Today's Review: Vacation

Another review up!

Vacation - recensie

Well, that was positively awful. Of course, the current trend of making a comedy as raunchy as possible by cramming it full of dirty jokes involving excrements and unusual sexual positions has been going for quite a while now, so you can hardly blame this Vacation for that. It's not like the original movie refrained from such shenanigans. But the level of said gags is just abominably low here, making it painfully unfunny for the most part. Too bad, because I know the lead Ed Helms, of Hangover fame, is capable of funnier routines. But even he is hopelessly lost somewhere between the rim jobs and Chris Hemsworth's erection. You got a bad thing going when the holiday car is funnier that the characters driving it. But at least the car doesn't make poop jokes galore. This vehicle of Albanian make is just loaded with silly gadgets and awkward options. Not all of them a guarantee for success, but at least I chuckled over the navigation system's sultry female American voice accidentally being replaced by a seemingly outraged Korean counterpart. If translated however, it would no doubt be revealed to get in line with the rest of the ample obscenities the script contains.

As with most remakes these days, this one wouldn't have been missed if it wasn't produced at all. However, recycling the original film's plot and adding Horrible Bosses or We're the Millers type jokes to it likely saved the studio a few bucks. The story is mostly the same as its predecessor's, while some of the situations are even lifted verbatim from some of the other Vacation movies from the Eighties. It's not like this is that well known a franchise these days, so who would know, right? But if you acknowledge the status of this film as a remake by making jokes about that very fact in the actual film, you sure run the risk of people checking out the previous installments and finding out just how lazy the writing is this time around. Even such references to the original are hardly an inspired move. Remember 21 Jump Street addressing its status as a reboot by literally saying nobody at the top has any better ideas than just regurgitating old notions ad nauseam? It's a funny line, until you understand just how poignantly true it is. We don't need to hear the same argument here to hammer the point home. The movie is unhilarious enough without reminding us a better film with the same name and the same plot was produced thirty years ago. Or that we're likely to see another movie with said name and plot in a few more decades. The kids in this feature definitely appear stupid enough to make the same mistakes all over when they grow up.

Luckily, this Vacation will be swiftly forgotten. It'll prove a lot harder to get that obnoxiously catchy song Holiday Road out of our heads.

Today's News: It's the most boring time of the year

The Holidays are never a particularly hot time for movie news (unless your movie is called The Interview). This year proves no exception. I guess it's a good thing, as it gives me less work and more time to spend with my loved ones. Or stuff.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158436/justin_lin_nieuwe_regisseur_star_trek_3

This is basically bad news in the guise of good news. Of course, the real bad news I mentioned previously, which was Duncan Jones passing on Trek 3. I guess we have to make do with an action director then, which doesn't bode particularly well for the movie's plot. Justin Lin sure isn't the worst choice as action directors go, though. He successfully and rather unexpectedly turned a franchise in decline around and crafted Fast & Furious into the powerhouse blockbuster series it is today. Obviously, Paramount Pictures is hoping he can pull off the same scheme for their ailing Star Trek franchise, which has known nothing but woe since J.J. Abrams traded in Trek for Wars. I hope Lin realized what he was in for, basically assuming command of a previously sinking ship, with little to no input on the script, as there's no time for decent rewrites, now that the 2016 date, hailing the franchise's Fiftieth Anniversary, is definitive. An approach both fast and furious is sure required here. As if the script isn't enough of an issue, I genuinely doubt Lin's capability to handle Trek. He has proven good at what he does - against all odds, the F&F movies got better and better - but he does action movies and has no experience with the science fiction genre, intelligent or otherwise. Maybe his hiring is another clear sign that Paramount isn't at all interested in decent Sci-Fi, but just wants another Star Wars like action flick that once more proves the new Trek isn't anything like real Trek. The rumour that the studio is hoping to add Rocket & Groot type sidekicks is also getting more credible, as there's various of those to be found in Lin's oeuvre thus far (though they be human as opposed to antropomorphic plants and animals). I'm glad Paramount at least went with the most sensible bad choice, but I'm not applauding their choice as a bright future for the Star Trek franchise.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158419/nieuwe_trailer_in_the_heart_of_the_sea

I also don't applaud whaling (at all!), but I cannot deny this film looks fascinating. Of course, that cannot be credited to the overly digital stupendously large whale smashing the boat. It's the story of the perseverance of man in his struggle against nature's wrath that piques my interest here. Maritime stories of men at the mercy of the wide ocean have proven a popular trend of late (e.g. Kon-Tiki, Life of Pi, et al.) and In the Heart of the Sea might make a fine addition to that list, helped by a decent 1800s period look. A good cast is in effect, though a better choice for the leading man might have been found than Chris Hemsworth, but I suppose you got to put in one popular name for the general audience (or so studios often seem to think). I doubt the story will offer many surprises with the God of Thunder leading these desperate and starving men through their hopeless plight: besides, if they had all died, it seems highly doubtful the Essex story would have been historically documented at all. I just hope the ignorant audience won't consider whalers as brave and romantic men having chosen a courageous trade slaughtering large, dangerous creatures, though I could not believe any Western bred director would consider such an ideological message in this day and age. In the Heart of the Sea mostly isn't about whaling anyway, it's about survival against impossible odds first and foremost. And history has taught us that such a whale of a tale has always intrigued mankind.

Today's Mini-Review: Thor: The Dark World

The Odinson returns in his second solo venture, more grandiose than the last, but still very close in narrative make-up to its predecessor, despite a change of director. Kenneth Branagh declined the offer to helm this second installment while female director Patty Jenkins was fired early on, at which point Game of Thrones director Alan Taylor took over the reins, and quite successfully so. The Shakespearean overtones are nevertheless kept in, only enlarged by his Martinian experience with grand halls, epic battles and conniving siblings, all too similar in nature to the subject matter so far. After leaving the Avengers and returning home with his captive brother Loki, Thor (Chris Hemsworth more beefed up than ever) has been kept busy for two years fighting rampaging marauders and other dangers to cosmic stability across the Nine Realms. Meanwhile, his human love Jane (Natalie Portman) also hasn't taken time off in search for her divine boytoy by using every scientific means at her disposal. On investigation in Britain, she stumbles upon a portal to another place where she is infected by the Aether, a dangerous, ancient material that is the key energy source of the largely extinct Dark Elves that once battled the Asgardians for dominance in times immemorial, and lost. Sensing the Aether has awoken, the few remaining members of this shadowy race prepare for another shot at universal power grabbing under the leadership of the wrathful Malekith (Christopher Eccleston wearing creepy make-up). When they unexpectedly assault Asgard and kill Thor's mother, the distraught wielder of the powerful hammer Mjölnir disobeys his heavenly father's commands and recruits his untrustworthy brother Loki (an impeccable Tom Hiddleston, again playing the trickster god with the usual vigour that makes him the most fascinating Marvel villain of them all) to defeat the Dark Elves before their nefarious plans for Jane and the universe are brought to their catastrophic conclusion. The only bond that shares them at this point in their overly tumultuous relationship is the mutual love for their mother's memory: otherwise there is no trust or love lost between them. Will Thor manage to save his girlfriend and everything else, without ending with a knife in his back at the hands of his seemingly imbalanced brother, or crushed by the ever stronger Malekith? It will remain to be seen during a bombastic battle in the British capital (instead of set in the States, as has been usual in Marvel movies thus far).

The problem audiences might have with Thor: The Dark World is the fact it doesn't dare to leave its established comfort zone and therefore sticks suspiciously close to what we have already seen in the previous film. Though Thor's cosmic portion of the Marvel Universe is certainly expanded in terms of scope and story, thematically speaking there's little to be found that feels new. The nature of heroism, the love for a mortal woman, the rivalry between brothers: it has all been done before, but at least The Dark World doesn't do it badly. In terms of style Asgard has never looked so glorious to behold: a sharp contrast to the dreadful dead soil of the barren world of Svartalfheim that had to be conquered and annihilated for the Norse gods to rise to power – which makes you rethink how much of 'the good guys' they really claim to be – as we are told in a fabulous prologue that feels a lot like the opening of a certain Peter Jackson fantasy blockbuster. Apart from the many predictable but entertaining scenes of supernatural action The Dark World provides, also ever present is the level of humour that reminds us we ought not to take any of this too seriously, as well as keeping us from forgetting we're watching a comic book adaptation. Key in this is a reversal of the dynamics between Jane and Thor seen previously, where he was cast out of his world in order to come to terms with a “lesser state” of existence for his own good. This time it's Jane's turn to be a stranger in a strange land as she's swept to Asgard where her Earthly unsophisticatedness causes many a merry moment: not because she's overwhelmed by it all, but due to her impulse to make scientific sense of her new environment, which startles the Asgardian natives somewhat. Those who hoped for more Asgardian style dialogue, as present in the comics, will find themselves disappointed though, as the gods unfortunately speak as much of a contemporary language as our own. Thor and Jane make a decent on-screen couple, but it's the supporting cast that succeeds the most in keeping us engaged, with Hiddleston worthy of most praise. It is often said a movie is only as good as its bad guy, which should have made The Dark World a very good movie, but Loki is forced by the plot to be submissive in terms of villainy to Malekith, despite the fact Loki far exceeds this new villain in being interesting (no criticism on Eccleston's performance it must be stated), mostly thanks to his almost heartfelt loss of his mother, which for a moment makes you think he genuinely wants to help Thor in exacting revenge. And by pulling that off convincingly, Hiddleston again reveals why he was such a good choice for this loveable rogue. Dark or not, it's Loki's world, and we would do well never to underestimate him as everyone else does.

And be sure to stick with the credits a while longer to witness a largely unrelated but neverthless hugely intriguing typical Marvel 'bridge' to next year's Guardians of the Galaxy, which will expand the cosmic corner of the Marvel Cinematic Universe even further. It stars Benicio Del Toro with a funny accent and a silly hairdo, so you have no valid reason to miss out on it, really.

Today's News: an Exodus of Thor posters

Here's a double bill for ya:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/149631/nieuwe_posters_thor_the_dark_world

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/149632/nieuwe_cast_voor_ridley_scotts_exodus

A pair of grand new posters, befitting the characters in question me thinks. Thor looks mighty and divine as a thunder god ought to, while Loki appears sinister and villainous as always. There's some subtle clues in the Loki poster concerning the fate of Asgard at the hands of the legion of the Dark World of Svartalfheim, possibly - and likely - with Loki's aid. There's little more to be said about these new one-sheets other than that they continue to foster hopes Thor: The Dark World will be an epic Marvel flick successfully succeeding its predecessor in terms of cosmic scope and marvelous mysticism.

And speaking of epic - as subtle a segue as you're ever gonna get from me - there's Sir Ridley Scott's latest project which appears to be just that, but Biblical. It appears Exodus is his serious take on the Old Testament book of the same name, without going for a more cynical tone, as was at first the idea with his Robin Hood (which unfortunately didn't work out though, and it ended up a typical period film devoid of surprises accordingly). So far its increasingly impressive cast seems up to the task, though I do disagree with the casting choice for Christian Bale as Mozes; personally I wouldn't follow Bale to the Promised Land, though I concur there are plenty of others that would. I'm more intrigued by the casting of established character actors the likes of Ben Kingsley (also a Sir), John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver and Joel Edgerton (not Sirs). As for Aaron Paul, he seems the odd one out in this bunch. Unless he's supposed to deliver a lighter overall tone to the piece, something I trust Scott won't let get out of hand. That he can play the type of character he did in Breaking Bad is one thing, but now Paul must prove he's up to playing other types of roles as well. Under Scott's supervision, I say we need not fear for anything less than stellar performances of Bale's colleagues throughout. As for Bale himself, well... he's Batman... no more! Ben Affleck is Batman now, deal with it.

Mirror, Mirror on the wall, Charlize Theron is fairer than y'all

Snow White and the Huntsman: ***/*****, or 6/10

Re-imagining fairy tales feminist style seems to be getting all the rage lately. After having young Alice don armour to fight the evil queen in Tim Burton's recent Alice in Wonderland, Snow White now gets to do the exact same thing (courtesy of the same producer, Joe Roth, no doubt). Considering her previous failure as a comedian in Tarsem Singh's Mirror, Mirror only two months ago, applying a more action oriented approach might not have been a bad idea. It obviously sets this Snow White apart from that disappointment. Unfortunately, the resulting Snow White and the Huntsmen still leaves a lot to be desired, and makes it frustratingly clear just how damn subjective the term 'fair' actually is.

Snow White and the Huntsmen does away with the overly feel-good style of both its comedic predecessor and the classic Disney version, instead traveling a grittier, bleaker and definitely gorier road, making it feel more like a Tim Burton or Peter Jackson flick at times. At least first time director Rupert Sanders took hints from his accomplished peers instead of slavishly rehashing the many versions of the Snow White tale that came before. His best card comes in the shape of casting Charlize Theron as the evil queen, in this version named Ravenna instead of just dubbed 'evil queen' as happens more frequently. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Sanders' biggest problem turns out to be Kristen Stewart's performance as Snow White herself, a rather soulless and bland piece of casting that fails to convince the audience to root for her as a brave and inspiring leader of men in their desperate struggle against tyranny. For this is basically what the tale of Snow White has been turned into in this film, a typical fight between good and evil that never leaves the viewer pondering whose side the characters are on since both terms are clearly delineated and leave no room for compromise.

The movie opens with a lengthy but intriguing flashback revealing the series of events that lead to the status quo as it is when the story truly kicks off. For unclear reasons this prologue is narrated by the Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth largely reprising his role as Thor, playing an impulsive and stubborn though often foolish but ultimately likeable strongman, but with a Scottish accent this time), who takes no part in this background history himself, probably to give Hemsworth something to do before entering the movie after it has been running for 40 minutes already. The backstory tells of the birth of Snow White in a beautiful kingdom under the happy reign of her wise and beloved mother and father, before it falls into ruin and despair when the queen dies and her husband is tricked into marrying the beautiful Ravenna, only to be murdered by the treacherous wench on his wedding night. When this pretender usurps the throne, young Snow White is swiftly locked away and all those who oppose the new queen's reign are ruthlessly disposed of. The movie does not hesitate at all to portray Ravenna as a vile witch with no sense of good in her at all, while Snow White simply can do no wrong and is eventually heralded a female Messiah for the otherwise nameless fantasy realm the movie takes place in. It's this overly simplistic way of depicting both sides of the coin without any possibility for overlap to the other side from either character that makes Snow White and the Huntsmen loose touch with the older demographics the movie aims for- the film is rated PG-13 in the USA, while it's '12' in the Netherlands – since few people in the audience would ever swallow good and evil are so easily and strictly defined.

At least Charlize Theron got it easy, since her Ravenna is not just a wholesomely despicable person, but also dabbles in the dark arts, thus allowing the accomplished actress (who can currently be seen delivering another stellar performance in Ridley Scott's Prometheus) to have a ball playing this wicked witch, wearing impressive gowns, surrounded by beautiful eerie castle sets and pointy props, going around viciously intimidating and torturing people and poking into bird guts in her spare time. She has good cause for engaging in such naughty behavior, having been used and abused by men since childhood, turning to black magic to ensure her ongoing beauty so she would never be powerless against men again and instead could use them for her own purposes. Thus, the movie gives the queen some much needed character background most other versions of the fairy tale have lacked, making Ravenna initially sympathetic until she does to Snow White what has been done to her. Theron makes no secret she's enjoying the role immensely, and delivers the movie's standout performance, ranging from subtle manipulation of ill-fated prisoners to boldly going over the top when throwing temper-tantrums at her incompetent inferiors who keep messing up her plans for total domination.

Perhaps it's due to the excessive amount of screen time the poor Snow White spends huddled in dark dungeons, wading through sewers or crawling in mud that Kristen Stewart's portrayal pales so much in comparison. Stewart, of Twilight fame, spends most of the movie running for her life from the forces of the queen, ending up in the so-called Dark Forest, a generally unpleasant place filled with creepy crawlies, damp fog and the like, a place from which only one man has ever returned. And so Ravenna tasks this man, the nameless Huntsman of the title, to track the renegade royalty, since it conveniently occurred she happened to escape on the very day the queen found out she had to consume the girl's heart to gain eternal beauty and immortality, after having locked her away for ten years without ever taking the time to decide what to actually do with her. The Huntsman reluctantly agrees to pursue the runaway in the exchange for the resurrection of his dead wife by the queen, something both parties fully realize isn't gonna happen at all.

Warning! Here be spoilers! When the Huntsman locates Snow White after about a five minute search, Stewart finally gets someone to play off against, but again fails to prove her worth as an actress, instead delivering a fairly uncompelling performance against Hemsworth's more agreeable portrayal of a man who lived a shallow life due to lack of faith in himself, found happiness in life with his wife and lost everything again when she was taken from him, being reduced to a much maligned drunkard. Apparently even a drunkard can find his way through the Dark Forest, so after predictably having switched allegiance, him and Snow White set out in search of the rebel fortress ruled over by an old friend of Snow White's father, whose son, Prince William (Sam Claflin as the less robust looking hunk of the film, for those girls in the audience who like their men less hairy and muddy) once fell in love with the princess but, along with the rest of the outside world has considered her to be dead since Ravenna took control. Apparently, where ever Kristen Stewart goes, love triangles follow, as she has romantic interludes with both the Huntsman and William the moment the latter joins up with her again. Anyone who wants her to hook up with either guy gets cheated in the end as the plot doesn't resolve the issue of which man will be hers, but leaves it open for the sequel. (A sequel already has been announced, despite the fact this movie has an otherwise closed ending that covers most of the original fairy tale. As was the case with Clash of the Titans, when the promise of money is involved, Hollywood will itself decide when a story is done, going so far as to make more of it up if needs be.)

On the way to the rebel stronghold the movie trades in a dark Gothic horror atmosphere for a more typical fantasy feel as Snow White and her friends encounter ever more diverse creatures of various shapes and sizes, including a giant troll, fairies and a forest god, indicating Snow White's power to inspire life and natural growth, as opposed to Ravenna who only deals in death and decay. The generally overtly digital characters only make Stewart's performance more inadequate, but fortunately eight (!) new characters soon enter the story to add some much need acting talent (mostly British) and some humour (since the film has so far taken itself overly serious), and few things in life are a funny as dwarves. These are not your average little people though: in fact, they're not little people at all, but normal sized actors having undergone digital alterations to make them appear smaller. Already an uproar has been created within the little people community over the absence of actual dwarves in favour of talented British actors of normal stature. It's an understandable reaction considering the already limited number of possible movie roles for little people, but the fact remains these eight dwarves add some much needed levity and heart to the film, mostly because of the talent assembled here, which includes Ian McShane, Ray Winstone, Bob Hoskins and Nick Frost. Lamenting the decline of the Dwarves (as a fantasy race, not as a medical condition) since Ravenna seized power, they willingly pledge their lives to Snow White's cause, but don't fret, they also sing and dance.

After having arrived at her allies' base and rallying the noble men to her cause by use of a rather uninspiring and unconvincing battle speech, the company of heroes set out to vanquish Ravenna in her dark tower, which leads to an not all that epic battle, and the pay-off between the two women, one pure, one evil, the movie has spent the last two hours to set up. Snow White dukes it out with Ravenna and her insidious sorcery over the dominion of the realm and the right to be called 'the fairest of them all'. Of course, the movie takes the meaning of the word 'fair' to include mental and spiritual beauty instead of solely referring to physical attractiveness, which is what Ravenna is all about. Though few men (and/or women) would seriously pick Stewart over Theron when it comes to physical looks (or acting skills), Theron's Ravenna obviously is a mean bitch and you wouldn't want her “ruling your country”. However, the movie defeminizes Snow White in the climax, having her confront Ravenna fully battle clad in shining armour and equipped with a particularly sticky sword, and as such completely masculine instead of fighting the queen on feminine terms, thus making her cheat. Even though Ravenna uses men to fight for her while Snow White gets men to love her (mostly in a platonic sense), in the end she feels more like a brother-in-arms to the Huntsman, the Prince and the Dwarves, a feeling which is reinforced at the end of the movie when Snow White refuses to pick one potential love interest over another, having reconquered her throne on their terms by vicious bloodshed in battle. The alternative of course would have been to let either the Huntsman or the Prince save the day and fighting her battle for her, as was the case in the classic Disney movie. But such stereotypical male gallantry is not desired in this day and age, especially when the movie needs to appeal to the modern teenage girls for who Stewart undoubtedly is the main draw of the piece. As for keeping it open who she ends up with, it took her four Twilight films to decide to finally have sex with that vampire instead of the werewolf, so she's just catering to her fanbase's expectations.

So the final score is:

-acting: Theron 1, Stewart 0

-physical appearance: Theron 1, Stewart 0 (too much mud)

-playing a nice girl: Theron 0, Stewart 1

Theron is fairest! Besides, many guys generally prefer bad girls anyway.

Overall, Snow White proves to her own weakest link in Snow White and the Huntsman, as she is outperformed by the evil queen, outcharmed by the Dwarves, outmuddied by the Huntsman and outed as a tomboy by wearing battle armour to kill the witch. In short, Stewart's Snow White has no heart, which makes it hard to compellingly win those of her fellow freedom fighters, and impossible for the queen to rip out of her chest, forcing the latter to steal the audience's hearts instead by doing a better acting job by far. The movie at least delivers great visuals and decent action scenes, plus the most fun Dwarves and grimiest Huntsman so far. A good look, excellent cast of supporting characters, cool evil queen and teen heroine in shining armour: basically the producer of Alice in Wonderland gives us more of the same with Snow White and the Huntsman. There's many other fairy tales left to apply the same tactics too, so maybe we'll see the Little Mermaid or Sleeping Beauty in a similar fashion too in the not too distant future.

And watch the trailer here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/universal/snowwhiteandthehuntsman/

Assembly complete!

The Avengers: Rating ****/*****, or 8/10

When it comes to superhero movies (or just movies in general), Hollywood is rarely thinking more than a few years forward these days. When a superhero movie fails in some regard, the general decision is to either ignore it for a few years or reboot it, so as to give the franchise a fresh start (which almost always neccessitates to tell the character's origin story all over again). Recent examples to the latter include the Spider-Man and X-Men series, which after a successful initial run went in the opposite direction when failure – either to make sufficient money or to please the audience – was somehow involved. 20^th Century-Fox studio executives therefore issued a semi-prequel for X-Men last year (the surprisingly fun X-Men: First Class) which both retold and contradicted its predecessors, while Spider-Man will return in a wholly new form next month after the disappointment that was Spider-Man 3. The former case showed that sometimes a new direction can spawn good results, while the latter has still to prove whether Sony Pictures' decision to simply abandon the former trilogy completely in favour of a new team of cast and crew retelling an already often told story was a good choice, when The Amazing Spider-Man hits theatres in June.

However, Marvel Studios, formerly in cooperation with Paramount, but now under control of the Walt Disney Pictures, does things differently, and shows some impressive long-term thinking for the various superhero characters they still own the movie rights to. Their strategy was simple, but effective: introduce various single characters in their own movies, then put them all together in one giant über-blockbuster the likes the audience has naught seen before. Of course, this planning proved cost-effective, since the public's interest in every character could be tested first with each film, before throwing them all in the same mix, which also gave the studio the opportunity to weed out any characters that proved disappointing at the box-office, as well as keeping open the option for sequels only to the films of certain superheroes that did prove popular, without pinning the hopes solely to the results of their group effort. And so in the last few years, we were treated to various very different superhero flicks: Iron Man (immediately proving to be the most enduring character of the bunch), The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger. Every one of these films contained various scenes and hints at the others and to the final Avengers product, so the studio could slowly but surely build up momentum, making the audience ever more interested and hyped for just what was in store for them. And now, after having waited and been teased for over four years, the Marvel Universe is fleshed out far more than would ever have been possible without this careful planning, due to the success of all these movies, resulting finally in the superhero-spectacle-to-end-all-superhero-spectacles, The Avengers.

And story wise, the best bit is we don't have to sit through all the characters' origin stories again, since that has all been done for us already, so we can just see the heroes we're already familiar with teaming up against a common foe. Warning: spoilers ahead! This foe, logically chosen, is of course Thor's semi-brother Loki (a wonderfully creepy and vile Tom Hiddleston), the only one of the characters' enemies to pack enough of a punch on a large scale to be a true menace to all mankind. After having fallen from the realm of Asgard, this bad guy disappeared out of the picture for a while, returning with a vengeance by teaming up with a mysterious alien race, hellbent on conquering Earth via the use of the Tesseract (a source of great energy first introduced in Captain America's private cinematic venture). This device has been in the hands of the S.H.I.E.L.D. secret service since the Thor movie, but Loki manages to infiltrate the research base and steal it, along with the minds of various base personnel, including their super archery agent Hawkeye (an agitated Jeremy Renner, so far only briefly spotted in Thor), much to the chagrin of Director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, charismatic and ready for combat as always) and his other top agent Black Widow (beautiful bad girl Scarlett Johansson, who was previously seen watching Iron Man's ass in Iron Man 2), who had a personal relationship with Hawkeye. Realizing a nemesis has appeared that threatens the whole world, Fury re-recruits the various superhuman characters we've seen before. And thus Dr. Bruce Banner (newcomer Mark Ruffalo, taking over from Edward Norton and doing a good job at it, portraying the troubled doctor with both sympathy and irony) is tracked down in India, both for his knowledge as a brilliant scientist and his anger managemant problems that occassionally transform him into a huge green monster on a rampage called Hulk (never angrier); Steve Rogers is pulled out of his quiet life in Brooklyn to fight in yet another world war as Captain America, despite having been trapped in ice since 1945 and still adjusting to the strange new world of the early 21^st century; rich playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr., once again with his energetic flair and nonchalance that made him so popular in his previous two films, but no drinking problems this time) is tempted into joining the team so his Iron Man armour can be made responsible use of for a change; and even Thor returns from the realm of the Nordic gods in search for his brother, who he still cares about, just to find the guy has gotten bad enough to warrant the wrath of his hammer. With the players now all on the board, they set out to defeat Loki and save the planet (and Hawkeye) from enslavement/destruction by the evil aliens, resulting in many an epic battle scene, each more grandiose and large scaled than the ones that came before.

Of course, action alone is not enough these days (eh, Battleship? Wrath of the Titans?), we need to care for these characters. It really helps having gotten to know most of them and their various traits and motivations already in their own entries into cinema, so little additional exposition is required. But the big question remained: how well do these characters play together? Do they have the necessary chemistry? The answer, thankfully, is positive. Despite the abundance of star power here assembled (how many Academy Award winners and nominees again?), all the actors are fully into this large group effort and none of them get in each other's way or display so much as hints of appropriating the movie for their own ego. The same can be said for their characters, though the plot does call for Hawkeye to be underexposed so we still don't know much about him (but at least we know enough), while the first Hulk transformation takes place well into the second hour of the film, and until that time Dr. Banner seems more aound for the techno babble, something which plays off very well against inventor Tony Stark as a fellow scientist, as well as to the simple grunt Captain America, who has no idea what both great minds are talking about.

As this scene illustrates, the strength of the characters is the way they complement each other: Tony Stark is the inventor, the loud mouth with the great ego, Banner the scientist who needs to restrain his ego, Steve Rogers is the soldier who follows Fury's orders but does a grand job himself leading the team into battle, Black Widow is the spy who offers both incredible martial arts prowess and infiltration techniques plus the obligatory feminine empowerment, while Thor offers knowledge of a mystical realm beyond comprehension of any of his team mates but necessary to defeat the villain, plus he adds the personal drama to the group since this villain happens to be his (adopted) brother. Iron Man represents technology (and a lot of money, which can also come in handy), Thor stands for supernatural power, Black Widow (and to a lesser extent, Hawkeye) offers intelligence and bodily flexibility, Captain America brings the leadership and combat experience, while the Hulk supplies the necessary raw power. And so we watch the team perform in action together, including great moments like the Captain and Iron Man fighting back to back, playing off each other's strengths like using Cap's shield to deflect Iron Man's rays to take out rows of bad guys, while Thor and the Hulk try to outdo each other in brute strength, the latter winning, when all enemies have been vanquished, by still knocking out his friend to show him just who has the bigger set of muscles.

It's safe to say it's not the action but the characters that make the movie work. Which is not surpring considering Joss Whedon has been placed into the director's chair: if anyone knows about characters, it's him, which he has proven on the small screen with his excellent ensemble casts in both Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Firefly, and was once again shown to be the case in the recent fabulous horror pastiche The Cabin in the Woods, which he co-wrote. And Whedon being Whedon, we get his trademark humour thrown in for free. None of this huge display of comic book power in audiovisual form would do as well without some much needed levity, telling us we shouldn't take all of this too seriously, which only increases the film's overall sense of fun. Moments of great suspense are interwoven seemlessly with superbly timed jokes, submitted by all characters, even the antagonists. By mixing humour, action and drama alike, while all the way making us root for every heroic character, Whedon proves he's well up to the task of tackling such a monumental undertaking, despite his limit experience as a motion picture director (the fantastic Serenity so far was his only foray into cinematic directorial duty, but already proved just what the guy was capable of).

Which is not to say The Avengers is without flaws, but fortunately they are but few. The role of Loki's alien henchmen and their specific identity and origins remain underexplained, making them little more than cannon fodder. Visually they look fine (as does the whole film) but they lack a soul and clearly exposed motivations other than being just mere minions. Hawkeye's lack of a character set-up was already mentioned above, while the same can be said for Nick Fury, the man who assembles this team of heroes: we've seen him in almost all of the previous separate films, pulling strings and initiating the formation of the Avengers ever since the end credits of Iron Man first ended, but we still know little about the man himself. Sure, he's in charge of S.H.I.E.L.D. but just who does this organisation really answer to? This film shows him communicating with “the council” (whatever that is), a group of poorly lit, shady, nameless characters on monitors, but just who these people are and why Fury adheres to their commands remains secretive, so the audience too isn't sure what to make of Fury himself. This does add some mystery to this already mysterious man, but also feels like the writers either didn't really know or didn't care enough to explain it better. However, we may still get our answers, a Nick Fury film has already been acknowledged to be produced soon.

Fortunately for the general public, the good stuff in The Avengers far outweighs the not so good, and we are treated to 142 minutes of utter fun as we see great characters (possibly soo to be iconic) teaming up for equally great action, great comedy and great visuals, the latter ranging from enormous flying aircraft carriers to a devastated New York swarming with serpentine alien attack ships being taken down by Earth's Mightiest Heroes. Marvel Studios can sit back and relax: their four year gamble has payed off, made them billions of dollars (this movie alone is gonna break records for sure), garnered much acclaim from critics and fans alike, and paved the way for many more entries into this cinematic Marvel Universe, so we can enjoy Iron Man 3, Thor 2, Captain America 2, and of course The Avengers 2 in the next couple of years, with other related Marvel projects also to have been confirmed to tie in to this quickly expanding canon. After the steadily rising levels of success witnessed so far, culminating in the world wide nerdgasm that is The Avengers, we can do nothing but look forward to more Marvels, hopefully for decades to come. Preferably with Whedon involved, but we'll take them without if needs be.

And watch the trailer here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/marvel/avengers/

And the Avengers' troubles have only just begun... be sure to stick around for the mid-credits scene to find out why! Or simply watch the picture below for the identity of their new archenemy.

How to make a surprisingly good horror movie

1: Make good use of effectively creepy locations

Why change a winning formula? If a place is frightening, there's nothing that can be helped so you might as well use it to its full potential. Dark, shadowy places are preferred by far. The more isolated and backwards, the better, since there's little help for your poor protagonists in distress, and they have to make do with each other and their wits (if any) to survive their ordeal. This also creates opportunities to add some emotional dynamics for your group of characters, since tensions and personal issues between them will rise, meaning the danger can come from both inside and outside the group. A good example of an ever sinister location in this genre would be a spooky forest equipped with a minimum of human civilization, where the main cast can be pitted against their antagonists in peace and quiet with zero outside interference.

2: Create archetype characters

Assuming you use more than one protagonist (which the majority of horror movies does), make sure they're different enough from one another. There's little point in having five different characters if they all behave the same. Be sure to cast both male and female actors if the script allows for it. Make them dissimilar enough in nature so they each bring their own voice and input to whatever perilous situation they find themselves in. They all should have different traits to distinguish them from each other, making them react diversely to the dangers they'll face. You can have a nerd, a slut, a brave heroine, a coward, etc., but be sure they compliment each other. Make them mostly likeable (again, if your script calls for this) so we can root for them, even though we know we will see them killed off in horrible manners (that's why it's a horror film after all), which means their unavoidable deaths will have meaning. Most of all, make them archetypes, not stereotypes. It's a fine line, but it can make all the difference between a good horror flick and a bad one.

3: Apply postmodern context, surprise your audience

Let's face it: by now the horror genre has seen it all. So why not use that to your advantage? Don't insult your audience's intelligence by assuming you're the first one to come up with certain ideas, since that will very likely work aversely. Present your ideas knowing your viewers will be familiar with them and play with this notion to surprise them where ever you can. Don't be afraid to openly refer to other entries in the horror genre, it has been proven a trite and true ingredient of successful horror by now. Make use of established genre conventions, no matter how often they've seen to be applied before, and then turn them on their head so your audience will be utterly shocked. Of course there's the risk your viewers might not go with it if you surprise them in too bizarrely a fashion, but that's a risk you should be willing to take. In fact, if the risk pays off, your audience will thank you for having dared to take such chances.

4: Add some humour, but not too much

Don't cater only to the darker emotions like shock and disgust, but also lighten up the mood at times by adding some fun. It can take the audience off guard, playing with their expectations of what comes next, so the following shocks hit their mark hard. Don't overdo it though, unless you set out to make a comedy more than an actually scary film. Certain characters naturally lend themselves more to laughs than others (this includes the antagonists), but don't make the humour depend on any single character to avoid JarJarisms: nobody likes a single sidekick providing all the jokes and ruining the overall mood (those are the types of people we like to see brutally killed off the first), so you better distribute it somewhat evenly among your cast of characters. And don't be afraid to use some naughty language, a horror movie should aim at a more restricted rating anyway.

5: Be sure your movie is still scary enough

If you deliberately make a horror movie, the audience will expect frightening and/or sickening moments (or at least attempts at such), otherwise you're cheating your viewers. So make sure to add a sufficient amount of moments of unease, disgust or shock to your motion picture. A neatly crafted balance between gore and suspense is always preferred, but you can pick one over the other if it seems appropriate. Don't overdo it of course, horror movies shouldn't rely solely on dirty scenes filled with blood and guts, such moments should not drive the film, but be driven themselves by the overall plot. However, if you have good ideas to make your movie even more eerie, show no more restraint then needed.

6: End on a downer if it works in your film's favour

Some of the best horror movies end on a very downbeat ending, a closure devoid of hope or happiness for your characters (if any are still alive of course). When it makes the movie even stronger plot wise or shock the audience that much more, don't hesitate to use such endings. It usually also garners a fair amount of critical acclaim and that's never a bad thing, considering a lot of critics feel biased against horror movies that seem all too typical on first sight.

When all of these points have been adhered too successfully, this results in:

The Cabin in the Woods

Rating: ****/*****, or 9/10

Why not write an actual review of this film, you might ask? I could have done that, but The Cabin in the Woods is so loaded with plot twists it couldn't have been written without spoilers all over it, which would give away much of the movie's brilliant plot, and I so much want you to check out the movie instead of just reading a synopsis. Even for people who are not at all into horror, the way this film turns established horror conventions topsy-turvy makes it worth a watch, if you have the stomach for some occasional blood and gore. It proves yet again writer/producer Joss Whedon (the man behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly/Serenity and this week's newly released 'superhero spectacle to end all superhero spectacles' The Avengers) is at the very top of his game and fully deserves the large fanbase he has spawned over the last decades. As for director Drew Goddard, he redeems himself for those few bad episodes of Lost he wrote (though it must be stated he also wrote some good ones) and he turns out to be a very capable director with great love for the horror genre (something which was already evident to a lesser extent in Cloverfield which he also directed). Together Whedon and Goddard have produced one of the finest entries into the horror genre in decades, which hopefully won't be insatiably copied, sequeled/prequeled, remade or rebooted like too many of the scary movies it references.

And watch the trailer here (though it's bound to create wrong impressions, since, despite the titles claiming differently, this trailer seems fairly standard. But then, no trailer could ever do this film's plot justice without giving too much away):

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/thecabininthewoods/