Trailer Breakdown: RED DAWN

One of the latest trailers to hit the Internet is the first for the upcoming remake, Red Dawn, which is directed by Dan Bradley and stars Chris Hemsworth. As I usually do with these trailer breakdowns, I'll be bringing up some questions concerning the film just after the trailer. To start, take a glance at this first look of the new film:

And now, for a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer:

1. To start, what is Red Dawn?

As I previously stated, Red Dawn is an upcoming action flick that serves as a remake of the 1984 film of the same name. This film will center on an apparent invasion from the North Korean army that lands in a small, nondescript American town. An on-leave Marine (Hemsworth) visiting home gets caught in the middle of the attack, and he leads a rag-tag group of survivors in a strike against the enemy. This follows the basic plot and concept of the original film, with the key difference being that the foe in the 1984 venture was the Soviet Union, not the North Koreans. 

2. How will this film hold up against the original film?

The original Red Dawn film holds the illustrious status of being the first film released in the United States to achieve the newly-created PG-13 rating. It earned this rating after being considered, at the time, to be the most violent film ever made according to the Guinness Book of World Records, which states it holds a rate of 2.23 violent acts per minute. Made on a very modest budget of $4.2 million, the film managed to return nearly $40 million at the box office, making it a financial, if not critical, success. Considering the nature of the storyline, critics were divided on the film, which currently holds a fifty-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com. Still, there are some pretty lofty goals in there for this new Red Dawn to achieve, but will it be able to stand up next to its predecessor?

3. Considering the state of today's political society, how will this film be met by critics and audiences?

In recent years, the threat of a North Korean attack on the United States has always been on the back-burner with the news, and in light of the North Korean's recent misfire with their missile testing, I wonder whether this film's release is timely or not. In a way, the film is taking the idea of a possible attack and bringing it to life, following it through by showing that a small group of young Americans can take down an entire section of enemy army. I have a feeling that the film will be met by heavy resistance from the critical community, but there should be factions of audiences that will probably fall in love with the concept.

4. Plot Issue: This trailer makes it seem as though the North Korean army has a personal vendetta against the main family. Why would they?

The trailer clearly shows Hemsworth's character's father (seemingly) being murdered by a Korean military leader in execution style. The scene then jumps immediately to Hemsworth uttering, "They messed with the wrong family." I have a bit of an issue with this: Why would an army bent on taking over an entire country waste their time with one individual family? I'm sure the film will concoct some way to make it all make sense, but based off the trailer, it already seems a little bit silly. Still, it could easily make for a more emotional piece, but I can't see any way that this subplot won't be a cheap attempt at drawing that emotion from the viewer. 

5. Where does this film place Chris Hemsworth on the Hollywood scene? 

To answer this question, I'd like to take a look at Hemsworth's brief filmography. He made a memorable appearance in 2009's Star Trek, but it wasn't until his starring role in 2011's Thor that he became a household name. That name only grew with the release of The Avengers and Snow White and the Huntsman, both action films that showcased his ability to be an action star. If Red Dawn manages to be a success, it should solidify Hemsworth's status as the next big thing in action, and with sequels to Thor and Snow White and the Huntsman already in the works, he shouldn't have a problem continuing that particular vein of success.

6. How will the rest of the cast play out?

We're actually getting some relatively big names in this particular venture, and it should be a cast that performs well. Most prominent are the inclusions of Josh Hutcherson - fresh of the success of The Hunger Games - and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, but we're also going to see the likes of Josh Peck and Adrianne Palicki. In an action movie, acting sometimes gets shoved off to the wayside, but here's to hoping that this cast can bring something of value to the screen.

7. How will first-time director Dan Bradley handle the film?
After making a bit of a name for himself as a stunt coordinator, Bradley had the opportunity to go behind the camera with Red Dawn, making this his first directorial effort. I've seen many a first-time director make a quality film, but there's plenty more who have failed miserably. Given the type of film, I'd be a little worried that this first venture might be a bit underwhelming, but with his background in stunts, I'd say that the visual effects and stunt work should be top-notch.

8. At the end of the day, will Red Dawn just be another dumb, big-budget action remake?

This is always going to be the biggest question for a film like this. Remakes are always going to be taken with a grain of salt, and while it can be done, it's tough to make a quality remake. People are going to remember the source material in a nostalgic way, so to top an original film, a remake has to be something truly spectacular. Will Red Dawn be able to do just that? My money's on no, but I've been wrong before. 

Red Dawn will hit theaters in the United States on November 21, 2012.

Movie Review: THE AVENGERS

THE AVENGERS

2012

PG-13

"You think you're the only hero in the world?"

-- Nick Fury

The Avengers is a 2012 superhero action film directed by Joss Whedon that brings together the Marvel super-team for which the film is named. It serves as a type of sequel to a number of Marvel-centric films that have been released in the past four years. This film centers around an object known as the Tesseract, an energy source with an unknown amount of potential, which is stolen in the opening scenes by the banished Asgardian Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Because he perceives this as a threat and an act of war, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) chooses to assemble the Avengers in the hopes of bringing them together to stop Loki's nefarious plot. After pulling some strings, he manages to bring together Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), but they initially have a bit of trouble getting along. Loki, with the help of Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), makes a successful attack against S.H.I.E.L.D., and the ensuing battle helps pull the Avengers into a more cohesive unit. Armed and ready, they prepare to square off against Loki and his army of Chitauri who aim to conquer the Earth.

I would like to start this review by saying that I am by no means a die-hard Marvel comics fan. In fact, I'm not quite sure whether I've actually read an Marvel superhero comic, let alone one that's Avengers-centric. Anything I know about the Avengers Initiative stems from the films that have been released over the past few years. Still, I found myself becoming increasingly excited about the potential for The Avengers despite my relatively positive review of Captain America: The First Avenger and my so-so review of Thor. However, when the film started to garner extremely positive reviews, I definitely started to pay a little more attention. At the writing of this review, The Avengers currently holds a ninety-two percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, and it holds the following critical consensus:

With a script that never forgets its heroes' humanity and no shortage of superpowered set pieces, The Avengers lives up to its hype - and raises the bar for Marvel at the movies.

I'd have to say that I agree wholeheartedly.

Part of the reason the film works so well is the creative genius that is Joss Whedon. Those of you who read my review for The Cabin in the Woods will know that I think very highly of Whedon's talents as a screenwriter, and I personally think he's rather deft behind the camera as well. While this film doesn't necessarily feel like your typical Joss Whedon fare, it certainly has the pitch-perfect dialogue that fills his work. And what's truly great about the screenplay is that Whedon was able to flesh out the characters incredibly well despite the fact that there's so many different personalities dominating the screen. One of my biggest fears entering this film was whether the high number of A-list actors might overcrowd the film as they all jockey for position. With Whedon at the helm, however, each character is given exactly the right amount of screen-time, and just the right amount of touch is given to each of their personalities. While we may have been introduced to the characters in their own respective films, their relationships with one another in The Avengers are the facets that truly start to humanize each individual, making them more likable both individually and as a whole. This is where I thought the film succeeded most, by establishing each member of the Avengers as an individual with a specific set of emotions that ultimately makes them more easily relatable.

I also think that the dialogue and screenplay allowed for each of the actors to step up their game. Now, it was going to be tough for Downey Jr. to top his performances as Tony Stark/Iron Man from his two films, but I thought he did a fantastic job at least staying on par. I thought both Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth stepped it up a notch and brought more thoughtful and emotional characters to the screen this time around. It was also nice to get a little more of a back-story on Johansson and Renner's characters. The real surprise, however, was Tom Hiddleston as the devious Loki. As I previously mentioned, I was not a huge fan of the film Thor, and part of the reason it was so off-putting was that I didn't feel the need to root against Loki, who was also the villain in that film. This time around, there's something much more sinister about him, and I honestly thought Hiddleston brought his A-game. It's a truly fantastic performance, and I have to say that he should be applauded. Also be on the watch for some great smaller performances from the likes of Clark Gregg and Cobie Smulders, as well as vocal performances from Paul Bettany and Lou Ferrigno.

Oh, and some of the film's intangible qualities are top-notch as well. The special effects are utterly fantastic, and I was continually wowed by just how great the visual aspect of the film continued to be. On a personal note, I think they finally found a way to convey the Hulk properly, but that's just my own opinion. Some of the special effects are so beautifully intricate that you'll have a hard time believing that it's actually computer-generated. It's just that good. I'd also like to applaud Alan Silvestri for the score he composed for the film. It fit perfectly, and it might be one of the more memorable scores I've heard of late. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:

(Oh, and as with any Marvel film, make sure you stay all the way through the credits. There's a scene - or two - left there for your viewing pleasure.)

At the end of the day, The Avengers is one of the most honestly entertaining films I've seen in quite a while. I laughed and cheered along with the rest of the midnight audience, and it's easily one of the better movie-going experiences I've had in recent memory. I heard a few people already calling it the "best superhero movie" they'd ever seen, and although I can't quite place it on that high a pedestal just yet - The Dark Knight still holds that spot, and The Dark Knight Rises looms on the horizon - I'd say The Avengers definitely has to be in the conversation. It's just a fantastically-made film that's sure to keep a smile on your face.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: THE CABIN IN THE WOODS

THE CABIN IN THE WOODS

2012

R

"An army of nightmares, huh? Let's get this party started."

-- Dana

The Cabin in the Woods is a 2012 horror-thriller directed by Drew Goddard and written by Goddard and Joss Whedon. The film tells the story of five college co-eds on their way for a weekend trip to a rustic cabin in the middle of the wilderness. The five friends - innocent Dana (Kristen Connolly), jock Curt (Chris Hemsworth), girlfriend Jules (Anna Hutchison), intellectual Holden (Jesse Williams) and stoner Marty (Fran Kranz) - immediately start to notice that there's something very nefarious about the cabin. They make their way into the cellar, where Dana finds the diary of a young girl who used to live in the cabin. After reading some of the text, the zombified corpses of the family rise from the grave and start to haunt and attack the group of friends. At the same time, however, the audience learns that there is a group of people manipulating the situation from a secret station. In order to appease the powers that be, the team, led by men named Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) and Hadley (Bradley Whitford), must ensure that the group of friends is killed.

For those of you who have been reading my posts for the better part of this year, you may already know that I had listed The Cabin in the Woods as my seventh-most anticipated film of 2012. After initially seeing the trailer, I could hardly contain my excitement for the film, which looked to be one of the more original horror-thrillers to grace the silver screen in a while. Having finally had the opportunity to give the film a view, I have to say that I am thoroughly impressed with the final product.

Going into the film, I had forgotten that Joss Whedon had helped pen the screenplay, but after re-discovering this little tidbit only moments before showtime, I have to say that my excitement level grew exponentially. From the outset, the film just feels like a Whedon project, and that was enough to help draw me into the storyline. In the beginning, it's a little confusing because we're getting both the story of the college co-eds as well as the technicians running this very sadistic "game," but as the story progresses, the audience gets to see how it all intersects with one another. The story itself is inventive and adds a bit of a sci-fi twist to your typical horror story. The Cabin in the Woods could have easily fallen into genre convention, but instead, it managed to turn genre convention on its ear. At the same time, Whedon and Goddard found ample situations in which to throw a number of references to past horror flicks. The most obvious is probably the references to The Evil Dead, but there's just so many to see that it's hard to keep track of them all. And on top of all this, Whedon and Goddard have managed to create a story that's original, and that's a rarity in the horror genre of today. The film manages to be scary, funny and contemplative all at the same time, and it all blends so well that the movie proves to be incredibly engaging and entertaining.

Another strong facet of the screenplay is the characters, who prove to be well-written and well-developed. Fortunately, the cast is able to step up to the challenge and offer strong performances that bring the characters to life. Connolly does well as the film's lead, but it's some of the supporting characters that bring out the best of the acting. Fran Kranz works well as the movie's best comic relief, and some of his one-liners are so bitingly hilarious that I'm still thinking about the quotes today. I also have to give a shout-out to Jenkins and Whitford, who bring quite a bit of comedy as well. Overall, the cast just manages to fire on all cylinders and bring together quite the collective performance. Also be on the lookout for a very spectacular cameo toward the end of the film. I don't want to give it away, but it's a pretty big-time name.

Thus far, The Cabin in the Woods has managed to score some fantastic reviews from the critical community, but the review from Christopher Orr, who writes for The Atlantic, stated it best in his positive review for the film:

A horror movie embedded in a conspiracy flick embedded in another horror movie - the most inventive cabin-in-the-woods picture The Evil Dead and the canniest genre deconstruction since Scream.

I honestly don't think I could've stated it any better, and Whedon and Goddard deserve most of the credit for this film's success. If you're a horror fan, then this one's probably a must-see, if only because you're going to love the send-up of past horror flicks and the deconstruction of typical conventions. However, I think this film could even appeal to film fans not entirely familiar with horror flick history. There's just so much to love about The Cabin in the Woods. I just hope I have the chance to get back and see it again sometime soon.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: THOR

THOR

2011
PG-13

Thor is a 2011 superhero action film directed by Kenneth Branagh and serves as the latest addition to the list of films leading to the upcoming "Avengers Initiative" movie set for release next year. The film starts with a flash-forward on Earth as Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) hits Thor (Chris Hemsworth) with her car. We're immediately taken back to Thor's home world of Asgard where we learn that he is the heir apparent to the great king Odin (Anthony Hopkins). However, Thor's arrogance and desire to start a war with the enemy frost giants forces Odin to banish Thor from Asgard and strip him of his supernatural powers. Thor soon finds himself a mortal on Earth, where he meets the aforementioned Jane, a scientist trying to find the secrets to the wormholes first proposed by Einstein. Jane and her fellow scientists Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) try to make sense of the seemingly crazed ramblings of Thor as they try to piece together from where he may have come. The group soon learns of a mysterious "satellite" crash near where they found Thor, which immediately piques the Asgardian's interest as he realizes the satellite is, in fact, his hammer Mjölnir. With Jane's help, he makes his way to the site which has been surrounded by government security, but he soon realizes that without his immortality, he cannot control Mjölnir. As Thor struggles to find a way back to Asgard, he learns of the nefarious plot concocted by his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) and swears to defend both Asgard and Earth from his rule.

I'd like to start by saying that I am not a fan of the source comics and have never been one. I don't think I've ever read a comic book of any kind, to be honest, but I just think that should be mentioned as I try to explain my opinion of this film. In a way, I was able to go into the film without any real expectations, so I could view it simply as a film rather than an adaptation. I've had conversations with avid Marvel fans who span the entire spectrum of enjoyment with Thor - some said they loved it, others said they hated it, but they all mentioned that they based their opinion on whether or not they felt it reflected the comic books well. I will not be doing that; instead, I'll be looking at this as a stand-alone film despite the fact that I know it's anything but.

I had some hesitations going into the film based on the trailers I had seen in the previous few months. In fact, there was enough hesitation that I did not place Thor on my list of the twenty-five summer films I was most excited to see. Something about the trailers made it look a little bit on the unsatisfying side, and I'd have to say that I feel like I hit the nail on the head with my original feelings. While the film wasn't horrendous by any means, it lacked any real spark that could possibly propel it towards anything beyond being "good."

I actually didn't know that Branagh had directed the film until the day of its release, and the moment I heard it, I had some qualms. Branagh is a classically trained Shakespearean actor and director who has deftly taken on such famous titles as Henry V, Hamlet and Frankenstein. But how would he do with a superhero comic book adaptation? I've heard reports that Branagh has been a massive Thor fan since he was a child, so that precision should have translated into a well thought-out endeavor. However, things just seemed a little amiss throughout this one.

The screenplay wasn't anything spectacular, giving us a rather predictable storyline aided by some very simplistic dialogue. From the first moment, even non-comic book readers like myself should be able to guess exactly how this one's going to end, and that doesn't do much in terms of hooking the viewer into the movie. And while not atrocious, the dialogue spoken throughout the film seemed so simple and easy that it just wasn't realistic. It's difficult not to compare this film to its Iron Man predecessors, but part of the reason those films worked so well is because the dialogue was fresh and interesting. In Thor, it's just a little bit stale, and it's hard to imagine that anyone would speak in such a manner.

To be fair, the Iron Man films are lucky enough to have the ever-fabulous Robert Downey Jr., and unfortunately, no one in Thor comes within a thousand miles of his brilliance. Our lead is Hemsworth, whose largest film role prior to this one was his cameo appearance in the beginning of 2009's Star Trek. He definitely has the look for Thor, but his acting bravado just isn't quite enough to make him a captivating lead for this particular film. Sadly, we'll have to see some more of him in the Avengers film, and I can already tell you that he's going to be pushed to the side by Downey and Chris Evans, who will appear as Captain America. Considering the rest of Thor's cast, we should have seen something a little bit better than what we get. Recent Oscar winner Portman mails in a performance that's not bad but not good by any means. Skarsgård and Hiddleston are decent but nothing spectacular. Dennings probably gives the most realistic performance in the film, but she's not given much screen-time. And even the "great" Anthony Hopkins isn't all that great. I could make an argument towards the "greatness" of Hopkins' overall acting ability, but I won't bog down this review with that particular argument.

If anything works extremely well in the film, it's the musical composition which definitely deserves mention. Patrick Doyle does well with the score that fits the scene almost perfectly. It's always there, but it's never so strong that it dominates the film. It does exactly what a film score should do: complement the events on-screen without taking them over.

Overall, Thor is a pedestrian addition to the annals of superhero film history. I understand its necessity in crafting a prelude to the character as he enters the Avengers film, but there just wasn't anything that was going to blow you away. It's not quite good, but it's not quite bad - it's just found a niche somewhere in the middle, but that doesn't necessarily bode well for its longevity. I'd say save your money and wait for the DVD unless you desperately think you need to see it on the big screen for the visual effects (which were, admittedly, quite good even if they were a tad bit frantic). But visual effects don't make a successful film - screenplay and acting do, and in those facets, Thor just doesn't entirely succeed.

(Oh, and as is the new norm with Marvel flicks, don't forget to wait through all the credits for one last scene. It might seem like a long time - the credits span seven minutes - but if you're interested, you'll probably want to sit through them all for that one last bit).

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: C+
0.5 Thumbs Up