Movie Review: The Avengers

Now, some of you have probably been wondering why I haven't posted a review of The Avengers yet. And the answer is pretty simple: I've been too busy seeing The Avengers over and over again for the past several weeks to write about it. But now that I've finally exhausted my life savings buying disposable 3-D glasses, I've found a little free time to write up a review for you. You're welcome.

Before we get into the details, let me put out a disclaimer: The Avengers has been my favorite comic book series since 1986. It's no exaggeration, therefore, to say that I have been waiting for over a quarter of a century for this movie to come out. So I am not an unbiased viewer. On the one hand, this means that I am predisposed to like The Avengers, assuming they do it right. On the other hand, I am also probably a lot pickier than your normal moviegoer as this material is close to my heart. So you can consider those facts when reading my review.

Because, honestly, I loved the damn thing. It might not have been perfect, but it was as close to perfect as I could possibly have hoped. And not only is it an excellent comic book movie, it's also an excellent summer popcorn movie. You'd think those things would naturally go together, but often they really kinda don't.

So what works with The Avengers? Well, let's start with the basic concept, which is probably the trickiest part to pull off. After all, Marvel has been carefully (some would say ponderously, slowly and tediously) laying the groundwork for The Avengers for years, setting up plot threads in every one of their previous films. That sort of thing could lead to an exposition heavy, continuity clogged data dump and could easily derail the entire film.

Instead, director Joss Whedon and company manage to intertwine all the elements and all the characters as seamlessly and organically as the situation allows for. And the result of that is that, while knowing all those earlier bits of setup help make The Avengers a more interesting experience, being up to speed on every niggling detail isn't necessary at all to enjoy the film. In other words, it stands on its own.

Much of that credit, of course, has to go to the cast, which is uniformly excellent. Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth and Chris Evans, as the leads of individual franchises, are very strong, as they each manage to maintain the integrity of their character while still fitting into the smaller role called for by the team environment. It's a tricky balance that everyone manages to pull off just right.

Even better, though, are Scarlett Johansson and Jeremy Renner as Black Widow and Hawkeye, characters who could have been throwaway space fillers but who instead manage to come to life and be vital pieces of the Avengers puzzle. And best of all is Mark Ruffalo, who somehow actually made me enjoy a Hulk appearance, which I literally did not think was possible. Ruffalo's wry and bone dry humor was a perfect match to the character here and worked superbly within the context of the team.

The upshot of all of this is that The Avengers doesn't just satisfy all the expectations that were created by the years of buildup in Marvel's previous films, it actually justifies Marvel's previous films. Iron Man 2, for instance, felt at the time like a bit of a bloated mess, with a bunch of Avengers stuff shoehorned into the action to the detriment of the film. Now, however, it retroactively gains entertainment value thanks to The Avengers.

Not that redeeming their few missteps is Marvel's primary goal here; entertainment is the top priority, while setting up even bigger future blockbusters is clearly a close second. Which may be the best news of all about The Avengers, because if you liked this one, well, trust me: There's going to be a whole hell of a lot more where this came from.

My Grades: The film as a whole gets an incoherent fanboy squee, which roughly translates to an A+. All of the actors get an A, with the exceptions of Mark Ruffalo and Tom Hiddleston, who both get an A++; and Scarlett Johansson, who was mostly really good but did flatline a couple of bits, so I'm just going to give her an A-. The post-credits teaser for the upcoming Avengers arc gets an I for incomplete only because the character teased has had far more crappy appearances than great ones, so even though Marvel has a really strong track record, I'm still not entirely sold yet. But here's hoping.

Read More

Movie Review: Thor

Hey guys, what's up. It's been a while since our last fandango, but I've been pretty busy -- you know, training for top secret missions in Pakistan, sorting through my fan mail, that sort of thing. Only, totally different. Yet even with my busy schedule, I've still managed to find the time to slip out to the theater and catch this month's biggest superhero blockbuster: Thor.

And I have to say, this film is exceedingly difficult for me to review. That's because Thor is a pretty idiosyncratic comic to begin with and it has become even more idiosyncratic up on the big screen. Though Thor rubs shoulders with his fellow Avengers in the pages of many a superhero comic, the character and the stories in his own title aren't really related to the superhero genre at all. Ever since Stan and Jack introduced Tales of Asgard to the series back in Journey Into Mystery #97, the series has been much more of a combination of high fantasy and epic science fiction than a traditional superhero comic.

All of which makes judging Thor the movie pretty hard to do considering there's not a whole lot to judge it against. As a superhero movie, well, it's downright weird. As an epic fantasy, though, it's almost weirder, because it exists within the framework of Marvel's interconnected superhero universe, meaning film fans will see characters and ideas from the Iron Man franchise pop up right in the middle of what otherwise is a fantasy movie.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that Thor can only really be judged under one criteria: how good a Thor movie is it?

The answer? Pretty good.

What Thor gets right outweighs for the most part what it gets wrong. Here's a quick overview that isn't much of a spoiler since it's based very closely on comics that came out nearly 50 years ago: Thor (Chris Hemsworth) gets himself in hot water because of his hot head, so Odin banished him to Earth to learn some humility and prove his worthiness. Once he does so, he regains his godly powers, returns to Asgard and fights some monsters.

And all of that is handled pretty well, though there were a few things I thought they could have done differently in terms of pacing. It was wise of director Kenneth Branagh to begin the proceedings with a quick look at Earth, but I think things would have gone better -- especially for newcomers to the Thor milieu -- if the story had just stayed on Earth for the first half instead of immediately jumping up to Asgard for 30 minutes. Not that I minded what was happening in Asgard, but there's no question that the scenes on Earth, where Thor meets Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), contain much more humor and, you know, fun, than the portentous action sequences in Asgard. As a result, I think the film -- which is inherently harder to get into than most superhero or action films anyway -- becomes even more difficult for newbies to get into than it had to be.

Having said that, though, if the film hasn't lost viewers by the time Thor comes to Earth, then they are likely to really enjoy the film, because it picks up in a big way after Thor meets Jane Foster and begins stumbling around New Mexico in search of his hammer, Mjolnir. Sure, Portman doesn't have a whole lot to do, but what she does, she does really well; she and Hemsworth have pretty good chemistry and once Thor returns to Asgard to deal with Loki (the excellent Tom Hiddleston), you do feel a tug at the thought of the two being separated just as they were starting to dig each other.


There were a few other minor concerns I had about the film as well. For instance, though I love the Warrior's Three in the comic, I'm not sure they really came across on the screen for non comics fans as anything more than somewhat goofy sidekicks. And, like Iron Man 2, some of the action sequences came up a bit short, particularly the big throwdown between Thor and The Destroyer, which was okay but not nearly as epic as it could or should have been.

But those are quibbles. For the most part, Thor is an entertaining, occasionally fun and perfectly competent film that any fan of Thor will enjoy.

And if you're not a fan of Thor? Well... give it a try, because if you end up liking it, there's a half century of cool stories waiting to be discovered. But Thor is just so very, very Thor that's there's really no way of knowing if you'll like it until you try.

My Grades: For Thor fans, a solid B+. For everyone else, a random grade somewhere between A- and C-. The film has good acting and solid directing, so it's not going to go below that, but there's no way of really judging this movie outside of the strictures of Thor itself. The bonus scene after the credits gets an A+ for setting up both Captain America and Avengers at the same time while also giving Marvel fans a major woody.

Read More

The Week in Geek: August 1-7

Hey, has it been another week already? Actually, it hasn't, because I was really late posting the last weekly roundup. But despite my attempts to slow time, I apparently don't actually have that superpower, so we do indeed find ourselves at the end of another week, which means another roundup of the best me-centric geek articles from around the interwebz.

Actually, once again, it's a bit of a slow week in the world of geek, so I'm just going to really bend the definition of the term and throw in a couple articles about topics that are only of marginal interest to your average geek: Curious George and Will Ferrell. But not, I want to stress, the Curious George movie that Will Ferrell did. Anyway, read those if you feel like it, but the main thing this week is my rundown of some of the comics I least want to see in adapted into movies. Check it out and see if you agree:


• August 2 -- 'Curious George' to Monkey Around in New Reboot: Yes, for some reason they've already doing a reboot of Curious George even though it's only been like four years since the last version came out. Don't ask me why. I just report this stuff.

• August 3 -- Will Ferrell's Next Comedy Will Be Entirely in Spanish: No, this headline is not a joke. Like most people, I'm a little burnt out on Will Ferrell right now, but I have to give him props for his commitment to a concept.

• August 5 -- Comic Book Movies We Hope Never Get Made: I'm not going to lie: I actually do hope one of these movies gets made. I'm not saying which one, but one of these I would pay good money to see in a theater. This article, by the way, has over 20,000 hits so far and not one person has left a comment. That can't possibly be the internet I know and love so well, can it? Maybe I've just finally written something everyone can agree on.

Read More

Movie Reviews: Inception, Toy Story 3 and More

Hey guys, don't look now, but summer is still going and that means one thing: it's hotter than the devil's toenail. But that, in turn, means a second thing: there's no place better to get out of that heat than at your local, fully air-conditioned movie theater. I myself, as it happens, have been spending some time in those glorious bastions of the American way, so much, in fact, that I've been tardy in actually reporting my findings to you, my eager minions. I mean, readers. So, just as I did yesterday when I cleared out a giant slush pile of comics with brief reviews bordering on the perfunctory, today i will be offering mini-reviews of some of the movies I've seen so far this summer than otherwise have fallen through my reviewing crack. Which, these days, is the least sweaty crack around.

And with that mental image worming it's way into your wincing brain, let's go to the movies, internet style!


Inception

Okay, so I've already posted the link to my mind-bending Inception article for moviefone, which addresses the mind-bending theories of the ending, and ending that will quite literally bend your very mind. But that wasn't really a review. And the funny thing is, I didn't actually think the movie was that difficult to follow; yes, you had to pay attention, but I'm not sure when paying attention to what you're doing suddenly became the benchmark for intellectual rigor.

Actually, I thought the film was just easy enough to follow and just action-packed enough to make it a mainstream blockbuster instead of an arthouse experiment. Which is good because, as it happens, I like blockbusters, particularly the rare kind that doesn't dumb things down to the point of drooling idiocy (see: Transformers). Inception was smart without being impenetrable and had a lot of cool sci-fi theories and effects. Plus, it had one of the coolest set-pieces of the last ten years, the awesome rolling-gravity fight scene featuring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as an ass-kicking ninja version of Fred Astaire.

I did think the film bogged down ever so slightly towards the end, mainly because, once they were operating on four levels of reality simultaneously, director Christopher Nolan had to cut back and forth a little too much in order to maintain the audience's sense of relative time between the different planes of reality. This made it easier to follow but also longer and a little slower than it could have been. But that's pretty much nitpicking. The ending was pitch perfect in every way and for my money, this was the movie of the year.

My Grades: All A's across the board, with an A+++ for Gordon-Levitt's fight scene.


Toy Story 3D

Okay, disclaimer time: I think Toy Story 2 is one of the most perfect movies ever made. So I went into Toy Story 3D assuming that no matter how good it was, it was really unlikely it could ever match the dominant uber-glory of Toy Story 2. And... I was right.

But that's not to say that Toy Story 3D wasn't really good; it was. It had all the elements we've come to expect from Pixar -- incredible animation, humor, action and heartfelt emotion rarely captured in live action movies even by the best casts. Still, it did feel just a little bit rote, coming after Toy Story 2. It's not the fault of Pixar but rather an unavoidable side effect of being the third movie in a well known and already beloved franchise.

I did think the movie was maybe a bit too intense for young kids, particularly the high-octane ending, but my main issue with the movie was simply that the short before it, Day & Night, ended up being the most memorable part of the film. I sense Oscar nods for both, with Toy Story 3 possibly getting nominations in both the animated and best picture fields. but what i really wanted was for this to be the greatest movie of all time and in that respect, I'm sorry to say, it fell a bit short.

My Grades: A solid A, but I was hoping for an A+ just because I am a demanding jerk. Day & Night gets an A++ and is a shoo-in to win animated short -- at least, it would be if the people who voted for that sort of thing weren't a bunch of weirdos.


Despicable Me

Now, here's an interesting movie. Following in the tradition of The Incredibles, this is a comic book movie disguised as animation. The story follows Gru (not Groo, though I had a hard time with that for much of the movie), a supervillain who decides to steal the moon essentially because he wants to prove he's still got the mojo. He ends up adopting a gorup of young girls as part of his scheme and thereby gains redemption, love, etc.


Which, whatever. But it is interesting in that, unlike actual, live action superhero movies based on known properties, Despicable Me has the brains to realize that it doesn't need to try and justify the existence of these characters, because the audience is already familiar enough with superhero tropes to get it without having it all spelled out. Live action films, even now, a decade or more into the big superhero trend, still seem to think they just have to tell an origin story every single time in order to explain how something as silly as a superhero could possibly exist in the "real" world. Maybe this is just a difference in perception between animation and live action, but I think it's totally unnecessary at this point and basically leads to a lot of subpar superhero films wasting precious time on tedious origin stories instead of telling a real tale.

Such as the one in Despicable Me.

My Grades: I liked it. Slight, but entertaining. It should probably get an A-, but I'm going to give it a B+ instead just because. Worth seeing.

Read More

Web Review: The Guild Season 4 Premiere

Well, it's finally happened: The Vault has been around so long that we're reviewing a sequel. You may recall that last September we provided you with an in-depth look at the viral sensation that is sweeping hard drives all across the world (kind of like Norton only without the malware) -- The Guild. Back then, we were discussing the highly anticipated premiere episode of Season Three, which introduced a whole new level (no pun intended) of intrigue by adding the guild's evil rivals, the Axis of Anarchy and their asshole leader Fawkes (played with verve by the legendary lord of all geekdom, Wil Wheaton himself).




Well, that was then. And if you followed through with the rest of season three (which I'm sure you did, considering I gave the series a good review and I know how much my opinion influences your daily choices), you know that following the epic PvP throwdown between the Knights of Good and the Axis of Anarchy, things got even stickier between Fawkes and Felicia Day's main character, Codex (okay, that time the pun was intended). So how would this play out when season four finally rolled around?

Well, that rolling has finally commenced, and like a fat man falling down a ski slope, it's already picking up serious momentum. And no, I don't know that from personal experience, thanks for asking, you douche. Codex makes the typically upriught yet incredibly naive and ill-advised decision to immediately tell the entire guild that [spoiler alert!] she slept with Fawkes. As you might expect, this goes over like a ton of bricks, or at least it does right up until the point when...

You know, what the hell. Just watch it yourself. That's what all this fancy internet code nonsense is for right? Take a looksee and after you're done, rejoin me on the other side for some insightful analysis and the all-important final grades:


<br/><a href="http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&amp;vid=9c194351-975c-4b54-9462-e85b3e87af8e&amp;fg=sharenoembed" target="_new" title="Season 4 - Episode 1 - Epic Guilt">Video: Season 4 - Episode 1 - Epic Guilt</a>


So, what did I think? To be honest, it was just a tiny bit flat for me, but then again, it serves to set up the entire season so generally speaking I'm not expecting fireworks until we get a little ways into it. Vork (Jeff Lewis), as always, is a highlight for me and I have to say that during season three I thought Clara (played by Robin Thorsen) really got much stronger to the point where she had some of the best deliveries of the season; that looks likely to continue this year as well. And as always, the more you're into online gaming and MMOs in particular, the more you're likely to appreciate this episode; I, too, want a virtual guild hall, something that World of Warcraft has foolishly not implemented. Maybe during Cataclysm...

So what will happen? Will they manage to get the gold to build their guild hall? Will Fawkes and Codex stick together, or will their fling destroy them both? Will Felicia Day read this review and send me an email that leads to a hastily planned Mediterranean wedding? One thing's for sure: I'll be hooked to my internets waiting to find out the answer.

My Grades: This gets a solid B, though I am expecting it to pick up at it dgoes along, so no worries. Last season as a whole (since I only had a chance to review the first episode) gets an A-, with special props to breakout star Bruiser (J. Teddy Graces). Good stuff.

Read More

Movie Review: The A-Team

A week ago, I went to see the blockbuster, big-screen remake of the 80's cult TV hit A-Team, and now I can barely remember a single thing about it. That makes writing a review of the film both difficult and somewhat unnecessary. But, just as a writing exercise, I'll try to come up with something anyway.

Here are a couple details I do recall. Liam Neeson stars as Hannibal, an Army Ranger who is no relation to the guy with the elephants. In a fairly action-packed if arbitrary opening sequence, we see how Hannibal accidentally puts together his expert squad while battling some evil Mexican druglords, a plot point that I'm guessing only intended about half of the subtext it has acquired since the script was written.

Fast forward eight years (in the movie, I mean -- don't actually jump to 2018 for the rest of the review, it's right here) and we're in Iraq, meaning this movie could take place theoretically at any point in either the last decade or our vast and infinite future. Long story short, the A-Team does some stuff and there's a set-up and Major Dad is involved and then my eyes glazed over as a warm blanket of thoughtlessness swept me away until I awoke, pale and shivering several days later in the shadow of a dumpster behind the local KFC.

That's pretty much what A-Team is like: it's pretty fun, pretty fast paced and entirely unnecessary. Compared to this summer's other big studio releases, that means it's really awesome. Compared to good movies, well, why would you even make that comparison to begin with?

Fans of the TV show will almost certainly like it, as will fans of Bradley Cooper's always-visible abs; and pretty much anyone who doesn't require higher cognative abilities to enjoy a film will at least not regret spending the money on this one. If you're looking for the next Bourne Ultimatum, well, this is not your movie. If you want to see something that's got all the cheese factor of The Expendables but probably only half the suckiness, then go to it, home slice.

My Grades: As far as capturing the spirit of the TV show, the movie version gets an A-. As far as that being a desirable goal for a movie to strive for, this can only get a C at best. Overall summer film grade: B-. Not as bad as it should have been.

Read More

Movie Review: Iron Man 2

Iron Man 2 is finally in theaters and at last, our long wait is finally over. I don't mean the wait for the movie to come out, of course; I mean the wait for me to review it. I'm sure the last week has seemed like an excruciating eternity for most of you, but fear not, for I am finally ready to let you know what your opinion should be.

Iron Man, you may recall, was a totally badass movie two years ago thanks in large part to Robert Downey Jr. being a charismatic and funny and the plot being lean and mean. Which in Hollywood terms means, short. Unlike most comic book movies, Iron Man wasn't bogged down with angst and giant, ponderous fight sequences that lasted for twenty minutes of tedious CGI nonsense. The movie was fast and fun.

So how does Iron Man 2 size up? Well, it's longer. And it has multiple bad guys. And other good guys too, kind of like sidekicks. Plus there are several unconnected plotlines. In other words, everything bad about comic book sequels gets jammed into Iron Man 2 as well. And yet... somehow, it's still kind of fun.

That fun quotient can be explained in four words: Robert Downey Jr. And Avengers. That's the fourth word. Of course, if you're not a big Avengers fan, you may not like the movie quite as much as I did, but on the other hand, if you aren't a big Avengers fan you probably aren't reading my website to begin with, so yeah. Squares who don't like Avengers can get jammed, amirite?

For his part, Downey Jr. is still charismatic and still funny even though the movie does stick him with an angsty sub-plot about his blood being poisoned by his robotic heart (which is so 1969 of them). This poison kind of turns Tony Stark into a giant douchebag (again, maybe just a little too close to the source material this time), yet despite this we still want to see more Tony, because that means more Robert Downey, which in turn means that the movie is being fun and not bloatiferous.

When he's not on the screen, though, the movie's attempt to jam a half dozen unrelated storylines together begins to slow things down. There's Whiplash (or Crimson Dynamo, whichever) and there's Justin Hammer and there's the government trying to get the suit tech from him and there's this poison blood thingy and there's SHIELD and the Avengers Initiative... yeah. It's a lot. I mean, a lot lot lot. And considering how little any of these plots have to do with each other, they do a pretty decent job of tying them together(though the resolution of the poison blood thing is literally laughable).

Still, as much as I love the Avengers, I have to admit that the SHIELD stuff in the movie was probably a bit extraneous. Chances are you're going to go one of two ways, as I said before: if you're an Avengers fan you'll eat it up. If not, you may be left wondering if the movie wouldn't have been a lot better -- tighter, faster paced, more logical, more exciting -- if they had cut all of that stuff out entirely and just focused on the Hammer/Whiplash plot instead. For me, I'm on the fence; I think it would have been a better movie without the Avengers clutter but I personally wouldn't have enjoyed it as much.

Overall, then, this serves as a nice setup for the upcoming Avengers franchise while also reminding everyone why they loved Iron Man to begin with. What it isn't, unfortunately, is a great movie. But compared to the other tedious nonsense that Hollywood so frequently passes off as summer entertainment, I have a feeling this will still end up looking fun by comparison. Just not by comparison with the original Iron Man movie.


My grades: The Avengers parts get an A+++ for being awesome, but only a C for having any relevance to the story. The best I can really do for the movie as a whole is a B-. There were just too many odd decisions shoehorned in (like, if Mickey Rourke's Ivan Vanko is going to end up in a suit of armor at the end of the movie anyway, why turn him into Whiplash for basically one scene? Why not just leave him as Crimson Dynamo to begin with?). The film could have used a firmer editorial hand.

Read More

Movie Trailer Special: Jonah Hex

Fans of DC's classic supernatural western hero Jonah Hex have been talking about movie possibilities for close to 40 years. The character, after all, bears more than a passing resemblence to Clint Eastwood's Man With No Name so it's only logical that back in the 70's, Eastwood was the center of the Hex film speculation. Those days are long gone, of course, but when DC and Warner Bros. announced a year or two ago that they had tapped Josh Brolin for the role, fans were hopeful. Pretty good casting, who knows. Maybe this will be a winner.

The only fly in the ointment? The fact that the film, which is set to open on June 18 (moved up from an original August release date), somehow still hasn't had a trailer released. Think about it: less than two months to go until what is supposedly one of WB's summer tentpoles, and not a single bit of publicity in the form of a teaser or commercial has been released. That's what we in the business call a bad sign, as is the fact that this delay was supposedly due to massive rewrites being filmed post haste by a new director brought on to salavge the project. Again, not the best sign of things to come. How they expect to build buzz for a movie without actually promoting it is a puzzler.

Well, finally -- FINALLY -- Warner Bros. has released their official trailer. Let's take a look at it together and discuss on the other side:





Okay. Where to start. I guess let's look at the positive side of things: as far as trailers go, this isn't a total trainwreck. It gives you the flavor of the film, who the characters are and what the plot is without totally ruining the story. So that's a plus, although I suspect a lack of story to ruin may have played into this approach. Essentially, this is a solid, professional trailer. I did think it was a little heavy with the Quentin Turnbull flashbacks -- the bad guy gets introduced twice, which is probably one more time than strictly necessary -- but while the finished product is a bit chaotic, overall it's fairly effective. If you like this sort of movie, it's saying, than you'll like this, because it's that sort of movie. You dig?

Unfortunately, what this type of movie looks like is a really crappy comic book adapatation that seems to also be channeling the especially rank Will Smith flop Wild Wild West. Brolin looks as though he's doing his best to elevate some serious nonsense -- which is more than I could say for the similarly horrifying Ghost Rider, where Nic Cage just wallowed in it instead -- but based on this trailer, it appears to be a losing effort. Gatling guns? A Q-style weaponsmith crafting anacrhonistic crossbow cannons in his barn? Really, guys?

I'm not going to bother saying anything bad about Megan Fox; the weird thing is, this is probably going to be better than Transformers at least (whoops, that might have been something bad about Megan Fox). But pretty much everything about this trailer makes me want to cry blood. And that's not even getting into some obvious changes they made to the character, which, whatever. It happens. But if they're going to change the dude, it should at least be in service of improving the movie rather than devolving the audience.


My Grades: As a trailer, this gets a B-. Trailer editors can only work with what they are given. For the content, this gets a D, only saved because Brolin still seems like a good choice; the rest of it looks horrible. I so hope I am wrong about this one, but just in case, I am saying my goodbyes to the ten bucks its going to cost me to find out.

Read More

Movie Review: Kick-Ass

Coming to you straight form the fevered brain of 'Civil War' writer Mark Millar, it's the latest Hollywood comic book blockbuster, Kick-Ass. But does it, in fact, kick ass? Or is this the most ironic comic movie title since Warner Brothers asked empty theaters who was watching the Watchmen?

Before I get into my review, in the interest of full disclosure I should reveal that I have not read the Kick-Ass comic book due mainly to the fact that I think Mark Millar is a smug, self-satisfied douche. Granted, I don't actually know the man, but that's the impression his work gives off (and interviews seem to reinforce); when you read most of his works you can almost hear his inner monologue saying, "Damn, I'm good." But I heard a lot of positive buzz from the comics community leading up to the release of Kick-Ass, so I figured I would give it a shot. Plus, it's directed by Matthew Vaughn, who did the mostly awesome Layer Cake, which certainly is a vote in its favor.

So was my largesse rewarded? Well, let's start with the positive: Kick-Ass is an entertaining movie. Despite being (like most comic book movies) a bit overlong, to the tune of 20 minutes or so, the action moves pretty rapidly and there are jokes and bits of fanboy humor liberally mixed in to the plot. On a purely visceral level, then, if you want to shut off your brain and see some ass-kicking at the movies, Kick-Ass definitely delivers.

On the down side, if you do want to use your brain, there are going to be some problems, namely with the basic premise of the movie. Kick-Ass purports, according to King Millar himself, to be a modern superhero story -- an examination of what would happen if people in the real world decided to try being superheroes. And for the first half hour or so of the movie, it does a pretty good -- and entertaining -- job of presenting this, as the main character (codename: Kick-Ass)gets pummeled into near-oblivion several times in a very real-world fashion.

Unfortunately, however, the film then introduces a second storyline involving two other erstwhile superheroes, Hit Girl and Big Daddy, which causes problems for three reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, these two are actual superheroes, meaning they show an inhuman ability to kill people and defeat evil far above and beyond what is even remotely likely in any kind of "real world" situation; their presence inherently undermines what was supposed to be the entire point of the movie. Which leads right into the second problem, which is structural; the jokey, realistic treatment of the main character and his geeky friends feels like an entirely different film from everything that happens when Hit Girl is on screen, which leads to some jarring transitions between the two tonally different plotlines. But the third, and most important problem is this: Hit Girl and her conventional superhero story arc are both vastly more interesting and compelling than Kick-Ass and the main storyline.

As you might imagine, that's kind of an issue. If the entire movie had just been Kick-Ass and his cronies, the movie would have been basically a quirky, fun indie character study. But Hit Girl belongs to an amped up action movie; and once she debuts, the rest of the Kick-Ass sequences basically become periodic drags as you wait for Hit Girl to come back on screen. Both characters would have been better served, it seems, if they had been put into two different films.

There are other minor issues, of course. The fact that the most interesting character is a foul-mouthed, murdering pre-teen girl raises some interesting ethical and moral questions, but since all of these are completely ignored, for the most part she seems kind of like a cheap shock stunt. And for all the lip service paid to being realistic and getting away from the classic comic book fanboy wish fulfillment that classic superheroes embody, the relationship between Kick-Ass and his love interest has a twist partway through the film that turned it into maybe the biggest and most ridiculous fanwank male sexual fantasy sequence I have ever had the misfortune of seeing. Honestly, it's so boggling I swear a 13 year old wrote the supplot.

All told, then, despite some interesting and memorable characters and a relatively fun mix of humor and action, in the end Kick-Ass seems a lot like most of Millar's stuff: it talks big but has its head so far up its own ass it can't recognize its own bullshit.


My Grades: A- when you walk out of the theater, C- five minutes later and for the rest of your life.

Read More

Movie Reviews: The Princess and the Frog

As many of you know, I like to think of myself as a Disney feature film connoisseur. I've seen nearly all of their theatrical releases, at least in terms of classic animation, having only skipped a few of their weaker efforts this decade. So when I heard that they would be returning to the hand-drawn Disney style for The Princess and the Frog, I was intrigued to see how it turned out, especially with Pixar genius John Lasseter now in charge of animation at Disney. Would this be a return to glory, or just another paint-by-numbers knock-off effort?

Well, now that I've seen the movie I can happily say that it is closer to the former than the latter. While Princess and the Frog falls a bit short of classic status, not quite living up to their efforts from the early 90's or from Walt's days, it's a handsomely drawn and enjoyable film that offers glimpses of greatness even if it doesn't quite live up to its own promise.

The best part of the film is in many ways the set-up, as we are introduced to the spunky and relatable heroine Tiana, a hardscrabble waitress working in... the late 1920's maybe?... in an effort to realize her dream of opening the restaurant she and her deceased daddy had dreamed about. The opening half hour or so, where we meet Tiana's family and learn of their hard-working ethics is well played and well drawn.

Also more than up to Disney snuff is the villain, the Shadow Man, a legitimately disturbing bad guy with nice character design (that skull top hat is to die for) and some very, very scary friends who will likely give anyone under the age of ten chronic nightmares for years to come. That's a good thing (unless you're a kid, I suppose), and some of the film's most visceral sequences involve the Shadow Man.

Where the film falters a bit is with the lead, Prince Naveen. Oh, he's serviceable enough, but once the main plot gets going and he and Tiana have both been turned into frogs, the film itself seems to follow suit to a degree. That's not to say the sequences with Tiana and Naveen in full frog mode aren't nice, but the middle of the film does succumb a bit to cliche; I had a hard time believing the two of them falling in love, as the romance seem predetermined by the plot rather than an extension of their personalities. Granted, you could lay this charge at previous Disney princesses, but the romances of, say, Belle or even Ariel seemed more natural by comparison. I never really bought this one.

Beyond that, though, the film also adds in the usual elements of a big Disney film with something approaching a workmanlike attitude, checking off the infectious tunes and comedic sidekicks one by one. It's especially disappointing considering the heart displayed at the beginning of the film, as though Lasseter got a hold of the project just in time to add some but not all of his Pixar experience to the proceedings.

That's not to come down too hard on the film, for in the end the overall product is still an above average effort from Disney, meaning it's way above average when compared to some of the knock-off crap Dreamworks continues to foist on America. But not even some surprising decisions, such as the honest-to-god death of a supporting character at the hands (and feet) of the Shadow Man, can quite elevate this to the level of the classic it aspires to be. A worthy addition to the Princess line, but not quite true greatness.





My Grades: Visually it gets an A, but overall it will have to settle for a B. Which isn't bad at all.

Read More

Movie Trailers: The A-Team vs. The Losers

They're the A-Team, you know they're soldiers of fortune. They're the A-Team, helping people in need. You can pretend that you're Hannibal, Murdock or Face. Or Maybe B. A. Baracus; you know each one is an ace. Yes, folks, it's the A-Team, those paragons of early-80's action cheese who have inexplicably risen to cult status thanks to legions of pre-teen boys who have now managed to grow to adulthood without outgrowing schlock. Don't get me wrong, if you're a fan of A-Team, I understand where you're coming from and even better, I have good news for you: there's a big budget film version coming out this year and I've got the trailer right here to prove it.

But wait! There's more! I know what you're thinking: how could there possibly be more when we already have an A-Team trailer?! But yes, we also have here the new trailer for The Losers. Now, everyone knows that the A-Team is a crack squad of former government operatives who are now on the other side of the law, taking on missions nobody else will while the government tries to put them away for good. But The Losers have their own unique story: a crack squad of former government operative who are now on the other side of the law, these fighting men take on missions nobody else will while the government tries to put them away for good. Only, their main motive is revenge, not altruism. See the difference?

The Losers, of course, is based on the Vertigo Comics title of the same name, which unfortunately has nothing whatsoever to do with the 70's DC war comic that they stole the name from. That was a huge disappointment to me since I am essentially the only living person who purposely put together a full run of Our Fighting Forces featuring The Losers, but for most comics fans they couldn't care less because the Vertigo version was both popular and critically acclaimed. So while I am weeping at the absence of Una from this project and pining away for Capt. Storm's wooden leg, the rest of comicdom is frothing at a chance to see The Losers come to life on the big screen.

So which trailer wins? Will the epic improbability of Liam Neeson as Hannibal manage to outweigh the spectacle of Jeffrey Dean Morgan (i.e. The Comedian from Watchmen) returning for more DC Comics action? Let's find out... NOW!








Okay, take a minute to towel off.

So what do we think? Well, let's star with the A-Team preview first. As trailers go, this one is pretty great. It manages to capture the essence of the original show, nicely introducing and teasing all the classic elements (even the van!) without being too obtuse for younger viewers to follow. Of course, A-Team isn't exactly brain surgery, so the formula is pretty simple, but for my money they nailed it here. I have a weird feeling the film itself is probably going to suck (though not nearly as much as, say, G. I. Joe or the exponentially suckier Transformers), but the trailer is pretty great. And for all those internet people complaining that the tank sequence at the end of the trailer is cheesy: it's the A-Team. That kind of nonsense is exactly what the show was about, love it or hate it. So quitcher bellyaching.

The Losers, on the other hand, is catering to a much smaller built-in audience and I think has to exhibit broader appeal, because most viewers aren't going to be as familiar with the comic as they are with A-Team. With that in mind, the trailer relies less on familiarity with the characters and more on familiarity with the editing style of the clip: with its freeze frames, one-liners and use of graphics, the trailer resembles nothing so much as a cross between Ocean's 13 and Reservoir Dogs. For a certain segment of the audience, of course, that would be a heady mix indeed. I think they went a little too strong on the comedy aspect in the trailer -- the numerous clips of Chris Evans's wisecracking commando began to resemble Ryan Reynolds's excrutiating turn as Hannibal King in Blade III -- but overall I think they've done a pretty good job of making this look like a fun time at the movies. And the presence of current it-girl Zoe Saldana in the cast doesn't hurt either.

My Grades: The A-Team trailer gets, appropriately enough, an A- in terms of catering to its fan base, while it still gets a respectable B for the general public. The Losers also clocks in with a B for me. Though both films are dancing right on the edge of cheesiness, I suspect that A-Team will go headlong over that edge while The Losers might manage to toe the line a little better. Time will tell, but these are both pretty effective trailers overall.

Read More

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes

One of the big questions this holiday movie season was whether Sherlock Holmes or Avatar would end up taking the box office crown. But, of course, there was another question looming equally large: would they both, in fact, suck?

Well, we've had a chance to see Sherlock Holmes and while the movie could certainly have been better, it definitely could have been much, much worse. With that in mind, then, it is our official position at The Vault the Sherlock Holmes does not suck.

Granted, that's not exactly the most ringing endorsement, but we mean no slight to what the movie is. Rather, it's simply a result of how often this kind of hich-octane modernization of Victorian action stories have totally sucked in recent years. Wild, Wild West, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and Van Helsing are just a few examples of the complete crap that Hollywood has turned out trying to make period blockbusters "cool" for today's history-impared audiences.

Sherlock Holmes manages to rise above those low standards thanks mainly to the work of stars Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law, who bring energy and verve to their well-worn roles and imbue the film with a camaraderie that make the entire affair palatable and even occasionally fun. Yes, the plot twists, villains and puzzles are relatively slapdash (though still miles above the similar nonsense in the more modernly themed Robert Langdon films like Angels and Demons) and some elements appear to be red herrings (a lot of time is spent showing how Holmes can dissect fights, for instance, for reasons that escape me), but overall the energy of Downey -- like his soul brother Johnny Depp in the Pirates of the Caribbean films -- is enough to carry the movie over the rough parts.

The one real misstep, in fact, is the love interest, a scheming thief played by Rachel McAdams. I'm not sure there was a single scene involving her character in the entire movie that worked on any level; the character was thin at best and pointless at worst and McAdams, who has been fine in plenty of other movies, seemed as lost as the writers who scripted her scenes. As the heart of the movie is the soul bond between Watson and Holmes, which is underscored just fine by the subplot involving Sherlock's displeasure at Watson's impending marriage, her presence as a love interest seemed completely superfluous and unnecessary, as Holmes seemed more than fulfilled by both the love of the game and the manly bonding he shares with Watson. While Watson's fiancee proves sympathetic in her few scenes, McAdams proves to be an unnecessary and unwanted distraction.

Overall, though, the film was entertaining enough (though they were just a bit heavy handed in setting up the sequel). And when it comes to this genre, anything short of complete suckage is a huge bonus, so the fact that the film ends up being mildly enjoyable is both a surprise and a relief.


My Grades: Downey and Law get straight A's, while director Guy Ritchie gets a B- for not making this suck nearly as much as it certainly could have. The final grade for the film: also a B-, but a fun one.

Read More

Movie Trailer Special: Iron Man 2

Okay, so it hasn't been that long since our last batch of Movie Trailer Reviews, but we're going to go right back to the well for a special occasion: the release of the Iron Man 2 trailer.

Yes, after months of speculation, hype and nervous anticipation, the trailer for next May's highly anticipated sequel to Iron Man has finally hit the internet. So how does it look? Well, let's take a peek and then we'll dissect the footage on the other side (p.s., don't be surprised if there's a bit of a load time, since everyone on the internet is trying to download this right now):




Okay. Whew. One sec, need to towel off.

Alright. So, this is a pretty sweet trailer for a few reasons, the most important one being that it teases the film without giving away the whole plotline. Now, if you've also seen the footage screen at Comic Con over the summer, you can probably piece together most of the story, but that's part of what makes this trailer so nice: it functions perfectly well without needing to reference or spoil every single twist or dramatic turnabout. It succeeds by reminding fans of the original why it was successful (the tone, set by Robert Downey, Jr.) and revealing the big supervillain (Mickey Rourke's version of Whiplash) and... that's it. It doesn't need to shoot the whole wad right in the trailer.

It does tease a few other elements for comic fans and sharp-eyed viewers, like Samuel L. Jackson's Nick Fury (last seen in the after-the-credits tease at the end of the first film, and here appearing in the first of his nine contractually stipulated Marvel films) and Scarlett's Johansson's take on Black Widow, the mere existence of which is about enough to make our head explode.

Not shown in the trailer or even hinted at is the Sam Rockwell's portrayal of Stark's number one rival, Justin Hammer. And that's a good thing, because it means that fans hooked by this preview will still get some surprises when the film comes out (though we're guessing Rockwell will eventually be featured in one trailer or another).

It's not perfect, of course; while Rourke was certainly impressive in Sin City, we're still worried that he's going to ham it up a little too much; the scenes shown here, while not too over the top, don't exactly put that fear to bed either. And on a smaller note, we're not really a fan of the recent trailer technique of putting a clip of crazy mayhem after the rest of the trailer has ended. yes, it can be an effective little visceral hook to end on, but as cool as the scene in this trailer is, it still feels like a bit of a cheesy editing ploy. We're guessing nobody share this feeling, though, so you can probably ignore it as just curmudgeonly grumbling.

Grades: Those little minuses are just personal preference; in terms of effectiveness and composition, we have to give this trailer a solid A. Now, if only someone would release a trailer for Jonah Hex already. We're starting to get a little worried about that one.

Read More

Movie Trailers: Clash of the Titans and More

The holiday season is on us, and that means one thing: shopping. But if it meant two things, the second thing might be new movies, because this is one of the busiest seasons in the cinematic year. And a slew of new blockbuster films means an equally large helping of new trailers, as studios want to get their hot properties for 2010 in front of as many turkey-sated viewers as possible. That, of course, means a third thing -- a batch of new Movie Trailer reviews from the Vault.

As usual, we'll be reviewing how effective and interesting the trailer is first and foremost, and the content of the movie second, as making a good trailer is an art form in and of itself (as the great trailer for the horribly bad Pearl Harbor proved). Up first on this month's docket: the high budget, high profile remake of Clash of the Titans!


Clash of the Titans
Scheduled release date: March 26, 2010

Fans of a certain age will fondly remember the original Clash of the Titans, a sprawling 1981 epic that featured state of the art stop motion special effects that now, of course, could be easily duplicated by a six year old on a iPhone. Still, the movie had a certain je ne sais qois that has endeared it to fantasy lovers over the years.

Well, judging from this preview, it doesn't appear as though effects will be an issue this time around. Dialogue, of course, may be, as evidenced by the oddly jarring modern jargon emnating from the mouth of the legendary Pete Postlethwaite. The editors behind this clip, therefore, were probably wise in making that the only dialogue in the trailer, crafting the rest as what appears to be a frenetic Mastodon music video.

This does have the unfortunate effect of relegating stars (and seeming box office draws) like Liam Neeson to blink-and-you'll-miss-it cameos, but other than that odd choice, this is a pretty effective teaser that should get the younger crowd invested. I guess all those part about plot and character can be fit into a later trailer down the road if for some reason they think that sort of thing is necessary.




My Grades: As a teaser goes, this one is pretty good. I'm not sure about the dialogue, but since there's too little to judge, I'll have to give this an B+. I'd already rather watch this movie than see 300 again, that's for sure.



Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
Scheduled release date: May 28, 2010

Looks like we have a theme going: two trailers, two big budget fantasy epics. Unlike Clash of the Titans, though, which features current It-guy Sam Worthington in the lead role, Prince of Persia has made the curious decision to have the googly Jake Gyllenhaal star as its action hero.

So how does that work out? Well, the trailer does have one thing going for it: it does, in fact, look a lot like a video game. Whether or not this will make people want to watch a movie, of course, rather than just fire up their console, is a different question, but the CGI towers of the city resemble nothing so much as a cutscene from the game, a feeling only heightened by the swooping camera work which is reminiscent of a player rotating the vantage point to get a better look at the next tricky jump.

As for Jake the Snake, well, he seems to have a fake accent for reasons that currently escape me, which is okay because everything that happens in this trailer is helpfully narrated by the female lead. IN other words, it's a totally by the book trailer filled with "dazzling" action shots, wads of exposition and an overview of the entire plot. Is it by Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer by any chance? Oh, look, it is.

Least surprising credits ever.




My Grades: All things considered, the trailer for the video game is actually better than the one for the movie. That's not a good sign. This gets a C-, which would be lower if the bad guy wasn't being hammed up by Ben Kingsley in full BloodRayne mode. I'll probably take a pass on this one unless I am reallllly bored next summer.



Kick-Ass
Scheduled release date: April 16, 2010

Hey, look at this: an actual comic book movie based on an actual comic book! That's almost too topical for The Vault, but at the risk of being predictable, I'm going to take a look at it anyway. As a bonus, I've managed to avoid reading the actual comic, which, to be honest, isn't the worst policy when it comes to Mark Millar. Yeah, I know, some people think he's the third coming of Jesus, but he's pretty hit or miss with me. For film people, he's also behind Wanted, so that should tell you something; whether that something is good or bad I'll leave up to the individual to decide.

I have to admit, though, that as far as trailers go, this one is a pretty solid hit. Instead of a stream-of-conscious montage of unrelated images like many trailers, this one starts with one sustained scene that takes up half the trailer and nicely sets the tone and presents the concept of the film while still being mildly entertaining in its own right. Then we do get a couple brief scenes and intros to other characters, just enough to whet the appetite without blowing the whole gig.

I'm not sure this clip is kick ass, but it's not half bad, anyway.




My Grades: This is an effective and memorable trailer. It's not Gladiator, but it's pretty good. A-.

Read More

Web Review: The Guild Season 3

Now, I know what long time readers are thinking: didn't he already review The Guild? Isn't that the web series about weirdos who play video games all the time and stuff? Firstly, gamers aren't weirdos, they are just like you and me, though probably more like me than you if you get what I mean. Secondly, that review was only for the first episode of season three. Now that the entire season has aired, however, I thought it would be a good idea to go back and review the whole darn thing if for no other reason than to give you guys all a nice sense of closure. You're welcome.

So how was season three? Actually, it was pretty good. It did start off a little slowly; the first two episodes contained a lot of (necessary) exposition that progressed everyone from the dramatic confrontations at the end of season two and set up this season's major conflicts, both within the guild and without. While these first couple episodes did have some funny moments, mainly thanks to the appearance of the new rival guild, the Axis of Anarchy, they were a bit of a slow go, which is too bad considering the series was bringing in a ton of new fans thanks to their viral music video hit "Do You Wanna Date My Avatar" (which actually topped some Eurpopean download sites when it was released over the summer as a tease for season three).




Once the setup was done, however, the season really hit its stride, deftly showing the breakdown of the Knights of Good as internal pressures reduced the guild to almost nothingness before Codex (the alarmingly awesome Felicia Day), thrust into an unfamiliar and unwelcome leadership position thanks to Vork's soul searching walkabout, managed to start pulling things back together, rallying the tropps from their individual meltdowns for an epic PvP faceoff in the final two episodes.

While the individual plotlines for each character were interesting, though, the scenes were routinely stolen by the deliciously evil Axis of Anarchy members during their brief times onscreen. Led by geek king Wil Wheaton as the smarmy and obnoxiously self-satisfied Fawkes, the Axis added a new level of awesomeness to The Guild, particularly in episode four when Codex wanders into their vent channel in the middle of a raid and gets ripped into.

That may be a little bit of inside baseball for those who don't play MMOs, but then again, that's the audience the series is designed for. Another in-joke that kills is episode five's application process, which features clips sent in by fans of The Guild as they apply to join the Knights of Good.

Overall, then, I have to say I thought this was the strongest season to date despite the slow start. The climax nicely ties up the individual plotlines for each character while setting up next season and -- thankfully -- leaving open the door for more Wil Wheaton and, even better, breakout star J. Teddy Garces, who plays in your face cop and in-game healer Bruiser.

More Axis vs. Knights? That's one raid encounter I think all fans of The Guild are looking forward to seeing.

My Grade: The slow beginning was well worth it; as a whole the season gets an A-. You can check out the cathartic final episode for yourself here:

Read More

Movie Trailers: Alice in Wonderland and More

In today's fast paced, internet society, time spent analyzing and examining is time wasted, because there's always something new and exciting coming down the pike that is shinier, bigger and, well, newer than the last. This is especially true, of course, of the film industry, which has lasted for a century on the idea that audiences always need new product. But now the question is, who has time to watch a whole movie, much less spend precious minutes reading a review of it?

Luckily, that's where we come in with a new feature here on the Vault: Trailer Reviews. While some people believe you should actually watch the movie before you make up your mind about it, we disagree, After all, what is a trailer other than an attempt to make up your mind for you before you see the movie? But while the studios want you to have positive preconceptions about their movies, we're under no such obligation.

So sit back and check out the first batch of Trailer Reviews. Because in the time it takes you to watch one feature film, you could instead form opinions about 50 trailers. And in today's time-conscious society, which is really the better use of your precious hours?


The Expendables
Scheduled release date: August 20, 2010

The producers of this movie refer to it as a throwback and boy, they are not joking. The Expendables takes all the action, dialogue and directing cliches of a mid-80's Stallone film and pretty much doesn't change a single thing. While you might expect a production like this to be tongue in cheek, this is strictly pre-ironic territory. It's not that the people making the film don't recognize what they're doing, it's that they do recognize it and think that it's still totally awesome.

And for some fans, it probably will be. If the idea of a group of machine-gun toting mercenaries consisting of Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham and Jet Li fighting against the evil and vaguely foreign forces of Dolph Lundgren sounds like a treat, then this is probably the film of the century for you [yes, it's the long awaited Rocky IV rematch]. And yes, this movie also features roles by Mickey Rourke and Arnold Schwarzeneggar. Is a parody a parody if it's played straight? At last we'll get the answer to that question.



My Grades: This is probably either an A+ or an F- depending entirely on whether or not you enjoyed being an 11-year-old boy in the mid 80's. But even though I did, I still can't give this more than a D because wow does it look terrible.



Toy Story 3
Scheduled release date: June 18, 2010

And now, on a slightly different note, it's Toy Story 3. I have to confess that Toy Story, and particularly Toy Story 2, are two of my favorite movies of all time. So while I am very happy to see that they are doing a third film, I have a slight bit of trepidation, because they have a very high expectations to live up to, not just from me from from the entire movie watching world.

And after watching the trailer... I am still a little worried. Mind you, everything about it looks impeccably crafted; the art is a beautiful as ever (and this time will be in 3-D), the voice acting is all great and whatever. My concern is simply that they may be repeating themselves just a bit. The "kid has outgrown the toys" theme was done perfectly in Toy Story 2, for instance, while the characters themselves even comment on Buzz returning to the "space nut" personality he had in the first film. Of course, this being Pixar, I have to give them the benefit of the doubt, because they haven't let me down yet. I just hope that they can continue to prove that there isn't necessarily a first time for everything.



My Grades: A for execution, B- for actual content. Prove me wrong, guys!



Alice in Wonderland
Scheduled release date: March 5, 2010

Speaking of Disney films, here's a live action version of Alice in Wonderland directed, of course, by Tim Burton and starring Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter. Now, if you're anything like me, reading that sentence probably made you so exhausted and spent by life itself that you nearly wept. But, what are you going to do, right? This movie is kind of like Nagasaki; everyone could see it coming but nobody could stop it.

Having said that, the first half of the trailer is actually pretty cool. The character design is intriguing and appropriately creepy (unlike the usual, inappropriately creepy Burton stuff), though the Queen does look a little too Shrek for my taste. The second half of the trailer, of course, is full-on Depp pimpage and should therefore be taken as a necessary marketing evil, if anything in this production can be called necessary. And the thing is, I like Depp. But this is really pushing it.



My Grades: It's an effective trailer and it doesn't give anything away since everyone knows the story anyway. So for trailer competence it gets a B. For the movie it's previewing, though... if I didn't know it was Burton/Depp, I have to admit I would probably still give it a B. But that unholy marriage is so tiresome to me at this point that I have to give it a D+. We'll see if I change my mind before the release date.

Read More