An Interesting Take on Time Travel and Cults: Our Review of "Sound of My Voice" (2011)

Directed By: Zal Batmanglij

Starring: Christopher Denham, Nicole Vicius, Brit Marling

Rating: Rated R for language including some sexual references, and brief drug use.

Synopsis: In Los Angeles, a new cult has appeared led by a woman named Maggie (Marling) who claims to be from the future. A young couple, Peter (Denham) and Lorna (Vicius), join the cult in an effort to infiltrate it and make a documentary exposing Maggie for being a fraud. The deeper they're pulled into the cult, though, the bigger the question becomes of whether Maggie is who she says she is.

REVIEW

Andrew: Hello readers! This afternoon Sarah and I made our way to a different theatre than our usual haunt to catch a matinee of a smaller film we have been looking forward to seeing – Sound of My Voice. We saw the trailer for this film a month or so ago and it completely caught our attention because of the premise, and when we found out it was playing in a theatre in Hartford, we just had to see it.

Sarah, the most prevalent thought in my head during the entire movie was that I was glad we had little to no knowledge of what it was going to be about ahead of time, and the entire time I had no idea where the film was going and that was a good thing. Would you agree or disagree with me on that?

Sarah: I would agree. I would have to say that, while it bothered me at times that it didn’t seem to go in a specific direction, that that was the point of the movie.

A: Yeah, I know what you mean by saying it didn’t seem to be going in one specific direction. The movie had what looked like three different threads and for a while there you really had no idea how they were going to end up connected. But by the end of it, I felt the film pulled all three strings together quite nicely even if the ending was a bit ambiguous.

S: This movie surprised me a little bit. The way that the characters interacted was not what I was expecting from a movie about a cult. They didn’t come off as crazy. So remembered when we first saw the trailer, I was skeptical about what it was going to be about. Was it going to be about this couple infiltrating this cult or something more? Was it going to play in a predictable fashion? And it did not play out in a predictable fashion. I never quite knew where I stood with this movie.

Maggie (right) tries to get Peter to reveal some secrets from his past in front of the cult

A: Exactly. I found that the filmmaker, Zal Batmanglij, did a fantastic job keeping us on our toes the entirety of the film. It is a VERY slow paced movie, so it might not be for everybody, but the events in the film play out in a very deliberate pace and I think that’s something some films don’t do well. That’s not the case here.

With the different threads, I didn’t know where it was all going to end up. With the main characters, Peter and Lorna, I didn’t know what their fate was going to be. And with Maggie, even at the end I have no idea whether she was legit or not. And for me personally, I found that to be refreshing.

S: I actually think that, while it WAS slow, it weren’t any dull parts. It all moved toward a very deliberate place, but in my opinion, to a place we never fully got to. Which, in a way, was quietly beautiful! It was probably one of the best-written movies I’ve seen since Chronicle. It was very strongly an independent film and one that I would hope does as well, to whatever extent, that Chronicle did.

A: I find it interesting that you compare Sound of My Voice with Chronicle, because they’re both science fiction movies done with a smaller budget and from different kinds of point-of-view storytelling. I think that’s a good comparison.

The two movies are about different things (one is about a woman who claims to be from the future, the other about kids who gain superpowers) and while they’re both low-budget I think that makes both of them stronger character-wise. I was more invested in Peter and Lorna and the depths they go to with this cult than I have been with most movies this year.

Lorna (middle) watches on as Peter does the cult's secret handshake with Maggie's right-hand man, Klaus

S: That’s exactly what I mean. I didn’t necessarily care where the movie took place, I didn’t care about what happened externally of the characters, I was invested with what happened to the characters. I wanted to know more. I didn’t leave going “Ok, I know who this character is.” No, I left thinking “I want to know more about these characters, I want to know more about how they felt.”

I don’t know if you noticed, but whenever another character was talked about, it was never in their own voice. It was always done by somebody else.

A: What do you mean exactly?

S: Well just that when we hear about Peter’s backstory, it’s voiced over by Lorna. And vice versa. So we never really got to hear how the characters felt about their own histories. Or how that shaped them to be the way that they are at the beginning of the movie.

A: That’s good point, and one of the many things I liked about the movie. In the same vein, I liked that we always saw the cult from Peter and Lorna’s perspective, both individually and as a couple. We saw the effects it started to have on them in a very personal way, helped by a few choice scenes that were very intense. I honestly can’t think of many negative things to say about Sound of My Voice other than I do sort of wish we got a resolution to the story. But at the same time, as I said earlier, I found it refreshing that it was left ambiguous and up for interpretation.

 S: And I would have to say that when the movie ended I went “Hey wait? What happens?” And I think that’s what the filmmakers were going for and they exceeded perfectly. So do you need to go see this movie in theatres? Not necessarily. But if you have a hankering for an independent movie that’s entertaining, this would be one to see.

A: I half agree with you there, because I do think people should see this in theatres simply so Batmanglij can make his possible sequel! I still kinda want to know how the rest of the story goes!

(Out of Five Clapboards)

Photo Courtesies: Screenrant, Collider

A Classic Soap Sharpens It Teeth: Our Review of "Dark Shadows" (2012)

Directed By: Tim Burton

Starring: Johnny Depp, Michelle Pfeiffer, Eva Green, Chloe Grace Moretz

Rating: PG-13 for comic horror violence, sexual content, some drug use, language and smoking

Synopsis: In the 1770s, young Barnabas Collins (Depp), the heir of a wealthy New England fishing company, breaks a witch's heart (Green). In turn the witch kills Barnabas' love, Josette, turns him into a vampire and locks him away in a coffin. 200 years later Barnabas is released and finds that his family estate is in shambles thanks to the same witch. He then makes it his mission to restore his family to it's former glory, defeat the witch, and maybe even fall in love with the family's governess, Victoria, who looks eerily similar to his former lover.

REVIEW

Andrew: Hello readers! It’s a new movie Friday, as Sarah and I ran to the theatres late this afternoon to see the newest film from one of our favorite actors, Johnny Depp (Pirates of the Caribbean), in Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows!

Sarah, Dark Shadows is the EIGHTH collaboration between Depp and Burton, and there have been a lot of mixed reviews of their most recent ones, most saying that the two need to probably take a break creatively. After seeing their latest film, what do you have to say about those critics?

Sarah: My feelings are a little mixed on it. Whereas I believe that their creative well is starting to run a little dry, I think that what they do is very THEM. When you go to a Tim Burton/Johnny Depp movie, to expect anything other than that would be an unfair expectation.

Whether or not that’s a good thing is debatable. As a director or actor you want to continually expand your craft , but these two seem pretty content sticking with what they know.

A: So then applying that to Dark Shadows, and especially after Alice in Wonderland, is this one film too many? Or did you enjoy the movie for what it was?

S: I enjoyed the movie for what it was! Even though they all seem to kind of fall along the same lines – not a ton of creative differences in their movies – it was still entertaining. It's definitely campy, but in my belief, that’s what they do, especially with movies like Dark Shadows and Alice in Wonderland. These movies are purely for entertainment, they’re not made necessarily to make you think.

I would actually argue that Burton and Depp are two of the last filmmakers that don’t have a ton of an agenda.

A: I agree with you, Dark Shadows was very entertaining and it was the kind of movie where you go to the theatre to BE entertained and escape the real world. Like many of Burton and Depp’s collaborations, it’s fantastical movie and it’s one where you can tell the people involved had a lot of fun making it.

Now let’s talk specifics: what about the movie was so entertaining, or what did you enjoy the most?

S: Well it was Johnny Depp playing Johnny Depp at his finest.

A: So you don’t see it as a criticism to say that he was basically playing himself or a variation of a character that he’s played before?

S: We have routinely berated other actors for playing themselves (see: our review of Safe) but with Johnny it’s different. It could be because I would drop you in a second if he came to our door, or it could be that I don’t feel like he takes himself too seriously. Again, going back to that they create their film for entertainment.

A: Ok, so back to what you were saying about the movie…

S: It’s a funny movie! Now, not knowing much at all about the storyline it was kind of nice. I didn’t feel like I needed to compare it to anything that came previously. The cast, as we predicted, worked perfectly. And while it was a very strange movie, I had fun!

What about you? What do you think?

A: Obviously I’m going to be a little biased because Johnny’s my boy, but I honestly thought this was a very solid movie. It was funny a lot of times (some great, quick comments including one about Chloe Grace Moretz's (Let Me In) Carolyn), it had a lot of horror film elements in it that I loved, and while it was a little all over the place at times, I feel that this movie isn’t as bad as the trailers, commercials or other reviews I’ve read have made it out to be.

Yes, Johnny is basically playing a character he’s played before in other films (but this time he’s a vampire from the 1700s!), but I don’t see that as a drawback. People go to Johnny Depp movies BECAUSE of characters like this – why else would Alice in Wonderland make over a billion dollars worldwide?

S: I would agree with you. You know what kind of character you’re going to get, and true fans will go see this movie not for the story but to see him. That all being said, while I did love the elements of horror, it makes you jumpy without ever actually expecting horror, I do believe that the storyline was a little weak. I understand that there were over a thousand episodes of Dark Shadows the television series but I feel like it could have been condensed a little better.

A: I will give you that. The story is the thing that’s all over the place, ranging from Barnabas being turned into a vampire, to his waking up in 1972 and being a fish out of water, to a love story, a revenge story, and then it finishes as this straight up monster movie. It’s weird and almost doesn’t know what it wants to be.

But that brings me back to what we’ve been saying: it’s an entertaining movie. The fish out of water parts totally work and are funny, the first act of the movie is an excellent horror film (or at least have the makings of one), and the last act is a pretty good -looking action piece (save for a one instance of special effects I won’t say here). I'd actually say a lot of this film reminded me of Burton's Beetlejuice, but with better special effects.

Before we end this, I briefly want to echo your earlier sentiment that the casting choices worked well, but I felt like some of the actors got short shrift. Like Michelle Pfeiffer (Batman Returns) didn’t have a whole lot to do other than repeatedly walk down the master staircase in dramatic fashion, and Johnny Lee Miller (Dexter) might as well not have even been in the film his character is so unimportant.

S: Agreed. I think they should have promoted Gulliver McGrath’s David, the young boy, because next to Barnabas and Carolyn, he’s the most important member of the Collins family.

Ok! Well I think we can agree on one thing for certain – it’s an entertaining movie to go see!

A: Yeah, if you go into it expecting a masterpiece or some awesome new take on the vampire genre, you’ll be disappointed. Go into it expecting a Burton/Depp film and enjoy it for what it is. We certainly did.

S: In the end we’d say it’s a good way to kill the afternoon!

(Out of Five Clapboards)

Our Preview of This Week's New Releases (for Friday, May 11th)

Andrew: Hello readers! It's time for our weekly preview of the new theatrical releases coming out on Friday. Last week's preview was all about The Avengers because for all intents and purposes it was the only new wide release last week. This week isn't much different. While there are a few films coming out in limited release (a couple of which we'll briefly touch on towards the end), this week's only wide release of note is the new Tim Burton/Johnny Depp collaboration, Dark Shadows.

Dark Shadows is Burton's film adaptation the popular 1960's soap opera of the same name starring the late Jonathan Frid as a vampire named Barnabas Collins. In the new film, Barnabas (Depp) is an aristocrat from the 1700s who, after ticking off a witch, is turned into a vampire and buried for 200 years. He awakens to find himself in 1972 and that his ancestors have basically ruined the family's wealth and are an ecclectic bunch of weirdos.

Sarah, I think we've made it well-known on our blog that we're pretty big Johnny Depp fans, so on a scale of 1 to 10, how excited are we about Dark Shadows?

Sarah: I would have to say that I'm at about an eight on the scale. While Johnny Depp looks pretty hilarious is a typically dark fashion only to be brought about by Tim Burton, I am not super familiar with the story so I really don't know exactly what to expect. What about you?

Official Trailer for Dark Shadows

A: I'm fairly excited for it because I'm a big fan of Burton and Depp's prior movies - particularly Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (and yes, even Alice in Wonderland).

So I'm very interested to see their newest film for that reason alone, but also because I'm interested in seeing a film adaptation of the old Dark Shadows television show. I haven't seen any episodes of it either, only a clip your mom showed us on YouTube once, but just from that clip I could tell why Depp and Burton have a passion for the show and why they'd want to make it into a film of their own.

What I'm curious about is not only Depp's portrayal of Barnabas Collins, but how the rest of this A-list cast fairs. Your thoughts on the cast?

S: Oh yes, even from that short clip you could tell that this was definitely something up Burton and Depp's alley. It's dark with strange looking costumes and a lead that would fit perfectly with Depp's slightly morbid sense of humor.

Yea, the cast is killer. You have all of Burton's favorites (such as his partner, Helena Bonham Carter) and even some new ones that seem like they will fit right in with the rest of the cast. Chloe Grace Moretz looks like she will steal the show from Depp and this role might just solidify her as Hollywood's next go-to gal for all the movies. She has already starred with some big names (Nicolas Cage, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ben Kingsley) and is set to be alongside the likes of Blake Lively and Alec Baldwin this year in Hick.

What do you think of the cast? It's the typical Burton cast. Does that bother you at all?

A: I agree with your sentiment on Moretz, she's been great in Let Me In and Kick-Ass, and I know she's already been cast as the lead in the remake of Stephen King's Carrie, so you're spot on with her being a hot property in Hollywood.

I like the rest of the cast, too, I'm just worried about how much screentime they'll all get and how they'll work together. I think Michelle Pfeiffer as Elizabeth Collins Stoddard, the Collins family matriarch, was a stroke of genius from the outset, and I've enjoyed seeing what possibilities Eva Green can bring from a comedic standpoint as the film's antagonist, Angelique Bouchard, the witch who turns Barnabas into a vampire in the first place.

S: Yeah, and I do think this movie will have some unexpected laughs that we haven't seen yet in the trailers! I'm excited to see it and it will be a great review to add to our list!

So what else is gracing the big screen this weekend?

A: Well other than Dark Shadows, a couple of films coming out in limited release that have caught our eye are the new Eva Mendes film Girl in Progress and the aforementioned Chloe Grace Moretz film Hick.
Girl in Progress stars Eva Mendes as a woman who got pregnant as a teenager, and now that her daughter is also a teenager, she still hasn't completely grown up and it affects her daughter in the same ways her own absentee mother did. Honestly I'm probably butchering how best to describe this movie, so I suggest watching the trailer below, which is quite good.

Official Trailer for Girl in Progress

 Hick, on the other hand, stars Moretz as a teenage runaway who becomes involved with some shady characters while on the road, including Blake Lively as a con artist, Eddie Redmayne (My Week with Marilyn) as a potentially dangerous drifter, and the always awesome Alec Baldwin. Full disclosure, we were hooked by the trailer (that you can view below), and now I'm even more intrigued now that I know it currently has a 0% Fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes! How can this film be that bad??? I must know.

Official Trailer for Hick

So really, that sums up the few movies coming out this weekend that have caught our eye. I can personally guarantee that we will be seeing Dark Shadows and that review will be up this weekend. For both Sarah and I here at Two Tickets For..., as always, thanks for reading!

EMILYYYYYY!!!!: Our Review of "The Raven" (2012)

Directed By: James McTeigue

Starring: John Cusack, Luke Evans, Alice Eve and Brendan Gleeson

Rating: Rated R for bloody violence and grisly images

Synopsis: It's Baltimore in the late 1840's and famed poet Edgar Allen Poe (Cusack) is in love with Emily Hamilton (Eve), the daughter of a wealthy socialite (Gleeson) who hates Poe's guts. Grisly murders that appear to be inspired by Poe's famous tales start happening and Poe is recruited by Inspector Fields (Evans) to help investigate. When the killer kidnaps Emily, it becomes a race against time for Poe to solve the mystery before he loses his love.

REVIEW

Andrew: Hello readers! We’ve been a little quiet over the weekend because…well because we were allocating our money towards seeing The Avengers multiple times instead of seeing films we hadn’t seen yet to write reviews for.

That changed tonight as Sarah took the plunge and accompanied me to a horror film – The Raven, starring John Cusack (Say Anything) as famed horror writer Edgar Allen Poe.

And WOW. I mean…WOW. That…was something.

Sarah: Yeah…calling it a horror movie would be putting it lightly. In fact, I wouldn’t even consider it a horror movie unless…

A: Unless you’re frightened by the idea of paying your hard-earned money to see this movie again. Which I would be.

S: …unless they rewrote the script, recast the characters and didn’t focus the story on a dead poet. Seriously, it was bad. We walked out of that movie and I just kept shaking my head and laughing. This was the first time I’ve ever contemplated walking out of a movie.

A: Wait, seriously? You’ve never even contemplated walking out a movie before?

S: Never.

A: Wow. Yeah, I think we’ve gotten the point across that The Raven isn’t a very good movie, but we should delve into WHY we’re not so hot on it.

S: Here’s the thing – I went into this movie with very little expectations. I was a little concerned that it would frighten me, but then the actors opened their mouths. It is possibly the worst dialogue that I have ever heard since Star Wars: Episode III.

A: That’s a very good comparison, because the dialogue here was incredibly stilted, corny and there was WAY too much screaming/yelling by Cusack’s Poe and Luke Evans’ (The Three Musketeers) Detective Fields.

S: Not to mention the TERRIBLE make-up in this movie. It could just be us because we’re slight movie snobs when it comes to makeup, but right from the opening murder scene the makeup effects are terrible! Pair that together with the computer generated blood, it made me wonder if I was sitting in 300 again.

A: Ok hold on, at least in 300 the computer generated blood was stylized and it looked cool, in The Raven there are two particular scenes where it is so incredibly obvious that the blood is computer animated that it just made me cringe. Not only that, but then they mix the computer blood with actual film blood in the same scene and it just looks bad.

S: Oh I agree with, but whereas it had its place in 300, it didn’t even begin to fit in with this film.

Here’s the thing: I like John Cusack. I think he has his place in rom-com classics. But lately he’s been wanting to do these darker, scarier films and I just wish someone would tell him that this is not his best genre.

A: I tend to agree with you on that point, except for Identity, which was actually pretty good. But in this film he completely overacted and wasn’t helped at all by the dialogue he had to spew out of his mouth. And a lot of it was pretentious dialogue at that. (Oh, and the title of our review is an homage to his worst line in the whole film.)

And while there were plenty of scenes where Cusack chewed the scenery like he was a death-row inmate eating his last meal, I was actually bothered more by Evans’ performance. I didn’t mind the casting of Cusack as Poe because he looked and sounded the part, but Evans’ voice didn’t mesh with a lot of the scenes he had to pull off, and jeez…there’s one scene towards the end where he delivers a line that made the entire audience (of 8) laugh out loud because it was SO BAD.

S: Oh my gosh, yes. It was painfully difficult to watch. You’re right – he had poor delivery, but let’s not sell the rest of the cast short. They ALL performed equally as bad. And there were some good actors in this movie! Brendan Gleeson (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) is in it! And his lines were just as bad!

A: It was almost as if director James McTeigue was getting paid by how quickly the film was finished, so they did just like one take of each scene and he “That’s good, moving on.”

S: The whole plot in and of itself of a serial killer using Poe’s stories as the inspiration for his murders is a good idea, it was just poorly executed.

A: Completely agreed. Like I said in our preview a couple of weeks ago, I like the premise of the movie. But you’re right, the execution was horribly flawed.

S: And they make a big deal about the movie being set in Baltimore, but there is ZERO set indication that they’re actually IN Baltimore. That wouldn’t bother normal viewers but it bothered me because Poe is one of Baltimore’s claims to fame and they hardly show it except through the dialogue. And only one character actually has a Baltimore accent.

A: That’s not really something that I noticed so it didn’t bother me so much, though you just reminded me about a scene where Gleeson’s character, a man who is very clearly a rich and powerful man in the city, exclaims that a certain plot point must be at his family’s church! And then they cut to everyone riding a horse to a church in the middle of nowhere in the woods! Why the hell would the richest family in Baltimore go to a church in the middle of nowhere??? Stuff like that just didn’t make any sense.

Now I will take the time to point out the very few things I thought the movie did do well:

-  A ballroom scene where Alice Eve’s (She's Out of My League) character is having a masquerade ball held in her honor. I felt the costumes, the setting and the tension the scene carried might have been the highlight of the film.

-  A chase scene in a theatre hall that’s staged quite well and again, the tension was actually present, unlike most of the movie.

- That’s about it.

S: I would agree with you on those two. They were the only two times I was nervous and that I had to kind of cover my eyes. We won’t give away the ending, obviously, because that’s not the kind of reviewers we are, but we will say that it was a big letdown. I was hoping that they might redeem the movie with a twist at the end, but there’s no twist. And then the credit sequence was just…it made me sit back and say “Where the hell did this come from?” It didn’t fit in with the rest of the movie whatsoever.

A: Fair point. I think The Raven could have been helped if it had focused more on trying to be one of two things – either it should have stayed focused as a whodunit, or it should have gone completely with the gore and shock value. Instead it tried to straddle the line and it didn’t do either well. There’s a better movie that’s a lot like this one and it’s called From Hell.

S: If you’re thinking of seeing this movie because you’re a Cusack fan or because the previews made it seem mildly interesting, don’t waste your time and money. I wouldn’t watch this movie on a rainy day where there’s nothing on but infomercials. Skip this one.

(Out of Five Clapboards)

Our Preview of This Week's New Releases (for Friday, May 4th)

Andrew: Hello readers! It's time for our weekly preview, and honestly it's going to be a pretty short one because there aren't a whole lot of movies coming out this weekend. In fact, there's really only ONE movie coming out this weekend and it's a pretty damn good one and we all know what it is - Marvel's The Avengers!

Sarah: Yes! This is a weekend that many have been planning for for the past few months! We have friends back in Michigan that have had their midnight tickets purchased for weeks! This is going to be an epic movie when it hits wide tonight at midnight. All of our favorite characters from the Marvel movies are back in this dramatic yet funny action flick. They all play such strong roles but our favorite narsacist, Tony Stark a.k.a. Iron Man, brings back all the charm and swagger from his solo movies. Wouldn't you agree?

A: Tony Stark is definitely the man. But I think a lot of people will be pleasantly surprised with Mark Ruffalo's performance as Bruce Banner a.k.a. The Hulk, as well as Scarlett Johannson's expanded performance as Natasha Romanoff a.k.a. Black Widow.

And this brings me to an idea: why don't we briefly go over each character and their first appearances in the Marvel movies that lead up to The Avengers? We don't have to go some much in depth on some guys like Iron Man, but a number of the characters in the film had smaller parts in the first films or there have been some changes. If some of our readers haven't seen the all the movies that led up to tomorrow's film, this might be helpful. Who should we start with first?

S: Let’s do it!

A: Ok readers, here are our quick little write-ups on all the main players in the movie that you can either use as a refresher or as a Cliff’s Notes version if you haven’t seen their respective movie. Sarah, start us off...

S: Tony Stark/Iron Man - When we last see Tony, the self-proclaimed “genius, billionaire, playboy philanthropist” is his usual narcissistic self but somehow he makes the audience fall in love with him anyway. At the end of Iron Man 2, Tony has been rejected initially as a member of the Avengers Initiative but is asked if he would like to stay on as more of a consultant. He is, according to Black Widow, too narcissistic and doesn't play well with others. In typical Stark fashion, that's just not going to be good enough for him, until he realizes that this might be more beneficial for him. The Avengers picks up with Stark's business continuing to prosper, and his and Pepper Potts' relationship in perfect harmony.

A: Bruce Banner/The Hulk - There have already been two incarnations of The Hulk on the silver screen within the last ten years (2003's Hulk and 2008's The Incredible Hulk) and this is the third different actor to play Banner in as many movies. Edward Norton's 2008 version somewhat follows parts of the 2003 Eric Bana version, but Mark Ruffalo's Bruce Banner is decidedly more timid than the other two despite being the same character. Not much is mentioned regarding the first two films this time around, and that's a good thing.

S: Thor - The Norse God of Thunder has probably the smallest part in The Avengers. In Thor he develops a love for Earth and the pretty scientist, Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), and has to protect both from his crazy little brother. When the scuffle moves back to Asgard, in order to stop Loki’s destructive tirade, he has to break the bifrost bridge (a cosmic means of transportation) cutting Thor off from Earth and the woman he loves...for the time being. In The Avengers, Thor has to come and basically grab his little brother by the ear almost in a "Okay, it's time to come home now, you rascal" sort of way. When that doesn't work, Thor joins the Avengers Initiative to stop his brother from trying to destroy Earth.

A: Steve Rogers/Captain America - The last of the main players in The Avengers to even show up in one of the recent string of movies, Captain America becomes the de facto leader of the group (if that's a spoiler to anyone, my apologies, but he's freaking Captain America). In Captain America: The First Avenger, Rogers is a small, thin man who is repeatedly denied into the U.S. Army during WWII until an experiment partial run by Tony Stark's father, Howard Stark, turns him into a superhuman. After fighting off a rogue Nazi group using a magical power source called the Tesseract as a weapon, Rogers ends up frozen for many decades until found and brought into the 21st Century. The Avengers picks up immediately where his film ends, with the Tesseract driving a large part of the plot along.

Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow - Black Widow's only appearance so far in the Marvel films was a supporting role in Iron Man 2 where S.H.I.E.L.D director Nick Fury put her undercover as Tony Stark's new assistant so she could keep an eye on him. She did eventually bust out in full Black Widow gear half-way through the movie and showed off her expertise as a martial arts master, but other than that she's sort of a mystery in this film series.

S: Clint Barton/Hawkeye - We first meet Hawkeye in Thor, but unless you are a Marvel Comics fan, you might not have known who you were meeting. It’s a small cameo where Agent Coulson of S.H.I.E.L.D. orders him up into a bird’s nest to potentially take down Thor as he attempts to retrieve his hammer. But after that scene, we never see him for the rest of the movie and don't get to meet him again until the beginning of The Avengers.

Agent Coulson - This is one of the series' favorite characters if I had to guess, because he (along with Nick Fury) is in most of the other characters' solo movies. He comes through as a strong character and a great agent in all of his appearances. The audience may not realize it, but in every appearance, he has become more and more of an intricate character and someone that the audience may even begin to care for. It would appear that his primary role is to bring together all the members of the Avengers Initiative.

Loki - The Norse God of Mischeif and younger brother to Thor, Loki is the primary villain in The Avengers, as he was in last year's Thor. In Thor, Loki made a grand scheme to get his brother banished so he could take over the throne of Asgard (it didn't work). Having been lied to by his father and realizing his plan failed when Thor shows up again, he cracks before Thor (accidentally) banishes him from Asgard. Not content with having taken over Asgard's crown, he teams up with some shady characters in The Avengers to try and take over Earth.

A: Nick Fury - Sam Jackson's Nick Fury, the director of S.H.I.E.L.D., has made small appearances in all but one of the Marvel films that lead up to The Avengers (only his name shows up in The Incredible Hulk, while Tony Stark takes his place as a recruiter), some smaller than others, but always there to speak with the characters about the Avengers Initiative. In the new film he steps up front and center to get the team together and convince them to work together.

Maria Hill - A new addition to the film franchise, Maria Hill is a S.H.I.E.L.D. agent who works side by side with Fury. In the comics she's the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. but this time appears to simply be second-in-charge.

S: Now, for those of you who either haven’t read it yet or are first time readers, Andrew and I have been fortunate enough to have seen The Avengers already! So in case you missed it, we wrote our review of it last week and it can be found HERE. Fair warning: there are some small spoilers so if you would prefer, wait till after you see the movie. It really is a great movie and we already have tickets to see it again this Saturday!

A: Indeed we do! Ok readers, hope you enjoyed this preview of The Avengers and we hope you check out our review of it! As always, thank you for reading!

OFFICIAL TRAILER FOR THE AVENGERS

It's Jason Statham Playing Jason Statham, But We Like It!: Our Review of "Safe" (2012)

Directed By: Boaz Yakin  

Starring: Jason Statham, Catherine Chan

Rating: Rated R for strong violence throughout, and for language

Synopsis: Luke Wright (Statham) is a mixed-martial arts fighter who gets on the wrong side of the Russian mob when he doesn't take the fall in a big fight. One day, after being forced into exile by the mob, Wright decides to help a little girl who is being chased in the subway. Doing so, he unwittingly gets himself mixed up with the Chinese mob, the Russians again, and a group of dirty cops. Fist fights and gun battles ensue!

REVIEW 

Andrew: Hello readers! Last night Sarah and I made it to the local multiplex to catch a mid-week movie, and we decided to see the new Jason Statham action flick Safe . Now Sarah, I know you're not a huge fan of Mr. Statham, so what did you think of his latest showcase?

Sarah: It's true, I'm not a big fan. BUT, I will have to say that this movie pleasantly surprised me. I’m wondering if it's how I went into the movie completely expecting it to be crap. In the end, it was quite entertaining and actually a pretty good action flick. What did you think about it?

A: Really?! I'm glad you liked it!

I, too, was pleasantly surprised - but probably for different reasons. I was absolutely expecting lots of a fist-fights and cool action moves, shoot outs and funny one-liners (and we got those in DROVES, people), but I was NOT expecting the film to actually get me engrossed in the reasons WHY the film's plot happens.

At the start of the film, Luke Wright (Statham) is forced into exile by the Russian mob

I mean, in the film’s first half hour Statham’s character, Luke, and the little girl, Mei (played fairly well by young Catherine Chan), don’t even cross paths. I liked that all the time is spent giving you the backstory as to why Luke is a homeless former mixed-martial arts fighter, and why Mei is in the predicament she’s in. If it weren’t for the set-up and making me more invested in the characters, Safe would have been nothing more than a retread of every other nameless action flick.

S: I will say that it is a lot like Statham's other movies, so I don’t think it’s a great movie. But all the dirty cops, drug lord Asians and gangster Russians made the movie a little more entertaining. Actually, the young girl who plays Mei was pretty good for this being her first movie.

A: Yeah, there are a lot of things going on in this movie and again, the first half hour of the film sets it up. You have the Chinese mafia abducting Mei, you have the Russian mafia trying to steal her from the Chinese, the police come in to play and their history with Luke, and more. It might seem like a lot of players (and it is) but the film does a good job spelling it out in a way where I didn’t get lost at all. Kudos there.

If there’s one knock I have on Safe, it’s that the climax was way too short for my liking. There was a lot of build-up and the payoff wasn’t great.

In Safe, Luke gets mixed up with the genius Mei (Chan) and has to stave off Russian and Chinese mobs plus the NYPD

S: See to me, the climax didn’t quite stand out amongst all the other action. There was SO MUCH action in the film, and they left almost none of it for the end. I felt there should have been some sort of differentiation from the rest of the movie and there really wasn’t any.

A: Very true, plus the fact that in the end, the big villain in the film is someone who’s introduced about half-way through, he’s in maybe three or four scenes, and in the end he doesn’t get his comeuppance.

S: I agree with you on that. The set-up was good and entertaining but the pay-off was lacking. Still, it's a fun action movie and if you are a big Jason Statham fan then you should see it in theatres, otherwise, Netflix it!

(Out of Five Clapboards)

Photo Courtesies: Best Movies Ever News, Filmofilia

"The Dark Knight Rises" Has a New Trailer!

Andrew: Hello readers! Yes, two posts in one day! It's likely a new record for us, and it's for good reason!


The official website for Christopher Nolan's final entry into his Batman trilogy launched just the other day, and thankfully it also means they've released a new trailer for The Dark Knight Rises - one that is said to be attached to this weekend's The Avengers (read our reivew of that here).


July 20th needs to get here RIGHT NOW because this trailer just makes me even more excited to see TDKR. Check out the trailer below!



Save the Date!...Maybe: Our Review of "The Five-Year Engagement" (2012)

Directed By: Nicholas Stoller

Starring: Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Alison Brie and Chris Pratt

Rating: Rated R for sexual content and language throughout

Synopsis: When Tom and Violet get engaged, all their dreams of getting married in the Bay Area of San Francisco seem to be coming true. That is, until Violet gets a job at The University of Michigan and puts those dreams on hold. Undaunted, the couple puts the wedding on hold for the two years of Violet's job timeline. Two years, turns into four years and soon the couple wonders how many more bumps in the aisle its going to be before they reach the altar.

 

REVIEW

Andrew: Hello readers! May is just around the corner and that means the summer blockbusters are coming, but before they do Sarah and I were treated to a comedy we’ve been waiting for for some time now – The Five-Year Engagement, starring a personal favorite of ours, Jason Segel.

Sarah, I know you said the other day in our weekly preview that you were worried they gave away too many of the funny parts in the trailer. Now that we’ve seen the film, what do you think of those worries now?

Sarah: I will have to say, they did give a lot away in the previews. More than I would have like to have seen. Now, while it did give a lot away, it was a cute movie. It had good heart and a nice little love story. What did you think?

A: I do think they gave some of humorous parts away in the trailer but overall I felt there were more surprises in the film because it’s actually relatively raunchy. If you didn’t see the red-band trailer then you didn’t see a lot of the better funny parts.

But you’re right, the script co-written by Jason Segel and director Nicholas Stoller had a lot of heart to it (and that’s not surprising considering how sweet Segel seems on Twitter).

I felt the relationship between Segel’s Tom and Emily Blunt’s Violet came off pretty genuine and realistic. The tough part of a movie like this is to portray the tough parts of the relationship, the parts that strain the characters’ relationship, and this one did it pretty well.

S: Yes, they portrayed the tough parts well and pretty true to real life. I actually think that it was nice to have a little reversal on typical men and women roles. Because it was Violet that they moved for, it changed the dynamics a little, and it was cool.

There were a couple things that I had a little trouble with. One was that it was pretty slow at times. There needed to be more editing done or even some topics expanded upon to make the story move better, but that could have been me.

A: No, you’re right that it had its slow moments. Not unlike pretty much every other film produced by Judd Apatow this one felt a little too long. I think that’s because there were a number of scenes that didn’t need to be cut out completely, but just trimmed down a touch. (For example, a scene early on where Violet’s sister tries to give a speech at the engagement party.)

That said, along the same lines of all other Apatow productions, parts of the movie that made The Five-Year Engagement a little long ended up making the movie as a whole stronger, in my opinion. The film really has four acts – leading up to the characters’ move from San Francisco to Ann Arbor, the move and early years in Michigan, the downward slope and then the final act. It was the downward slope part that seemed a little long to me but it really humanized the characters and felt organic.

A number of people in the theatre were obviously invested in the characters and stories because when they started doing “stupid” things, there were genuine reactions of disgust and/or disappointment in what was going on on-screen. But if it weren’t for that part of the film, there wouldn’t be the pay-off you expect in the final act. And I think that’s a testament to the actors, writing and director.

S: I also think that it had a lot to do with the fact that there were a lot of married couples in the theatre. With your “act” theory, I think that it struggled a little bit. I wish the story would have focused on some parts more than others and wouldn’t have passed time so fast without there being some sort of landmarks to mark the passing of time.

A: What parts do you wish it would have focused on more, and then vice versa?

S: I wished they hadn’t focused on Jason Segel growing this massive beard and becoming such a bum. He really goes downhill but I wish they had tightened it up a little bit more. There is a whole conversation about knitting that and Chris Parnell’s character have that just really doesn’t need to take place.

I wish that they had focused a little more on the changing of personalities. All of a sudden things change and the audience is just supposed to accept it.

A: Completely agreed! With all of that said though, it was definitely a funny film and it was sweet. What would our final assessment of The Five-Year Engagement?

S: I would have to say it's a good way to kill a Saturday afternoon during a matinee. It was cute but you wouldn’t necessarily need to see it in theatres.

(Out of five)