Chad's Take: "Men in Black 3" - 1.5 Stars

When I arrived at the theater to see Men in Black 3, memories of the first film were at the forefront of my mind. However, I can't remember much about the second film at all. Where the first movie was a clever mix of action and comedy, the second film was just a collection of silly moments, none of which are funny enough to be very memorable.

I'm sad to say that the third film is no different. Men in Black 3 seems like one outrageous moment after another, connected by a story that is less than interesting.

A space villain, Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement), has broken out of prison and seeks vengeance against his arresting officer, Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones). Boris travels back in time and kills a younger Agent K (Josh Brolin), which dooms all of mankind to a destruction by alien warships.

If you're confused, I apologize. I'm doing my very best to describe the plot as accurately as possible.

Will Smith reprises his role as Agent J, who also travels back in time to thwart Boris' plan. This whole time travel gimmick seems like a decent way to write Tommy Lee Jones out of the movie, since most of the film will feature Will Smith partnered up with Josh Brolin. It's rather strange to see Jones receive top billing; his screen time is quite limited.

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. 

"The Avengers" Reviews are Being Assembled!

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Get it?  "Avengers Assemble!"

Reviews for Marvel's The Avengers will go LIVE tomorrow evening. Expect a very entertaining discussion for this one.

Stay tuned. PLEASE Subscribe!

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.

Entry 4: RE: "Cabin" - Chill Out.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

Settle down, Brad. There's no reason to be that upset over a film that doesn't present itself as anything more than mere entertainment. I don't see there being a buildup to anything beyond a promise that Cabin in the Woods will be a really strange movie -- and that promise was kept, even if I didn't always like it.

With a film like this, the fact that I laughed isn't enough to earn it a perfect rating, but it counts for something. This isn't on the same level as films like Scream or Drag Me To Hell, both of which are done with a sophisticated level of filmmaking not seen here.

This isn't to say that Cabin is poorly made -- that wouldn't be a fair statement. I just think that Cabin went for some cheap laughs, and other films in the genre take a much darker approach. Black comedy is present in Cabin in the Woods, but certainly not to the degree of the Evil Dead or Scream series.

I suppose your point about classifying this as "horror" is correct, but I don't think that's really important. I'm not a huge fan of genre classifications in general, and I use the 'horror-comedy' label only to set a point of reference. 

A film like Army of Darkness doesn't contain any scares, but most people will still classify it as a horror film. This is probably largely due to the supernatural subject matter. I follow suit only to give a point of reference, though I agree that most people won't find Cabin in the Woods to evoke any emotions normally associated with horror. Unless of course they are really made uneasy by gore, since Cabin has a ton of that.

Entry 2: RE: "Cabin" - We're all on the same side.

Posted by: Chad Van Alstin

I think you and I agree more thank you think, Brad. I'm just more willing to interpret my laughter as meaning I was entertained by the film -- I think you should do the same. Look, this is far from a perfect movie, but I really had enough fun to justify my 3 Star rating.

It's true that I love horror-comedy films. I am a huge fan of the Evil Dead series, and I think Cabin in the Woods has some of that charm. So, yes, I praise the film for its finer moments, but I do take issue with the total anarchy in the second half.

Your criticism of the final act is correct; I just didn't find it funny either. I think we are in agreement there.  The humor started moving in a direction more befitting of an episode of Aqua Teen Hunger Force. The laughs certainly slowed down for me when the gore and clever dialogue was replaced with  "dude, that's so random" stoner laughs.

For me the moment where I felt the movie really went downhill was the sequence where we find the characters riding in a magic elevator, heading to the HQ of their puppet masters. This sequence, and the scenes that follow, are what I was referring to when I said that I felt the writers wrote themselves into a corner.

What the hell was all of that about? It's after the elevator ride that all the random chaos started happening. It just feels like they had no idea how to tie the stories together, and really didn't have a clue how to end the film. It was all rather unnecessary and annoying.

So, let me be clear: my praise of the film comes packaged with complaints. There's a whole lot wrong with Cabin, but I still had fun while the good times lasted. I can't recall another movie this year that had me laughing in the theater.

My rating reflects my level of enjoyment -- I had fun watching this movie.
                        

Chad's Take: "The Cabin in the Woods" - 3 Stars

The tagline to The Cabin in the Woods implies a level of deception: “You think you know the story.” I can honestly say that this film did not meet my expectations, though I did really enjoy it. It’s true that the story of teenagers isolated in a woodland setting, only to picked off by evil beasties, isn’t exactly a new idea for the horror genre. Luckily, the film doesn’t follow any formula very closely.

There have been several recent releases in the horror-comedy genre, most of which are satirical representations of classic horror formulas. When I arrived at the theater I expected to see a parody film along the lines of Drag Me to Hell or Wes Craven’s Scream. While it’s true that I was treated to some bloody laughs, Cabin in the Woods is not done in the same vein as the films listed above.

I think it is fair to classify Cabin as a horror-comedy offshoot, but saying that doesn’t describe the unique approach fully. It’s really hard to describe Cabin in the Woods, but I think that’s exactly what the filmmakers were going for.

So, what’s it about? Well, it’s really hard to say. The narrative features a story riddled with conspiracy and murder, all of which is presented in an extremely light-hearted tone. On the surface it seems like this is all adding up to a shocking “twist” of an ending. Without spoiling anything, I can promise you that this isn’t the case.