Movie Review - "The Avengers" (2012) ****

     As I stated in my previous review, the one for Thor, I'm not the biggest comic book movie fan but as long as the acting and story are entertaining, I can go along for the ride. Well, I came along for The Avengers ride...and I had one helluva good time!! I'm not willing to put it above the Michael Keaton Batman films or The Dark Knight, but it's pretty close. The Avengers mixes great action, surprisingly good acting across the board, and a strong script that mixes in a lot of comedy, to form an ideal example of what a summer movie should be. It's one thing to be loud and special effects heavy, but if you don't care about the characters involved what good is the story and why is it worth watching? I'm looking at you Transformers. I feel too often during recent years that is what the summer movie season has turned into. And perhaps it will continue, I sort of dread thinking about what Battleship may be like, opening in just a couple of weeks. But for 2012, at least we are off to a strong start thanks to Joss Whedon, director and writer of The Avengers. Hopefully the trend will continue, I miss going to the movies in the summer.

     I don't know that a typical plot summary is a good idea this time around. First off, just as I stated in my Thor review, I personally don't understand a lot of the things I saw on screen. If I did, this would probably flirt with a 5-star rating. I don't completely understand things like the Tesseract, or the S.H.I.E.L.D. agency. I'm not knowledgeable of the background of most of these characters and there is dialogue in the movie that went straight over my head. But really all of that is of secondary importance. What's important is that Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the villain from Thor, has returned this time around with the help of an alien race called the Chitauri, and he plans to take over Earth in exchange for the Tesseract. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), director of SHIELD, recognizes the global threat occuring and initiates the Avenger initiative, a uniting of several of the worlds top heroes. Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Capt. America/Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Hulk/Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Black Widow/Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johannson) are eventually joined by Hawkeye/Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) to take on Loki and his minions and save the Earth from destruction. The group does not know how to function as a team in the early going and find themselves fighting with each other more often than the enemy, which is part of Loki's plan. But when Loki takes out a SHIELD agent who was close to the team, it unites the Avengers into a formidable fighting unit, leading to an ultimate showdown with Loki and the Chitauri.

     I believe the thing that shocked me the most about this movie is how each character is really given time to develop on screen. I give Joss Whedon a ton of credit for this because it would be very easy to focus on 2 or 3 of the Avengers and have the others, especially Hawkeye and Black Widow who have not received their own films (yet), pushed off to the side in secondary roles. But that's not the case here. While Downey's Iron Man seems to get maybe a hair more screen time than the others, it's not noticeable. I did not like the original Iron Man film, I thought it was not good at all. But I absolutely loved Downey here in the role and it makes me wonder if I need to go back and revisit that movie, especialy since I have the whole picture now. Downey is a whiz at the one-liners and he spouts them out non-stop here but it never gets old. You can definitely see Whedon's influence in the comedy. Downey shines but all of the other actors, especially the main roles, more than hold their own. I think I personally fell in love with Scarlett Johannson as Black Widow. I had to make myself close my mouth because I was drooling all over my popcorn. (You Scarlett, are beautiful!!) I'm a huge Jeremy Renner fan and once again he is strong here as Hawkeye, spending half the movie on the dark side before teaming up with his rightful group. Mark Ruffalo as The Hulk/Bruce Banner is casting genius. I can go on and on, but I like to keep these reviews to a certain length. In closing, The Avengers is a fantastic film, worthy of the money and success it has already obtained. I may not understand everything I saw, but it was sure fun experiencing it.

Movie Review - "Thor" (2011) ***1/2

     I've stated more than once before in the blog, I'm a nerd and proud of it...but I've never been into comics and the movies they have inspired too much. I know enough general knowledge about some of this stuff to hold my own in a conversation, but it's generally not my thing. Batman seems to be exception as I really enjoyed several of those films. But I found the Spider-Man movies to be relatively boring, I didn't care for Iron Man, and my recent review for Captain America was simply average. I haven't even bothered with most of the X-Men or Fantastic Four films. All that being said, for some strange reason I was intrigued about the new Avengers movie coming out and once it destroyed opening weekend box-office records, with a big thumbs up from the critic masses, I knew it was going to be a movie I needed to see. And I did, but more on that in a later review. Before seeing The Avengers, I had been told that you really needed to see Thor, a movie that I intended to pass on but decided to give a shot to before heading out to see The Avengers. I'm glad I did. Of the precursor Avenger movies to date that I have seen, Thor is the one I enjoyed the most.

     The film stars Chris Hemsworth in the title role of Thor, a powerful yet arrogant warrior whos recklessness reignites a war between his homeworld of Asgard and the evil Frost Giants of Jotunheim. Thor, with the help of his mighty hammer, succeeds in this initial skirmish but back on Asgard, his actions have infuriated his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins). Odin banishes Thor to the planet Earth where he is to live among the humans as punishment. As he crashes to Earth, Thor is hit by an RV that is home to three scientists; astrophysicist Jane Foster (the lovely Natalie Portman), Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard) and Jane's friend, Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings). This leads to a series of amusing moments between the god Thor, who doesn't understand what is going on around him and his human companions who are constantly hitting him with their RV or tasering him when they do not know if he is dangerous or not. I have to admit, while some of this is eye-rolling slapstick, I found it quite amusing. I definitely chuckled a few times seeing this fish-out-of-water tale. Thor's hammer has landed a short distance away in the desert and is immediately quarantined by the secretive S.H.I.E.L.D. organization. Thor learns of this and sets off to reclaim his hammer, only to find he no longer possesses the strength to wield it. Back on Asgard, a new, sinister villain is rising to power...Thor's own brother, Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Loki dispatches an evil force to Earth to destroy Thor and any humans that get in the way. It's up to Thor to learn what it means to be a true hero in order to regain his strength and protect Earth.

     I'm not even going to pretend that I understand some of the storylines involved in this film, and it's for that reason that while I enjoyed the film, I'm not able to give it a higher score. It's made for individuals who know a bit of the backstory and who have read the comics. I am not one of those people. That is the primary reason I dislike many of these superhero films, I just don't understand them. And if I don't know what's going on, the acting and story must be good enough to draw me in for a length of time. A majority of these movies have failed with that in the past. With Thor though, I was able to follow along for the most part and I enjoyed myself. I don't think there is any one thing that I thought was outstanding, but all of the performances are at least watchable and I liked the story that was presented to me. The movie was directed by acclaimed British actor Kenneth Branagh, who I didn't even know had directing credits to his name, but he's done several films actually, none of which I have seen. Hemsworth has become a bit of a hot property as an actor in recent years, especially among the fanboy community. He landed the role of Capt. Kirk in the Star Trek reboot, has become a vital role in the Marvel universe, and was recently seen in the horror film The Cabin in the Woods. I'm sure there are other actors who could have pulled Thor off, but I think he was a fine choice. Portman seems out of place to me in this movie, but she's so darn beautiful, so she is always welcome to be around!! I really enjoyed Thor and being that I saw it mere hours before heading out to see The Avengers, I think it makes for a good double-feature. Did it add to my enjoyment of that film? We'll find out shortly.

Movie Review - "Into the Abyss" (2011) ****

     I view movies as a nice way to escape reality for a couple of hours. We can put ourselves in a fantasy setting and forget our worries on the outside world, if only for a brief time. I would guess this is also the case with the majority of the movie-going public. It's for this reason that I think documentaries get a bad rap from the general public and are often avoided like the plague unless they are made by someone who is in the public conscience, like Michael Moore. Documentaries make us think and perhaps even question things that we believe in, or thought we believed in. I fully admit that I avoided documentaries for many years, I associated them with the word boredom. Why did I do that? No reason. I heard other people with that opinion and just assumed they were right. But I eventually came around and started giving some of them a shot and because of that, I have found that I generally enjoy documentaries a lot. I still don't seek out as many as I probably should, but I try and sneak one in there every month or so, just to mix things up a bit from the basic rabble that is floating around out there. I encourage you to do the same if you find yourself in the boat that I mentioned above. Into the Abyss, the latest film from acclaimed filmmaker Werner Herzog, is the most recent in a string of excellent documentaries that I have seen recently (The Interrupters, Waiting for Superman, The Cove).

     With Into the Abyss, Herzog tells the story of a horrific triple-homicide that occurred in Conroe, Texas in October of 2001. Two young men, Michael Perry and Jason Burkett, brutally murdered 50-year old nurse Sandra Stotler in her home as she baked cookies. Why? She owned a nice red corvette that the boys wanted to take joyriding. Later, Stotler's teenage son, Adam, and his friend Jeremy Richardson, were also murdered by Perry and Burkett when they arrived to the neighborhood. Perry received a death sentence for his role in the crimes while Burkett received a life sentence, a fact that is touched upon in the movie as one of the questions surrounding the legal system. There are numerous interviews with detectives and police who worked on the case, including actual crime scene video, as well as interviews with family members of the victims and the accused. Herzog's biggest coup though is to get interviews with both Perry and Burkett, with Perry's interview coming just 8 days before he is to be executed by lethal injection. Both accused blame the other for the crime but their side of the story is never given. From everything we have seen, the guilt of the two men is not in question, but they each blame the other without denying involvement. We also get an interview in prison with Burkett's father who is serving a life sentence himself. It is during this interview where we learn why Burkett was not given the death penalty along with Perry, and how something so small can sway a jury one way or the other. For me, it was clear that Herzog was making an anti-capitol punishment film here, but he doesn't beat you over the head with it. He subtly states his case, most obviously in the interview segments with former Captain Fred Allen, who led the Huntsville Prison death row for many years, overseeing over 100 executions. He states very matter-of-factly what happens during an execution and how seemless of a procedure it really is. But Allen was eventually overcome with emotion following one execution and quit his job, forfeiting his pension. It's in Allen's testimony that we see that sentencing someone to death not only affects the accused, but everyone around them.

     Into the Abyss is a wonderful film but as with many documentaries, a lot of what you may think of it depends on where you stand on the subject being raised. One thing I try to do with statement movies like this is to separate myself from my beliefs and make sure my mind remains open at all times. I am not going to state where I stand on the death penalty, I have my thoughts on it, but it's irrelevant to this review. How is the story told, that's the only thing I cared about, and no matter what I feel about the subject I feel Herzog did a great job of telling the story and keeping me interested in it. I cared about the people in this movie, for the most part at least. The film has received generally positive reviews but the negative reactions toward it seem to suggest this is a longer version of a Dateline or A Current Affair episode. I respect those opinions but disagree with them. There is way more depth here I feel. The crime scene stuff itself is played out pretty basic, but the reactions being captured of the those affected is top notch stuff. I give Into the Abyss a high recommendation. If you continue to shy away from documentaries, I understand your concerns, but encourage you to expand a little bit and give some of these a try.

Movie Review - "The Debt" (2011) **1/2

     I was not familiar with The Debt at all until a couple of months ago when I was skimming through the new releases on Netflix and ran across it. It sounded like an espionage thriller and I'm usually game for something like that, so I threw it in my queue and forgot about it for a while. I had pretty well forgotten about it again when it finally showed up in my mail box recently. I decided not to do any advance reading on it and just went in blind, it's fun to do that every so often. The result was less than stunning, but man, there is a GREAT movie lurking under the surface here. There is a lot to like and I did enjoy a large portion of this movie but ultimately it falls just a bit short of being really good. As can often happen with films in this genre, they can get buried in their own story sometime and become a bit too complicated. I felt a little of that here. There are two storylines and one is way more fascinating than the other. Unfortunately, the storyline that didn't work as much brought the whole thing down with it in my opinion.

     The movie starts in 1997, current time according to the story, and three retired Mossad secret agents are being celebrated with a new book detailing their 1966 mission where they infiltrated East Berlin and captured Nazi war criminal Vogel. The three agents, Rachel Singer (Helen Mirren), Stephan Gold (Tom Wilkinson), and David Peretz (Ciaran Hands) were celebrated in their country for the accomplishment but we quickly learn in present day that something is awry when David commits suicide. Rachel and Stephan know why, but we as the audience are not let in on that reasoning right away. The movie then takes us back to 1966 for a failry straightforward telling of what happened on that mission...and how not everything may have happened as people would believe. Secrets, and allegiances, will be put to the ultimate test. The suspense builds across both timelines leading to surprising revelations.

     When this film is taking place in 1966, it really works. I think that story alone would have been worth a feature length movie. Watching the middle portion of this film, I was reminded of the great Spielberg film Munich, a film that I had in my top 100 list. Some of the tension is on the same level of that classic, it has a Hitchcockian feel to it. The good news is, this takes up a good portion of the movie. The bad news is that it doesn't take up the whole thing. In present time, I just simply didn't care as much. It's not the fault of the actors. Mirren, Wilkinson and Hands are all well-respected in their field and are great here. But I feel they are overshadowed by their younger 1966 counterparts played by Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas, all of whom deserve kudos for their work here. The movie is directed by John Madden, who I learned directed Shakespeare in Love, a movie that I despised and have a personal disgust for because I feel it robbed Saving Private Ryan of a Best Picture Oscar. I'll never forgive that!! But Madden does a much better job here, working with a script that has three screenwriters, and therein may lie the problem. There may be one too many hands in the cookie jar and it didn't help things out. I'm not sure, but the end result was a little disappointing. Focus on the 1960's stuff and you will be fine. I give it a very slight recommend.

Movie Review - "Our Idiot Brother" (2011) **

     Paul Rudd is one of those weird actors for me. I'm going to guess I've seen in him in maybe 6 or 7 films and I can remember liking his characters for the most part but I don't think I have ever given any film he is in over 3 stars or so. Rudd has a charm about him that is endearing, it seems like he'd be a good buddy to hang out with, but for whatever reason, his movies just seem to fall a little short for me and Our Idiot Brother is no exception. In fact, it might be the poster child for what I'm talking about. I like Paul Rudd's character in this movie...the movie as a whole fell flat though. I'm not sure why that is and if I thought long enough about it I'm sure I could come up with other actors who fit this same criteria, but it really stood out for me while watching this.

     Rudd plays Ned Rochlin, a constantly upbeat organic farmer who is very likable but just seems to invite trouble with whatever he does. He means so well, and we feel like he has never hurt a soul in his life, but he is prone to doing or saying things which land him in hot water. As the movie opens, he has good intentions but ends up in jail when he sells a bag of marijuana to a uniformed cop. By reading that you may think he is a loser, a drug head, but once you see the scene you feel sorry for him, he just has that way about him. Upon his release from jail, he heads home only to find out that his girlfriend is now shacking up with another man and refuses to let Ned keep his dog, named Willie Nelson, in one of the best running jokes of the movie. The majority of the film sees Ned travel first to his mothers house and ultimately to the residences of each of his three sisters, played by Emily Mortimer, Elizabeth Banks, and the oh so beautiful Zooey Deschanel. Each sister has their own unique relationship issue and as Ned moves in with each one he ends up causing unwanted stress and conflict, usually due to his naivete. This obviously drives them crazy but as things play out, the sisters slowly learn to realize that maybe their brother isn't such the idiot he is made out to be.

     I've given Our Idiot Brother a fairly low score, but it does have a charm about it that I think will appeal to a lot of people, especially ladies. Ned is easy to root for and Rudd does a great job with the character. For me, the movie just seemed to drag way too much for my taste, in the middle third of the film especially. While all the actresses playing the sisters do a fine job, none of them really stood out and took a firm grasp of the role and made it their own. I felt as if I could thrown any of several dozen actresses in those roles and gotten equal, or better, performances. I will not remember who was playing those roles a year from now unless I look it up. The film is directed by Jesse Peretz, a name I had never heard of before, and looking at his IMDB profile seems to be a relative newcomer. He has potential, you can see it. If the movie has appealed to you prior to this and you think it's something you would like, go ahead and give it a shot. If it seems like a movie you wouldn't like, you are probably going to be right. Ultimately I can't give it a recommend.

Movie Review - "30 Minutes or Less" *

     One of my favorite movies of the past decade is The Social Network, David Fincher's brilliant film about the founding of Facebook. One of the reasons for this is my appreciation for Jesse Eisenberg's performance as Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Everything about his performance worked for me, it was darn near perfect. I also enjoyed Eisenberg in the 2009 cult hit Zombieland, a movie that was way better than it had any right to be. That film was directed by Ruben Fleischer, a little-known director who managed to develop a cult classic with his first major project. When I saw the previews for 30 Minutes or Less, it didn't appear to be something I would enjoy, but since Fleischer and Eisenberg were both associated with the film I decided to go ahead and give it a chance and see if I would find another surprise, just like Zombieland. I was surprised alright...by just how terrible the movie is.

     I'm not going to spend much time on a plot summary, but basically Eisenberg stars as Nick, a pizza delievery driver who lives a mundane life. His life takes a turn for the bizarre when he is kidnapped by Dwayne and Travis (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson), two not-so-bright individuals who need to come across $100,000 quickly. They strap a bomb vest to Nick and tell him he needs to rob a bank within 10 hours or the bomb will explode. Nick freaks out and turns to his best friend Chet (Aziz Ansari) to help him rob the bank. Obviously, things do not go as planned as none of the principals involved are criminal masterminds in the slightest. Various hijinks ensue. That's really all you need to know, it's mindless.

     I'm giving 30 Minutes or Less one star but that is being VERY generous. I like to save my no star reviews for special trash, such as Tree of  Life, movies that "think" they are great but are just the opposite.I never laughed out loud once and slightly chuckled maybe once or twice tops. I think you can tell a lot about a movie if the funniest scene occurs after the credits have finished rolling, which is the case here. Unfortunately, by then it was too little too late. I also have one big beef with this movie, and it's something I rarely complain about, and that's the language. First off, I am not offended by foul language. I have seen tons of films with language even harsher than what is here, there is a big difference though. Here it is so obvious that the writer has no idea what he is doing and can't come up with a coherent script, so let's throw in an F-bomb every other word because that's the "cool" thing to do. The lack of thought that went into writing this is appalling. I'm not sure what worries me the most, the fact that the writer has such a limited vocbaulary, or the fact that there is a large portion of the population that will find this script hilarious and entertaining. Look, I'm not mad at you if you like this, we all have different tastes, but if this is one of the better films you have seen in a while, you need to expand your movie tastes just a bit. As for Eisenberg, I'll chalk this up as a mistake. Get back to the good stuff, you have so much talent to waste it on this.