Chad's Take: Prometheus (2012) - 3.5 Stars

Ridley Scott’s Prometheus is a bold film that sends its characters on a journey to find truth, only to leave them with as many questions as they have answers. This is one of the best science fiction films in modern memory, and it will leave you feeling completely mesmerized from beginning to end.

Prometheus is a Ridley Scott film, so it’s no surprise that it looks absolutely incredible. The visuals are dark, haunting, and truly original. This is the best looking movie I have seen this year, and it may very well be one of the best looking science fiction films of all time.

If you’re looking for scares, you will still find a lot of great horror moments in Prometheus, many of which will bring back memories of the original Alien (1979). One scene in particular, involving an emergency extraction surgery, is the modern equivalent of the famous 'chest burst' scene that shocked audiences more than 30 years ago.

Entry 1: RE: "Snow White" - One Fantasy to Rule Them All

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Your praise for this very average film officially makes your film taste unpredictable -- and that isn't a compliment. While I think that there is some value to be had here in terms of the visuals, everything else about this movie really falls flat.

I wouldn't have minded the complete lack of character development  if this movie was just more fun. Sadly, I didn't really enjoy any of the action at all; there's just nothing special about it.

 What we have here is an art film that isn't smartly done, and instead relies entirely on its visual presentation (which  has some serious issues) to sell itself. Snow White is a really weak movie. While I don't necessarily mind an action-packed Snow White re-telling, I think that some care could have been taken to bulk up the characters and setting.

I think it's safe to say that without the success of the Lord of the Rings movies a film like Snow White would never have seen the light of day. Before we continue I want you, Brad Redder, to answer a simple question for me: 

Is Snow White and the Huntsman a better film than the Lord of the Rings trilogy?

Please, try to keep your answer objective. I just think the legions of This Week's Movie fans deserve to hear the answer, before they decide to cease taking you seriously.

Chad's Take: "Snow White and the Huntsman" - 2.5 Stars

Snow White and the Huntsman  is a complete re-imagining of the classic German fairy tale. While this latest adaptation contains dark imagery aimed at adults, it's still the same fairy tale you've always known, right down to the Seven Dwarfs. This may make some of the purists happy, but it will unfortunately leave many moviegoers wanting a whole lot more.

Yes, in this version of the film there are battles between armies and some vicious fantastical monsters; however, these elements do very little in terms of adding something new to the same old story. Instead these scenes feel like additions made only to meet the audience's fantasy film expectations.

The epic battles (which don't seem all that epic) feel like an aside to the fairy tale and don't mesh very well into the story. We're told that Snow White is supposed to lead an army against the Evil Queen and restore her father's kingdom, but the reasons behind Snow White's charisma aren't properly articulated and are never well examined.

Chad's Take: "Dark Shadows" (2012) - 2 Stars

Tim Burton's Dark Shadows is a visually stunning film; however, I'm afraid it's hard to find reason to praise the movie beyond that. Where Dark Shadows starts out strong, providing an excellent beginning to a would-be gothic classic, it soon fizzles into something that walks the line between mediocre and below average.

I am tempted to start this review by giving a plot synopsis, but I'm actually really confused by the film's narrative. There's something about a witch, Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), who has placed an evil curse over the Collins family, a once prominent name in the New England business world. Angelique's most notable act of evil comes when she turns former lover Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) into an immortal vampire.

The Collins family made their wealth by dominating the Maine seafood business; this was of course until Angelique's curses helped her competing line gain a competitive edge. Yes, Ms. Bouchard's primary motivation appears to come from her desire to sell quality fish products.

Entry 3: RE: "Avengers" - The resemblance is uncanny.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Separated at birth?

    

I now officially concede that the Chitauri look exactly like Goldar from Power Rangers. I guess I will have to try my very best to argue against your other equally well thought out positions.

At first I assumed you were just writing crazy, baseless, statements in order to make your review more entertaining to read. After doing my Mighty Morphin Power Rangers research, I now understand your position completely.

I will also agree with your point that Whedon uses humor to re-aquaint the audience with the characters. Yes, a lot of this is quite funny and entertaining. I can see how being entertained and laughing at this re-introduction would deserve your criticism.

Another tally for you, good sir!

Whedon spends a lot of time getting the audience acquainted with the characters -- helping them to love each character -- for a number of reasons, including to benefit those brand new to the series. While Avengers is connected to previous Marvel films, it's still a stand-alone experience.

I'll agree that most people who see The Avengers have probably seen all the preceding films. However, what if someone didn't like a particular film? What if someone really hated Thor, or thought Captain America was a terrible movie?

Some audience members could have a jaded view of the characters walking in; in which case it's Whedon's job to sell those characters to the audience. There's really no better way to do that than with laughter. The bickering between the heroes is quite entertaining, and it makes you love them all over again.

I understand your position that there is no real full story arc present here. There's also not a whole lot of growth for each hero emotionally. Again, I don't think that's a problem. The character study is for the individual films to take on. The purpose of The Avengers is to appeal to audience's sense of fun by making a really entertaining movie. The Avengers is not a place for all the drama of comic books; this is a place for the fun in comic books.

That sense of adventure I had as a kid -- loving superheroes because they seem so epic -- was brought back to me. I think that's Whedon's goal entirely; he wanted to create a film that focused the fun factor of superheroes. I think he accomplished his mission.

Entry 1: RE: "Avengers" - You have got to be kidding me.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Well, I don't know where to begin. I guess I'm not surprised by your rating; however, I am a little surprised by the way you tear the movie apart. It's actually a little bit difficult to take you seriously when you compare the villains in The Avengers to Power Rangers concept art -- really? Do you really believe they are that silly looking?

The Power Rangers featured terrible actors in terrible rubber suits. Even for its era it looked like total crap. While I may agree that the Chitauri are not the coolest looking alien race, it's hard for me to take your hyperbolic statement seriously. It's ridiculous.

I'm also baffled by your following comment: "Whedon wants these characters to be his, to belong to his film, yet he doesn't develop them in any way, instead relying on what five other films have done, and using funny dialogue as an instant character developer"

What does that mean? Whedon definitely wanted The Avengers film to have its own unique look -- his look -- but I don't find any basis for saying he wants to 'claim the characters as his own.' Each actor brings to the screen the character they played in the previous films. That's completely fine with me. Where the other films served to help develop the characters, this movie serves to bring them all together. 

I actually really respect that. The director of each individual film got to keep the character they wanted -- Whedon just brings it all together into a perfect package that he designed. Like it or not The Avengers is a product of a lot of other movies, it's not just Whedon's baby. Yet, he's able to give this film a distinct visual style and tone -- that's incredible! It's an incredible achievement. 

One area we can agree upon is that Tom Hiddleston does an excellent job playing Loki. It's his creditably as a villain that really helps sell the story for me. I'm glad we can find common ground there.

Chad's Take: "The Avengers" (2012) - 4 Stars

When Iron Man came to theatres in 2008, audiences were given a surprise. Those who were patient enough to wait until the credits finished rolling were treated to an additional scene, which served to hype a film featuring a Marvel superhero team-up. Five films and four years later, The Avengers (2012) has final arrived. While it may seem impossible to live up to such an extraordinary level of hype, Marvel's The Avengers completely exceeds all expectations, and may very well be the greatest superhero film ever made.

Tying many of the Marvel film franchises together is quite an ambitious project; one that I admit I had my doubts about. I wasn't originally a fan of the hidden "Easter egg" scenes that served as promotional ploys for The Avengers film -- which at the time seemed only like a fantasy. I felt as though connecting all the film franchises together cheapened each movie's unique experience, and in the event that The Avengers was terrible, it would taint those films completely.

While each Marvel film leading up to The Avengers had its own stand-alone value, I still can't help but feel as though each was made with future installments in mind. Through end credit scenes and some crossover characters, each film is linked together -- often in ways that came off as a little silly. 

Entry 4: RE: "Raven" - It's not im-Poe-tant

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

I think with or without Edgar Allan Poe this would still be a really bad movie. I find it difficult to come up with anything that really stood out to me as original. Basically, everyone has seen this movie before -- except this time Edgar Allan Poe happens to be a character in the story.

All of the fun in The Raven comes from those moments where the story becomes too silly to take seriously. Take for example one of the film's chase scenes: we have the police and Edgar Allan Poe hunting down the murderer. Never for a second would I have guessed that this sequence would end with Poe riding horseback, shooting his pistol like a hero from an old western. Scenes like this are so unintentionally ridiculous that it's hard not to be a little entertained.

I also kept having to remind myself that John Cusack is playing Edgar Allan Poe. The character is never believable or interesting at all. It's almost as if the other actors on screen were calling John Cusack "Poe" all the time as a way to constantly remind the audience that Edgar Allan Poe is a character in this movie.

I admit that removing the Poe gimmick would make some of the scenes less (unintentionally) funny. However, I'm not sure that my enjoyment level would change all that much. There just isn't enough in this movie to really keep me interested. 

Entry 1: RE: "Raven" - What did I just see?

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

While I liked the gory scenes, I agree that they seem made for 3D. Very strange. It's almost as if this was intended, as so many films are presently, to be a 3D blockbuster. After all, it seems to have all the makings of a really fun adventure flick -- great cast, murder, a damsel in distress, gunplay. 

Yet, the end result is really flat. Nothing ends up being really fun at all -- though the potential for fun was there.  I wouldn't necessarily mind the hokey, generic, script if it were all packaged in a fun movie. The only real enjoyment I found came from mocking the movie moments that we've all seen previously in countless other films. 

I guess that the only question I have is this: was this film intended to be more, or is this just some boring movie that the filmmakers added Edgar Allan Poe into as a gimmick to sell tickets? I'm inclined to believe it's the latter.

Chad's Take: "The Raven" (2012) - 1 Star

I’m going to assume by now that you’ve seen the trailer for The Raven, a film by V For Vendetta director, James McTeigue. You know the premise: a fictional Edgar Allan Poe (John Cusack) is helping hunt down a serial murderer, who seems deeply inspired by Poe’s work. This story is told through a series of chase scenes, shootouts, and other movie clichés.

To say that the plot unfolds without originality would be a complete understatement. This is a formula movie, and a very poor one at that. The Raven displays a visual style that seems to strive for mediocrity, and only succeeds at reaching that level some of the time. The film shows very little creativity in its visual style, and sometimes it looks downright ugly.

The cinematography is as formulaic as the film’s script — every shot seems borrowed from somewhere else; every scene seems crafted around a stale idea from the past. While I expected to see a film heavily influenced by past “whodunits”, The Raven fails so completely to deliver anything original that it seems like little more than a cheap knockoff.