Vacation (2015)

Saying that I was disappointed in Vacation is like saying I was disappointed in the Taco Bell I got at 2 AM on a Saturday. I wasn't expecting much. Even with lowered expectations and a beer before the movie (so, yes, I was in a good mood), I felt that Vacation was still a giant waste of time.

I guess I should start with the cast. I like Ed Helms a lot, but I don't think he was right for the role. He's too sincere when it would have been better to have someone a little darker or with more of a sarcastic edge. It also doesn't help that he looks nothing like an older Anthony Michael Hall. Yes, he's playing the same Rusty Griswold from the original Vacation. In fact, I don't know why they just didn't get Hall to play the role. I'm pretty sure he's available. Leslie Mann was better cast as the older Audrey, but she's only in one part of the movie. I didn't mind Chris Hemsworth's attempt at comedy, but I can't say the same for his attempt at a Texan accent. Lastly, it's a shame they didn't give Christina Applegate more to do as she seemed like the only person that was really into it.

Oh, there is a cameo by Chevy Chase, but it only served to show how little he has left in the tank. He as shaky and unfunny. Beverly D'Angelo still looked good though, but she has like two lines of dialog. Their entire scene felt added on just for nostalgia's sake.

The other big problem with Vacation is that it's just not that funny. There's a few chuckles, but nothing made me laugh out loud. The funniest part of the movie was the opening credits, which was just a montage of awkward, random family vacation photos. This isn't even something out of the script or story. I think most people will get the biggest kick out of the younger brother constantly bullying the older brother, but that's a one-note gag that plays out by about the halfway mark. Most of the other humor comes out of crude bodily humor, or awkward behavior or dialog.

Vacation features two of my biggest pet peeves in comedy, the guy that gets walked all over for most of the film (basically the same role Helms played in The Hangover), and jokes hinging around something that's impossible. Like, there's a scene where they hit a button on their fake car (which already has enough design flaws that there's no way it could possibly exist) that causes all of the windows to explode. Even the characters remark as to why that would happen, but just because you point out that fact in the movie doesn't make it funny. It's still stupid. They try to redo the famous Christie Brinkley scene where the punchline is that she's brutally killed in a head-on collision. Can someone explain to me how that's funny on any level?

There's really nothing more I can say about Vacation. It's definitely not worth seeing in the theater, and I'm having a hard time saying it's worth seeing at all. Just stick to the original and Christmas Vacation and forget that they even attempted another sequel.

1 (out of 5) Death Stars

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

I guess we should get all the obvious stuff out of the way first. Is it as good as the first one? Is it as fun? Is it darker? I'd say, "Yes!" Alright guys, thanks for reading. That's the entire review.

Seriously though, it's easy to say that Ultron isn't as good as The Avengers. Clearly some of the "wow" factor is gone due to the fact that we've gotten past the idea of even seeing all of these guys on screen together, and a (finally) good Hulk. Ultron does seem less fun somehow, despite having as many one liners.

I feel like Ultron is more of the continuing adventures of The Avengers. An extended Saturday morning cartoon. Ultron has the advantage of familiarity, so we can focus on developing the characters and giving more screen time to people not named Thor or Iron Man.

There's a bit of sequelitis here, with bigger action sequences and the typical raising of the stakes. It is a little darker in tone, but that's probably not a surprise to anyone.

A lot of people seem to forget that the first 40 minutes or so of The Avengers was kinda boring. Not much happens. In Ultron, no time is wasted getting to the action, and there are at least 3-4 extended fighting scenes. There are a few times where there's too much going on, and I would imagine that it would be harder to track it all in 3D. I skipped on the 3D, but will likely check it out on IMAX in the next week or so.

I loved the new additions to the cast, particularly James Spader's voice work as Ultron. For the comic purists, there are few things that'll probably irritate you, but I try not to focus on that kind of stuff anymore.

I hear that Whedon's original cut of this was over 3 hours long and that we're going to get an extended cut with an alternate ending when it comes out on Blu-Ray. I cannot wait for that. I'll probably watch Ultron more on Blu-Ray than I do The Avengers.

So, yeah, I liked it. A lot! If you're a fan, go see it. If you're not, why are you reading this in the first place?

4.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Thor: The Dark World (2013)

I remember when they announced the first Thor movie and wondered how in the hell they were going to get it to work on-screen.  Combing cool fantasy elements, and funny fish-out-of-water moments, Thor was a hit.  Just two years later, we're already on our third film featuring the character.  Sometimes it pays to just keep doing what you're doing.

In a very Lord of the Rings-ish prologue, we learn that long ago Odin's father fought with the Dark Elves, led by Malekith (Christopher Eccleston).  Malekith sought to control the Aether, a weapon of unlimited power, to destroy the Nine Realms and return the universe to darkness.  After being beaten back, the Aether was hidden where nobody would find it, which only means that some puny human is going to accidentally find it one day.

In the present day, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is busy at work trying to bring peace to the Nine Realms after the events of both the first film and The Avengers.  He's regained the respect of his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), who wants him to take over his throne, but it's clear to all that he longs to reunite with Jane Foster (Natalie Portman).  Personally, I would been all over Sif (Jaimie Alexander), but to each their own.  Jane is investigating weird physical anomalies in London, where she comes in contact with the Aether.  This awakens Malekith and he sets his sights on Asgard to reclaim it.  Thor is forced to turn to the one person he cannot trust for help: his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston).

Unlike the first Thor, much more time is spent in Asgard and you get a longer look at this realm, along with a few others.  It all looks great, and the effects across the board are very good.  There was a nice blend of sci-fi with the fantasy elements, and at times I was reminded of Krull.  I had a problem with the 3D in Thor, so I skipped that this time.  I didn't see anything about the visuals in The Dark World that screamed a need to see this in 3D anyway.

Many of the side characters get extended screen time and their moments to stand out, but I was left wanting much more of them, particularly Sif, Volstagg (Ray Stevenson), and Fandral (Zachary Levi, replacing Josh Dallas).  Heimdall's role was also expanded, but I think you can attribute much of that to the star power of Idris Elba.  Even Thor's Mom, Frigga (Rene Russo) gets in on the action, and she shares some time with Loki giving you a little more insight into their relationship.

The Dark World's story is a little messy and takes a little too long to really get moving.  If you take a look at the IMDB page, you'll see a lot of names involved with the story and screenplay, which is usually a bad sign.  It's not so messy that it's hard to follow or a complete wreck, but it seemed to lack focus and the tone was a little inconsistent.  You could see elements that were borrowed from other films, and I was also a little irritated with the consistent use of illusions to get a character out of danger.

Another weakness is that while there's a distinct villain and we understand what he's after, he wasn't all that interesting or menacing.  Christopher Eccleston as Malekith was completely unrecognizable and spoke in a made up language for most of the film, making his casting a bit of waste.  Much of Malekith's scenes felt really disconnected from the rest of the film.

Where Thor: The Dark World really shines are with any of the action scenes.  Director Alan Taylor's experience with shows like Rome and Game of Thrones served him well.  You're treated to several of these Lord of the Rings-esque fights, complete with illuminating swords, but with lasers and other technology thrown in.  When we get to the final battle, it's very creative and manages to stand apart from the rest.  It finished on a high note and fans should leave feeling satisfied.

The performances are great as well.  Chris Hemsworth has really settled into the role and has ramped up his Thor-iness.  In the first film, it felt like a guy playing dress up a bit, but now he truly feels like Thor.  Thor's relationship with Jane was much more natural, and I think that's due in large part to the improved chemistry between Hemsworth and Natalie Portman.  Finally, Tom Hiddleston knocks it out of the park as Loki.  I've said for a while now that Hiddleston really seems to love playing the role and just chews it up any chance he gets.  If anything, he makes a case for the first Marvel spin-off starring a bad guy.  Come on, Marvel, make it happen.  Loki: God of Mischief should be part of Phase 3.

Much like the first film, there's a good amount of humor sprinkled throughout the film.  Much of this is provided by the puny Earthlings played by Kat Dennings, Stellan Skarsgard and Chris O'Dowd.  Sometimes their antics bordered on being silly, but the film benefit from these moments overall.  There are also a few great Easter eggs, and you'll definitely want to stick until the end of the credits.

Thor: The Dark World isn't likely to win any new fans, but there's enough of the humor and action that made the first work to please existing ones.  While the story is a little messy, the performances and action are a distinct improvement over Thor.  Overall, it's a highly entertaining film, so don't hesitate to check it out this weekend.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Red Dawn (2012) - Movie Review

Um...Wolverines?

Believe it or not, until this week I had never seen the original Red Dawn before.  I know the movie is heavily quoted and there's a lot of nostalgia for it, but I was never all that interested in going back and watching it.  I knew I was going to see the remake though, so I streamed it on Amazon the other day just so it would be fresh in my mind when watching the remake.

After watching this new Red Dawn, I felt that it only had a few similarities to the original and that it's yet another totally unnecessary remake that doesn't really live up to the original.  Hollywood, you have to stop this.  There's no point to doing a remake of a beloved film if you aren't going to do something really great with it, or address the weaknesses of the original.  The changes made here actually made the original film seem more realistic.

The basic story is still the same, only this time it's North Koreans that invade a small town.  As the occupation commences, a group of teens, led by Marine Jed Eckert (Chris Hemsworth) form a a resistance force and fight back.  They still call themselves "Wolverines".  That much hasn't changed.

One thing that hurt the film was how rushed it all felt.  This is almost a half hour shorter than the original, so details are totally glossed over.  I don't recall hearing any mention of what town they were in until almost two-thirds of the way through the movie.  There's no explanation of how the North Koreans were able to overwhelm us and the extent of the invasion until about that time as well.  So, you're watching the whole film wondering where they are and how this happened.  Plus, it's never even stated what the North Koreans want or what their goal is.

This was the directorial debut of Dan Bradley and it feels like a first effort.  The script from Carl Ellsworth and Jeremy Passmore is to blame as well.  The lapses in the movie's logic is hard to get around.  The original was written by John Milius, who wrote movies like Apocalypse Now and Conan the Barbarian (also the original one).  These guys have written stuff like Disturbia and The Last House on the Left.  There's no comparison between the writing teams.

There's little to no character development.  You follow the same group of kids the entire movie and outside of Jed and his younger brother Matt (Josh Peck), you know almost nothing about any of these people, so we aren't given much to care about.  Matt's character in particular was the perfect example of having a someone you hate throughout the film, yet he's one of the good guys.  He's arrogant, selfish and impulsive, and his reaction to conflict is to either disappear or to ignore them. We're supposed to care about his growth, but you spend the movie hoping someone kicks his ass. Even members of the Wolverines didn't seem to have any emotion regarding their friends, and were relatively unfazed when someone got killed.  Another annoyance was that all the non-white characters are the first to die.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the remake is that the villains were changed to North Koreans.  I heard they originally planned to make them Chinese, but then were worried about the Chinese market, so switched it.  The problem is that are we really all that afraid of North Korea?  Do they actually have enough of an army to somehow overwhelm our entire military forces in a short period of time?  The original Red Dawn worked because it came out during the height of the Cold War, when there was genuine fear of nuclear war with the Russians.  You never feel any real threat from the North Koreans, and there nothing menacing about their leader (Will Yun Lee).  When a small group of kids doesn't seem to have any trouble causing havoc, how am I supposed to fear them?

This movie sat on a shelf for a few years due to the issues with MGM, and you can tell because of the age of the actors.  Both Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson look significantly younger, and I would imagine had this movie been made now, that Hutcherson would have likely gotten a larger role due to his popularity after The Hunger Games.  I'm sure their current fame played a part in the timing of this release as well.  I did find it odd that it came out during the holidays, as this felt like something that should have been pushed out toward the end of August or March.

It did deliver a bit on the action though.  I think the reason I didn't absolutely hate the movie was that when there was fighting, it was pretty decent.  It wasn't cheap looking, nor was it over the top.  They actually employed strategy during their attacks, so I appreciated that   It is PG-13, so it's not particularly bloody.

Another strength of the film was the performance of Chris Hemsworth.  It's easy to say this in hindsight, but you can see when watching how he was clearly destined for greater roles.  Although, his American accent still needed some work back then, as there were a few times you could hear his Australian sneak out from time to time.  I also liked his chemistry with Adrianne Palicki.

Red Dawn is yet another unnecessary remake that doesn't do anything to justify it's existence. It features a story with even more logic holes and less character development than the original, and has a very abrupt and unsatisfying ending.  It's just not all that fun or entertaining.  You aren't missing anything here, folks.

1.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) - Movie Review

Early on in Snow White and the Huntsman, the Evil Queen stares into the magic mirror and says her famous line, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, who is fairest of them all?"  The CG-mirror comes alive and says, "You, Charlize, you're the fairest.  Duh!"  Then the movie fades to black and the credits roll.  Total running time: 7 minutes.  Okay, that isn't what really happens, but it would have been funny if it did.

This year we get not one, but two, updated editions of the Snow White story.  Just two months ago, we had Mirror Mirror (you can read my review here), and now we have Snow White and the Huntsman.  Where Mirror Mirror was a light and silly version of the story, Snow White and the Huntsman tries to tell a darker and more violent version.  Neither really deviates from the established story we're all familiar with at this point, so there's no need to go into the plot.

The good news is that Snow White and the Huntsman is a better movie than Mirror Mirror.  Like Mirror Mirror, it's a great looking film.  The set and costume design, along with the makeup and special effects are all top notch.  There are some great looking creatures and many interesting things to look at throughout.  However, while I appreciate the fact they tried to do something a little different, in a lot of ways it felt like this was just a Lord of the Rings or Narnia knockoff.  Don't get me wrong, I like they made a Snow White film that focuses on those fantasy elements and brings a little more action.  If their goal was to make a version that appealed to guys more, then I think they succeeded.

One of the cooler aspects of SWatH is what they did with the dwarves.  They cast regular-sized actors in the roles, but through the magic of special effects shrunk them down to size.  Many of them, despite being played by well known actors, were almost unrecognizable.  I had to watch the credits just to make sure I was right about a few of them.  Partially due to the quality of the actors playing the dwarves (Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, Toby Jones, Nick Frost, Bob Hoskins, etc.), they seemed more serious and less jokey than what we've seen in other versions of Snow White.  It's unfortunate they wait so long to introduce them, as I think we're well past that halfway point before they're brought in, but they end up being one of the stronger aspects of the movie.

Charlize Theron gives it her all as Queen Revenna, but I expected nothing less.  I've said it before, but it always seems like actors have more fun playing the evil character.  There's more to sink your teeth into and play with emotionally.  I do think Theron was just on the edge of overdoing it a bit, but she's still the most memorable performance.

I actually didn't mind Kristen Stewart for a change, despite my initial concerns that she had been miscast as Snow White.  I don't know if it was from the direction or her fixing some of her tics, but she certainly seemed to cut back on the excessive blinking and shivering that's plagued her other performances.  I coined the term 'chihuahua acting' a few years ago when describing what she always reminded me of.  I still wish her default expression wasn't an open mouth stare, as if she's a mouth-breather.  I thought she did a good job with the accent and emoting a little more, but I didn't find her character all that interesting.  She's just kind of there, but I don't really blame that on her performance.

Chris Hemsworth did a good job as the Huntsman, but I felt his character was a little one-dimensional.  In fact, I don't recall if they ever actually say his name during the movie other than call him 'Huntsman'.  Outside of the Queen, pretty much all of the characters seemed a little flat, and you don't really learn much about them.  Here's another movie where we have a trio of writers (Evan Daugherty, John Lee Hancock, and Hossein Amini), but somehow it all felt underwritten.

I think the lack of character development is magnified by the fact that the movie, at 127 minutes, is at least 20 minutes too long.  As the movie slugs along, these flaws are magnified.  We all know how the story is going to play out, so why stretch it?  This is where I think director Rupert Sanders let the movie get away from him a bit.  It's a good effort for a first time director though, and I'm sure he's going to get more chances after this to show what he can do.  Had he tightened the run time a bit, this would have been so much better.

Overall, Snow White and the Huntsman is a great looking and fairly entertaining movie.  It's flawed, but not so much that I left feeling disappointed or like I wasted my time with it.  It has a broader appeal than Mirror Mirror due to it's tone and action focus.  However, at PG-13, the dark and violent nature of this version might be a little too much for young kids.  I put this movie in the matinee range.

3 (out or 5) - Death Stars

The Avengers (2012) - Movie Review

All hail to the House of Whedon!  He is your new master now!  Just give him the keys to the Mavel Universe and step away.  For the second time in a month, I've seen a movie by Joss Whedon that I can't talk too much about as to not spoil it.  Joss, stop making great movies, so I can talk shit about them!

The Avengers was one of those movies that I never actually thought would happen, let alone work on any level.  How are you going to combine all of the characters and what they've established in several films and it not be a mess?  Well, they managed to pull it off.  It is the definitive superhero team-up movie.  The JLA is on notice!

Having said that, The Avengers does require that you have seen the previous Marvel films.  You don't necessarily have to have them memorized, but at least be familiar with what happened in Iron Man 1 and 2, Captain America, Thor, and to a lesser extent, The Incredible Hulk.  Then again, I can't imagine anyone looking forward to this movie that hasn't already seen those.

The basic story is that Thor's brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), has recruited an army that he plans on using to dominate Earth.  Early in the movie he's able to steal the Tesseract, also known as the Cosmic Cube (which you've see in both Captain America and Thor), from S.H.I.E.L.D.  He needs the Tesseract to open a portal to bring his army here.  In order to stop Loki, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), reactivates the Avengers initiative.  That's pretty much it.  You've got your villain, you've got your conflict, so assemble the team and fight, right?

The Avengers actually started off kind of slow and for a bit I was worried that maybe it wasn't going to live up to the type.  At 2 hours and 22 minutes, there's a lot they trying to roll up from the previous films and at the same time add depth to some of the newer characters, so the length of the film is forgivable.  Once it hits about the hour mark, it really takes off and becomes a roller coaster ride.  I really can't describe it in words without prattling off a bunch of adjectives.  You just have to experience it.

While I think the weak point of the film were the enemies The Avengers face off against, I did think Tom Hiddleston was great as Loki.  He's just so cold and slimy and Hiddleston seemed to have fun with the role.  Loki is more of the type of villain that will get in your head or get you to argue with your friends, only to look back at him with big grin on his face, satisfied with himself for manipulating you.

There were a couple of fights that had a little too much shaky cam, but that's a nitpick.  I really can't fault anything else with the the movie.

Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., and Chris Hemsworth are all back as Captain America, Iron Man and Thor, respectively.  They play their characters with the same effort and style that they did in their own movies, so there's no disconnect when watching The Avengers and wondering why a character's tone is suddenly different.  Despite the large cast, nobody was giving an effort like they didn't want to be there or were upset with a diminished role.

The real surprises here were Scarlett Johansson as Black Widow, Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye, and especially Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner.  Not so much with their acting, as we all know what they are capable of, but it's how they fleshed out their characters.  Like many, I wasn't too impressed with how Black Widow looked compared to guys like Thor and Iron Man.  What's she going to do with a handgun, when you have the might of the Hulk standing next to her?  They successfully turned her into a badass.  It's the same with Hawkeye.  He's a character I've never had any interest in, but again, they showed you why he deserves to be on the team.  Initially, I was nervous about yet another recasting of Bruce Banner, but ultimately, I think Ruffalo's portrayal as Banner is the best we've seen so far.

Speaking of the Hulk, this is easily the best the Hulk has ever looked on camera!  In Eric Bana's Hulk, he was too big and blocky; in Ed Norton's The Incredible Hulk, he was too ripped, but they got the perfect balance of the two this time around.  I don't want to spoil anything, but this is the Hulk movie you've been waiting for.  The best moments in the movie belong to him and he's simply awesome!

The Avengers is a team effort though and once the action gets going they really capture that dynamic well.  Captain America falls into his natural leadership role and everyone has their part to play.  You have to credit writer/director Joss Whedon, who's used to working with large ensemble casts.  He was able to balance everything out well.  They even gave some depth to some of the side characters like Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders) and Agent Colson (Clark Gregg).  They stand out and they get to have their moments.  I can't mention everyone, but you get to see many side characters from the previous Avengers-related films pop up.  No Happy Hogan though.  He's too busy producing.

As you'd expect from Joss Whedon, The Avengers is funny and has that witty banter you've come to enjoy in his work.  The story was co-written by Zak Penn, who's also wrote The Incredible Hulk, X2 and several other (lesser) Marvel comic films, so I think his involvement helped with the consistency of the Marvel Universe.  While there's the great action and humor, there's also some more human moments that I actually felt were kind of touching.  There's definitely more going on here than just popcorn fluff.

As it was shot in 3D, the 3D looked great and this is one of the few times I'd recommend seeing this in 3D or especially on IMAX, which I did and thought it was awesome!

Oh, stay until the end of the credits.  The very end...

The Avengers could have been a disaster, but it ends up being easily the best Marvel film and second only to The Dark Knight as far as superhero movies goes.  Joss Whedon managed to make me feel like a kid again, without making a movie that's for kids.  It's action packed, funny and everything you want your summer blockbusters to be.  It's the comic book fan's dream!  This is going to be in my top ten favorites of the year, so I'm not even going to pretend otherwise.

5 (out of 5) Death Stars!!

The Cabin in the Woods (2012) - Movie Review

This is going to be a tough movie to write about, as I don't want to spoil it at all and to even give you too many non-spoiler details would be to deny you the same pleasure I got out of watching The Cabin in the Woods.

While Cabin doesn't necessarily have any twists that I need to avoid talking about, from the opening scene (featuring Bradley Whitford, Richard Jenkins, and Whedon alum Amy Acker) you'll understand that you're about to watch something that isn't going to be your typical horror film.

Then, you're introduced to five friends that head up to a remote cabin for a vacation.  You think you know where this is headed right?  Wrong!

It's very funny, smart and self-referential of the horror genre.  There are so many great lines and references that I can see myself watching this a few more times just so I can pick up on everything.  It also transcends the typical slasher flick, much like movies like the first Scream, Tucker & Dale vs. Evil or even Behind the Mask.  After watching The Cabin in the Woods, I think this will change you way you watch any horror film from this point on.  One of the great things is that actually ruins really bad horror films and takes them to task.  From what I heard from the filmmakers, that was actually one of their goals.

Cabin was actually shot back in 2009, but it got shelved for a few years for various reasons.  I point this out because you may notice that Chris Hemsworth looks younger and less muscular than he did in last summer's Thor. 
 
One thing that I appreciated about the film is how it actually makes you root for the kids.  Normally in these slasher flicks, they are so generally unlikeable or disposable that you actually want to see them die in horrific ways.  In Cabin, the story develops in a such a way that you actually feel for them.  The cast is rounded out by Kristen Connolly, Anna Hutchison, Jesse Williams, and another Whedon alum, Fran Kranz.  They are all great here.

It's killing me because even just telling you what I've said so far, I feel like I'm revealing too much.  I might be a little influenced by the fact that before the screening the Lionsgate rep asked that we not Tweet or post on Facebook too much about the film as they wanted to avoid spoilers.  However, I feel like I might be setting your expectations too high now, so let me interrupt this by saying, "It sucks!  Don't go see it!"

Co-written and produced by (the man!) Joss Whedon, and I think this will make all the Whedonites very happy.  His work here makes me look forward to The Avengers so much more now.  Directed and co-written by Drew Goddard, who also wrote Cloverfield, which is arguably the best of all of the 'found footage' films.  These guys absolutely nailed it!  Another note about Goddard is that he's currently working on the Cloverfield sequel and another movie called Robopocalypse, which Steven Spielberg is attached to direct, so I'm looking forward to both of those.

If you're any kind of horror fan, then you're in for a treat.  You will love The Cabin in the Woods!  Even if you aren't a huge horror fan, the comedy and fresh take on the genre should be entertaining for most movie goers.  I highly recommend checking it out this Friday the 13th!

I'm a little torn here.  It's not perfect, so I can't really give this 5 Death Stars, but this is easily one of my favorite horror films, so I'm going to give an unprecedented rating here:

4.75 (out of 5) Death Stars!