Thor - The Dark World (2013) **1/2

U.S. Release Date: November 8, 2013

Running Length: 1:52

Rated: PG-13 (Violence, Profanity)

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Christopher Eccleston, Stellan Skarsgard, Kat Dennings, Rene Russo, Idris Elba, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje

Director: Alan Taylor

Screenplay: Christopher L. Yost and Christopher Markus & Stephen McFeely

2013 marks the beginning of the second round of films leading up to The Avengers 2. While that film is highly anticipated it is not nearly as much as that of the first one. The problem isn't in the idea of the followup or even the concept of a sequel to that massive hit of last year. The problem so far lies squarely in the films that are bridging them. Earlier this year we had Iron Man 3. While it wasn't the train wreck that was the second Iron Man film it still was a far cry from the original and failed to even hint at why none of the other Avengers could have helped out a little in Tony Stark's plight. Thor 2 also fails to cash in on this although to be fair it takes place mostly on Asgard and thus out of the reach of SHIELD.

The film starts out with a brief history lesson about our new villain Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) which tries to compensate for a complete lack of dimensionality to his character. We are spoon fed his plan and how he intends to do it and that's all we get about him. He is by far the weakest villain in the entire Marvel movie franchise. This is only made more obvious by the inclusion of so many better characters scattered throughout this film, chief of which is Loki (Tom Hiddleston), returning for the third time. Loki started out as a generic character baddie in the first Thor movie before being more elegantly handled in The Avengers. Here is is even better fleshed out showing just how juicy his character can be given the right material. If only Malekith had been had been handled this well.

But the main villain is not the only roll that gets short-shifted in this film. Anthony Hopkins and Idris Elba, two fine actors in their own rights, also are poorly handled. They are given little screen time but still manage to excel with that meager allotment. Stellan Skarsgard gets it even worse being relegated to the bumbling fool running around in his underwear or at times even less. His character is better than this and would have been better served left out of the film than used in this way. Rene Russo makes a return as Frigga, wife of Odin, and, aside from being used primarily as a vehicle to drive the heroes into action in the second half of the film, gets in a few touching moments with Loki that further strengthen his motivations and set him up for later adventures. 

There is plenty of eye candy in this film, as to be expected, but not a whole lot of excitement. For the most part the action is par at best leaving little to no emotional resonance. The exceptions are during the team up with Loki and Thor and the final battle which manages to breach worlds and come across as a bit more epic than the run of the mill climatic fight. Both end too quickly though and only further the feeling that this isn't really a full fledged movie but a branch between the two Avengers movies. It has the feel of one of those graphic novel prequels that seem to show up shortly before big sci-fi or superhero films these days. To a degree it is not this films fault it comes across this way but there are things that could have aided in helping us forget that that is just what it is. Hopefully next years Captain America - The Winter Soldier can clear this hurdle better than Thor 2 has. 

Thor is not a bad movie. It is actually quite watchable and is a relatively breezy film. It's just short enough to keep us from getting bored but too generic to really resonate. As with the other Marvel films there are some pre-credits scenes that hint at what is to come in The Avengers 2 and 3, as well as Guardians of the Galaxy. One gets the feeling that Marvel is more focused on what they're building up to and not focused enough on the stepping stones that lead to it. We'll see if that thought holds up over the next few years with the remainder of the second phase.

Reel Time Classics

Starting early next week my sister blog will be up and going. This site will be at www.reeltimeclassics.blogspot.com and be host to film reviews for older films, films you may not have heard of or seen. Be sure to tune in each week for new reviews and commentary if you are a fan of older films.

The Lone Ranger (2013) ***

U.S. Release Date: July 3, 2013

Running Length: 2:29

Rated: PG-13 (Violence)

Cast: Armie Hammer, Johnny Depp, William Fichtner, Tom Wilkinson, Ruth Wilson, James Badge Dale, Helena Bonham Carter, Barry Pepper

Director: Gore Verbinski

Screenplay: Justin Haythe and Ted Elliott & Terry Russio

Gore Verbinski has an uphill battle when it comes to marketing and getting audiences to fall in love with his latest film The Lone Ranger. For one it is a western and as such is not a particularly popular genre of film for the young audiences that generally pack movie theaters during the summer months. For another it has a relatively unknown in the title role. Armie Hammer has a few films under his belt but he has yet to carry a big budget film like this and it shows in his slightly drab straight-man performance. It helps that he is succeeding the role from the late Clayton Moore who was also stiff in the original series. Another big hurtle is the lack of familiarity modern youth have with the source material. The Lone Ranger ran on television in the late 40's and early '50's. It has rarely been seen on the small screen since the late '70's or early '80's which makes it somewhat inaccessible to today's popcorn crowd. The sole selling point for this film is Johnny Depp, traditionally a big box office draw although not always as last years Dark Shadows seemed to prove. Depp certainly keeps things lively but his performance as Tonto is nothing more than another variation of Pirate Jack Sparrow in Native American garb and face paint.

The story treads some familiar ground for this type of a film. It's all about the railroad and a group of evil men who are determined to take the rails through Indian territory by staging raids that they blame on the Comanches so that they can justify going to war and seizing the land. Thrown into the mix is a rich silver mine and a back story that ties Tonto into things so as to give him personal stakes in the outcome of things. The rest of the story is made up of the back story of The Lone Ranger told much like it was in the first three episodes of the series, changing only a few things to tie it into the overall story of this film. The final element is a love triangle between the ranger, his brother and his brothers wife. There is very little back story to flesh this part out leaving it a little ineffective and feeling like an afterthought.

The film plays out well during the first half hour. There is plenty of action here and more than a little humor, most of it at the expense of The Lone Ranger. But then the film shifts tonally and turns deadly serious when one of the main villains Butch Cavendish, played perfectly by the nearly unrecognizable William Fichtner, kills the ranger's brother by cutting out his heart and eating it. It happens off screen but it is still brutal and a bit off-putting in the otherwise light-hearted first act. From here the film flounders about trying to juggle scenes of pure silliness with ones of seriousness. Case in point: late in the film there is an action sequence where The Lone Ranger is ties and blindfolded on a railroad car. This car is being pushed down the track by Tonto on a hand cart. All around them arrows are flying and missing these two. This is played up for all it's silliness. This scene is intercut with a Calvary mowing down Comanches with Gatling guns, massacring a whole tribe of Native Americans. This stuff is played dead serious and clashes with the comedic scenes with The Lone Ranger and Tonto. Fortunately these awkward juxtapositions are only occasional and don't completely derail this film. It does make the film drag a little during the middle third of the film, though.

Then the big finale begins. This moment is by far the best in the film and the only time during the entire two and a half hours where it really feels like a Lone Ranger film. It is marked by the sudden, and loud, playing of the William Tell Overture that opened every episode of the television series. When that music starts playing the film suddenly becomes all light hearted action again and the energy level goes up substantially. There is a lot of explosions in that finale and even though the action is well beyond anything resembling realism it is still fun to watch. The only sour note is when it is all over and we finally get the traditional "High Ho, Silver," it is played up for laughs as Tonto cuts in and says, "Don't ever do that again." It undermines that moment and is a poor way to depict that iconic line.

Still the overall movie is far from unwatchable. It is overlong by about twenty minutes and has at least one too many detours in the story but it never gets boring. And right about the two hour mark that William Tell Overture kicks in and reminds you of what movie you are watching and almost makes you want to stand up and cheer, at least if you were a fan of the series and knew what that music meant. It is a rollicking good ride that needed some more tonal focus and a little bit more editing but is still worth watching in the end.

A fiery horse with the speed of light, a cloud of dust and a hearty "Hi-yo Silver" - the Lone Ranger! With his faithful Indian companion, Tonto, the daring and resourceful masked rider of the plains led the fight for law and order in the early West. Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear. The Lone Ranger rides again!

Monsters University (2013) ***

U.S. Release Date: June 21, 2013

Running Length: 1:42

Rated: G

Cast: (voices) Billy Crystal, John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, Helen Mirren, Peter Sohn, Joel Murray, Sean Hayes, Dave Foley, Charlie Day

Director: Dan Scanlon

Screenplay: Robert L. Baird, Daniel Gerson, Dan Scanlon

 

There has been a bit of a drought of good product coming out of the marriage of Disney and Pixar as of late. A few years ago the name Pixar meant that the film was going to be an instant family classic that would entertain families for generations to come. Then Pixar got interested in making sequels. The first of the bunch, long before things really turned sour, was Toy Story 2. Now we have Toy Story 3, Cars 2, Planes (not really a sequel but it is tied to Cars), and an upcoming Finding Nemo sequel. Tied into all of this is the prequel to Monsters Inc, a 2005 film that was an instant classic.

 

Monsters Inc was the perfect solo film. It ended in such a way that there was really nowhere for it to go in a sequel. But when a studio is determined to mine a well more than once they can find a way to go back to it. In this case it is through the art of a prequel. This time around we get the college days of Mike (Billy Crystal) and Sully (John Goodman) as they attend Monsters University intent on finding work as scarers. Naturally they don't start out as friends, but rivals that are forced to work together in order to find their own strengths as well as learning how to work together as a team.

 

While there are scenes that aim for the adults in the audience it is nowhere as prevalent as it was in the original film. This one is aimed more towards the kids which is odd considering the college setting. There is very little comment about college and no humor taken from this setting. It could have happened at summer camp or any other social gathering where large numbers of teenagers are forced to co-habit. This is a lost opportunity that could have further brought in the adult demographic. There is also a rather obvious message to the film that is heavy handed at times and more than a little obvious.

 

Once you get past its flaws though this film is tremendously fun to watch and it can easily ride the coattails of its two stars who still have chemistry, even when they hate each other. These two struck gold in the original film and they continue to shovel it here. They work during the comedic scenes as well as the more emotional films. Both sell the emotions of insecurity that were mostly absent in the earlier film but feel organic in this earlier setting. Neither has an easy job here as both have their emotional hangovers that they must work through to get to the climax.

 

It was a risky endeavor to go the route of the prequel. For one the ending in inevitable and the challenge is to get there in a surprising way. This film succeeds in doing this and making it worth the journey there. It is in no way superior or even equal to the original but it is still a very good film. It needed to be a little more adult friendly but its definitely not strictly kiddie fare. If only I had the same feelings about the upcoming Planes and Finding Dory.

This is the End (2013) **

U.S. Release Date: June 12, 2013

Running Length: 1:47

Rated: R (Profanity, Sexual Content, Violence, Drugs, Nudity)

Cast: Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson, Danny McBride

Director: Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg

Screenplay: Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg

 

While it is not entirely original for actors to be playing themselves i.e. Wes Craven's New Nightmare, it is still somewhat of an anomaly in film, especially when everybody in it is basically playing themselves. It is this conceit that is one of this films sole saving graces. It is dark, crude, and at times hilarious, but it is also overly long and meandering at times, presenting too many stops and starts to maintain the momentum needed to propel this film to its conclusion.

 

The basic story revolves around Seth Rogan and Jay Baruchel, childhood friends who have drifted apart as Rogan finds success in Hollywood. While Jay is visiting Seth in L. A. they attend a party hosted by James Franco who has also invited numerous other celebrities including Jonah Hill, Craig Robinson and Danny McBride. While taking a brief break from the party the end of the world, or at least L. A. (That part isn't really fleshed out), bright lights come from the sky and whisk away lots of people and then fire and brimstone reigns down on the rest, killing most and setting the entire Hollywood hills area in flames. Most of the party goers are sucked into a sinkhole and the rest (Seth, Jay, James, Jonah, Craig and Danny) hole up in Franco's house afraid of what is going on outside. What comes afterwards is mostly a believable scenario of what would happen when these type of people are forced to survive without their luxuries and a fear for their lives. Eventually they'll have to venture outside for water and food but it is surprising how long it takes to get there and what happens when they do.

 

Being a Seth Rogan film, writing, directing and starring, this film is filled to overflowing with gross-out profanity and sex related humor. Some of this is hilarious but most of it is just there to satisfy Rogan fans. Some of it is hit over the head over and over again, losing its humor only to find itself suddenly funny again when it comes back for an encore at unusual moments. This film is loaded with callbacks, only some of them that really pay off.

 

The films biggest strength is its self aimed humor. There is a very brief moment early on when a paparazzi photographer corners Rogan and accuses him of always playing the same character. That goes for this film as well. Jonah Hill is perfect as the overly nice person who tries to be nice to everyone no matter what happens to him. What eventually happens to him hits things right on the head.

 

What ultimately makes this film ineffective is the references to religion and what is really going on outside Franco's house. It is heavy handed and telegraphed early on and is a bit disappointing how it is portrayed. It is also puctuated by some really shoddy CGI work that is so bad at times that I wondered if it was intentionally done that way. Intentional or not it took me out of the film and damaged my enjoyment of it.

 

Ultimately this film is overlong and more than a little self-indulgent, but what can be expected from a film written and directed and starred by Seth Rogan. It needs some better writing and a more polished direction. It also needs a clear direction to go instead of feeling like it was meandering all the time as everyone is bumbling around the house bickering and going nowhere.

World War Z (2013) **

U.S. Release Date: June 21, 2013

Running Length: 1:56

Rated: PG-13 (Violence)

Cast: Brad Pitt, Mireille Enos, Daniella Kertesz, James Badge Dale, Ludi Boeken, Fana Mokoena, Pierfrancesco Favino

Director: Marc Forster

Screenplay: Matthew Michael Carnahan and Drew Goddard & Damon Lindelof, based on a screen story by Matthew Michael Carnahan and J. Michael Straczynski, based on the novel by Max Brooks

 

World War Z is an ambitious novel. It tells the story of a worldwide zombie apocalypse from the first person narrative of several different people relating things as they saw it. While this is not entirely a unique approach to war (M*A*S*H did this a time or two) it is unique to the zombie genre. Summer tent pole films are not the same beast as a television show like M*A*S*H, nor are they as intimate as a novel. They are meant to be a visual feast and that is exactly what this summers World War Z film is. That in and of itself is not a problem. What is a problem is that the film doesn't try to be more than that. It settles for being nothing more than a visual gluttony without having any real heart or logic behind the whole proceedings.

 

The film starts out with the Lane family, Gerry (Brad Pitt), his wife Karin (Mireille Enos) and their two daughters. It is hinted at that Gerry spent some time in war torn areas but nothing specific is given out until much later in the show. While out for a drive in the city chaos breaks loose and people start attacking each other, biting at random and spreading a decease that quickly kills their victims and transforms them into zombies. Gerry manages to get himself and his family rescued and transported to a military vessel off in the Atlantic Ocean but is informed that if he wants to keep his family there then he must accompany a team of soldiers and a scientist on a mission to find patient zero in an attempt to find a cure for this plague. This leads him to Korea, then to Jerusalem and finally to the World Health Organization.

 

There is well documented drama going on behind the camera including some last minute editing that make this film seem unfinished. For starters there are several things that come up during the course of the film that seem to be forgotten midway and abandoned by the wayside, things that feel like they should be explained or resolved and yet don't amount to anything. This is a film begging for an extended video release to allow things to be resolved in a way the theatrical version has not. The character of Gerry seems unreal most of the film as well. He makes leaps of deduction that would have left Sherlock Holmes puzzled. He also manages to survive everything while everyone else around him is getting massacred. The only thing that saves him from being a complete wash is the superb performance given by Brad Pitt who makes Gerry the only character not hewn from cardboard.

 

World War Z had the potential to be a bigger film than it ends up being. It cribs much from smaller, more effective films like 28 Day Later. But unlike 28 Days it suffers from too much eye candy and not enough believable story to keep it from collapsing under its own weight. The most effective scenes in the film happen during the final thirty minutes where it takes a sudden minimal approach that is creepy and enjoyable at the same time but it takes too long to get to that point. It also ends abruptly with a few disjointed scenes to wrap things up that are ultimately unsatisfying.

 

This is not the greatest zombie film of all time like it would like it to be. It has too much wrong with it to elevate it to that level. It is watchable, thanks to Pitt, but, aside from the last set piece, it never gets above that which is too bad. It advertises itself as the most expensive zombie movie ever made. 28 Days Later was low budget and proves that more money doesn't make a film better. It just makes it look sharper, something that doesn't always help a movie about zombies.

Man of Steel (2013) **1/2

Running Length: 2:28

Rated: PG-13 (Violence, Sexual Dialogue)

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe, Antje Traue, Ayelet Zurer, Kevin Costner, Laurence Fishburne

Director: Zack Snyder

Screenplay: David S. Goyer, based on a story by David S. Goyer & Christopher Nolan

Sigh!

That one word pretty much describes my feelings coming out of Zack Snyder's reboot of the Superman franchise. It is hard for me to express beyond that just how underwhelming the experience was, especially considering my trepidation going into it.

Let me put things into perspective. While I was just one year old at the time Superman the movie came out in theaters I was old enough to remember, barely, seeing its sequel a few years later and loving it so much that I made my parents sit through a second screening of it back to back (you could do that in those days, how times have changed). I also got to watch both films over and over throughout my childhood and even have a copy of the first film on Blu-ray. I am not a slave to Christopher Reeve's interpretation of the Man of Steel but I do recognize that he captured the imaginations of children the world around and made me believe a man could fly. Brandon Routh did much the same thing in 2006's Superman Returns. That film was weak and full of problems but Routh wasn't one of them.

Henry Cavill is stone faced and an enigma most of this new film. His interpretation of Superman is hard to read because he shows no real depth. Most of the character development for him comes in the form of flashbacks, relegated to other actors playing him at various ages of his growing up years. Cavill himself is as cold and emotional as the steel he is compared to.

The story is pretty threadbare. There is the standard cacophonous opening sequence that depicts the destruction of Krypton. This includes a rather lengthy action sequence involving Jor-el (Russell Crowe) fighting off the army of General Zod (Michael Shannon), hopping on a giant winged creature and flying through firefights and massive destruction. This ultimately leads to Jor-el and his wife sending their son, the infant Superman, to earth. Zod is captured and sent to the phantom zone where he immediately escapes and tracks down Superman.

Flash forward thirty-two years later (that number should excite Christians who are once again bludgeoned with the Christ allegory presented in the Superman mythos) and Supes is a wandering loner randomly saving peoples lives and attracting the attention of a reporter for the Daily Planet, Lois Lane (Amy Adams). Zod shows up, threatens the earth if they don't turn Superman over to him, then plots to terreform  earth into a new Krypton killing everyone there already.

I know this is not the late seventies or early eighties, decades that fostered the image of Superman that Reeves played, but that doesn't mean Superman has to be portrayed as a brooding loner. It also doesn't mean that the characters around him need to be one dimensional and spouting crude dialogue laced with sexual comments and profanity. This may be the 21st century but Superman is still looked at as a family friendly superhero and Snyder has taken him away from that and added unnecessary potty humor to the mix. Christopher Nolan (Whose name is added to this film in a producer roll) made his Dark Knight trilogy aimed at an older audience and managed to not stoop to the potty humor and gratuitous profanity to bring his superhero into the modern era.  

Amy Adams is all wrong in the roll of Lois Lane. She has made a career of playing soft hearted love interests in mostly forgettable films. Her take on Lois is much the same and never conveys the hard edge needed for a top level journalist like her character is supposed to be. This isn't as bad as Denise Richards's Nuclear Physicist in The World is Not Enough but it is almost as ineffective. She is in way over her head here, relegated to playing follow the leader rather than striking out on her own and amounting to more than just a love interest who is along for the ride. She has screen presence but it is wasted on a roll that does her no favors and suffers from poor direction.

Michael Shannon is equally ineffective as General Zod, spouting about how he was genetically created to do what he does, eliminating choice from his character. Watching him I kept thinking that I would have much preferred the filmmakers bring Terrence Stamp back. Terrence can act circles around Shannon and would have brought a nuance to the character that Shannon fails at. Shannon has one expression, hatred. I have seen him in a few other films and this seems to be his default look for every roll. He is the worst character of the bunch, including an equally wooden Lawrence Fishburn.

There are tremendous visuals in this film. The problem is that they accompany uninteresting scenes. The action is so frenetic and destructive that in short order my mind was numb from the experience and I just sat there getting a little bored and saying to myself that it looked pretty but I'm checked out of it all. I had much the same experience in a previous Snyder film Sucker Punch. Cool visuals but somewhat lackluster nevertheless.

It is truely a missed opportunity to take the legend of Superman to a new place and make him more complex as well as up to speed with modern sensibilities. The Reeve Superman films are not perfect, especially the abysmal 3rd and 4th ones, but they are still regularly revisited with nostalgia and excitement. Man of Steel will probably make money and spawn a sequel but twenty-five years down the road it won't hold up the way the Reeve's ones do. That's because they had heart and real excitement, not just a bunch of cut-out characters and CGI.

Iron Man 3 (2013) **1/2

Release Date: May 3, 2013

Running Length: 2:10

Rated: PG-13 (Violence, Profanity, Brief Sexuality)

Cast: Robert Downey, Jr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Rebecca Hall, Guy Pierce, Ben Kingsley, Don Cheadle, Miguel Ferrer, William Sadler

Director: Shane Black

Screenplay: Drew Pearce and Shane Black

Marvel Comics scored a home run with last summers The Avengers and it wasn't long before the question was being asked: what was going to follow it. There was always the chance that it would spawn another series based solely on The Avengers but that seemed like aiming a little low. Instead there is going to be a slew of new films based on the individual characters leading up to the Avengers sequel. The first of these films is Iron Man 3, a film that tries to infuse some consequences leftover from The Avengers into its mix and not entirely succeeding.

Tony Stark has been struggling with his new found selflessness and budding romance with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). This fear of his exploits putting her into danger is plaguing him, causing him to lose sleep and when he is resting his new suit that can function without him in it responds to his mental being and acts out accordingly. Meanwhile there is a growing insurgence of terrorism being directed at the President of the White House and various other government officials and being led by a man who goes by the name of The Mandarin (Ben Kingsley). These acts also serve the purpose of drawing out War Machine, complete with new Red, White and Blue paint, in an attempt to possess the armoured suit.

An attack is levied against Tony Stark at his home after a woman named Maya (Rebecca Hall) shows up to talk to him about her boss Killian (Guy Pearce) whom she believes is working for The Mandarin. The attack destroys Tony's home and sends him rocketing out of control eventually crash landing in rural Tennessee, his suit in ruins. The film also works in a story about amputees and a special injection that is meant to restore their limbs but also turns them into super soldiers who can turn superhot on demand.

The primary weakness of Iron Man 3 is the over-familiarity with many of its elements. For starters the villain obsessed with repairing his crippled body. This was seen in The Amazing Spiderman recently. The super soldiers was reminiscent of many many MANY episodes of The X-Files and Fringe. There are other elements that were unoriginal as well, especially during the film's prolonged time in Tennessee, but I won't go into more detail here. Suffice it to say this film has a genuine feeling of familiarity.

This film takes a long time to give us any real battles with Iron Man. This wasn't a problem in the previous two films as the first one was an origin story and the sequel gave us fight after fight. Here however whenever Iron Man is on screen more often than not he's either trying to escape or he's saving someone. The only real battle he's involved in is the final one which almost makes up for it in it's sheer grandeur, a flaw that almost completely sank the previous one.

War Machine is completely wasted in this film. In Iron Man 2 he is a part of the final battle with Whiplash but here he's almost a buffoon, getting captured effortlessly, surrendering his suit when the going gets too hot, and then never really getting it back. Don Cheadle is a fine actor but he has nothing really to do here until the finality and none of that involves him in the suit.

Fans of the previous films will be pleased that the humor from the previous films is intact even as other things that worked in the other films is not quite up to snuff. This includes the relationship between Tony Stark and Pepper Potts, which suffers from the long time these two characters spend apart from each other. This relationship is built up in previous films but not given solid ground here so that a lack of familiarity with the other movies will mar this. This is a mistake as so much of the film focuses on his willingness to do anything to keep her safe and we aren't given the background to really know why. For this much focus there really needed to be something a little more concrete here than just 'they started dating a few films ago.'

The ending leaves things in a much different place than expected. There is no easy set-up for the next one as these characters are fundamentally changed by the end of things. There is still talk about extending Downey's contract to include a second Avengers film as well as Iron Man 4 but that's all there is at this point. Should the film series end here it won't feel like an abrupt ending to it. Still, there are things, primarily dealing with what happens to Potts in the finale of the film, that leave the audience wondering where her character can head the next time around.

This film is flawed. The worst offender is the lack of explanation behind motivations outside of this film itself. There are also some poor pacing choices, spending way too much time in Tennessee. There is also a twist in the middle of the film that, while not entirely predictable, was ridiculous and annoying. It's a real groaner that serves no purpose other than to draw out the film and misdirect the audience at the same time. Still, when looking at the list of actors in the film it shouldn't have been as much of a surprise as it was.

Ultimately the film is able to succeed in closing out another chapter in the Iron Man franchise, possibly, but not likely, the last chapter and also managing to be entertaining, if a little overtly familiar and redundant at times. It succeeds on the charisma of its lead actor and goes out with a bang, providing the best finale in the franchise's history. I just wish the rest of the film had been as exciting as the last twenty minutes had been.

Evil Dead (2013) **1/2

U.S.Release Date: April 5, 2013

Running Length: 1:31

Rated: R (Violence, Profanity)

Cast: Jane Levy, Shiloh Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas, Elizabeth Blackmore

Director: Fede Alvarez

Screenplay: Fede Alvarez, based on the screenplay by Sam Raimi

Perhaps I stacked the decks too far against 2013's Evil Dead remake prior to going into it but the night before I sat down with my Blu-Ray copy of the original 1981 horror classic The Evil Dead and had 85 minutes of pure gleeful gross-out fun. Watching the remake in close proximity to the original has allowed me to see what worked in the low budget original that was completely done wrong this time around and for that I am not repentant for going into it the way that I did.

The basic story has not changed from the original film although the further into the film you go the more it starts to deviate from it. There are five people. three girls and two guys, going out to a cabin in the woods for some time away from the world. This time around there is an actual reason given for this trip: Mia (Jane Levy) has recently had an overdose on drugs and has sought the help of her friends to detox in an environment where she won't have access to her drug of choice. Along for the ride are her estranged brother, David (Shiloh Fernandez), his girlfriend, Natalie (Elizabeth Blackmore), registered nurse Olivia (Jessica Lucas), and high school teacher Eric (Lou Taylor Pucci). A dog named Grandpa has been added to the mix but otherwise this is the same set-up that graced the original.

Shortly after arriving at the cabin Grandpa discovers a blood soaked trap door to the cellar which leads to a bunch of dead cats (this is never really explained, unfortunately) and a book wrapped up in barb wire. Eric foolishly cuts the wire, ignores the scrawls that tell him not to read it, and unleashes a demon bent on killing them all and swallowing their souls.

The film doesn't take too long to get going which is a good thing because there isn't a character among these leads worth rooting for. They are all as dimensional as the cut-out cardboard images posted inside the theatre lobby. A couple of them are a little more interesting, primarily Mia and her brother David, but their back story is glossed over and relegated to a couple of brief scenes about how he was never there for her or their family. It is mentioned several times but never given enough attention to really mean anything other than that it happened. Likewise Mia is given her drug addiction which only serves to keep those around her from believing what is going on to her at first because it is easier to believe that it is all a part of the withdrawal symptoms of her drug use. It is a convenience to get these characters to this locale and keep them in doubt for the first part of the film. It in no way comes back later in the film and appears to actually get dropped by the later parts.

In the original film it became obvious early on who was going to be the one audiences were to root for. In most cases this is the virginal woman who is destined to run around screaming while all others around her get killed one after the other. The Evil Dead (1981) gave us Ash (Bruce Campbell), a man driven to kill all those around him as they, one after another, became possessed and homicidal. David plays this part in the new film but with a twist I will not reveal in this review. I will say that the film takes a dramatic shift in focus late in the proceedings that will take fans of the original film by surprise. This shift is at once abrupt and more than a little disorienting. It is also a necessary departure from the original that makes it its own beast.

There has been a trend in the last decade or so to sanitize the horror genre, remaking foreign horror films and watering them down to a PG-13 and thus watering down the scares. Evil Dead does not fall into that pitfall. Instead it goes in the opposite direction and ramps up the gore and violence into the realm of torture porn. It not only goes over the top in the gore but it doesn't rely on CGI to portray it. The effects are practical and it shows. This is old school horror ramped up a few notches.

There are a few things that keep this film from being the rollicking good time the original is. The characters are bland, although that was also the case in the original. The primary issue is the lack of focus that keeps us from really getting into the scenario. There is a prologue to the film that is new for this version. It gives us some back story that is never delved into again and is pretty much dropped by the time the rest of the story comes along. There is also the thing about the cats I mentioned before that seem to only be there to make things creepy. The timeline for the prologue is also left unexplained. It has to be recent because of the leftover stench of the decaying cats and burnt bodies but that is left for us to puzzle out and is never addressed.

Remakes are a difficult thing to get right. Remakes of classics are even worse. Fans of the original film will undoubtedly go see it for the experience and then be left disappointed if it doesn't live up to the original. That is the case here. There are more than enough things to make this film worth seeking out if brutal horror films are to your liking. However, gone is the humor and subtlety that made the first film a classic that still enjoys an ardent following more than thirty years later. This film does not have that type of staying power and is destined to be an interesting side note in reference to The Evil Dead series, nothing more.

G. I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) **

U. S. Release Date: March 27, 2013

Running Length: 1:50

Rated: PG-13 (Violence, Profanity,Sexual Content)

Cast: Dwayne Johnson, Jonathan Pryce, Byung-hun Lee, Elodie Yung, Ray Stevenson, D.J. Cotrona, Adrianne Palicki, Channing Tatum, Ray Park, Bruce Willis

Director: Jon M. Chu

Screenplay: Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick

I was never that big into G. I. Joe during its run in the mid to late 80's. I didn't have any of the toys or watch the animated series. I had a neighbor though who was and I was very much aware of all of it at the time. In 2009 I saw a preview for the then upcoming G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra and my initial reaction to it was that it looked ridiculous. After having seen that movie my opinion hadn't changed. Still, the movie made some money right next to Hasbro's other big franchise, Transformers. It was inevitable that there would be a sequel, albeit one that needed to tweak the formula to maximize the audience that the last film didn't quite manage to reach.

Flash forward to 2012. Some things had changed between '09 and '12. One of them was the sudden stardom of Channing Tatum who played Duke in the previous film. While the new Joe film was being filmed this hadn't happened yet and his character was written out of the film early on. With Tatum suddenly becoming a Box Office draw studio heads felt that that was one asset they no longer wanted in such short supply and the film was significantly delayed while more scenes involving Tatum could be filmed. The result is exactly what you'd expect from such a decision, extra scenes that are disjointed from the rest of the film and serve to bloat the running time up unnecessarily. None of the new scenes really belong in the film. something that is noticeable even without knowing why they're in the film in the first place.

As for the rest of the film? It's safe to say that it is a better film than the last time around but not by much. The action scenes, of which most of the film is made of, are competently directed, don't resonate because there aren't around characters we can emphasize and therefore feel for. With a little character build-up this could have been remedied but instead it is nearly one explosive action scene after another and what little else we are given is only there to tell us in as little screen time as possible why it's all happening at all.

The story this time around is somewhat of a continuation of the last film. Zartan (Arnold Vosloo, Jonathan Pryce), disguised as the President of the United States, is assisting Cobra, lead by the recently freed Cobra Commander, in total world domination (of course). To accomplish this they have built satellites code named ZEUS that can destroy whole countries from space. To prove their point they fire on London, destroying the entire city. The G. I. Joe's are framed and killed aside from a trio of stragglers lead by Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson) who manage to recruit the original Joe (Bruce Willis) in an attempt to retake The White House.

This film is a classic example of too much all the time. There are references to North Korea that are decidedly poor taste in light of current events, as well as acts of terrorism that hit too close to home for a film that should be escapist fare. There are also entirely too many characters to keep track of. While this might be fine for G. I. Joe die hards it is too much for the rest of us and bogs down the entire film, especially when it delves into back story and motivations. This was a big problem with the 2009 film and it hasn't been dealt with here any better.

 

This could have been a descent action yarn, exciting yet forgettable had it actually reached out to a larger audience than it does. Instead it is another 100 minute long commercial for Hasbro that alienates non-fans of the Joes in favor of focusing on those who grew up with the toys and still take time to watch the cartoons or read the comics. This is a narrow audience. All others might find a smidgeon of fun in this film but will come away knowing that there is a ton of stuff that went right over their heads.