Whenever a movie franchise is revived after a long break, there’s a tendency for the new installment to stick out like a sore thumb, not quite measuring up to the originals. What’s most surprising about Men in Black 3 is that despite being released ten years after the second film, it doesn’t fall into that trap, actually fitting in quite nicely with the previous two. Though not all of the jokes work and the time travel mechanics open up several obvious plot holes, this third installment is a huge improvement over its predecessor. It’s a flawed but consistently enjoyable entry into the series, from which long time fans should walk away satisfied.
Men in Black 3 opens as Boris the Animal, a menacing alien played by Jemaine Clement, escapes from a top secret, high security prison located on the moon. As we find out, back in 1969 Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) apprehended Boris, an intergalactic criminal, and proceeded to activate a shield called the ArcNet around the planet, which since then has protected Earth from being invaded by Boris’ species, the Boglodites. After breaking out of prison and returning to Earth, he manages to travel back in time to 1969 in an attempt to kill Agent K, and prevent any of this from ever happening.
Flash forward to the year 2012, where Agent J (Will Smith) shows up to work only to discover that his partner, Agent K, is gone. In fact, the entire course of history has been rewritten. Since Boris’ trip into the past was successful, Agent K has now been dead for over forty years, killed by Boris in 1969, and therefore he never activated the ArcNet shield. J’s partner is dead, and hundreds of alien spaceships are approaching the now unprotected planet. He must travel back to 1969 to correct the timeline, save his partner’s life, and hopefully stop that alien invasion too.
Men in Black 3 marks the return of the franchise as well as of Will Smith to the big screen, who hasn’t acted in a film since 2008’s Seven Pounds. Despite the break, he’s as charming and funny as ever. Smith slides right back into the role of Agent J as if he never left. Accompanying him is Tommy Lee Jones though only briefly, as his character is replaced by the younger version throughout the 1969 section of the movie. Unfortunately, Jones doesn’t get much to do, and in his early scenes the character is even more solemn and downbeat then usual. This serves a purpose as is revealed later on, but it’s initially a little unsatisfying that K isn’t given an opportunity to shine as he did in the previous entries.
But that feeling doesn’t last long, because the star of this show is without any doubt Josh Brolin, playing a young version of Agent K from 1969, who is so good that you stop noticing the absence of Tommy Lee Jones almost immediately. Brolin’s impression is so creepily accurate that at times it sounds as if Jones actually dubbed over his actual voice. Young K has great chemistry with J, in a similar fashion as in the first film. Both Men in Black 1 and 3 involve the two meeting and forming an unlikely bond, so MIB3 ends up tying in very nicely with the original, and serving as a great cap to the trilogy. Towards the end, things start to get a bit more serious and emotionally driven, in a way reminiscent of an early Spielberg film. This had potential to feel sappy and tacked on, but because the relationship between K and J has been so well defined and well acted over the course of this trilogy, it somehow works.
Men in Black has always been about combining legitimately interesting sci-fi concepts with silly, comic book style humor, and MIB3 fits that description. The laughs are fairly consistent, and in general Smith’s persona almost always makes for some funny situations, even if his dialogue isn’t particularly clever. It’s rarely laugh out loud hilarious, but still amusing enough to keep things feeling light and moving along at a nice pace. Not all of it’s great and there are some comedic bits that just don’t work, especially in the beginning, but once we travel back to 1969, the film finds its groove and from then on that distinct, playful Men in Black style is back.
As far as the science fiction goes, there are some pretty cool ideas here, like an alien character named Griffin (Mike Colter) who can see multiple possible realities simultaneously. The other creatures are sparse but memorable, like Boris the Animal who is as good a villain as Bug from the original. These aliens, designed as usual by Rick Baker, are as awesome and gross as ever. As is often the case, the time travel conceit creates a few obvious plot holes, but because of the comedic nature of the film, they’re easy to overlook.
Men in Black 3 is a satisfying addition to the franchise, carried by Josh Brolin’s unbelievably committed performance and the chemistry between him and Smith. Ultimately the reason it works is the character development, and the willingness of director Barry Sonnenfeld to take the relationship between Agent J and K seriously, even despite the goofy and cartoonish movie surrounding them. It lacks the novelty and inventiveness of the original, but by the end Men in Black 3 comes about as close to matching the quality of that film as we could have hoped for, and is one of those rare second sequels which actually works.
OVERALL SCORE: 8.0/10
Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows, based on the late ‘60s TV series of the same name, may stick a little too closely to its soap opera roots. The set design is gorgeous, filled with beautiful gothic scenery, and Burton no doubt has a visual eye that will always draw me. Depp gives a typically committed and somewhat amusing performance as the lead character. Yet by the end, it feels as if something is missing. Like a real soap opera, Shadows is surprisingly slow, has a bit too much going on and, despite some worthwhile highlights, never quite adds up to something that feels complete or satisfying.
The story revolves around Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp), a rich and powerful master of Collinwood Manor in 18th century New England. During the film’s opening narration, he becomes romantically involved with a young woman, while inadvertently breaking the heart of another, Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), who also happens to be a witch. In retaliation, Angelique murders Barnabas’s beloved, and curses him into becoming a vampire. Before long she rallies the townspeople against him, and Barnabas is buried alive. Nearly 200 years later, in 1972, he is unearthed and emerges into modern times, where he finds Collinwood Manor in disarray.
Johnny Depp’s performance as Barnabas, an eccentric outsider, is familiar yet satisfying. There’s something about his willingness to commit fully even to a character as silly as this that I find endlessly appealing. Of course, the joke is that he is completely out of his element and dumfounded by modern society, and the humor comes from seeing Barnabas’s reactions to McDonald’s signs, troll dolls, lava lamps, The Carpenters, etc. These are obvious fish out of water gags, yet Depp manages to make most of them work by being utterly sincere and never hinting that he’s in on the joke. If it wasn’t for the film around him, this character could be pulled straight from an actual vampire story from ‘30s or ‘40s horror cinema. Of course Angelique, the witch from the opening sequence, returns as the film’s villain when she hears Barnabas is back in town. Eva Green is without a doubt the highlight of the cast, fairing well even against Depp himself. She’s constantly wearing a sinister grin, enjoying every second of Barnabas’ misfortune, and Green does a solid job of capturing that.
The rest of the cast is made up of the present day Collins family. There’s the matriarch of Collinwood manor, Elizabeth (Michelle Pfeiffer), her rebellious daughter Carolyn (Chloe Moretz), her brother Roger (Jonny Lee Miller), and his son David (Gulliver McGrath), who has been having encounters with ghosts. Also thrown into the mix is Willie Loomis, a drunken groundkeeper (Jackie Earle Haley) and David’s psychiatrist Dr. Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter, obviously). Then there’s Victoria (Bella Heathcote), a mysterious young girl who bears a striking resemblance to Barnabas’s lover from the beginning of the film.
If that sounds like a lot, it really is. Burton tries to give all of the Collins family something to do, but it never quite works because they’re all essentially one-note characters, most of whom go criminally undeveloped and verge on parody. We’re given endless amounts of inter-family drama and subplots, yet none of it is fleshed out enough to be important. The result is a film that feels unfocused, as if it’s creating arbitrary drama as it goes along which never goes anywhere.
In just one example, after the opening titles the movie dedicates about 15 minutes to setting up a character named Victoria, only to have her completely disappear for long stretches of the film. What was the point of all that? There are way too many storylines here, and most of them never resonate or have much of a resolution anyway. And though Barnabas’ goofiness is fun in its individual scenes the central thrust of his story, aside from the love triangle, is his desire to revitalize the family’s dying business. In the midst of a film involving vampires, witches and ghosts, it’s hard to find rebuilding a fishing company to be terribly interesting. Was there not a more compelling story to be told here?
Despite what the previews would suggest, Shadows isn’t all comedy. It’s hard to say it’s completely serious, either. The tone is all over the place, varying from a straight horror movie, to family drama, to love triangle, to self-aware spoof. One minute we’re watching Barnabas brutally slaughter a bunch of innocent construction workers while the music swells, and the next minute we’re laughing as he gawks at a McDonald’s sign. Sometimes, as in the opening narration, things are being taken deadly seriously, and other times Burton is practically winking at us and reveling in his own silliness. By the end, we get a pretty interesting, special effects ridden final showdown between Barnabas and Angelique. This is a lot of fun, because Burton finally finds a tone that works and commits to it. But by then, it’s too late.
Dark Shadows is probably exactly the movie Tim Burton and Johnny Depp wanted to make. It feels very much like a modern day, supernatural soap opera, and in that way it’s somewhat successful. Fans of the show, and of ‘70s nostalgia in general, should find a lot to like here. But like a soap opera it’s very slow, filled with tons of characters and story lines which are added and dropped at pure random, and much of the running time is spent watching people standing around delivering exposition. Shadows isn’t a total failure, and it has some truly great things to offer: many of Depp’s gags work, Eva Green’s villain character is excellent, and the visual effects and cinematography are stunning, appearing to be ripped straight out of a classical, gothic horror story. This is a film of great moments that, unfortunately, don’t quite add up into a compelling story. All the pieces are there, but they don’t fit together.
OVERALL SCORE: 4.0/10
The Avengers, the newest superhero film from Marvel which made over $200 million at the box office this weekend, is an example of a risky experiment paying off better than anyone expected. Since 2008, the studio has been slowly building up a universe of interconnected films with Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America. The idea was that after each hero had his origin story told individually, they would team up to fight side by side in the ultimate summer blockbuster: The Avengers. This concept of a series of stand alone films, with a huge amount of mythology, setting up a sixth film is something we’ve never really seen before, and there were two obvious concerns. One, would the team-up film be accessible to those audiences who hadn’t seen each and every previous installment? And two, how could any movie possibly live up to that much hype? If, after four years of build up, The Avengers was not clearly the best of the entire series, it would seem like the whole ordeal was a complete waste of time. Thankfully, Marvel had a secret weapon: writer/director Joss Whedon, who has crafted a movie which doesn’t only meet all the hype it has generated for itself, but in some fields exceeds it. The result is a truly great superhero film that, by its final action set piece, has completely validated Marvel’s experiment and which is, without any doubt, the best of the series.
Picking up directly after the events of Thor and Captain America, The Avengers begins as Loki (Tom Hiddleston), a god hailing from the realm of Asgard, has come to Earth with a plan for world domination. After being upstaged and defeated by Thor, he has returned to exert his status as a higher being onto the human race. Loki has recovered the tesseract, a glowing blue cube with almost unlimited power (last seen used by HYDRA in Captain America), which allows him to open a portal into space. Meanwhile, he is forming an army consisting of a mysterious alien race, with which he plans to invade the Earth and declare himself its ruler.
Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) of S.H.I.E.L.D. has one trick up his sleeve: the Avengers initiative. As he explains, the idea was to bring together a group of remarkable superheroes who, when they worked as a team, could defeat virtually any foe, and Earth could certainly use that at the moment. So Fury sets out to unite Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner), to defeat Loki and save the planet from invasion.
The Avengers is all about the ensemble, and there’s no one better suited for that than Joss Whedon, who has previously written on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly. It seems as if this was the film he was born to write, and I can’t imagine anyone else pulling it off quite like this. He has such a love for all of these heroes, and the highlight of the movie isn’t even the action; it’s seeing these people come together and bounce witty dialogue back and forth, all of which makes perfect sense for the characters. But Whedon doesn’t just assemble everyone to have them fight. He revels in and explores the fact that they, realistically, would not work well together. How does Captain America, a young patriotic soldier from the 1940s, feel about Tony Stark, an arrogant billionaire? How would Stark get along with the Hulk? Virtually all of the possible interactions are played out on screen, and the result is a new appreciation for all of the heroes, greater even than what many of the individual films achieved.
The actors seen in previous installments carry over their fine performances, especially Tom Hiddleston as the menacing Loki, who completely steels the show and is a lot of fun. New to the gang is Mark Ruffalo, playing the finest depiction of the Hulk we’ve seen so far. His performance doesn’t stand out as being obviously great like Robert Downey Jr.’s does, but Ruffalo does a solid job of portraying Bruce Banner in a subtle way, as a man who always seems to be on the verge of exploding at any given moment. We also get to explore more in depth Black Widow, played by Scarlett Johansson, who is given far more to do here than in Iron Man 2, and she ends up being surprisingly memorable.
Going back to the dialogue, one of the biggest surprises about The Avengers (though not really a surprise to anyone familiar with Whedon’s previous work) is how genuinely and consistently funny it is. The movie knows it’s not The Dark Knight. There’s no allegory about terrorism or wiretapping going on here. Whedon understands that, on some level, a lot of what we’re seeing here is pretty silly, and he isn’t afraid to revel in that silliness when appropriate. Each and every major character has several hilarious, perfectly timed one-liners and individual gags, many of the best belonging to the Hulk, which had my audience laughing and cheering as hard as any comedy I’ve ever seen. I love The Dark Knight, and I certainly can’t wait for Rises, but it’s great to see a superhero film which is all about having fun, and that doesn’t feel the need to take itself too seriously.
Audiences are coming to The Avengers for the action, and I can’t imagine any of them leaving dissatisfied. This film contains more of it than every single one of the Marvel lead up movies combined. It all culminates in a giant, citywide battle sequence, featured prominently in the trailers. This is some of the most satisfying action we’ve seen in a long time, and the reason for this relates directly back to Whedon. Because his screenplay is so well written, we care about each and every one of these characters. Compare this to the action in a Michael Bay film, for example. It’s visually stunning to look at, but we care nothing about the people involved, there are virtually no stakes, and we’re really just watching a bunch of cool looking computer generated effects. Whedon elevates his climatic sequences far above that. While some might find sections of the movie slower and more dialogue based than expected, it’s all worth it because by the end, every member of the group is important, we care about them all, and everyone has something to do.
Of course, there are nitpicks to be had with The Avengers. The alien race which accompanies Loki is a little bland, and we never really understand completely who they are. It takes a bit longer than some might hope to assemble the Avengers together, the overall structure can be somewhat predictable at times, and as far as the ensemble goes, Hawkeye is never really as well developed or as interesting as everyone else. But these minor quibbles never take away from the overall experience, which is one of pure fun and excitement which only the very best films of this genre can achieve. The Avengers takes an idea that should have never worked and exceeds far beyond what we could have hoped for. Joss Whedon has cemented himself as one of the most talented writers in the business, with a screenplay which is well crafted, witty, and that explores these characters in ways we’ve never seen before. I can’t think of a better movie to kick off the season, because The Avengers is a perfect example of truly great, thoroughly satisfying summer blockbuster.
OVERALL SCORE: 9.5/10
Of all the words that can be used to describe The Cabin in the Woods, the new satirical horror film by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard, one I can’t imagine anyone using is “predictable.” Cabin is a delightfully strange movie, and no matter how much you know about it, I can almost guarantee it’s not what you’re expecting. Depending on your taste in film, that’s either going to be what you love about the movie or what you hate about it. It’s for a very specific group of people: horror fans who have laughed and cheered as Jason Voorhees, Michael Myers, Freddy Krueger and the rest of the gang hunt down teenagers, who always split up when they should stick together. If, like me, you have seen countless films of this kind and are looking for something fresh, Cabin is for you. It’s extremely clever, fun, inventive and, like Wes Craven’s self-aware slasher film Scream, it breathes a completely new life into its genre, with a final act that is truly unexpected. Simply put, it’s the movie horror fans have been dreaming of. But be warned: this is for horror fans only. If you aren’t on board with this film’s agenda, you’re in for a bad time.
Right down to its purposely generic title, The Cabin in the Woods sets you up for a totally different movie than what you’re in store for, and that’s part of the fun. A group of five friends decide to spend a weekend at a remote cabin in the middle of nowhere, where partying, swimming, and drinking ensues. They stop for gas and are intimidated by a strange old man who warns them of the dangers that lurk ahead. They laugh him off and continue on down the unpaved, dirt road. If it sounds like you’ve seen this premise a hundred times before, that’s the idea. Meanwhile, we follow two office workers dressed in button up, short-sleeved shirts chatting about their personal lives over a cup of coffee. They’re in some sort of factory on their way to do something we aren’t quite sure of yet. How are these two plot threads connected? That’s something I don’t dare spoil.
One way Cabin differs from your typical horror film is that its central characters are actually likable, and they banter back and forth with genuinely well written dialogue, something Joss Whedon is skilled at. In too many films like this, we’re actually rooting for the monsters to kill the teenagers, who are completely unbearable and exist only to have elaborate death sequences. Despite the satirical nature of the film around them, the characters play it straight. The teenagers behave as if they’re in a serious horror movie, and these young actors do a good job of capturing that. Among the teenagers Fran Kranz stands out, playing the aloof but lovable stoner character, Marty. Within the office storyline running parallel to the cabin, Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins are hilarious and perfectly cast, playing two office workers in charge of a mysterious operation. They deliver their extremely dry, satirical dialogue with zero irony, and get huge laughs when they go for them.
But that’s not the only way Cabin is not your typical horror film. The screenplay was written by Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard, who previously collaborated on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Like Buffy, Cabin plays around with the tropes of its genre in a lot of clever ways, like how every slasher movie has the dumb blond girl, or how the characters always make incredibly stupid decisions to get themselves killed because, of course, that’s what has to happen. Otherwise, the movie would be breaking the mold and giving us something new. As we’ve seen, giving fans something they aren’t expecting is rare in horror, but Cabin in the Woods succeeds at that a big way. It lays out a formula for us and then completely shatters it.
But unlike many horror/comedy mashups of this kind, Cabin in the Woods doesn’t just point out the tropes of horror films. It actually incorporates them into its mythology, which I found genuinely compelling. Have you ever wondered why the slasher genre is so popular, and why its formula has remained basically the same for all these years? Cabin addresses this in an incredibly clever, while intentionally over the top way. The film is extremely self aware, going as far as to make subtle references directed at us, the audience watching the movie, asking why it is exactly that we pay money to watch people suffer. It’s very much a commentary on horror movies, indulging in what’s good about them and mocking what’s bad about them.
In the end, Cabin works because it totally embraces what horror can do at its best. Whedon and Goddard want you to believe you’re in for a generic, run of the mill slasher film, so they can laugh in your face and destroy all expectations as the movie completely implodes in on itself. If my description sounds incredibly vague, it’s because I’d hate to ruin any of the surprise. Some audiences will be put off by where Cabin takes them. I found it refreshing to see a mainstream release so daring and so absurdly original, however over the top it becomes. This movie goes places I would never expect to be taken. It’s not the most accessible movie in theaters at the moment, but if you’re a part of its target audience, The Cabin in the Woods is one of the most enjoyable and original horror films of this year and many others.
OVERALL SCORE: 9.5/10
I think it’s important to judge The Hunger Games first and foremost as a movie rather than as an adaptation of the book. Fans who incessantly complain about every change that occurs from page to screen will have much to talk about in this film adaptation of the popular young adult novel, and already it seems most of the conversation has revolved around these changes. But putting aside the source material and judging just from what we have in front of us, I think The Hunger Games mostly works as a movie. It’s an interesting story about the glorification of violence and dominance of reality TV, carried by a very solid performance by Jennifer Lawrence as the fierce young hero, Katniss. Being the first in a planned trilogy it sets up a pretty compelling dystopian world and, while flawed, still has me looking forward to seeing the next installment.
The Hunger Games begins in Panem, a nation located in the ruins of what was once North America. The country is divided into 12 districts and ruled by the Capitol, an oppressive dictatorial government headed by men and women in bright clothing, heavy makeup and ridiculous hairdos. Ever since an attempted uprising, each of the districts is forced to partake in an annual event known as the Hunger Games as punishment for their rebellion. Every year children between the ages of 12 and 18 have their names submitted into a lottery, and two from each district are picked at random. These 24 “tributes” are brought to the capitol city, where they’re gawked at by millions of viewers and judged mostly by their clothing and makeup. Before long they’re placed inside a large, man-made arena, equipped with whatever weapons they can manage to find and are forced to fight to the death. The games will end when only one contestant remains standing.
From the poverty stricken District 12 we follow sixteen-year-old Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), forced to leave her mother and sister to partake in the 74th annual Hunger Games, along with fellow District 12 contestant Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). From the beginning it’s clear the games are rigged: winning depends not on sheer ability and survival instincts, but largely on obtaining sponsors who can purchase supplies for contestants. It’s all about making oneself as compelling and memorable of a character as possible — kind of like actual reality television. In other words, it’s not really a fair fight. The capitol, who controls the environment of the arena and can add in hazards at their will, has the game set up for the sake of entertainment. Each of the 12 districts watch in horror, while the citizens of the capitol seemingly enjoy watching these children slaughter each other. “They just want a good show,” one character notes. “That’s all they want.”
Writer and director Gary Ross does a solid job of capturing the bleak nature of Suzanne Collins’ novel. This is especially effective during the early scenes of the dirt-poor District 12, which clash sharply with the images of the wealthy and oppressive capitol later on. Once the games begin, there’s no shying away from the darkness that comes with a story about an involuntary fight to the death. The material isn’t cleaned up for the sake of appealing to a wider audience, and the violence is about as graphic as it needs to be, serving its purpose without being gratuitous. Some have complained the movie isn’t violent enough and should have been R-rated. I find it amusing that in response to a horrifying tale about the glorification of violence on TV, fans are complaining that there isn’t enough gore.
The cast of The Hunger Games is perfect, down to even the supporting characters. Jennifer Lawrence’s performance carries the whole film, and she effectively captures why so many are drawn to Katniss. It’s refreshing to see a young female character whose personality isn’t based solely on her relationship with boys. And when was the last time we saw a big movie with a strong female protagonist do this well at the box office? Josh Hutcherson is fine as Peeta, Katniss’ fellow District 12 contestant and potential love interest, though he’s never really given enough time to prove himself to be as compelling as Katniss.
My main complaint with The Hunger Games comes down to its cinematography. Director Garry Ross uses a large amount of handheld shots which get very distracting very quickly. Key sequences are filmed in close up with the camera moving wildly back and forth, combined with extremely fast editing to the point where, at times, it’s hard to even discern what’s happening on screen. In theory, this technique makes us feel up close with Katniss like we’re there in the arena with her, and should help to get across the frantic and dire nature of the games. But in practice it ends up making important sections of the film somewhat confusing, as I begged for Ross to stop shaking the camera so I could, for once, get a clear view of what was happening.
The pacing is also somewhat of an issue. At two and a half hours, it isn’t two slow; it’s actually a bit too fast. This may seem like an odd complaint. Wouldn’t you want the movie to be fast paced? Usually, yes. But at times I felt like the movie didn’t take enough time to focus on one thing, instead just moving through a check list of events that happened in the book. The pacing of the first hour is solid, but once the games begin we move from one set piece to another at such a rapid speed, it’s hard for us to stop and catch our breath. A few moments of Katniss trying to find water or to build shelter might have helped reinforce her struggle in the games. There are also times when characters are introduced just a few minutes before they become important to the story. I wouldn’t have minded another half hour or so to help expand on a few of these moments, and make them ultimately more impactful. But then, those are the limitations that come with adapting a book to screen.
As with many first installments of a planned trilogy, like the recent Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Hunger Games struggles to find an ending and never really succeeds, instead finishing practically in the middle of the action to advertise for the sequel. The cinematography is way too shaky and irritating, and at times the break neck speed can work against its storytelling. Ultimately though, I think the film does a pretty good job at what it’s trying to do. Fans of the book, if willing to overlook some changes here and there, should be pleased with this adaptation. For the uninitiated, I’d recommend the movie as an interesting, but flawed, glimpse into a well-crafted dystopian landscape. No, it’s no Harry Potter, but as far as movies aimed at teenagers go, I’m certainly pleased to see its huge success this weekend and I look forward to what’s to come in part two.
OVERALL SCORE: 7.0/10
