Tag: Review

Tribeca 2012 Review: FREE SAMPLES

I will throw myself onto the altar as a sacrificial lamb so that fellow critics much better than I do not fall prey to using the following super cheesy & painfully obvious opening statement in their future reviews of this film. Remember me as a hero…

Much like the parked ice cream truck Jess Weixler finds herself stuck in for the majority of the running time, FREE SAMPLES goes nowhere. Yes, I know that’s bad. It’s the sort of line your friendly neighborhood entertainment guru will say in his segment on the local news in attempt to be clever. Unfortunately it does perfectly apply to the film. Hungover and unsure of pretty much everything in her life, Jillian (Jess Weixler) finds herself working all day parked in a vacant lot handing out free samples of an ice cream-like substance to a cast of quirky characters. There are a few subplots including a distant “kind of” fiance, a quick-witted guy she met the night before (Jessie Eisenberg), and a friendship with an elderly patron (Tippi Hedren).

In the end, there is some very minor character growth but it is in no way a substantial arc. This would be fine if the journey was entertaining but even at 80 minutes, the film seems to drag its feet far too often. This is not the fault of the actors; everyone seems to do well with what little material they have to work with. Jess Weixler channels her inner Winona Ryder as the smart yet irritatingly bitchy Jillian and Jason Ritter seems to have fun as Wally. Jessie Eisenberg is on his game as a much more confidant version of the character we have seen him play many times before. Sadly many of the hilariously quirky characters that show up for free ice cream fail to be hilarious or even relevant to the story in any way. The jokes falling flat could be due to poor delivery but it is more likely due to the script that could have used a bit more love before cameras started rolling. There are a few really good moments, namely the ones with Jason Ritter and Jessie Eisenberg, but they do not appear nearly often enough to save this slow mess.

Jerry Cavallaro – @GetStuck – JerryCavallaro.com

Tribeca 2012 Review: TAKE THIS WALTZ

TAKE THIS WALTZ opens with a fun little meet-cute between Margot (Michelle Williams) and Daniel (Luke Kirby) who soon find out they are actually neighbors. This is unfortunate because Margot is (un)happily married to a chicken cookbook author played by Seth Rogen. I write it that way because although she doesn’t seem happy most of the time, none of her reasons seem solid enough to justify why she is so upset with her life. At one point she goes into a rant to which Seth Rogen asks what the f— she is talking about, as if speaking for the entire audience. Perhaps it is my slight man-crush on Seth Rogen but he seems like a pretty good husband to the often childish Margot. She is simply just bored of her everyday routine, which is what leads to a growing fascination with the shiny new toy that is Daniel.

But all new things get old eventually. That isn’t spoiling anything by the way. It is pretty much the running theme of the film since it constantly beats you over the head with this message throughout the bloated running time. This grows increasingly more frustrating leading up to an ending that feels more like a series of alternate endings played in succession. Repetition is apparently the name of the game. This may have been a stylistic choice by writer / director Sarah Polley since the film plays out in a steady stream of highs & lows and reoccurring themes much like Margot’s life. However, if that is the case, it just didn’t work for me. It is too bad though because there are some truly great aspects to the film.

Visually the film is stunning in terms of direction, cinematography, locations and even the color palette. This film just looks fantastic and it is often paired with a wonderful soundtrack that adds greatly to the feel. Everything really comes together perfectly for a scene in which Margot & Daniel go on the spinning Scrambler ride while “Video Killed The Radio Star” blasts on the radio. It is a fantastic sequence that says so much without any dialogue. It just works on so many levels, which is part of what makes the film so frustrating. There are moments like this that work so well but they are thrown off by so many other scenes that don’t. One other scene worth noting is an absolutely hysterical segment that has Margot and her sister-in-law (Sarah Silverman) attending a seniors water aerobics class, which was probably one of the funniest moments of any film playing at Tribeca this year. Speaking of Sarah Silverman, she and Seth Rogen really step up to show they have serious dramatic chops in addition to perfect comedic sensibility.

In the end, there is enough good in the film that I wouldn’t tell anyone to avoid it but I wish they found a way to say more with less.

http://vimeo.com/40636873

Jerry Cavallaro – @GetStuck – JerryCavallaro.com

Tribeca 2012 Review: DEATH OF A SUPERHERO

With DEATH OF A SUPERHERO, all the elements are there for a great movie. In fact, all the elements are there for several great movies and that may be the problem. Donald is an angsty high-schooler with terminal cancer who acts out his frustrations by drawing comic book art. This artwork tells the story of a superhero being tortured by a man with a Freddy Krueger / hypodermic needle type hand. He also sometimes sees his characters in the real world, which is when the audience is treated to brief animated segments. Donald starts seeing a shrink after he gets in trouble with the police for graffiti. Over the course of the film he also falls for the new girl at school, deals with family issues and has friends concerned with the fact that he may die a virgin. If that last one seems a little out of place, it’s because it sort of is. However, that was the most original aspect of the film and also the part I enjoyed the most. In fact, I would have much rather seen an entire film dealing with that plotpoint.

The film comes across as a mashup of 50/50, GOOD WILL HUNTING, and THE DANGEROUS LIVES OF ALTER BOYS. As a result, it doesn’t feel cohesive. Certain story elements & relationships feel forced / rushed, problems seem to get solved too easily and characters disappear for too long. I am only guessing but since Anthony McCarten adapted the screenplay from his own novel, it could be the film does not offer enough time to flesh everything out but he didn’t want to cut any important elements from the story. Again, that is only speculation since I have not read the book but that is one of the more common problems with book adaptations.

Visually the film is pretty interesting, especially when it jumps into the comic book style animation format. The acting is also quite impressive, including Andy Serkis who is not painted over with any CGI although he is buried under an oversized sweater most of the time. Thomas Brodie-Sangster does a good job as a confused teen handling each of the characters ups and downs, no matter how stereotypical they might be. Aisling Loftus also does well in a role that could have benefited from more screen time. Sadly, there just is not much originality in the film and the few moments there are feel out of place.

Jerry Cavallaro – @GetStuck – JerryCavallaro.com

THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT – The Review

Judd Apatow (BRIDESMAIDS) has become synonymous with successful modern comedy, much like Martin Scorsese is to gangsters and Steven Spielberg is to aliens, or James Cameron and his endless obsession with the Titanic. ANCHORMAN, 40-YEAR OLD VIRGIN, KNOCKED UP, SUPERBAD, STEP BROTHERS… the list goes on with only a very small handful of flops. (i.e. – YEAR ONE, and the less severe failure of FUNNY PEOPLE) As a producer, he has helped redefine funny, but I’m not all that interested in talking about Judd Apatow right now.

No, in all fairness, I give credit to Jason Segel (BAD TEACHER) and director Nicholas Stoller (FORGETTING SARAH MARSHALL) this time around. Segel and Stoller co-wrote THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT, their follow-up project to THE MUPPETS, which also had Segel and Stoller in the same acting, writing and directing roles and showed audiences they are a force to reckon with in the coming years of comedy. Jason Segel stars in THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT as Tom Solomon, a talented sous-chef in San Fransisco on track to one day realize his dream of running his own restaurant.

Emily Blunt (THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA) co-stars as Tom’s British girlfriend Violet Barnes, to whom he proposes imperfectly amidst awkwardness in the opening moments of the film, setting the tone of the journey that has just begun for these two lovably flawed characters. Violet is pursuing a post-doctorate path in psychology with hopes of landing a tenured career as a collegiate professor, but her dreams are proving elusive… until her luck changes. Unfortunately, this change in Violet and Tom’s lives means entirely different and polar opposite things for the couple deemed “perfect for each other” by family and friends.

THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT is ballsy for a comedy, with it’s 124-minute running time, but the time flies and the film never drags. As I watched, I became quickly become attached, no… emotionally invested in these two wonderfully detailed human beings. Segel and Blunt have a smile-inducing, naturally pleasant chemistry that makes it damn near impossible not to feel all warm and fuzzy inside and it breaks my heart whenever things don’t go as planned. THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT is a humorous, witty alternative to the sappy, fake soap operas that finds truth in it’s self-deprecating realism.

This is a situational comedy at it’s finest. THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT is the feature length yin to television’s MARRIED WITH CHILDREN yang. Where Al and Peggy Bundy make us smile in their shared misery and pessimism with each other, Tom and Violet make us smile with their mutual cuteness and optimism, and those are the stakes. This is a film for the realistic romantic at heart, not the pipe dreamers who naively think everything can be peachy and perfect forever. THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT delivers a slice of real life, enhanced for laughter, but reminds us that while our plans rarely ever go as we’d hoped, even when everything falls apart, there’s always still some glimmer of hope if we really want it bad enough… why?

Because, damn it, for better or worse, life is what we make of it and that’s the journey that Tom and Violet take us on in THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT. Lovers, sweethearts, parents, couples, however you define yourselves, there’s plenty to enjoy and take away from this film. The supporting cast certainly adds to this broad appeal. Chris Pratt (PARKS AND RECREATION) plays Tom’s best friend and fellow sous chef Alex, a somewhat moronic, impulsively immature man. Alison Brie (COMMUNITY) plays Violet’s stuck up, selfish sister with theoretical high standards. These two popular TV stars bring a much appreciated depth of comedic charisma to the film, both of whom are sort of like the worst-case scenario versions of Tom and Violet from a parallel dimension. Curiously enough, these two lost causes ultimately play a crucial role in what will become of Tom and Violet.

As always, the list of appearances in THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT holds true to past Judd Apatow films, including David Paymer and Mimi Kennedy as Tom’s parents, Kevin Hart, Molly Shannon, Brian Posehn, and Rhys Ifans as the head of Violet’s department of psychology. THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT works so well, not just because of the writing and shear comedic talent of the cast, but also because the circumstances are real, even if the situations are often just within the borders of awkwardly absurd. What Jason Segel does so well is he combines his faintly child-like persona with a sort of everyman philosopher of life.

THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT begins in San Fransisco, but spends much of it’s time in a colder, less visually appealing locale, adding to the building tension and looming fear of self-destruction. The creative team of Segel and Stoller capture several contemporary cultural details that add greatly to the relevance of the film’s story, but they do so in such a brilliant tongue-in-cheek manor that produces laughs without losing it’s true-to-life edge. I especially enjoyed the ending of the film, which I can only say instantly led to my conjuring up the newest addition to the reality television game shows… see if you don’t envision the same.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

DELICACY – The Review

Can it really have been 11 years ago that Audrey Tautou stole hearts as the title character in AMELIE? Seems her performance as that whimsical Parisian sprite captured the world’s heart. Since then she’s starred in several other French films and took a leap into an American blockbuster, THE DA VINCI CODE. Well she’s matured along with her fans and nows stars in a more adult, reality-grounded love story, DELICACY. Even though she’s got a grown-up job and love life, does she still have a bit of that daydreaming pixie in her?

As the film begins Nathalie ( Tautou ) glides through the quaint Parisian streets to a small cafe. A handsome young man spots her and is smitten. A year later he proposes, and soon they’re married and sharing a lovely apartment. She steps up professionally, leaving her job selling theatre programs with her best pal  to work at a the Paris office of a Swedish investment firm. Life’s a dream until tragedy strikes.  In order to deal with her loss,Nathalie plunges into her new position at work. Her womanizing boss tries to make her his mistress, but she flatly rejects him. Then one day her co-worker, the unassuming Markus ( Francois Damiens ) steps into her office to discuss a project. Unspeaking, Nathalie rises from her desk, walks over to him, and kisses Markus passionately. She then asks him to leave the office. The man is floating on a cloud. When he asks her about it the next day, she feigns ignorance, then apologizes. But Markus believes a connection is there and decides to pursue a relationship with her. Can the lonely Swede succeed despite office gossips, a rejected superior, and her unimpressed friends? More importantly, can Nathalie finally have a life outside the office once again?

This is a sweet, gentle, low-key story of second-chance romance that’s difficult to embrace because of the confusing motivations of the main characters. Nathalie’s lip-lock with Markus surprises us almost as much as him. They only conversed about work projects prior to this. Did she just decide that it was time to be with someone once more? Was she just instinctively drawn to his good soul? Who knows?  I mean Markus is a kind-hearted fellow, but this sudden turnabout after shutting down her lothario boss is jarring. Her co-workers and friends are puzzled too. When Markus joins Nathalie at a party thrown by her best gal pal, the hostess dismisses him with a not-so-subtle remark ( shades of the recent US comedy SHE’S OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE ). Tautou and Damiens do the best they can with these underwritten characters, but the romance never really clicks.  Not a terrible film, just not involving. Despite the lovely French settings, this delicate love story never really takes flight.

Overall Rating: 2.5 Out of 5 Stars

THE HUNTER ( 2011 ) – The Review

Sometimes the film going experience is greatly enhanced when you have little knowledge of the movie upon entering the theatre. Such was the case for the new film THE HUNTER. All I had seen was the poster which showed a grim, determined Willem Dafoe toting a high-powered rifle. Since he’s frequently been cast in villain roles ( he’s the Green Goblin for gosh sakes! ), I thought that perhaps he’s playing an assassin or hitman tracking his victim through the countryside. On the flip side, he may be a bounty hunter or lawman trying to bring in a fugitive from justice. Whichever it was, I was all set for a cat-and-mouse action thriller.

For the first few minutes it looks like we’re in for a classy hitman actioner ( like THE MECHANIC ). After we’re introduced to Martin David ( Dafoe ) soaking in the tub, listening to classical music in a swanky Paris hotel, the film cuts to the airport where he meets with a couple of well-dressed gentlemen. They discuss the transfer of currency to foreign bank accounts. Hmmmm, who’s the target? Martin is given a briefcase with small test tubes and lab sample plates. Uh? The wealthy employer has hired him, not to track down an enemy, but to find an animal thought to be extinct : the Tasmanian tiger. The tiger doesn’t need to be captured alive, the employer only wants blood, skin, and fur samples ( perhaps for cloning purposes? ). So Martin is literally a professional hunter. Arriving in Tasmania, he is greeted by another agent of his employer, Jack ( Sam Neill ), who helps guide Martin to the forested spot were the tiger was supposedly last sighted. Jack also has arranged a place for Martin to stay : the home of Lucy Armstrong ( Frances O’Connor ) and her two precocious, foul-mouthed, grade-school aged kids. Seems Mr. Armstrong disappeared in the forest while searching for the tiger. She’s literally checked out, spending her days heavily medicated drifting in and out of slumber and letting her kids fend for themselves. After tidying up his living quarters, Martin begins his task. The people of the town are leery of him. The loggers, who’ve been prevented from working, believe that he’s an undercover Greenpeace-type agent. But the other side distrusts him too. The local tree-hugging eco-warriors believe that he’s using traps to capture the tiger. No one seems to believe his cover story of being a research scientist collecting data for a new book. Can he stay several steps ahead of these warring factions and locate his elusive prey?

THE HUNTER is a great showcase for the talents of one of our most interesting actors. Here Dafoe gets to go beyond the sometimes one-note baddies in Hollywood blockbusters He begins the film as a cool professional who’s only looking to complete his job and collect his fee. But things change once he arrives in that wild land and meets this broken family. Martin starts to care about something beyond his mission, although Dafoe is terrific in the scenes showcasing his tracking and trapping skills. O’Connor is touching as the absentee single mother who finally wakes up and responds to the unusual foreign man in her life. O’Neill offers great support as her family friend who may have other motives. The search for a rare animal is a unique motive for all the principals ( it’s interesting that this weekend’s big family film THE PIRATES : BAND OF MISFITS also tackles the subject of beasties thought to be extinct ). The suspense builds slowly while not taking away from the unfolding relationship story. The cinematography of this still untamed country is breathtaking at times. Some of the accents are often too thick to decipher, but your ears should become accustomed quickly. Because of the gorgeous unexplored countryside, and the very talented cast, THE HUNTER is a film worth tracking down.

Overall Rating: 3.5 Stars Out of 5

 

 

THE SALT OF LIFE – The Review

THE SEVEN YEAR ITCH was the first major Hollywood film to address the wandering eye ( and libido ) of long time, staid husbands. The subject was explored in greater depth in the 60’s with the anthology A GUIDE FOR THE MARRIED MAN and in the 80’s with THE WOMAN IN RED ( except Gene Wilder just fixated on Kelly LeBrock as the title character ). As it turns out RED is based on a European film where the rules of marriage are quite a bit looser than in the good ole’ USA. And they’ve been doing many more films across the pond about hubbys gettin’ frisky over the years. For the new film THE SALT OF LIFE, we get a chance to see Italy’s take on love and marriage ( and a little something on the side ).

SALT tells the story of Gianni ( writer/ director Gianni Di Gregorio ), a schlubby sixty-something married father who’s sure that he’s missing out on all the action. He’s retired, collecting a pension, and sharing a spacious apartment in Rome with his still working wife, college age daughter, and her boyfriend ( who seems to always be staying over ). After fixing breakfast for his wife, Gianni spends much of his day dashing to the home of his frail, aging momma. But , prodded by his lawyer buddy Alfonso, Gianni’s on a quest to score. His mamma’s luscious live-in nurse is a possibility. How about his downstairs neighbor, a party girl with an enormous St, Bernard ( Gianni takes the beast for long walks in the park ) ? But then there’s the overly friendly, now grown-up daughter of one of his mamma’s poker pals. Maybe he should rekindle the passion with an old flame from years past. At one point, Alfonso enlists Gianni as his ‘ wing man ‘ when two blonde bombshell sisters arrive at his office. Later Alfonso gives Gianni a male performance pill along with confusing directions to a brothel ( can he arrives before the effects wear off? ). After his many calamities, will he ever succeed?

This is a gentle character study that has a timeless quality. It’s not gut-busting hilarious, but Gianni’s hapless attempts should make you smile ( or perhaps wince in recognition ). It’s hard to stay angry at him for his wanderlust due to the sprightly performance of Di Gregorio. He gets terrific support from the actors playing his friends and family and particularly the bevy of beautiful actresses that cross his path. The cast along with the beautiful Rome location work makes THE SALT OF LIFE a slighty spicy look at a retiree who’s still a kid ( maybe a horny teenager ) at heart.

Overall Rating: 3.5 Out of 5 Stars

 

THE LUCKY ONE – The Review

Well, with the big-boy action blockbusters right around the corner ( almost May 1, ya’ know! ) Hollywood’s going to see if they can strike gold with another, modest-budget, PG-13 romantic drama ( I’ll resist that sexist rhyming ‘ flick’ term ). After all, last January’s ” based on true events ” THE VOW was a surprise after Christmas hit. And so we have THE LUCKY ONE. But this doesn’t have the ‘true’ subcategory. It’s the latest in a series of film based on the work of prolific author Nicholas Sparks, following THE NOTEBOOK,  THE LAST SONG,  A WALK TO REMEMBER, and DEAR JOHN. So is this new adaptation another pay-out from his mother-lode of novels?

The title refers to Logan ( Zac Efron ), a marine on another tour of duty in Iraq. We first meet him during a particularly nasty night-time fire fight where several brothers-in-arms are shot. That next morning, as he’s going through the rubble, Logan spots a glistening photo. It’s a lovely blonde woman standing in front of a light house. As he picks it up, an explosion hits. Later the wounded soldier awakens and is told he avoided death by just a few feet. If he hadn’t walked over to get the photo….well, his luck would’ve run out. No one there at base camp knows who she is, so after an uneasy reunion with his sister’s family in Colorado ( we get a recreation of the internet videos of returning vets being greeted by their dogs as Logan and his German Shepard Zeus reunite ) Logan zeroes in on the location of his ‘ angel ‘ via the background light house. He and Zeus walk ( ! ) to a sleepy little Louisiana town and meet Beth ( Taylor Schilling )  a gorgeous single mom with an adorable little boy and a fiesty, but adorable Granny ( Blythe Danner ). Beth’s taking a break from her teaching job, a class full of adorable tots, to concentrate on her boarding/ grooming kennel full of ( you guessed it! ) adorable doggies. Before he can explain why he’s there ( shade of Gene and Rog’s ” the idiot plot” ), Kate hires him to help with the pups! Looks like smooth sailing to love-land until Logan runs into the t**d in the punchbowl at this party : Kate’s thuggish ex-husband, Keith ( J. R. Ferguson ) who’s also the chief of police ( a bully with a badge! ).Will he derail this love train?

As I hinted previously, this flick almost drowns in a sea of adorable-ness and cloying cliches. As time dragged on, I started to sympathize with the actors trying to bring life to this turgid screenplay. This may be Efron’s first full-fledged bid to escape the ‘ teen dream ‘ roles he’s been doing for the last few years. An attempt been made to toughen him up with some wispy facial hair ( grow a beard or shave it-we don’t need another Ethan Hawke! ) and a somber demeanor ( he’s got a hair-trigger at his sister’s place) . For a great deal of screen time, he’s eye candy with the camera lovingly showcasing each  muscle and sensitive stare. Schilling is stuck in many scenes trying to control her lust, while attempting to push him aside. Her rollercoaster of behavior patterns in the third act seem unnatural requirements of the plotting. Danner does her best in the wise, straight-talking, nurturing granny role ( the type of role that Shirley MacLaine probably tired of years ago). Ferguson seems to be having a bit of fun as the leering, scheming bad guy ( a more violent version of the jerk he plays on TV’s ” Mad Men ” ), but a half-hearted attempt to redeem him rings hollow. His son exists just to mellow out Logan ( see, he’d be a great dad! ) until he’s put in jeopardy in a clunky rescue finale. Hollywood can make a romantic film that can appeal to men and women if they really wanted . It just takes more originality than what’s been at the multiplexes lately. When film makers and studios really put some time and effort into future ” heart-tuggers”. then each member of the audience will feel that they’re the lucky one.

Overall Rating: 1 Out of 5 Stars

THE DEEP BLUE SEA ( 2011 ) – The Review

No, this is not a remake of the Samuel L. Jackson brain-enhanced killer sharks thriller. THE DEEP BLUE SEA is actually a new screen adaptation of a stage work more than sixty years old by Terence Rattigan as part of a centennial celebration of the noted British playwright. It’s set just a few years after the end of World War II and could very well have been made in the waning years of Hollywood’s Golden Age . This might be considered a ” woman’s picture ” back in the day and starred Bette Davis or Joan Crawford ( maybe at that time it would be Deborah Kerr or Olivia DeHaviland ). Going back to the early talkies romantic dramas were big earners for the studios in the days before male-dominated action flicks took over . An intimate study focusing on the female protagonist is rare these days. Of course certain elements of this story couldn’t have been tackled in those Production Code days. So can the themes of this decades old play still resonate ?

Well as the song in CASABLANCA says, ” It’s still the same old story. A fight for love and glory…”. Although, in the first scene , all  the fighting of WWII is over. In 1947 Hester ( Rachel Weisz ) shares a modest flat with her younger lover, ex-RAF pilot Freddie ( Tom Hiddleston ). As the film opens, the affair’s downward spiral compels Eve to take desperate measures. Flashbacks reveal that Eve is separated from her much older husband Sir William ( Simon Russell Seale ), a prominent judge. In another sequence we see Freddie’s random meeting  with Hester and their whirlwind, passionate fling. During a weekend with her husband’s cruel, controlling mother the affair is revealed. Sir William will let her go, but he will not grant her a divorce. Hester leaves her lavish lifestyle to move in with the directionless Freddie. It turns out that he does not love her with the same the same fiery passion that she has for him. Loneliness envelops her during the long days when Freddie travels and searches for employment. After her desperate act, Sir William returns. Eve must quickly make a decision about these men and her future.

The film is lifted up by a terrific cast, although the drama really rests on the very talented ( and lovely ) shoulders of Ms.Weisz. After making a name for herself in the first two Mummy flicks, it’s great to see her flexing her acting muscles in more demanding dramatic work. Weisz gives us a portrait of a woman floundering in a stale marriage. When she meets Freddie, her joy almost bursts out of the screen. This makes her crash back to Earth even more shattering. Hiddleston, perhaps best known as the evil Loki in THOR, makes a dashing young lover who relishes those glory days fighting the good fight. He finds life out of the clouds dull and dreary. It’s startling to see this happy-go-lucky chap turn into a man frustrated by a postwar world and by a woman who wants more from him than he can give. On the other hand Beale’s Sir William should be the cold villain of the piece, but he elicits great sympathy as man still desiring a woman who has no desire for him. No mere cuckhold, Sir William is a caring, but still proud man. Kudos to Barbara Jefford as his mother. Her verbal sparing with Weisz in the early scenes really crackle with energy. Ann Mitchell is also very strong as Hester’s stern, but nurturing landlady. The costumes and art direction are superb along with the cinematography. We get a glimpse of pub life in a couple of spirited sing-a-longs along with a look at wartime London. There’s an impressive shot of Hester and Sir William waiting out a bombing raid along with several other Brits in a subway tunnel. Unfortunately the rest of the film shows its stage roots with long, staid dialogue scenes with little editing. Because of this the last act moves almost at a snail’s pace. Fortunately the ensemble does their best to blow the cobwebs off this play and shows us that sometimes the lovers don’t always live happily ever after or  ” as time goes by…”.

Overall Rating: 3.5 Out of 5 Stars

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS – The Review

“You think you know the story…” so true are those words, it makes writing this review a critical hell, a nightmare of favorably frustrating proportions. The reason for this being, THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is one of those films that requires I not slip up and divulge any of it’s many wonderful details that would spoil the geektastically all-encompassing awesomeness of the film. If you are thinking, “Wow, this guy is selling the film rather hard,” you would be partially correct. Partially, because I’m not trying to “sell” the film at all, but on that rare occasion that a film has such a massive impact on my “happy” endorphins on this level, well… I just simply can’t help myself.

The basic story: Five college friends decide to take a break from their studies and spend a weekend in a, yes, you got it… a cabin in the woods. Curt (Chris Hemsworth, THOR) is the jock, but an unconventionally smart one. Jules (Anna Hutchison) is Curt’s “girl next door” girlfriend and her best friend Dana (Kristen Connelly, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD) is a book smart, semi-virginal good girl reluctantly along for the ride. Jules surprises Dana by inviting yet another — single — intellectual jock named Holden (Jesse Williams, BROOKLYN’S FINEST) with the hopes the two will hook up during their cabin retreat. Finally, Marty (Fran Kranz, THE VILLAGE) is the wise, but paranoid stoner and fifth-wheel on this wilderness trip. These five young men and women willingly enter into a seemingly harmless cabin in the woods, unsuspecting of the true and necessary horrors that await them… all for 105 perfectly pleasurable minutes of thrills, frights and laughs.

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS comes from the mind(s) of a genius — to some, many — co-written by Joss Whedon (SERENITY) and Drew Goddard (CLOVERFIELD) whom, with this film, also makes his directorial debut. Many fans obviously know of Joss Whedon from popular TV series including Firefly, Dollhouse, and Buffy. Perhaps less known, but equally talented is Drew Goddard, whom also has had his writing hands in the popular TV series cookie jar with Buffy, as well as Angel, Lost, and Alias. Putting these two minds together was shear brilliance, but unfortunately the recent troubles which befell the house of MGM held this film on the shelf, a film completed way back in 2011. With that said, we now get to enjoy not only this film, but THE AVENGERS, also directed by Joss Whedon, both opening this summer. (I may giggle like a school girl now. Don’t judge me.)

What is the secret of THE CABIN IN THE WOODS? You know I can’t tell you that, or else… I’d have to kill you. Seriously. If I told you that, someone would surely kill me as well. What I can tell you is that all the beautifully cheeky, sarcastic humor Joss Whedon is so well known for is alive and well. Whedon and Goddard mostly give Fran Kranz free reign over comic relief, serving up a hilariously witty performance as Marty, stoned nearly the entire film, constantly the ignored voice of reason. Marty is sort of a combination of SCREAM’s Randy, but with the personality of Alan Tudyk. I love Alan Tudyk, but that’s irrelevant.

The film opens with anything but the most logical, predictable scene for a horror film set in a cabin… in the woods. We meet two middle-aged men — Sitterson and Hadley — dressed in white, short-sleeve dress shirts and pocket protectors. No, these aren’t an updated, live-action, nerdy version of The Muppets’ Statler and Waldorf… actually, in a way I guess they could be. Sitterson (Richard Jenkins, THE VISITOR) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford, BOTTLE SHOCK) run a mysterious laboratory in a large, sterile facility staffed with equally laboratory-esque types. The opening scene, a quirky quick-witted exchange between Sitterson and Hadley, could quite possibly be one of the funniest moments in the film, setting the tone and calibrating the audience laugh-o-meter for heavy usage.

Following this scientifically silly exchange, we’re introduced to our five college friends and the journey begins. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry (from all the laughter) and then — in due time — you’ll shriek at the craziness of the building carnage that Whedon and Goddard conjure up as they slowly unveil the truth of THE CABIN IN THE WOODS. Now, while I cannot divulge any specific details, I can say with relative safety that the general gist of the “big” secret will become apparent somewhere around the halfway point, or at the very least, you should begin the suspect. However, as they say… “the devil’s in the details.” In other words, PAY ATTENTION! I believe it’s literally impossible for anyone to fall asleep during this film, unless shot with a tranquilizer, but watch closely to catch all the finer, even subtle little Easter eggs planted within the film, including film homages, insider gags, familiar knock-off characters, and even, perhaps… maybe… a secret cameo, or two? Hmm… I’m not saying anymore.

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS is smart, witty, fast-paced, comedic, horrific fun… the most refreshing, perfectly executed horror movie experience I’ve seen since James Gunn’s SLITHER (2006). The special effects are splendidly rendered, CGI done well — sparingly (well, till the end when the proverbial sh*t hits the fan) but effective — and monster fans may or may not be in for one helluva treat as well. There’s action, there’s romance (loosley defined) and tragedy, there’s conservatively utilized bloody and gory violence, suspense, of course there’s mystery, and even a touch of science-fiction mixed with a dash of folklore. (Oh, no. I’ve said too much. I’ve said enough. — Michael Stipe)

My Promise: Go, run to see CABIN IN THE WOODS! You will not see another horror film this good all year, well… not until sometime (maybe) in October, but that’s not confirmed yet. If you don’t enjoy this film, you’re demented.

Overall: 5 out of 5 sacrificial lambs