Pitch Perfect 2 (2015)

First off, let me start by saying that I really enjoyed the first Pitch Perfect. However, I'm always a little leery of comedy sequels, especially when they come out so soon after the original. Is this a cash grab or do they really have a story to tell?

Unfortunately, Pitch Perfect 2 feels like something from the cash grab category. There just wasn't anything new here, just recycled material that was done better in the first. To illustrate, they didn't bother to expand on the existing cast, giving them even less to do this time around. Instead, they added more characters that also had nothing to do (with the exception of Hailee Steinfeld). Just look at the poster. See how the girl in the front looks a little off, like the scale and perspective doesn't match? It's as if she wasn't actually in the original picture and then they photoshopped her in. Her presence in the film felt about as photoshopped in. It also bugs me that the original antagonist is given almost no screen time, when he was one of the best things about the first. The only good addition was Keegan-Michael Key. He needs to be in everything.

It bugs me that they seemed to forget what made the first film so fun. They also forgot the core of the frigging movie. A capella means no music, something that was pointed out quite a bit in the first film, yet it's completely forgotten here. The first few performances were punctuated by a backing musical track, making it just a musical performance, not an award winning a capella group. I also find it weird that there's no stand out singer in the group. No, Anna Kendrick does not count. There's nothing wrong with her voice, but I don't see her as a powerhouse singer.

Then, there are things in the story that just don't make any sense. Like why does Beca have a secret internship? She's about to graduate, so it makes sense that she'd be trying to get some work experience, especially in the music industry (which seemed to be her goal even in the first film). Why the secrecy? If they're not thinking about the future, then why are they going to college? Just to hang out and sing? This does come out later in the film with pretty much the expected outcome (after they are mad at her first, for no legitimate reason). Oh jeez, I guess we need to move on with our lives. Duh! I hate when I see character behavior in film that isn't consistent with what I see in real life, or "drama" that could be avoided with a two minute conversation. Like it takes Fat Amy three years to figure out she's in love with Bumper. Really? Three whole years?

I'm curious as to why they'd hand the reigns to Elizabeth Banks to direct the sequel. Does she have directing experience that isn't on her IMDB page? Seems like a risky move and I don't think it paid off at all. They couldn't have paid a few extra bucks to bring Jason Moore back?

It's not completely terrible. There were at least a few funny parts, but it's definitely a big step down from the first. If you're a huge fan, I suppose there's enough here to warrant a matinee, but otherwise this is a rental, or even wait for streaming.

2 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Lego Movie (2014)

It's been said that The Lego Movie is little more than a extended toy commercial. Even if I agreed with that, my general response to this is, "Who cares?" Legos are awesome, and so is The Lego Movie!

How rare is it that you have a series of toys that has stood the test of time. I played with Legos when I was a kid, particularly the generic 80's Space Legos referenced in the film, and decades later my nephews are playing with them. Only they have much cooler Star Wars and Superhero themed Legos. Plus, there's the great Lego video game series, too. Admit it, you've played them. I suppose it helps when you film is based on a product that has a broad, built in audience.

The basic story is a Matrix-esque hero's quest. When attempting to protect a weapon called the "Kragle", Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman) warns Lord Business (Will Ferrell) of a prophecy where someone known as the "Special" will find the Piece of Resistance, the only thing that can stop the Kragle.

Later, we meet Emmet (Chris Pratt), an average guy with no special skills or qualities. While working on a construction site, he sees a woman, Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks), frantically searching for something. When trying to catch up to her, he stumbles down a hole and finds the famed Piece. He has a vision and shortly after is arrested by Bad Cop (Liam Neeson). Emmet learns of Lord, now President, Business' plan to use the Kragle to destroy the world. Believing Emmet is the Special, she rescues him and off they go to thwart President Business' plan.

It's almost hard to put into words how much fun is packed into The Lego Movie. There literally is a laugh a minute, with the gags coming in such rapid fire succession that it's easy to miss everything that's going on. Like many of the better animated films, the humor doesn't pander to a particular age group. There's something for everyone. At times you'll hear a big laugh from the kids, then maybe a handful of adults at something a little more obscure. They even throw in a subtle dig at generic sitcoms and pop music aimed at the masses.

As we get to the conclusion, there's a slight twist that gives the story some weight and makes it more than just about jokes and pretty animation. You'll look back on the film and realize that some of it's creativity, and even the simpler moments, are really more about the imagination of a child. It also reminded me of times where I would refuse to let my nephews take a Star Wars action figure out of the package, as to not ruin it's condition or integrity, when they simply wanted to play with it. Toys, especially Legos, are meant to be played with and inspire creativity, not sit on some old guy's shelf hoping it will gain value some day. Sure collecting has its place, but it helps to be reminded about their true purpose.

Despite Legos not having a ton of articulation, the animation is surprisingly fluid. There some very creative use of Legos to animate rounded shapes like clouds and water. There's some great Transformers type stuff, as well. This is also one of the few movies that I wouldn't hesitate to recommend seeing in 3D. The format fits the the vibrant images and animation well.

Where The Lego Movie really shines is with it's voice cast. As I've mentioned in previous animated films, it's a strength when they can cast recognizable voices, but they don't distract or take you out of the movie. While the cast is filled with big name stars, you're likely to not recognize many of voices until you watch the credits. Many I thought were impressions until I saw they cast the actual person. Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Morgan Freeman, and the rest are all great, but I think most people will remember Will Arnett's portrayal as Batman as the best of the bunch. He's absolutely hilarious, and sings the best Batman related song of all time. Charlie Day was also another standout as his voice fit his character perfectly. I think you'll see a lot of people quoting his, and other lines, from the film for a while.

Lastly, I have to mention the directing team of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller. These are the same guys behind Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and 21 Jump Street, so they are really knocking it out of the park so far.

The Lego Movie is truly a great animated family film that appeals to the kid in all of us. It's smart, hilarious and features both great animation and voice acting. I know it's early in the year, but I can already see this in my best of 2014 list and easily my favorite animated film. I can't recommend this movie enough.

5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Spaceship!

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

Which came first, Lady Gaga's fashion sense or the styling of Panem's residents in The Hunger Games?

Picking up shortly after their win in the Hunger Games, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) are about to take their victory tour of the districts.  However, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) warns Katniss that her actions have been seen as an act of defiance against the Capitol and have inspired many to rebel.  She better convince everyone that her relationship with Peeta is real, or else.  As the tour continues, civil unrest continues to escalate, and eventually Snow and new Head Gamemaker (Philip Seymour Hoffman) decide that Katniss needs to go.  They throw a wrinkle in the next Hunger Games that the tributes will be picked from the existing pool of past winners.  None of the past winners are wild about this and don't hide their unhappiness with the situation.  As many of the past winners are older or have been out of the game for a while, alliances form as their best chance to survive in the games.  If you've ever watched a season of Survivor, it's pretty much just like that, except with better hygiene.

When we do eventually get to the action, there's thankfully no shaky cam this time.  One of the things that bugged me, and many of my friends, about the first was that many of the action sequences were ruined by shaky cam to the point where it was a little nauseating.  I watched The Hunger Games again just a few hours before seeing Catching Fire to see if I was remembering it correctly, and it's definitely there.  I have to give credit to director Francis Lawrence for this improvement over the first.  The effects were a definite step up, too.  With almost double the budget, you can tell a lot of it went towards improving the visuals.  One scene that stood out was where the tributes face off against a pack of baboons that looked much more convincing than those rubber dogs from the first.  Those things looked like the bad, mutated dogs from Ang Lee's Hulk.

It's a not a flawless affair though. The first hour's pacing is a little too slow.  I liked the politics and story that was being set up, but more than a few times I felt like they needed to hurry up and get on with it.  Also at 2 hours and 26 minutes, it's still way too long. This could have easily been edited down a good 10-15 minutes and not lost much of anything.  It's not like I was bored, or was desperate for a bathroom break by the end, but these issues are really apparent considering that the structure is pretty much identical to the first film.  In fact, if hadn't enjoyed Catching Fire as much as I did, I would have walked out of the theater saying, "I enjoyed Catching Fire much more the first time I saw it, when it was called The Hunger Games."  It makes me a little nervous when I see that the final book is being split into two films.  I know that's the cash grab these days, but I hope it's being done because there's actually enough material there, rather than stretching out the running time.  Overall, I liked Francis Lawrence's direction and think the series is in good hands for the upcoming films.  Anyone want the over/under at 5 hours for the total runtime?

The performances were a big improvement across the board as well.  Josh Hutcherson seems to have matured a bit since the first film, and Jennifer Lawrence keeps getting better and better.  I'm a little biased though, as Lawrence is one of my favorite female actors, period.  An observation I had after the film is that while Hutcherson appears roughly his age, Lawrence feels much more mature than her age or appearance would indicate.

Woody Harrelson's Haymitch was much funnier and overall Harrelson felt more invested in the role.  I thought that Elizabeth Banks showed a little more range with Effie, as you saw how she'd grown to care for Katniss and Peeta.  I was a little bummed that Lenny Kravitz didn't get more screen time as he was one of the surprises of the first film for me.  The PSH is always great, but we didn't get to see one of his trademarked outbursts.  I also enjoyed Sam Claflin as Finnick, as based on his poster I wasn't sure what to make of his character going in.

Two of the biggest scene stealers were Stanely Tucci with his campy and a little creepy return as Caesar Flickerman, and Jena Malone's sarcastic and sexy turn as Johanna, a former winner who never passes up the opportunity to tell you, or show you, exactly what she's thinking.  Malone and Tucci seemed like the two actors that were enjoying themselves the most.

Poor Liam Hemsworth.  He's still suck in third wheel mode while his brother gets to swing around Mjolnir.
If there's any issue I had with the cast it was that Thad Castle (Alan Ritchson) didn't have more screen time, and at no point did he mention the need to bone some sloots.  Such a waste...

On a side note, I know I complained about this in my Hunger Games review, but I still have a little bit of a hard time taking this seriously as I should with all the goofy, made up names given to these characters. There are guys named Gale and Peeta.  Other characters with names like Haymich, Cinna, Katniss, Beetee, and Mags.  Are these call signs from Top Gun?  Where are all the Johns, Daves or Jennifers?  I guess in the future, the winners were the people that name their kids stuff like Gunnar, Apple and Rumor.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is one of the rare examples of a sequel that's better than its predecessor.  It's an obvious comparison, especially coming from me, but this felt like the Empire Strikes Back of The Hunger Games series. With the exception of its length and some pacing issues, it's a definite improvement over the first.  Fans of the first film should be very pleased with what they see this time around.

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

Pitch Perfect (2012) - Movie Review

Who knew the world of a cappella singing was so competitive?  It would have been great to find out there was a seedy underbelly to this scene with back door deals, performance enhancing drug use, and betting on competitions.  I also didn't realize how many different spellings for a cappella there are.  Do a search and you'll see a capella, a cappella, acapella, acappella.  All seem to be acceptable.  Can someone make a definitive ruling on this?

First off, I have to confess that I really don't like Glee, and I'm not the biggest fan of karaoke.  Fortunately, Pitch Perfect has more in common with movies like Bring it On, than it does to Glee.

I normally warn about spoilers, and that applies here, but the main knock I have against Pitch Perfect is that it follows the same, extremely predictable formula you've seen a billion times before.  It's kind of hard to truly spoil the film, because you know exactly how it's going to turn out.  You can apply the formula to almost any teen/school/competition film.  The formula is:

• New person arrives at school and is a bit of an outsider/rebel.
• They are approached by a group, but has no interest in joining.
• Reluctantly tries out for group anyway and shows extreme talent.
• Butts heads with existing leader over the direction of the group.
• Leaves group over disagreement.  This usually coincides with a getting in trouble and screwing up with their love interest.  The love interest is usually someone they initially do not like, but realize later that they do.
• Makes up with group just in time to win the big event.
• Makes up with love interest.
• The End!

It's kind of ironic that it follows such a predictable format, as about halfway through a character states that she never finishes movies, because she gets bored and the endings are predictable.  I thought that maybe, just maybe, Pitch Perfect might do something really creative and have this killer ending that sets it apart.  Unfortunately, this didn't happen.

The outsider, Beca, is played by Anna Kendrick. You know she's a rebel, because she has tattoos and wants to be a DJ instead of going to school.  It's still kind of a tough sell with Anna Kendrick as she has the whitest and straightest teeth in the world, and she's just too damn cute to see her as an outsider.  It's interesting that Beca was difficult to root for at first.  Her goal in life is to drop out of college, even though she's going for free, so she can move to LA to become a famous DJ.  She's standoffish with just about everyone and pushes people away.  She fights with her Dad, who actually seemed like a fairly reasonable person, rather than some overbearing parent stereotype   He even makes a deal with her that he'll help her move to LA if she promises to give college a shot for a year.  Having said that, you eventually do come around to liking Beca, and I think that's due to the inherent appeal of Anna Kendrick.  She's just one of those actresses that's impossible not to like, but I would like to see her try something against type at some point.  I'm not sure if the actresses did all the singing in the movie, but if so, Kendrick has a nice voice and showed some talent beyond her acting chops.

The Bellas, an all female group, are recruiting new signers after a famous flame-out in a previous competition.  It doesn't seem that many people are interested in trying out, so they are basically stuck with a motley group of girls.  Again, it's a little cliched as they all have common sterotypes you've seen: the fat one, the sexpot, the lesbian, the super quiet one.  Even though they are tired cliches, they are at least likable characters and show some personality.

The Bellas primary competition are the Treble Makers, an all male group, led by a chewing-up-the-scenery Adam DeVine.  As they are The Bellas sworn enemy, romancing between the groups is forbidden by Aubrey (Anna Camp), the leader of The Bellas.  You know that forbidden romance will come into play later.  I enjoyed Anna Camp (from Season Two of True Blood) in the role.  She has a stubbornness that intimidates the rest of the group, even when they all know she's wrong.

The funny dialog and charming cast is what saves the movie from it's predictability.  It's consistenly funny, and they still manage to take some shots at the genre and have some fun with it.  Pitch Perfect is campy and doesn't take itself too seriously.  I even got a bit of a Clueless vibe from the movie, but that might have been because Donald Faison has a brief cameo (along with Joe Lo Truglio).  The script by Kay Cannon is snappy and witty, and it also reminded me of movies like Heathers or Mean Girls.  It's interesting to note that Cannon writes for 30 Rock, which is also written by Tina Fey, who wrote Mean Girls.  

Rebel Wilson really shines as "Fat Amy".  She steals nearly every scene she's in and looked like she was having a blast.  She isn't made fun of for cheap laughs, and her character actually preempts attempts to make fun of her weight, so it ends up being a stronger character.  Another highlight of the film are John Michael Higgins and Elizabeth Banks (who also produced) as the commentators for the a cappella competitions  It's a little reminiscent of Fred Willard from Best in Show, but they have some great banter between them.  Hana Mae Lee also has her moments as Lilly, a girl who speaks with a voice so soft that you have to be standing inches from her to hear, but you'd be shocked at the stuff that comes out of her mouth.  The entire cast comes off well, without any real weak link.

The singing itself wasn't bad either.  I appreciate a cappella a little more than karaoke, as there's at least some arrangement of the music and choreography that goes into it.  I was worried that were just going to get a bunch of bad remixes of tired songs, but some of it was catchy.  Pitch Perfect was based on a novel by Mickey Rapkin, who spent time following competitive a cappella competitions.  A few people from the a cappella community were brought in to assist with the song arrangements, so I think that helped with the authenticity.

Pitch Perfect was director Jason Moore's first feature and he did a good job with balancing the cast and keeping the pace of the movie consistent with it's almost two hour runtime.  I'd like to see Moore and Kay Cannon collaborate again on another teen/college comedy and mix things up a bit more next time.  It's a good first effort by both, but just a tad too formulaic.

I was actually dreading watching Pitch Perfect, but I ended up having some fun with it due to it's strong cast, entertaining performances, and smart dialog.  It's a light, but predictable, comedy that doesn't take itself too seriously and should appeal to a wide audience.  Give it a shot.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

People Like Us (2012) - Movie Review

It's interesting how a movie titled People Like Us, doesn't actually have people like anyone I know in it.  But People Like Them or People Like Who? don't really work, do they?

Chris Pine stars Sam, a salesman that finds himself in trouble both financially and legally, as he gets news that his estranged father has passed away.  With his girlfriend (Olivia Wilde) in tow, he heads home.  He's so against going home that he (unsuccessfully) attempts to sabotage his travel plans.  This causes him to be late to the funeral, which upsets his mother, Lillian, greatly.

After the funeral, his father's lawyer hands him a bag with $150,000 and a note that asks him to give it to a boy named Josh.  Sam is torn, because the money would really help him and debates keeping it.  He does track down the boy and his mother, Frankie (Elizabeth Banks).  It doesn't take long before Sam realizes that Frankie is his half sister and she has no idea who Sam really is.

Frankie has her own problems as a recovering alcoholic.  Since she works all hours of the day as a bartender, she has very little control over Josh, who's always a step away from being expelled. Sam quickly bonds with Josh, but Frankie takes a little more time warming to him as she's unclear on his intentions.

The strength of People Like Us is all in the performances.  This is the best dramatic work I've seen out of either Chris Pine or Elizabeth Banks, and I thought Banks, in particular, really stood out.  She's both vulnerable and feisty.  I've always felt her strength has been in her comedic roles, so it was nice to see a different side of her.

Michael Hall D'Addario is also very good as Josh, but is desperate need of a haircut.  These messy, boy haircuts are a trend I hope fades out soon.  I also enjoyed Michelle Pfeiffer as Sam's mom.  Is it just me, or is she still sexy as hell?  Mark Duplass, who's in everything lately, has a small role here as well.

Much like last year's Roadie, People Like Us features a nice sampling of older, lesser known music.  As Sam's father was a musician and music producer, it works in the context of the film.

This is the directorial debut of writer Alex Kurtzman, who's joined once again by co-writer Roberto Orci.  These are the guys have have written movies like Star Trek, Transformers and Mission: Impossible III, so People Like Us is a totally different direction for them.  The movie states that it's based on real events and apparently Kurtzman drew from some of his own life experiences.  I hope his real experience didn't play out like this movie did.  The characters are well written though, and you at least understand their motivation and what they are going through.

The main problem with the movie is that is does run on a little too long at almost two hours, and is paced a little too slowly.  There's a subplot revolving around Lillian's health that wasn't really necessary and felt tacked on to add even more drama.  Perhaps the biggest flaw of all is that it could have been a good 20 minutes shorter if Sam would have revealed who he was much sooner.  While I can understand not wanting to just come right out and tell Frankie up front, there's no reason to postpone telling her for as long as he did other than to string the movie, and us, along.  The delay in telling Frankie nearly leads to a "Luke and Leia" moment towards the end, and you see it coming from a mile away.  Yes, there's nothing like almost accidental incest in a family drama.

It does have a very sweet and sentimental ending that, once again, may have people reaching for the tissue.

People Like Us is a bit long and melodramatic, but it's saved by great performances from it's cast, especially Elizabeth Banks.  Its characters are interesting, sympathetic and you can't help but like them.  It also serves as a change of pace from all the Summer action films and comedies out there now.  However, I'd put this more in the rental category.

3 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Hunger Games - Movie Review

In the future, poor kids will kill each other for our entertainment.  Sure, I'm over simplifying, but that's essentially what the Games from The Hunger Games are.

As always, this will likely be a shorter review, as I'm going to try to avoid spoilers as much as I can.  Also, as someone who has not read the books, I won't be doing any comparisons between the two or complaining about stuff left out.  Although, I will say that after watching The Hunger Games, I'm interested in reading them and that's a good thing.

Set in the distant future, how distant I don't think was stated in the movie, The Hunger Games are about a society that developed after some kind of uprising or war.  The victor of this conflict is now an elite class.  They live in a completely different world as far as luxury and technology and rule over the lower classes.  The losing side was divided up into different districts to be what appeared be worker classes for the elite class.  They live in broken down houses, dress like they are from the 1800's, and always seem to be on the verge of starvation.  The elite class look like something out of a Katy Perry video.

To commemorate this failed uprising, each year two teens from each District are picked to compete in the Hunger Games, a televised fight to death where only one comes out alive.  The winner is promised fame and fortune.  From District 12, you have Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence), who volunteers when her younger sister is initially picked, and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson).  One thing that doesn't seem to have changed in the future is giving kids weird names.  Katniss and Peeta, and Peeta is a boy's name?  When pronounced in the movie it sounds more like 'Peter', but seeing Peeta on paper looks like a girls name to me.

Anyway, after being picked, they are groomed and trained by several people who explain to them that the best way to win is get sponsors, who can send you aid during the games.  This leads the characters to do things down the line that they do more to appease the audience watching, than out of their own desires.  After a short time of training, they are thrown into the Games, which are supposed to last about two weeks, unless someone kills everyone else first.

The Hunger Games is a slow burn.  It takes a bit to get out of the gate, but they use that time effectively to establish the leads and the world they live in.  Once it really gets going, I got lost in the movie.  You really feel the tension once the Games begin.

What makes The Hunger Games stand out is it's successful balance of so many different elements.  You have a little bit of class warfare, a dystopian future, reality TV and even a love triangle.  Plus, you have a strong central character in Katniss.  What I liked about Katniss is that despite the events around her, she felt very grounded in reality and willing to do whatever it takes to win.

I do have some minor complaints about the film though...

I didn't mind the shaky cam work when there was running, but there's a particular scene where there are lots of close cuts and you really can't see what's going on.  You know what's happening, but I think it would have had more of an impact if you could truly see the brutality of it.  I understand they likely had to tame things down to have a PG-13 rating and reach a broader audience.  Considering how brutal I heard the books were, I was just kind of surprised they didn't go for it a little more.

I would have liked to see a little more development of some of the other kids involved in the Games.  I don't know if they were fleshed out in the book, but when these kids die, it would have more of an impact if you actually knew something about them or had a reason to care.  In the movie some of these kids feel disposable because of that.  It's similar to the whole 'Red Shirt' thing where the character that gets no screen time, dialog or character development is probably going to be the one to die first.

Also, it felt like there were many things about the world that were glossed over or barely explained for the sake of time.  I know not all the details from the book can make it into the movie, but I just would have like a little more explanation of a few things.  It didn't ruin my enjoyment of the film though, as it didn't cause me to be confused about character motivation or the basic plot (I'm looking at you John Carter).  These minor details are something that I hope might be fleshed out in an extended or director's cut.  At 2 hours and 22 minutes, I don't mind a few things being cut here and there so I'm not the theater for 3 hours, but I wouldn't mind a longer version once it hits Blu-Ray/DVD.

The ending was a little flat and felt like too obvious of a setup for a sequel.  This is clearly going to get one at this point, but making a movie assuming there will be a sequel can sometimes undermine the storytelling and having a self-contained movie.

As far as comparisons go, I felt there was a lot of The Truman Show in here, more than it was like The Running Man (although there are comparisons there as well).  I actually thought the way the story was told and the pacing actually reminded me of A New Hope in that you spend a good portion of the movie getting to know Katniss before stuff really starts to happen.

The performances are great, but this is Jennifer Lawrence's film.  There are many times in the movie where the look on her face tells you everything you need to know about how she's feeling at that moment.  It was very effective.  I enjoyed a lot of the supporting roles.  Elizabeth Banks was unrecognizable, but funny.  Stanley Tucci looks like he had a lot of fun playing the blue-haired TV host.  I got a kick out of Woody Harrelson as their mentor as well.  The guy that actually surprised me the most was Lenny Kravitz.  While, he only plays a style consultant, I felt like he cared very much about Katniss.  He gave a pretty good performance, for a musician.  Liam Hemsworth (Thor's brother), the forgotten man in the love triangle between him, Katniss and Peeta, seemed underused as far as making for an effective love triangle.  Perhaps this was explained better in the book or is expanded on in the sequels.

With so much going on here, I am impressed they managed to make it work.  I credit the direction of Gary Ross for successfully pulling it off.  He shared writing credits with Billy Ray and Suzanne Collins, who was also the writer of the novels.  I think in this case, having her involved in the screenplay was a smart choice.  Another cool thing, and maybe this was me, but I felt like the movie's score was very sparse.  They let the characters and situations speak for themselves, rather than manipulate you with a sweeping score.

Overall, I thought The Hunger Games was a very entertaining movie.  It struck a good balance of action, emotion and even social commentary.  It's a little more mature than your typical 'young adult' movie, and because of that I think it has a very broad appeal.  I strongly recommend checking it out this weekend.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars.