In Theaters: Snow White and the Huntsman ***

Evaluating Snow White and the Huntsman is pretty easy.  It's all a matter of assigning grades and finding the averages.  Basically, this is a movie with A+ production values, but only C-level story telling.  That puts it solidly in the B range.  Of course, I don't give movies grades, I give them stars.  Using my grade-to-stars conversion system, a solid B is worth roughly three stars.

Everyone with me so far?  Good.

This new telling of the familiar fairy tale marks the feature film debut for director Rupert Sanders.  Apparently, from what I've gathered, his pre-Snow White directing credits have been limited to TV commercials.  He shows remarkable visual flair with his first movie, but he has a little trouble checking all the boxes in terms of story and character development.

This is a different take on the Snow White story than we're used to.  It may be more faithful to the original Grimm's fable, I really have no idea.  But, the most basic and familiar elements are all present -- magic mirrors, dwarves, poisoned apples, spell-breaking kisses, etc.

In the prologue, we learn that Snow White was the daughter of King Magnus, a noble and beloved ruler.  Her mother died while she was a small child and his father eventually marries Ravenna (Charlize Theron), who eventually turns out to be the evil queen/stepmother character that we all know and love.  Obsessed with keeping her youthful beauty and threatened by that of her stepdaughter, Ravenna locks Snow White away in the tower for many years.

Unsurprisingly, the queen is also something of a witch, possessing the power to suck the youth and beauty out of her victims in order to maintain her own.  She also converses with a magic mirror that, when spoken to, morphs into something of a cross between the T-1000 in Terminator 2 and a Dementor from the Harry Potter movies.  The scene in which the mirror is introduced is legitimately terrifying and is the first of many visual triumphs of the movie.  It's also in that scene that the mirror informs Ravenna that, by eating the heart of Snow White, she can remain young and beautiful forever.

She sends for her captive, who is now an adult (played by Kristen Stewart, the boring chick from the Twilight movies).  Snow White uses this opportunity to escape the castle and she evades the queen's men, one of which is the queen's brother (Sam Spruell), sort of angry, gross Prince Valiant type, and heads into the Dark Forest.  The queen's men won't dare enter the forest without a guide, so Ravenna hires the titular Huntsman (played by Thor, himself, Chris Hemsworth) to lead the pursuit.  As payment, the queen promises to resurrect the Huntsman's dead wife.

Thus begins the meat of the story wherein the Huntsman finds Snow White and decides to protect her instead of turning her in.  Then, they meet up with a gaggle of dwarves, all played by recognizable non-dwarf actors, including Ian McShane, Bob Hoskins, and Nick Frost, their faces super imposed on the bodies of actual little people when necessary.  This led to a small (no pun intended) controversy as groups representing the interests of little people weren't happy about these casting choices.

The middle third of the story features some of the most brilliantly rendered visuals of any movie this year.  There is an outstanding showdown between Snow White, the Huntsman, and a massive troll that happens to be hiding under a bridge in the Dark Forest.  At one point, Snow White, the Huntsman, and the dwarves leave the Dark Forest and enter some kind of fairy land.  The look of this scene has all the conventions of a familiar fairy-tale landscape, yet is also stunningly original.  It is also one of the only moments in the movie where the visuals match the intended emotional impact.  If every scene in the movie were constructed so well, I'd have given it four stars.

Shortly thereafter, the movie devolves into a conventional medieval battle flick.  The charge up to the castle is competently depicted, yet it is not unique enough to set it apart.  There is some good filmmaking in these climactic moments, but we're never invested enough in the characters to really care about the outcome.

In the end, that is the major flaw of Snow White and the Huntsman and it's a big one.  The characters are all one-dimensional, no arcs, no nuance.  Perhaps that's how it has to be -- this a retelling of a classic fairy tale, after all.  Yet, from the outset, it's pretty clear that this ain't your grandfather's Snow White.  They went to great lengths to darken the story and give it a little edge, at least in terms of the visuals.  Seems like it would have been a perfect opportunity to create some internal conflicts or contradictions, to give Snow White some flaws or the Evil Queen some sympathetic moments.  But, other than a hint at a quasi-feminist explanation for the Ravenna's beauty obsession, there's none of that, which is a shame.

That said, it's clear that Charlize Theron had a ball making this movie.  People tend to forget that she's actually an outstanding actress despite some poor post-Oscar role choices. And, in this movie, it's almost like she's teaching master class in chewing the scenery...and I mean that as a compliment.  The way she hams up every scene -- speaking too loudly, over pronouncing and accenting words -- her evilness is evident from the outset and you can't help but enjoy the ride.

I don't know, perhaps my praise of this performance undermines my earlier complaint about the lack of complexity.  Indeed, had there been any subtlety to Ravenna's character, Theron's performance probably wouldn't have been nearly as enjoyable.  But, in the end, it's the sum of the parts that matters most.  So, if offered, I think I would have traded the campy-but-goodness of Theron's work in the movie with an overall more compelling character arc.

In the end, this a very enjoyable, imminently watchable movie.  I'd definitely see it again, which is, I think, high praise for what is essentially just a summer popcorn movie.  Ultimately, if you liked what you've seen in all the trailers, you'll like this movie.

In Theaters: Men in Black 3 ***

There's not much to say here, really.  The Men in Black franchise was never all that great, despite its relative popularity.  The first installment had its moments, particularly in the humorous interplay between Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones.  The second movie was completely forgettable.  The only thing I remember is that they were looking for some alien treasure/power source and that, in the end, it was not an object, but a person they were looking for.  Oh...and Johnny Knoxville had two heads.

That brings us to the third movie, which wasn't half bad.  I actually think that Men in Black 3 is probably the best of the franchise.  It has some solid laughs, a story that keeps moving and stays interesting throughout, and the introduction of a fascinating supporting character, whom I'll get to in a minute.  Other than the very end, which tries to wrap up the whole franchise into one amazing and pointless coincidence, I really don't have any complaints about this movie.

Will Smith, in his first film appearance in nearly four years, reprises his role as Agent J, an agent of a secret organization tasked with monitoring extraterrestrial life on planet Earth, yada, yada, yada.  Tommy Lee Jones is once again Agent K, the surly senior agent with the impenetrably gruff exterior.  In this movie, that exterior -- particularly his refusal to talk about himself -- becomes a focal point.  If you simply thought K's persona was just that of an angry old man because it was a conveniently humorous contrast with Will Smith's animated style you were sorely mistaken.  Apparently, something happened in K's past to make him that way.

In the movie's first scenes, an alien by the name of Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement from Flight of the Concords) escapes from a high-security prison on the moon.  Eventually, we learn that K arrested Boris in 1969 and that it was some sort of trauma surrounding the arrest that explains why K is the way he is.  Everyone, particularly K, is on high alert after learning of Boris's escape.

Then, K disappears.  J goes to work in the morning and finds out that K was actually killed in 1969 while trying to arrest Boris.  Needless to say, this confuses J to end.  Soon thereafter, Boris's race returns to Earth in a massive invasion, which is surprising to J because the race was supposed to have been wiped out in the events of 1969.  It's then that J and his new boss (Agent O, played by Emma Thompson), deduce that Boris went back in time, killed K, prevented the genocide of his people, and returned to his home planet.  So, J, utilizing the same mode of transport that Boris used, goes back in time to save K and set history straight.

Soon after arriving in the past, J runs into a younger K, played by Josh Brolin.  Now, critics have been praising Brolin's performance in this movie quite extensively.  I'll be honest, I didn't see what all the fuss was about.  Sure, he does a fine impression of Tommy Lee Jones and the performance is great homage.  But, let's take a look at what some have been saying.

Lisa Schwarzbaum of Entertainment Weekly:

But most of all, MIB3 is one giant leap for mankind because Josh Brolin shows up to play the younger Agent K. And he just nails the feat, triumphantly creating a riff on/homage to the Tommy Lee Jones-ness of K that goes much deeper (and funnier) than a simple imitation of drawl and speech patterns. Brolin conjures up a man in full, just as taciturn but not nearly as closed as the craggy puss he is when Jones does the squinting. 

It's a great performance, one for the thespian yearbook.

Really?

Peter Travers of Rolling Stone:

What works, like comic hellfire, is the casting of Josh Brolin as the young Agent K. Brolin's take on Jones' deadpan delivery (they co-starred in No Country for Old Menis spot-on and spectacularly funny. Better yet, Brolin brings in a true actor's grace, adding humor and heart that help explain the origins of Agent K's moody blues. 

Again, I just didn't see it.  I laughed and enjoyed the performance.  But, to me, it really wasn't anything more than a good impersonation.  And, it some scenes, particularly those where he had more than just a few lines of dialogue, the wasn't even all that good.  For what it's worth, I felt pretty much the same about Brolin's performance as George W. Bush in W a few years back.  I'm a Josh Brolin fan, but I just don't think either of these roles represent his best work.

Anyway, moving on.

Once J and Young K team up, they embark on a mission to track down Boris and return history to it's rightful course.  Doing so requires that they find and protect an alien by the name of Griffin (played by the magnificent Michael Stuhlbarg), who can simultaneously see all of the universe's possible time-lines at once, but he can't necessarily identify which of the time-lines he is actually in.  Yeah, don't worry, you're not really supposed to get it.  Basically, it means that he can tell the future...but not with 100 percent accuracy.

Griffin ended up being my favorite character in the movie, probably because I'm always happy to see Stuhlbarg in a movie.  A few years back, he was in the lead in A Serious Man, one of the best and most underrated movies of the last decade.  He's also great on HBO's Boardwalk Empire.  As Griffin, he portrays a character that is hopelessly naive even though his knowledge of the universe borders on being infinite. It's great to watch him work.

And, of course, Clement is pretty dang funny as Boris.  A scene in which present-day Boris meets up with 1969 Boris is a scream.

The film moves swiftly towards its climax which surrounds the 1969 moon landing.  The climactic sequence is brilliantly choreographed and executed.  As I watched it unfold, I was almost ready to give the movie high marks across the board.  But, then comes the aftermath and the sorry explanation for future K's silent sadness.  I won't spoil it here.  I'll just say that it was lazy...very, very lazy.

So, in the end, Men in Black 3 won't light the world on fire.  Sure, it's a sequel that few people, if any, were clamoring for.  But, for the most part, the lack of anticipation and the subsequently lowered expectations meant that it was a pleasant surprise, at least for me.

Adventures in Netflix: Atlas Shrugged: Part I *

There are two types of people in this world, those who love Ayn Rand's landmark novel Atlas Shrugged and those that hate it.  I think the vast majority on both sides would agree, however, that it shouldn't have been made into a movie.

Truth be told, I fall more in the "love it" category, though I understand the arguments of those who don't share that view.  As a narrative, it's slow, clunky with a climax that comes in the form of a hundred-or-so-page monologue about economics and the morality of individual achievement.  The characters are, by and large, selfish jerks and the fact that Rand celebrates them for being that way turns a lot of people off.

As a bible for personal living, it's pretty terrible.  But, as an argument in favor of free markets and illustration of the catastrophic potential of a government that designs policies by notions of feel-goodery instead of efficiency, it's extremely effective.  And, I suppose that's why I like it.

Like many, I had my college libertarian phase wherein I read Atlas Shrugged and felt justified in being a jerk to everyone for about month.  That eventually wore off when I couldn't argue that drug companies should be completely self-regulating with a straight face.  But, I remain a small government conservative who believes that taxes should be relatively low and that, with some exceptions, government regulations should be designed to enhance the productivity of the marketplace and not to prevent every possible negative outcome.  And, in general, I believe that the government shouldn't be in the business of legislating morality.

In other words, I am more or less the target audience for this movie.  Yet, while some people will naturally hate this movie because of its subject matter, I hate this movie because it sucks.

In Theaters: The Avengers ****

Alright.  I saw it.

Truth be told, I went into the movie this morning thinking that I'd end up shooting holes and nit-picking the whole thing when I got around to writing my review.  I'm not exactly sure why.  I'm a sucker for super hero movies, so I was certain that I would like it, I just wasn't prepared to buy into the hype.  I suppose that's because I haven't been sold on this whole Marvel Universe thing.

Prior to this film, the Marvel Universe endeavor has consisted of one stellar movie (Iron Man), one terrible movie (Iron Man II),  a couple movies that aren't great but will do in a pinch (The Incredible Hulk and Captain America), and a movie that was remarkably entertaining notwithstanding the fact that it was pretty lame (Thor).  With that decent-but-not-great build up, I was certain that I'd like it, but I just hadn't been able to get fully on the bandwagon when it came to The Avengers.

So where am I now?  Am I a full-blown believer in the genius of the Marvel Universe?  Is it the greatest idea in the history of cinema?  I don't know.  But, I will say that, with The Avengers, they did everything right.  And, while the composite parts of the Universe that lead to The Avengers haven't all been stellar, they helped make this movie better.

Random Movie Lists: Most Anticipated Movies of 2012

I've been meaning to blog about my most anticipated movies of the year for a couple months now, but I haven't gotten around to it.  I suppose it's a bit odd to unveil such a list when we're more than a third of the way through the year, but luckily, none of the movies on my list have been released yet.  But, that all changes tomorrow.  So, here we have it, my Top 10 Most Anticipated Movies of 2012:

On Second Thought: The Proposition (2006)

Since it's been a while since I laid out my vision for this blog, I'll refresh everyone's memory.  In posts filed under "On Second Thought," I've planned to re-watch a movie I haven't seen in some time and reflect on whether it's improved with age.  For the inaugural "On Second Thought" post, I've chosen The Proposition, the 2006 hyper-violent Australian western directed by John Hillcoat.

I know, I know, this is a random choice and most of you probably don't even remember hearing about this movie.  I'll try to pick more widely seen movies in the future.

I saw The Proposition only once.  I actually remember a surprising number of details about the day I went to see the movie in the theater way back in the spring of 2006.  But, when I re-watched it last month, I realized that I'd basically forgotten the entire plot.  I remembered the movie as being extremely and brutally violent and a slow-burn thematic movie that succeeded more in terms of tone and mood than anything else.  On that count, my memory wasn't far off.

In Theaters: The Cabin in the Woods ***1/2

Over the last decade or so, the entire movie movie business has been cannibalizing itself.  The market is saturated with sequels, remakes, and adaptations of TV shows that no one on the planet was asking for.  In fact, there's a movie coming out later this month that's based on a board game...a freaking board game!

Basically, Hollywood has become so risk-averse that they're unwilling to invest any kind of money in something that doesn't have built-in audience familiarity.  And, as a result, we're seeing a huge decline in the overall quality of the movie marketplace, the Harry Potter movies notwithstanding.

This trend has been particularly hard on horror movies because, let's face it, there weren't a ton of good horror movies being made to begin with.  By and large, horror movies are cheaper to make than other genres with mass appeal.  Couple their low cost with a reliable audience of idiotic teenagers and adults who act like idiotic teenagers, and it's easy to see why there's a tidy profit to be made in the horror movie business.