his hair O’Toole blonde, moves with exaggerated Lawrencian grace, and quotes the film. What is the significance of this? Is he like a person with autism who copies preferred audial and visual patterns? Or is there something else? Another question with multiple answers. Michael Fassbender is exceptional, totally believable as David, who may have the most screen time.

The other characters are different degrees of stereotypes, but thanks to the excellent cast have a suggestion of depth beneath.

Dr. Holloway thinks of himself as a maverick, is undeserving of Dr. Shaw’s love, and is dismissive of David. I did not like this man. But wasn’t supposed to.

Charlize Theron’s captain is basically there to stomp around in an impossibly tight unitard and be an imposing presence who cares only for self-preservation. Idris Elba’s pilot provides the common sense grounding, and clear resolve, to the affairs.

The three other scientists are basically a punk rockish guy & a poor man’s Richard Dreyfuss, whose actions make no sense in a key scene, and the female character who isn’t Hollywood Pretty enough to be a major player.

Another criticism is that it’s failed at its attempt at greater meaning. Dimestore philosophy, unnecessary gore, plot holes, thin connection to the Alien universe, incoherence.

The following is true. Questions are raised…then dropped. Actions are performed…for no apparent reason. The same stimulus…yields different responses. Severe physical trauma…then strenuous physicality. Characters act petrified in one situation…then as foolhardy as a randy teen in a horror movie going out alone to check out a noise.

So did I find this movie effective in probing the mysteries or is it self-indulgent claptrap? I may have been too happy to have some intellectual cinematic meat to chew on to care. Sometimes people aren’t rational, and act in contradictory ways. Sometimes the bigger the question the more convoluted the answer. A filmmaker isn’t obligated to spell everything out. I really enjoyed chewing on the intellectual scraps offered here, while still recognizing its shortcomings, and believe that if nothing else it provides outstanding fodder for conversation.

Moonrise Kingdom (2012)

****1/2 (out of 5)

Directed by: Wes Anderson
Written by: Wes Anderson & Roman Coppola

I am in love with Wes Anderson. Well, his films, if we must be precise. Nowhere else in film can my eyes and ears delight in such perfectly composed visuals and eclectic yet appropriate music. There are those who believe his films are too precious, too pseudo-intellectual hipster, too flat in affect, or as oft-lobbed by reviewers, too twee. I think they are missing the point of Anderson’s appeal, that his films attempt to externalize the inner experience of the introvert, the thoughtful observer, the quirky outcast, without judgment or overwrought emotionality.

Simply, Moonrise Kingdom is the story of two kids who set out together to escape their troubles and embrace their young love. Sam (Jared Gilman), a Khaki Scout on the island of New Penzance, is an orphan, a boy alone. Despised by other troopers and prone to violence that belies his owlish appearance, he finds a soul mate in Suzy (Kara Hayward), who he meets at a rendition of Noah’s Ark by the local church. Suzy, considered troubled by her parents and costumed as a raven (natch), is intrigued by Sam, and the two begin a frank correspondence about the travails of their lives. They plan an extended excursion and select a date and rendezvous point. Being remarkably skilled children they accomplish their goal. Their absence mobilizes the adults to search for them and into their own lives.

Scout Master Ward (Ed Norton) has his competence questioned, Suzy’s parents (Bill Murray and Frances McDormand), ponder where they have gone so wrong with Suzy, local patrolman Officer Stark (Bruce Willis) cares more for Sam than his koo-koo foster family, and Social Services (Tilda Swinton), embodies the fearsomely brisk bureaucratic response.

Exteriors are reflections of the interior in Anderson’s films, including physical spaces. The film opens with a tour of a home that seems more dollhouse than actual home. Objects are located exactly where they belong, objects that are so correct to the period, 1965, that I was startled by the strength of my nostalgia. The island on which the home ‘lives’ has its own introduction by an earnest scientist (the impeccable Bob Balaban), and there are frequent references and shots involving maps. The Khaki Scout camp, Camp Ivanhoe, is introduced by way of Scout Master Ward’s morning routine, and one feels they would be able to enter the camp and find anything needed based on this sequence alone. Why does Anderson do this, give such attention to settings? Among reasons likely inscrutable to me, I see a striving to emphasize character through the spaces the character lives and moves within, and attention paid to the seemingly smallest of things.

Anderson is sometimes criticized for the coldness of his characters, who react to each other with stares and speech lacking in emotion. The characters of Moonrise Kingdom aren’t the most emotionally demonstrative bunch, and why not? The viewer can discern some of the thoughts and feelings of the characters but the true complexity of these is layered, hinted at, as is true in life. Scout Master Ward’s dispairing into his tape recorder made me wonder about his past, his life away from Camp Ivanhoe. Daughter Suzy’s aggressive, “troubled” reaction to her family and life, what are the full origins? Her binoculars serving to enable her secret ‘superpower’ of long-range sight. Sam’s life in his foster home, how had things come to that state? It is a testament to the quality of the performances that the characters’ world extends beyond the screen.

The Anderson films I’ve seen have family and close friendships, and the complications of such, at their heart. In Rushmore, The Royal Tannenbaums, and here, children, including grown ones, struggle to comprehend choices made by their parents. In turn, parents cope with the repurcussions of those choices, with a desire to do better. Most parents will feel a pang of recognition when Suzy’s mother, Mrs. Bishop, counsels Mr. Bishop to hold himself together because they’re all the kids have and he replies, “It’s not enough.”

Sam and Suzy’s relationship is intense, tender, reciprocal. They trust each other with their secrets, her beloved books, the pin from his mother that he wears like a Khaki Scout badge that looks nearly identical to a pin I have from my grandmother. They protect each other from the perceived disaster of being caught by the grown-ups, or worse, by their peers.

On a side note, the way children relate to each other in Anderson’s films is a study into itself. They inhabit their own world with its own rules, which is how I remember childhood. There is violence, camaraderie, danger, sanctuary, heightened emotions and vivid personalities. Sibling relationships are often explored. Everything is being experienced for the first time. Everything is wonderful and terrifying.

Terrifying is the word to describe the love scene between Sam and Suzy, both twelve in the film. My daughter is eleven. This is a film about her peers I’m not sure she is ready to watch. Or I’m not ready for her to watch. French kissing. Hands resting on breasts. My daughter has seen film violence, why not this? It’s not gratuitous, but why was it necessary to show? To have the young leads engage like this? Having a child about the characters’ age make these difficult questions for me.

Overall this serves as an accessible gateway to Anderson’s oeuvre. The misanthropes are softened and the whimsy abundant. And I do want my daughter to see this, to see peers who aren’t running around in a vapid frenzy like the stars of too many Disney and Nick shows. Just not sure when.

Marvel’s The Avengers (2012)

****1/2 (out of 5)
Writer: Joss Mothertrucking Whedon
Director: Joss Mothertrucking Whedon
Starring: Everybody

Holy crap. Where does one start? This film has been lauded by many, dismissed by a vocal few. It’s shredding box office records and hasn’t slowed down. My affection for Avengers comic books, Norse myth, and Joss Whedon make being objective a major challenge, but I will try. The four and a half stars out of five are part of this attempt but who am I kidding? I really like this movie.

First off, let’s get something out of the way right now, shall we? Plot? Here’s your plot: bad guy and generic aliens vs good guys and stuff blows up and stuff. Featuring the MacGuffin, I mean, tesseract thingy. The thin plot is the main target of those who criticize the film. It doesn’t spend too much time explaining anything. What all does this tesseract thingy do? No-one seems to know. Does that matter? I don’t think so. Here it’s just an excuse to get the team together, no time for exposition. Thank goodness. Anyone recall the midichlorians scene in The Phantom Menace? Thank you Joss Whedon for sparing us. Let’s spend more time with the characters rather than hitting predictable plot points.

The end relies on a deus ex machina trope and I couldn’t believe it when I first saw it. The mechanized bio-aliens all just fall down a la The Phantom Menace? Wow, just wow. I have made my peace with it, deciding it’s not annoying enough to ruin anything for me.

The pace is a bit uneven at the beginning with the introduction of the numerous characters. The film jumps from scene to scene in the beginning before settling into a steady rhythm. I did find this a tad annoying upon my first viewing but also didn’t feel well. I did think that those who haven’t seen the lead up films or who need a lot of hand holding would get lost. However, I didn’t find it was problematic at all upon my second viewing.

After some consideration I have no problem with the simple plot, nor with the pacing. I believe these were conscious choices on Whedon’s part.

If you don’t know Joss Whedon, prior to this film he was known as being excellent at many things, including writing for an ensemble cast, writing strong characters, writing smart, writing witty. All of these talents are on display here. More importantly, NOTHING is without purpose in a Whedon production. A seemingly throwaway line in Season Two of one of his TV shows might be referred to as an emotional touch point in Season Four. He builds coherent, complex worlds.

That being said this movie is about two things:

1) Characters – Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
2) Fun – action, fighting, witty banter, people so beautiful that they don’t look ridiculous in star-spangly spandex I’m looking at you Captain America. A lot. Not sorry.

1) Three SHIELD agents. Six Avengers. One bad guy. Nearly all of them have a 1:1 interaction with each other. All of the interactions make sense within their context, provide insight into or raise intriguing questions about their character, and vary widely in tone and intent. It’s done so smoothly it takes more than one viewing to truly appreciate this feat. This is good, no, exceptional writing.

For critics who deride the lack of plot and the generic nature of the aliens, how could the plot be more intricate and still provide time for the characters to be highlighted in this way? Maybe there was a way, but I don’t see it. Pacing a bit abrupt at the beginning? At least four characters are established prior to the title sequence, at least four more within the next 20 minutes. That’s not counting fully fleshed out secondary characters like Tony Stark’s girlfriend Pepper Potts. After this, everything advances and never stops.

Every main character is provided with multiple showcases. Many reviews rhapsodize that everyone gets a chance to shine, and this cannot be overstated. This is accomplished through various pairings and groupings. None of these feel forced to me, although some critics disagree, especially when it comes to the heroes’ intra-fighting.

Special mention must be made of three characters: Black Widow, Loki, and the Hulk. This cannot be fully accomplished in a spoiler-free review but cannot be neglected.

Black Widow. Multiple essays on her portrayal in this film have already been written. Much has been made that 40% of the audience for this ‘male teen’ demographic movie is adult women. The charms of the men aside, women are enjoying the fiercely intelligent portrayal of Black Widow. While sexy and lovely, her appearance is remarked upon a handful of times, and is never the most important thing about her. Her brain is, and it is refreshing. I would love to go into further depth but the fear of spoiling anything prevents me. Suffice it to say that it is majorly unwise to mess with Black Widow. Scarlett Johanssen is to be commended on her performance, it was revelatory to me, and a solo movie would be most welcome.

Loki. Whedon says when he took the job Marvel told him some things were non-negotiable, one of them being that Loki had to be the main villain. Why? Dunno. While vastly underpowered compared to his mythic and comics counterpart he’s no less of an enigma. And in true Loki form, divisive. Will he ever reconcile with Thor? Who knows, but here their relationship gives another reason for characters to interact and have unique perspectives, which adds to the movie. The way Tom Hiddleston has played him, with a palpable sadness and insecurity underneath the visciousness and anger, adds to Loki’s complexity. Much more to say here, many questions, but can’t without spoilers.

Some critics say he’s too weak to be a real threat and is a detriment to the film. None of the major fight sequences involve him except for one that cannot be discussed here. Others say he’s the psychological glue that holds the whole thing together, functioning as a mirror through which the other characters are reflected, and dividing them like a prism.

I think it’s both to a degree, but I’m biased in that he’s fascinated me in all his incarnations, and I like how Whedon uses ‘movie version’ Loki here. An enormously overpowering villain would not have had so many interactions with so many characters. S/he would have been separated from the heroes until the inevitable big showdown at the end. Things are turned topsy turvy here. It doesn’t help that Tom Hiddleston is incapable of giving a simplistic, one-note performance. For a few critics he is over-theatrical, for most he is brilliant in the role. I’m in the latter camp. Much more I could say here, many questions to ask, but not without spoilers. Attend to Agent Coulson’s conversation with Loki, is one thing I’ll say. And Hulk’s (yep).

Bruce Banner/The Hulk. I’ve seen most of the Ed Norton version, Marvel’s The Incredible Hulk. It was OK. There was something about the old Bixby shows that was more gripping, even with the laughable special effects. What is recaptured here is a sympathetic Banner, and a properly used Hulk.

Bruce Banner. Mark Ruffalo said he watched the Bixby version with his 10-year-old son, and that his son’s reactions drove his performance. While Norton played up the tortured, tragic angle to Banner, Ruffalo took a cue from Bixby and softened it with a wry resignation and devotion to helping others. We may feel sorry for Norton’s Banner, but we feel affection for Ruffalo’s. An important distinction.

The Hulk. I cannot fully explain the terror and joy of the Hulk without going into spoilers. The Hulk is used correctly in a film for the first time. A complete wonder to behold. There are no words for it. The fact that two Hulk scenes have been leaving audiences convulsing in laughter, and not at Hulk’s expense, is right and good. Would Ruffalo’s Hulk work in a solo film? Dunno but I’d love to see the attempt.

A final thought about the characters. No-one is a one-dimensional type, these are all flawed people doing their best, people we want to root for. Everyone has chemistry with everyone, calling to mind the espirit de corps of 1977’s Star Wars: A New Hope, another film with a thin plot but great characters and heart. I believe the huge box office is not just about the spectacle, but about this.

2) I may be blinded by the fun. Rarely have action sequences been so awesome as the last half hour or so of this movie. Among the several reasons for this is that Whedon eschews the current fashion for close-up, quick-cut action shots where you can’t tell what the heck is going on. Thank goodness we can see what’s happening. Another reason? Not only do the various characters have dialogue scenes together, they have various action scenes together. Sometimes with heroes fighting against each other. When they finally come together as a team, it’s wonderful. And lastly: the Hulk. Yes sir!

Also fun? The spectacular dialogue. Whedon knows how and just as importantly, *when* to bring the funny. It never feels forced. It’s not just stand-up comedy night with Tony Stark, either. And it’s all true to character. Whedon’s just as good conveying pathos, grandiosity, you name it. His script brings it.

Some critics say this is a film devoid of depth. Is this Chekov? Duh. Lawrence of Arabia? No. [WHAT??!! if this movie added a young Omar Sharif and Peter O’Toole I can barely deal as it is moving on]. Back to the subject, I do think there are layers for those who look for them. Whedon has his faults but outright simplicity isn’t one of them.

Also fun? I’m sorry but it must be said. Again. There are way too many attractive people in this movie. Everyone acting all smart or sweet or snarky or sassy. Everyone finding excuses to show off their assets. Whedon knows what men and women find attractive and he socks it to us. The only thing missing is everyone wears too many clothes. I don’t care, this is all truth and I defy anyone to contradict me.

The acting? These are pro’s, they all own their roles. No weak links thank goodness. They ARE their characters. I could outline all the major characters and their roles in the film and how the actors all rock but it would get repetitive. It’s all perfection. You know what? Screw it. Let’s give people their due.

Tony Stark/Iron Man: I will buy tickets to RDJ playing RDJ as long as he keeps playing RDJ. He’s polarizing, some can’t stand his constant snark, but I believe most think he’s compelling and hilarious.

My mother gets huffy if I don’t mention Robert Downey Jr. enough, so Mom. He was his most awesome self. So smart and funny, great interplay with the other characters, looking like a boss. There you go.

Steve Rogers/Captain America: I thought Chris Evans had the least flashy role and did an excellent job with it. He was the straight man to everyone else and did it well. I grew in my respect for Cap’s character through Evans’ performance.

Director Nick Fury: I dug SLJ here. He had the gravitas befitting of the long black coat he borrowed from The Matrix’s Morpheus. Will he ever recapture his Pulp Fiction passion? Dunno, but I liked him here.

Agent Maria Hill: Cobie Smulders was fine, barking out orders in a convincing manner, Canadian accent and all. Didn’t really see enough to judge either way. Her character stood out because it was the least developed.

Clint Barton/Hawkeye: Didn’t find Jeremy Renner the least bit attractive prior to seeing the movie. Thought he was hot afterwards. That’s some acting. Seriously though, he made some subtle choices in his performance that surprised me, and I could see why Renner was nominated for an Oscar for his role in The Hurt Locker.

Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow: Terrific! Loved Scarlett Johansen’s performance, she showed a lot of range. Was convincing in the action scenes, and perhaps even more so in her dialogue scenes. Major props.

Bruce Banner/The Hulk: Mark Ruffalo needs a solo Hulk movie now. His Banner was so Bixby-ish, and he played the Hulk too using motion capture technology. There are certain moments I just love in the movie, and most involve Banner or the Hulk. Even his unassuming Banner steals scenes. Cannot heap enough praise on his performance.

Thor: I can’t see Chris Hemsworth as anyone else, he IS Thor. His line delivery has the needed ring of aurhority, in battle he looks fierce, but when he pleads with Loki to come home you feel Thor’s pain and confusion. Dunno what it will be like to see him as the Huntsman in the upcoming Snow White movie.

Loki: Tom Hiddleston can show a dozen emotions in a single glance. If Marvel wanted Loki to be a complex, tortured soul of a villain they got the perfect actor for it. Like RDJ’s Iron Man, though, he’s polarizing. Most critics think he’s riveting in the role but there are those who don’t see what the fuss is about. I’m with the former.

Agent Phil Coulson: I love this character, and the credit for that goes to Clark Gregg. His impeccable timing and droll delivery are priceless.

The score? Better the second time, grew on me. Cinematography? Bright. A little jarring considering how dark most movies are nowadays, but fine. You’re supposed to leave happy. Special effects? I’m not picky about that, worked for me.

This isn’t a movie with something big to say about how geo-socio-political life is dirty and heroes are nearly fatally flawed or that stupid pretty people run around and stuff goes boom. Batman owns the former, Michael Bay the latter, and their films are awesome in ways the Avengers isn’t. Vive la difference. This movie is about how when people put their differences aside and work together, it brings out the best in them. And that’s awesome.

The Three Stooges (2012)

***1/2`

Baby pee. Jersey Shore. Slapping a lion in the face. Traumatic brain injury. This can be a short review. If you like the Stooges you will like this movie. If you don’t you won’t. For any Stooge virgins out there, do you think pratfalls and pies to the face are funny? This is what we’re talking about here. My tween Miss Sloth gave this 4 1/2 stars, while young Soth Jr. gave it a raving 5. Mr. Sloth agreed with my 3 1/2 stars. We had watched the original Stooges on TV so my children knew what to expect and actually picked seeing this over a second viewing of The Avengers. Some may be offended by the physical violence meted out by the bros, but to me the most serious issue anyone could have with this movie is that poor orphans and foster care feature big. If this triggers unpleasant things this may not be the film for you. You have bigger fish to fry.

Film Sloth loves her some Stooges, rare but not unheard of in the realm of femaledom, and she was amused by this film. Directors the Farrelly Brothers Two were fortunate to have three leads that could channel the original Moe, Larry and Curly to a sometimes astonishing degree. Sean Hayes makes a fine Larry, the sad sack, while Chris Diamantopoulos has Moe’s exasperated expressions down pat. Arguably the most beloved Stooge is Curly, the bald-headed man child, and Will Sasso holds his own in the role. All three roll out the slapstick with no shame. In fact, nobody here has any shame, going all out with the manic pace, which is absolutely necessary with this type of comedy. Larry David, Jane Lynch, Jennifer Hudson, Sophia Vergara and more all just go for it, bless ’em.

The plot nearly gets in the way, and is just an excuse for the Stooges to do their shenanigans in different locales. And that is fine. With that said, it would’ve been fine by me for them to have stayed at the orphanage for the entire film, where for me most of the funny happened, and where I heard the most laughter from my kids. Solid four out of five stars for the beginning.

To share too much here might give away the numerous gags. Pay attention to details like store front signs and such. And wonder with me how some of the stunts were accomplished without anyone dying.

Random Thoughts: (Film Sloth reserves the right to tack random thoughts to the end of reviews. Film Sloth don’t care.)

This may be shallow, inappropriate, I don’t care. We need to get something straight right now. Sophia Vergara’s bra size cannot be 34DD, as claimed on a random website that I looked up because her bosom was so bosomly. No fracking way. According to another random website Ms. Vergara is more like a 30HH, which seems much more likely. Either way, brava Madame.

Dark Shadows (2012)

*** “

The Tim Burton directed Dark Shadows is gorgeous to look at. Everyone wears period clothing from the 1790’s and 1970’s made from luxurious fabrics with a palette ranging from the brightest of reds to the deepest black. Exquisite jewelry, whether high Gothic or 70’s macrame, is worn in every scene. Collinswood, the family mansion, teems with elaborate wood carvings and details, hidden places, inside a massively imposing exterior. Everyone is a glorious shade of pale, from ivory to alabaster. Film Sloth recalls the ’70’s as Coppertone tan days, but in Burton’s version this sloth would’ve fit right in.

By the way, this film has very little to do with the original TV program it’s “based on.” In fact, this film doesn’t seem too definite about what it does have to do with, which makes is unfortunate. This could have delivered something of note.

The film begins in ye olden days, showing the origins of a curse, the dark shadow that looms over the Collins family. It is accomplished in a concise, visually stunning manner. Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), the son of a happy, wealthy family, dallies unwisely but too well with Angelique (Eva Green), a servant who pursues him with preternatural focus, which makes sense since she is a witch. However, Barnabas falls in love with Josette (Bella Heathcote), a gamine waif with big saucer eyes straight out of anime. Angelique’s jealous curses kill everyone Barnabas loves and makes him a vampire, locked and chained in a buried casket. This is all tragic and lovely, nobody could out-doom Burton with a doomed romance.

The film then moves smoothly to 1972, focusing on the journey of a 20th century gamine waif, Victoria (Bella Heathcote), who looks exactly like Josette. We follow her travel to Maine, to apply for a position as a nanny at Collinswood. Her eyes are large and haunting, there is a beautiful sadness about her. The Moody Blues’ “Knights in White Satin” plays as we watch her and get immersed in the era. It strangely moving, and puts one in the mood for an overwrought tale of love straight from Byron.

However, the movie begins to shift in tone after Barnabas is inadverdently freed from his coffin by construction workers. As he meets the last in the Collins line, headed by Elizabeth (Michelle Pfieffer, looking fabulous), the tone jumps and nearly achieves 1970’s-worthy camp. The period music, used to powerful effect with Victoria’s journey, misses more than hits and heightens the camp. I found myself wishing for a movie that might have been, without the jokey jokes.  Yes, some were amusing, but it still felt off. In all this Barnabas attempts to help the family return to its former, elevated state and various shenanigans ensue, including a ball headlined by Alice Cooper, obviously.

A brief observation for those from back in the day. The ’70s are evoked here just as well as they were in the film Super 8, it’s like looking into the past. The initial switch in cinematography from the dark 1790’s to the earth-toned 1970’s was stunning. Completely nailed the look not only of the 70’s but also of films of the 70’s. Bravo.

Chloe Moretz plays Elizabeth’s sneering, surly 15-year-old daughter, Carolyn, representing the disenchantment of youth and the Me Decade. Elizabeth’s greedy, seedy brother Roger is played convincingly by Jonny Lee Miller in the finest of polyester leisure suits. His earnest young son, David, is played earnestly by Gulliver McGrath. The ever-entertaining Helena Bonham Carter plays David’s boozy psychiatrist Dr. Hoffman, who is obstensibly helping him to mourn his dead mother while wearing unfortunate jumpers and smoking like a French floozy.  Jackie Earl Haley, a 70’s film star who could be seen in edgy by today’s standards fare like The Bad News Bears and God Bless the Beasts and Children*, plays Mr. Loomis, the Renfield to Depp’s Dracula. Congrats to him on his much deserved career resurgence. All play their parts well, are fun to watch, but again, I wish they were in a movie that might have been.

Long story short, Angelique is alive and sort of well and learns of Barnabas’ return. She also learns that just like before, he lusts for her but will never love her like he does another, in this case Victoria, Josette’s doppleganger. They have a strenuous, supernatural romp that destroys a room. But, she is empty inside, a narcissistic psychopath, who confuses possession with love. She is played with gleeful malice by Eva Green, although at times when she attempted to sound evil she sounded like something inhuman out of The Exorcist. Yes she is an evil witch but it was a bit distracting, I saw this with Grandma Sloth and she often couldn’t understand her, even with her hearing aids in.

The inevitable CGI grand finale battle between good and evil felt like another jump in tone, which lowered the stakes (sorry) and made the film watching experience worse by flashing glimpses of what might have been.

Overall, it’s worth seeing for the visuals alone. The little things. The way Burton composes a scene. The colors and textures. It was enjoyable but could have been grand. Burton and Depp didn’t aim high enough.

*DO NOT watch 1971’s God Bless the Beasts and Children unprepared – it put me in a funk for days when I was young. OK weeks. Basically, a group of misfit outcast ignored-by-parents teen boys at a summer camp are rejected by peers and camp adults as major losers. They find a purpose after their totally legit counselor shows them a bunch of corralled bison be shot and killed as part of a population control initiative. They will free the bison. This does not go well, because this is a film from the 70’s about children. Cheesy, vivid and unsettling in a quintessential 1970’s way. You’ve been warned.

Random Thoughts: (Things Film Sloth thought about after writing the review but was too lazy to make part of it.)

1) What kind of deal has Johnny Depp made with the Devil for eternal youth? Almost disturbing to look at, and not just because of the vampire thing.

2) If they ever use the Enchantress as a Thor villain Eva Green should be a candidate. Who is this Enchantress, you ask? Am I the only one who read comics around here? OK, Thor spurns the Enchantress’ love because she’s evil, which makes her vow to either make him love her or kill him. Basically the same thing as in this film, but with a ridiculous costume. You’re welcome.

3) I want all of Michelle Pfieffer’s necklaces. All. Of. Them.

4) Fran Kranz plays a stoner dude here, and played the stoner dude in A Cabin in the Woods and the rocker dude Bill in A Wimpy Kid: Roderick’s Rules. Dude, don’t get typecast, dude. Not cool.

One more film review blog. Why?!!

The simple answer is because I can’t help myself. I adore movies. I adore thinking about them, analyzing, dissecting, discussing them, arguing, and writing about them. Not so sure about sharing my thoughts like this, they are a bit random sometimes to serve as true reviews, but c’est la vie. If you enjoy, I am happy. If not, there’s plenty of other film sites out there to choose from. Oh, and why Film Sloth? I can think of few other pursuits as physically sloth-y than sitting for hours in front of a screen. And sloths are cute. Thanks for visiting!