REVIEW: The Five-Year Engagement

The Five-Year Engagement (2012): Dir. Nicholas Stoller. Written by: Jason Segal and Nicholas Stoller. Starring: Jason Segal, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt and Alison Brie. Rated R (Non-graphic sex and some cursing). Running time: 124 minutes.

2 stars (out of four)

Today’s young people have difficulty settling down, or at least the two young people in The Five-Year Engagement do. Tom (Jason Segal) and Violet (Emily Blunt) are madly in love with each other, so why the delay? Why not just tie the knot already? The popular notion seems to be that their generation wants everything to be just right. They want to make sure their mate is really The One, and if so, they want the absolute best for their special, unique love.

Older generations, such as the parents and grandparents of Tom and Violet, can’t understand this. They got hitched young, made the best of it and were happy enough. Where’s the romance in waiting? But there is romance in Tom and Violet’s relationship. Their song, for example, is Van Morrison’s “Crazy Love,” about as close as there is to a definitive romantic soundtrack.

Tom is a typical Jason Segal character – kind, sensitive, a little oafish – and Violet is his admiring British companion, a real sweetheart who seeks a career in academia. They still flirt, joke and have good sex but life keeps getting in the way of their actual wedding. There is always some reason or another to extend their engagement and postpone the ceremony.

The first of these postponements results from an irresistible career opportunity for Violet. She has been accepted to a two-year research program for psychology but the job is in Michigan, quite a ways away from their home in San Francisco. No worries, says Tom. They can put off the wedding for a couple of years and get married when they come back to the Bay Area.

But this means Tom has to set aside his culinary career – he is a sous-chef for a swanky restaurant – and settle for making fat sandwiches for college students in Michigan. He doesn’t mind though, really, he swears. He’s willing to compromise for the love of his life. Of course, as the reality of two years settles in, Tom becomes less and less patient.

Meanwhile, Tom’s future best man (a wonderfully doofy Chris Pratt) and Violet’s sister (Alison Brie) hook up and before they know it, they’re on the married-with-children fast track. They offer Tom and Violet a constant reminder of the still-engaged couple’s lack of progress down the same path.

The Five-Year Engagement has a nice heart but is a bit long and overstuffed with side characters, which is to say it is a standard Judd Apatow-produced film. In addition to the in-laws there are friends, co-workers, bosses and acquaintances, all played by talented comedic actors and Apatow regulars. The movie has funny moments but the best of these have an off-the-cuff, ad-libbed feel, a testament to the strength of its likable cast. The more screwball shtick – including an incident with a crossbow and another involving the lewd use of deli meats – is less successful and mostly passes by without leaving much of an impression.

But jokes are only part of a romantic-comedy and the majority of The Five-Year Engagement focuses on the ups and downs of Tom and Violet’s relationship. Unfortunately, the script, written by Jason Segal and director Nicholas Stoller, who previously collaborated on the very funny Forgetting Sarah Marshall and last year’s charming revamp of The Muppets, never digs deeper than sitcom-level insights. Tom and Violet have a lot of long, serious talks about the state of their relationship and plodding through these scenes with Mr. Segal and Mrs. Blunt sometimes gives the viewer the uncanny feeling of actually being a part of one of these insufferable conversations.

As it turns out, Tom and Violet learn that their love is not necessarily as special or unique as they may have once thought. Many people have gotten married before them and many more will get married after them. The Five-Year Engagement effectively illustrates this revelation by not being an especially unique or memorable romantic-comedy. There are awkward wedding reception toasts, infidelities, break-ups and make-ups, some Apple product placement and a few fine uses of Van Morrison’s music. Assuming you follow the movie’s moral about settling for the less-than-spectacular, you should be happy enough with this movie.

- Steve Avigliano, 4/29/12

REVIEW: The Cabin in the Woods

The Cabin in the Woods (2012): Dir. Drew Goddard. Written by Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon. Starring: Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, Jesse Williams, Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford. Rated R (Blood and breasts). Running time: 95 minutes.

2 ½ stars (out of four)

Two jocks, a floozy, a stoner and a naive sweetheart walk into a cabin in the woods. Stop me if you’ve heard this one before.

But maybe you haven’t. The Cabin in the Woods is a horror film that, as its title suggests, takes on one of the genre’s most elemental formulas. Horny teenagers and deranged slashers have been sharing campgrounds for decades now but co-writers Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard (who also directed the film) are interested in delivering more than your standard bloody, wooded excursion. They seek to turn a familiar premise – and, with it, just about every other horror movie convention – on its head and offer up a complete genre deconstruction.

A horror movie’s success often hinges on its ability to surprise. Audiences demand a sudden scare, an unexpected twist or, sometimes, considering how formulaic these movies tend to be, the surprise may be as slight as the order in which the characters are killed.

The Cabin in the Woods certainly has its share of surprises. The movie toys with our expectations and subverts them, letting us think we know where it is going, only to yank the rug out from under its own clichés. This makes for plenty of unexpected moments but also means the movie too often feels like an exercise in meta cleverness.

Among the doomed kids is David (Chris Hemsworth), a cocky football player who gets the cabin on loan from his cousin. Joining him for the weekend are his girlfriend Jules (Anna Hutchison), her best friend Dana (Kristen Connolly), his teammate Holden (Jesse Williams) and their pothead pal Marty (Fran Kranz). Each fits a familiar slasher movie archetype, though the movie hints there may be more to their two-dimensional personalities than we first expect.

Before we even meet any of the vacationing teens, we are introduced to two curiously cavalier lab technicians, Richard (the always wonderful Richard Jenkins) and Steve (Bradley Whitford). They are employees in an sleek, underground facility that has remote access via video surveillance and more to the cabin. Of their role in what happens next, I will say no more except that they are the catalysts of a series of twists that continue to escalate through the film’s finale.

Perhaps because the scenes with the two lab techs break fresh, new territory, they are by far more interesting than what is going on in the cabin. (The witty repartee between Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Whitford helps too.) The cabin scenes are not without their moments but it’s hard to get too attached to, or root for, characters that are only stand-ins for self-referential commentary. Part of what makes trashy horror movies fun is the way they encourage us to cheer on some characters and wish death for others. The Cabin in the Woods is too self-aware for that. As soon as audience sympathies begin to form for a character, attention is called to that very sympathy, which is of course one of the ways Mr. Whedon and Mr. Goddard play with the formula, but it also takes the wind out of a few scenes. The movie wants to keep us at a distance.

In its final third, The Cabin in the Woods becomes an all-out funhouse of a movie and there is an inspired sequence that is the ultimate horror movie mash-up. It is a scene horror fans never knew they wanted but, now that it exists, is a must-see if only for its sheer audacity.

By the end, The Cabin in the Woods gives us plenty to smile at but no real scares or jolts. That was never its intention though. The movie is a smart critique of horror films without actually being an entry in the genre, a choice of approach that is as novel as it is limiting.

- Steve Avigliano, 4/24/12

REVIEW: The Three Stooges

The Three Stooges (2012): Dir. Peter and Bobby Farrelly. Written by: Mike Cerrone and the Farrelly brothers. Starring: Chris Diamantopoulos, Sean Hayes, Will Sasso, Jane Lynch, Larry David and Sofia Vergara. Rated PG (Nonstop comic violence, all in good fun). Running time: 92 minutes.

3 stars (out of four)

Very few comedies run through as much goofiness as cheerfully and with such lickity-split pacing as The Three Stooges, a revival of and loving tribute to those kings of slapstick. Directed by Peter and Bobby Farrelly and written by the Farrellys and Mike Cerrone, The Three Stooges understands there is a certain unbridled comic joy that occurs when some dunce hatches an idiotic idea and his pals agree without hesitation to help him carry it out.

The Farrelly brothers are certainly not newcomers to this approach. Their debut, Dumb and Dumber, a film I treasure dearly, more or less features the same shtick as this one with one less stooge. That was nearly twenty years ago and now they take on the improbable task of revitalizing the antics of Larry, Curly and Moe for an audience that might not share their nostalgia for the old skits.

The Stooges were bonking one another over the head as early as the 1930s and though the Farrelleys plant them in the present day for this movie, the Stooges’ comedy has been diligently preserved. Aside from a few predictable jokes about Facebook poking (the Stooges are of course more familiar with eye poking) and an appearance from the Jersey Shore cast, the gags in The Three Stooges are mostly classic slapstick.

The Farrellys execute their craft by simple means – a lot of trick rubber hammers and sound effects – and skillfully choreograph scene after scene of scene of inspired mayhem. The Stooges are a kind of living Rube Goldberg machine; a single push or slap sets off a chain reaction of cartoon violence that continues until one or all three are flat on the ground, nursing their injuries. Every joke is carefully set up and watching the inevitable play out is a lot of fun. When Larry blindly shoots an arrow into the sky, you know it will make a well-timed reappearance by the end of the bit.

Much credit must also be given to Chris Diamantopoulos, Sean Hayes and Will Sasso, who play Moe, Larry and Curly, respectively. They bound around the sets with admirable energy and enthusiasm, grunting and whooping and whining when applicable. Though they pretty much never stop thwacking each other or slinging insults back and forth (these come most often from Moe, the de facto leader of the trio), the Stooges, oddly enough, also have a believable friendship. For all their antagonism, at the end of the day there is no one else they would rather be with. After all, who else would tolerate their company for more than a minute?

Certainly not Sister Mary-Mengele (a gender bending Larry David), a nun at the orphanage the Stooges call home and frequent victim to their sometimes accidental, sometimes intentional anarchy. Also making appearances are Jane Lynch as Mother Superior and, in a villainous turn, Sofia Vergara, whose Betty Boop proportions make her a nice fit for this brand of cartoonish physical comedy. Inexplicably, Jennifer Hudson and Kate Upton also show up as nuns but they don’t get much screen time or many jokes.

There is a plot too which I have neglected to mention that involves the Stooges needing to gather $830,000 to save the orphanage. Though the film follows this narrative throughout, it doesn’t grant it much importance. The movie is divided into three segments – each with their own retro-style title card – that ignore whatever progress the plot might have made in the previous skit and instead simply mark a change in location for the Stooges’ hijinks.

Having no more than the most cursory knowledge of the Three Stooges, I am surprised to say how much I enjoyed this film. The comedy is shamelessly lowbrow but also innocent. All of the Stooges’ friends in this movie are children, which I do not think was ever a detail included in the old skits but feels like the right choice here. The Stooges are very stupid but the Farrellys are smart about being stupid and, I imagine, very happy to be able to honor their heroes with a movie that certainly does the original trio no injustice.

- Steve Avigliano, 4/15/12

Revisiting Star Wars - Final Thoughts

There has always been a tug of war between George Lucas’s vision for the Star Wars movies and fans’ expectations for them. The first Star Wars (only dubbed Episode IV when re-released in 1981) is a lighthearted space opera and its sequel, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, breaks away from that a bit, offering something that transcends the inherent campiness of the first. Episode V is not content to simply give viewers dashing heroes and thrilling escapes (though it has its share of those too). It takes its characters and their fates too seriously for that and instead aims higher. The result is the best film of the series, one that invests audiences deeply in its story.

But maybe this more sophisticated approach was never George Lucas’s intention. What if Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, which trivializes its story with spear-throwing teddy bears – and sloppy filmmaking I might add – falls more in line with his vision for the series?

With Episode I: The Phantom Menace, George Lucas gets a fresh slate, an opportunity to reinvent what it meant for a film to be a Star Wars film. A handful of the series’ salient characters are introduced in it (Obi-Wan, Anakin, Palpatine) but for the most part, the story of Episode I is inessential to the overarching narrative. It’s a gee-whiz adventure that gives Mr. Lucas a chance to play freely in the universe he created.

Cue the outrage. Upon its release in 1999, fans bemoaned the childish approach of Episode I but, compared to Episode VI, I find it to be the more successful film. Episode VI does not fully work because it releases all the tension that was so carefully built up in Episode V. On the other hand, Episode I has no responsibility to uphold a previously established tone or style. As the first film in a trilogy, it can afford to be a little trivial.

George Lucas does deliver what fans want in Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, which comes closer than any other Star Wars movie to the approach of Episode V, telling the story of Anakin’s downfall with all the grandeur fans envisioned it would have. The prequel trilogy ends on an exciting and satisfying note, something Episode VI does not offer. Between Episode I and III is Episode II: Attack of the Clones, the low point of the series, but its failings are a result of issues with structure and exposition, not tone.

The other menace that has plagued the Star Wars films for years is George Lucas’s insistence on tinkering with them. The “Special Editions” of Episodes IV-VI, released in 1997, add a lot of new computer-animated effects among other cuts and reedits. While I’ll always believe that Han shot first, I have no major beef with the Special Editions. I watched the original theatrical versions when revisiting the films for these reviews but for all other intents and purposes I prefer the Special Editions. They’re flashier, crisper and nicely restored for a digital age. They may be unnecessary but these are George Lucas’s films and he may do with them what he wishes.

So where does the series go from here? According to his most recent statements, Mr. Lucas claims there will be no more Star Wars movies but he’s changed his mind before so it’s safe to say we may take his comments with a mountain of salt. My personal suspicion is that Mr. Lucas will use the profits from the 3D re-releases (which will continue annually until Episode VI is re-released in 2017) to finance another trilogy as he did with the Special Editions two years prior to the release of the first prequel. Only time will tell. Maybe there will be a reboot some day with a fresh crop of young actors in the vein of J.J. Abrams’s Star Trek or maybe the world of Star Wars will only live on through novels and animated TV shows.

Watching the Star Wars movies again with an objective and critical eye has given me a new appreciation for them. As a second-generation fan, I hardly had any choice but to love them unconditionally. But sometimes you need to take a step back to remind yourself why you fell in love in the first place, flaws and all.

- Steve Avigliano, 4/9/12

Revisiting Star Wars - Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983): Dir. Richard Marquand. Written by: Lawrence Kasdan and George Lucas. Story by: George Lucas. Starring: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams and Ian McDiarmid. Rated PG (Stormtrooper on Ewok violence and a revealing gold bikini). Running time: 134 minutes.

2 ½ stars (out of four)

When we last left our heroes, things weren’t looking too good. Luke abandoned his Jedi training to fight his (spoiler alert) father, Darth Vader, and lost his right hand in the process. Han Solo was frozen in carbonite and taken by a bounty hunter, his fate now in the hands of the gangster Jabba the Hutt, to whom Han owes a considerable debt. The Rebel Alliance suffered a serious blow in their war against the Empire when their secret base on Hoth was invaded and obliterated. Good must prevail though and the battle comes to a conclusion in Return of the Jedi, the whiz-bang final chapter of George Lucas’s Star Wars saga.

The film opens on Tatooine, the homeworld of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), where Jabba’s lair rests between the sand dunes. Jabba, as it turns out, is a massive, ill-tempered slug and his horrifying, bloated body is one of Mr. Lucas’s finest creations. He remains planted on a raised platform while musicians and dancers perform for him. The fact that he never moves is a sure sign of the influence he holds over the unsavory characters who hang around his palace. The rescue of Han Solo (Harrison Ford), which involves an elaborate bit of deception and more than one lucky break, takes up the first half hour. Its a thrilling sequence and the highlight of the film.

But there are bigger foes to face (if not in actual size) than Jabba and in Return of the Jedi we finally meet the dreaded Emperor (Ian McDiarmid). In the film’s opening scene, Darth Vader (the body of David Prowse, the voice of James Earl Jones and – at long last – the face of Sebastian Shaw) tells the commander of a second Death Star, “The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am.” The irony of this comment is surely not lost the commander, having no doubt heard about the half-dozen officers who were strangled to death by Vader in the last film.

The remainder of the movie follows Luke, Han, Leia (Carrie Fisher) and the rest of the Alliance as they plot to destroy the new Death Star before it becomes fully operational. In order to do so, they must first take out a power supply located on a nearby “forest moon” called Endor. There they find an unlikely ally in an indigenous species of waddling teddy bears so cuddly that everyone in the movie smiles at the sight of them.

Return of the Jedi, written by Lawrence Kasdan and Mr. Lucas and directed by Richard Marquand, has no shortage of creative creatures or locales but its tone is confused. George Lucas seems to want the film to be a light-hearted adventure, perhaps more in the vein of A New Hope. Return of the Jedi, however, does not have the simple, classical structure that is essential to that film's plucky innocence. Instead Jedi chases multiple narrative threads much as The Empire Strikes Back does but it’s difficult to take Jedi as seriously as Empire because it so often undermines its own drama.

In its final act, when the tension should be at its height, the movie oddly juggles two vastly different moods. The antics of the Ewoks, even in battle, are broad comic relief, an odd counterpoint to the gloom of Luke’s confrontation with the Emperor. The film needs to choose – it can’t have it both ways – and Mr. Marquand clumsily moves from one to the other without finding an appropriate middle ground.

He also lets the movie slouch during key scenes, bringing Jedi’s energy and momentum to a halt. In Luke’s revealing conversation with Leia under the stars – where he discusses some important familial connections crucial to the mythology of the series – Mr. Marquand does little to liven the bland performances of Mr. Hamill and Ms. Fisher and what should be a startling revelation becomes a snoozer of a scene.

Plenty of stuff happens in Return of the Jedi and yet there isn’t much of a story. Once the action gets going, there aren’t any surprises. Everything plays out as you would expect and, in a way, that sounds like a satisfying movie. But simply following one narrow path toward the inevitable Jedi victory with nary a twist or turn thrown in to surprise audiences makes for underwhelming entertainment. If the first Star Wars set the blueprint for the present-day Hollywood blockbuster and The Empire Strikes Back elevated the genre with smart storytelling and artful style, Return of the Jedi is one of the first “event movies” to opt for the easy route: Give audiences what they want, don’t take many risks and success will be guaranteed.

That may sound like faint praise (it is) but I mean it when I say the film is a success. That it is still pretty good fun is a testament to the strength of its best moments. The speeder chase on Endor is as lively and exciting as anything in the series and the segment at Jabba’s palace could stand on its own as a mini-episode. I am also fond of the performances of Harrison Ford and Ian McDiarmid, both of whom know how to handle this material. Return of the Jedi stands on the shoulders of its predecessors and delivers more of the same. I wish it had tried to do more but, as a friend of mine once told me, there is no “try.” Only this.

- Steve Avigliano, 4/5/12