Memorial Day

Given the weekend, I'd like to call your attention to this post included last year to mark the occasion:

http://americanculturecritic.com/2011/11/two-simple-words.html

"DARK SHADOWS" IS MORE MURKY THAN DARK

It used to be that one could think of Johnny Depp and Tim Burton as human representations of a candy bar slogan: "Two great tastes that taste great together." Cinematically, their collaborative efforts have produced varying degrees of great taste:  Edward Scissorhands, Sleepy Hollow, Sweeney Todd, and the like. However, in their latest cinematic foray together, Dark Shadows, the taste has gone a tad stale like an Oreo cookie left out too long.

Based on the soap opera created by the late Dan Curtis, the story follows Barnabas Collins (Depp), the son of a fishing magnate who has a torrid affair with one of the family servants, Angelique Bouchard (a very vampy Eva Green, Casino Royale) though he focuses his true romantic affections for Josette Du Pres (Bella Heathcote, who also plays the governess Victoria Winters later in the film). Unbeknownst to Barnabas, Angelique is a witch who does not take being scorned lightly. Thus she both kills Josette and transforms Barnabas into a vampire, the latter of whom is taken by the townspeople of Collinswood and entombed for almost two hundred years. Barnabas is inadvertently released in the year 1972, where he discovers that the grand estate of Collinwood has fallen to disrepair and his descendants have fared no better. Among the Collinwood clan are family matriarch Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer, looking almost as pale as Barnabas); her rebelliously problematic daughter, Carolyn (Chloë Grace Moretz, who brings her "Hit Girl" attitude to the fore); and Elizabeth's conniving brother Roger Collins (Jonny Lee Miller) who neglects his son, David (Gulliver McGrath), a boy who claims to see his dead mother. To his dismay, Barnabas finds that his once proud fishing empire has been destroyed and supplanted by a company owned by the seemingly immortal Angelique.  With the aid of his family (and groundskeeper Willie, played by a slightly amusing Jack Earle Haley, Watchmen), Barnabas attempts to return the fishing empire to its former glory.  Yes, you read right. The milieu is a Gothic horror setting replete with vampires, witches, and sundry creatures of the night, and the crux of the story is the resuscitating of a business? But then, this is a tongue-in-cheek reinvention that is emblematic of Tim Burton's quirkiness; a quirkiness that once made Batman Returns practically unmarketable to the action figure buying set.

The film’s visuals are starkly stunning; bright, often garish colors contrasting the Gothic bleakness of the setting. Yet for all that, the film seems strangely self-indulgent. Scenes that show Barnabas' loquacious eloquence juxtaposed against modern (by 1970s standards, anyways) dialect seems to go much too long; as if Barnabas, and Depp by extension, wax poetic simply to hear the sounds of their collective voice. The “stranger in a strange time/land” shtick is marginally amusing but, in all honesty, has worked better in other films.

The series upon which this film was based was filmed with the intention of being serious but was unintentionally campy. This film works in reverse; unfortunately, the reversal doesn't quite work. The actors, particularly Pfeiffer, deliver their lines in over the top fashion, even at the more subdued, seemingly poignant scenes which only works to dilute the impact of those scenes. Each character is instead a caricature, including Depp. As far as delivering the comedic bits, they are executed well; which may work for a series of vignettes but not as a movie on the whole. The only ones who seem to embrace the campiness of the proceedings are Burton’s nepotistic mainstay Helena Bonham Carter as Dr. Julia Hoffman, and Green as Angelique, who, with the aid of the cinematographer, has the remarkable ability to turn her beauty into something grotesque. Her villainy would be more effective in a truly horrifying film but, in truth, it’s wasted here. The film is too genteel in story and presentation to be anything worth of note. While some would argue that the series had the same deficiency, at least the show’s actors and narrative compelled one to watch the next installment (perhaps in the hopes of something better the next episode). Here, Burton's direction fails to do even that.

This is not to state that if the film had been treated straight it would have been better. Ben Cross starred in a 1990s reboot of the show, which was basically a cliff notes version of what had already gone before. Unlike the original, it was treated completely straight and died a quick death. Here, Burton has gone the other way and it unfortunately does not satisfy either. As a whole, Dark Shadows is a whole lot of dull. The few moments of humor does not offset the overwhelming sense of ennui over the proceedings. This version of Dark Shadows is sure to alienate the die-hard fans of the show. However, it is so pedantically plodding that it is sure to do the same to the non-fans as well. This film is like a Reese's peanut butter cup way past its expiration date. It just goes to show that not all steady collaborations have a perfect track record.

NO ASSEMBLY REQUIRED: THE AVENGERS Is A Masterpiece.

There may be small spoilers...be warned.

The road leading to the Avengers is like making love to a woman. First, there's the initial kiss, the tease...the unexpected thrill. This came in John Favreau's Iron Man (2008), where in Samuel Jackson appeared in the post credits teaser as (Ultimate) Nick Fury of S.H.E.I.L.D., hinting at an "Avengers Initiative."  Then came the caress in Louis Leterrier's The Incredible Hulk starring Ed Norton, wherein Tony Stark (Robert Downy, Jr., Chaplin, Back to School, Air America) brings the initiative to the attention of General "Thunderbolt" Ross (William Hurt, Body Heat). The caresses get bolder in 2010 with the release of Iron Man 2 where the Avengers Initiative becomes a full blown subplot and the greater presence of S.H.E.I.L.D. in the forms of Fury, Natasha Romanov/The Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson) and fan favorite Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Greg). In Kenneth Branagh's Thor (2011) the embraces begin in the form of the continued participation of Agent Coulson and another post-credits teaser hinting at a MacGuffin. Penultimately comes Joe Johnston's Captain America: The First Avenger, which, while a powerful stand alone film on its own, is the "point of copulation" as it's final moments directly lead into the events of The Avengers. After almost five years of foreplay, Marvel Studios and director Josh Whedon had a lot at stake; a house of cards that could rise or fall. After such a long build up, does The Avengers lead to a disappointing amount of nothing?

No.

Far from it.

The Avengers is a powerfully orgasmic cinematic feast.

It is also perhaps the best translation of a comic book to silver screen...yes, even better than Superman: The Movie, which will always be my seminal favorite, but honestly not since Christopher Reeve's portrayal of the Man of Steel has any actor, much less actors, so epitomize their comic book counterparts as the cast in this film have done.

Director Josh Whedon obviously knows his comics. Not only has he written "The Astonishing X-Men" for Marvel Comics, he has also been the driving force behind Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which is essentially a superhero concept (simply exchange "Slayer" for "Super hero" and "Vampires" for "Super villain"). His pedigree is such that this film was his to fail. And he does not. He presents the material as it should be...straight. His screenplay, written in conjunct with Zak Penn, presents the story in four acts that follow the tropes of classic "Marvel Bullpen" storytelling:  The establishment of the threat; the meeting of the heroes; the misunderstandings that lead to the heroes throwing down against each other; the classic infighting, the sacrificial lamb, and the overriding of differences to meet the threat (note to Bryan Singer:  This is comics storytelling done RIGHT). Whedon moves the story along briskly with very little by way of slow spots; but when the story slows down in terms of the primary plot, Wheadon uses the time for what he is best known for: character development.

And what characters there are:  At this juncture Robert Downy, Jr. is to "Tony Stark" what Sean Connery is to "James Bond". The role fits him like a familiar tuxedo and should those series of films continue beyond Downy's participation, he will still be the standard to which all future torchbearers will be compared. His Stark is the charming arrogant rogue, presenting himself as the smartest man in the room. Chris Hemsworth is "The Mighty Thor", as forthright and unbeguiled as he was in the eponymous film, but this time tempered with an understanding of consequences. Scarlett Johannson returns as "Black Widow" and given more character development than in Iron Man 2. With her character, Whedon references his Buffy roots by bringing developing a character that can stand toe to toe not only with Ms. Summers but perhaps a certain raven haired Amazon from the "Distinguished Competition".

Just as noteworthy are Chris Evans' "Steve Rogers/Captain America", a Super-Soldier out of time who finds himself woefully out of place compared to the world he's awoken; and, of course, there is Jeremy Renner who as "Clint Barton/Hawkeye" shows a Daniel Craig-like looks and charm as a tortured marksman in his own right (the comparison being more palatably felt with his starring turn in the forthcoming The Bourne Legacy). Being the most human of these characters, they serve as the audience's surrogate. But perhaps the most stand out performance comes in the understated, affable form of Mark Ruafflo as "Bruce Banner/The Incredible Hulk" (the latter role he shares in this film with the vocal participation the original live action "Hulk", Lou Ferrigno).  Apologies to Eric Bana and Edward Norton, but this is another example of Whedon's understanding of the medium. Under Whedon's direction and Ruafflo's talent, they bring a Bruce Banner that works...one who's template is not only akin, but honors Bill Bixby's portrayal of (then David) Banner. Not since the television series went off the air has a live action Banner been presented as a fully, fleshed out three-dimensional human being. One whose emotions run the spectrum (not just "tortured"). His Banner is a delight to watch...but The Hulk steals the show.  This is the best CGI rendering of The Green Goliath ever. He is not John Woo's "Gumby Hulk." This Hulk has weight and presence. And he has some of the best moments of screen time in both action AND humor. Plus, one of the highlights of the film (especially for any comics fan) is seeing an offshoot of the battle between Hulk v. Thor from "Journey Into Mystery" #112 realized...and leads into one of the better comedic moments. 

But the confrontations are not simply physical. Whedon uses chess master precision to use the characters as foils of the each other, bringing out the central conflicts and doubts between them, some of which are character arc carryovers from the previous stand alone films: Stark's aversion for the military and discipline; Rogers stalwart patriotism being a result of chemical enhancement, Thor's demi-god status and his filial loyalty to the film's main villain, Fury's camaraderie with his nascent team at odds with his patriotic duty; Romanov and Barton's respective needs for redemption; Banner's war with "the other guy"...The beauty of Wheadon's direction is how the elements gel. The humor is organic and interwoven into both the story and the characters. It is one of the few films that the laughs are not forced or contrived; better than some of those in the comedy genre. The character arcs progress and, unlike other superhero productions where the heroes revert to a gestalt state, these characters grow and evolve...discovering aspects of themselves that they would not have without the reflection provided by their foils. In the comics, The Avengers are more than just a team. They are a family; a dysfunctional one, but a family none the less. More than any other director since Richard Donner, Whedon gets it.

The growth is not simply epitomized in the protagonists. Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is a much more credible threat than the petulant, neglected second son he was in Thor. While no match for Terrance Stamp in a scene that was clearly evocative of Superman II, this is villainous demi-god to be reckoned with; one made more so by one pivotal, heart-wrenching scene. He is a super-powered "Simon Legree" and when he gets his comeuppance, it is supremely satisfying. The true heart of this film, however, comes in the form of Agent Phil Caulson, who despite being beyond the age of innocence and everything he has seen, still believes in heroes (especially Rogers) and provides the "push" the team requires; in essence, he is an unacknowledged Avenger.

The film comes together in the third act, which makes the climatic Metropolis battle from Superman II (a template for this sequence) look like a child playing with Tinker Toys (though one moment in the climax cribs heavily from that of Independence Day). The CGI is interwoven with old fashion stunts and pyrotechnics and the action, accompanied by Alan Silvestri's powerful (though not as evocative as his previous Captain America effort) score.  Like a marathon lovemaking session, it pounds the senses until the battle's final moments and, when the credits roll (and be sure to stay through all the credits), one really needs to have a post-coital cigarette.

Yet all throughout, the material is treated straight. There is no hint of condescension of the source material. There is one scene involving Captain America that skirts towards that territory, but instead reasserts why Captain America (jingoism aside) as a character is a source of inspiration. Not since 1978 has a symbol for patriotism and morality seemed more, put succinctly, bad ass.

Unabashedly, I have been a comic book fanatic since the age of five. Understandably, my view of this film may be a bit biased. But then, Marvel has admittedly not been my company of choice. I wish I could be as effusive of praise on DC Comics' more recent cinematic offerings. Yet to try to be otherwise would be disingenuous. The fact remains that as a comic book movie...as an action movie...as a science fiction movie...as a movie, period, The Avengers works! It balances action and character exposition, humor and pathos, deftly. Any other critics who see this as a popcorn film are missing the moments of characterization and the evolution they go through. If I am too effusive in my praise, it is only because this film truly merits it; not many films have engendered such a reaction in me. It has been a long time since I have enjoyed a film based on a comic book this much...and that includes The Dark Knight. The film is enjoyable for the average moviegoer but also respectful shout outs to the hardcore fans as well (Captain America's instruction to The Hulk is especially "geektasmic"). The film is, in effect, a masterpiece of genre filmmaking.

Long story short: Go See The Damn Thing! And one last thing...what the hell is Marvel going to do for an encore?!

HEARD AFTER THE KNOCKING, RAPPING AT MY CHAMBER DOOR: "WATCH THE RAVEN; IT'S NOT A BORE!"

Hollywood has a history of repeating success and/or capturing lightning in a bottle (or, as an oft-used Hollywood saying goes “nobody wants to be first, but everyone wants to be second”).  For example, when Star Wars became a success, Star Trek: The Motion Picture was shunted from Paramount Pictures' television to movie division, with inferior offerings such as Battle Beyond the Stars rushed into production. Raiders of the Lost Ark launched the less successful likes of Doc Savage and Allan Quartermain and the City of Gold. John Millius’ Conan the Barbarian inspired the lackluster Lou Ferrigno Hercules films, and so forth. With the advent of the mammoth success that has been Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes franchise, another Victorian era actioner was bound to happen.  In this case, however, it is not a Victorian fictional character at the forefront, but an actual historical figure in the form of Edgar Allen Poe (John Cusack, Say Anything, Hot Tub Time Machine) in the final, destitute (and historically nebulous) years of his life.

The premise of the film is simple: a serial killer who stalks the streets of Baltimore utilizes Poe's stories as a basis for each murder, places Poe's resourceful lady love Emily (the lovely Alice Eve, the forthcoming Men In Black III and the currently filming Star Trek sequel) in mortal danger and challenging Poe to solve his clues to rescue her. Upon first glance, James McTeigue (V for Vendetta, Ninja Assassin) The Raven seems like a blatant attempt to cash in on Holmes' coattails.  However, this film could not be further than it's "inspiration". Where the Holmes films were fast moving, action oriented fare punctuated with moments of humor, The Raven is a dark, atmospheric methodical horror procedural which takes itself perhaps a bit too seriously. The settings, even in the daytime, are as dark and forboding as Poe's attire, the only hint of light epitomized in Emily's golden tresses and bright mode of dress. This is a humorless world which is as stark as any story the real Poe ever wrote; the shadows cast in the scenery are all pervasive, touching upon the characters themselves, such as Detective Fields (Luke Evans, The Three Musketeers), the constabulary who engages Poe in the investigation, and Captain Hamilton (Brendan Gleeson, the Harry Potter series), who loathes Poe for trying to romance his daughter. All of the actors bring in top notch performances, but especially Cusack as the title character. Gone are the "Cusackisms" that infuse his previous characters. This is one of those rare efforts where an actor buries himself so completely in the part you forget the person playing the role. He and McTeigue deftly avoid the cliché of turning Poe into an action hero. He's not. In truth, he is the furthest thing from. He is a man hounded by personal demons and past glories, and it leads to a satisfactory character arc from beginning to end.

This is also a risky film, because it goes against American movie going conventions and expectations. To say more would enter into spoiler territory, but suffice it to say that it contains disturbing elements that would turn off most viewers and goes against the grain of conventional movie storytelling. What little gore in evidence is explicit and the battle between good and evil is not so cut and dry even at its conclusion. However, the film is not without its flaws, most especially in the reveal of the murderer. Say what one will about Ritchie's Holmes series, clues are laid out in full view of the public throughout the films. Here, The Raven cheats. Again, more cannot be said without spoiling the film, however, once seen this complaint will be understood. It is understandable to want to surprise the viewer with the killer's identity; it is another thing to do so at the expense of the audience's intelligence and rob them of the opportunity to properly figure it out. The final scene seems almost a tacked on afterthought to appease the general public; one that is oddly dissatisfying.

Despite this, The Raven is a good film, on par with From Hell starring Johnny Depp. The film's tone matches the works of the character it is based, so bear that in mind when watching it. Do not expect sunshine and rainbows. You can expect good performances and evocative atmosphere. It is worth a viewing.

THE DORIAN GRAY OF ROCK 'N ROLL IS GONE.

Dick Clark. R.I.P.

Thank you for your immesurable contributions to the American pop/music culture landscape.

THE ODDS ARE IN ITS FAVOR: The Hunger Games is a Must See

I am one of a select few of the population who has yet to read Suzanne Collins’ “Hunger Games” trilogy (I’m sure the rest of the population that haven’t aren’t old enough to read yet). That being said, It affords me the rare opportunity to review a film without being alternatively aided and handicapped by the source material. As a film, The Hunger Games works.

In a seeming not-too-distant yet dytopic future, the continent of North America (now known as "Panem") is divided into 12 districts. In an ersatz application of the concept of “breads and circuses”, two teenagers, a boy and a girl, are chosen from each district in order to participate in “The Hunger Games”; a televised battle to the death which the populace is required to watch. When her younger sister is chosen by lottery to represent the 12^th district, young Katniss Everdeen (a beguiling Jennifer Lawrence, X-Men - First Class) becomes the first volunteer in the games 74 year history. From then on she is given an advisor (an uneven Woody Harrelson, Cheers, The People v. Larry Flint, Zombieland) and handlers (a polished Lenny Kravitz and Elizabeth Banks, outfitted in a wardrobe Batman’s “Harley Quinn” wouldn’t be caught dead in) before she is let loose in a controlled habitat to fight for her survival.

The story is a pastiche of other plots. Death by lottery was a staple of episodes of Star Trek and The Twilight Zone and the hunter becoming the hunted is a familiar trope. Yet it is a testament to director Gary Ross (and arguably Suzanne Collins, since it is her story) that they make it seem fresh.  This film balances action and suspense rather well, moving at a brisk pace, despite some uneven dead space as it builds to the main event.

Normally, in a review, I like to break down the elements that work, assess the performances, etc. But this time I am hard pressed to. This is one of those rare films that actually work in a very visceral way. It is, perhaps, one of the most horrifying films this year. “Horrifying” in that the world it depicts, despite its science fiction trappings, is one of the most chilling indictments of our society in quite some time. Our culture’s obsession with reality television,  our collective ability of ignore the ills that plague our society through the distraction of “bread and circuses”.  The quasi-Seussian dress and colors bring out, rather than mute, the stark harshness of this world’s existence. The over-the-top Stanley Tucci, in blue dress, is a maniacal fashion disaster from Whoville who would seem quite at home sitting in Maury Pouvich’s hot seat, stating DNA results no matter what the consequences for those involve all in the name of ratings. In this movie, power resides in the hands of a select few, with the games the only manner in which to keep the masses distracted from their plight. The Tributes (those chosen to become participants in the games) are given the “American Idol” treatment as the audience follow them from selection to indoctrination, from training to game commencement.  It all seems so genteel and magical on screen until they are finally let loose in the game habitat.  The film’s tonality shifts and becomes a modern day “Lord of the Flies”, where the savage survival at all costs instincts come in.

But the true horror comes in the portrayal of the young actors who portray the “Tributes”, as they transform from wholesome youths to, in some cases, bloodthirsty (un)noble savages. Jennifer Lawrence is the glue that holds this film together. Though a great suspension of disbelief would be required to believe that this otherwise healthy looking girl would be starving, the 21 year old Lawrence evinces her character’s despair at the world around her with nary a word. She is frightened, overwhelmed, and, yes, even vulnerable. But she is also strong, resolute and determined. She is a well-rounded heroine with nary a hint of caricature. Without her believability this film would fall apart.  Another standout is Amandala Stenberg as “Rue”, who imbues her character with an almost angelic presence; one that is emblematic of the fact that angels are not meant for this world.

Unfortunately, despite its pacing and coherency of plot, the film does not quite hold together completely, calling attention to the portions of the novel that possibly did not make the transition to the screen. For example, Woody Harrelson’s character undergoes a change of heart in almost inexplicable fashion, with only a hint of a scene as a possible explanation towards its change. Alas, it is insufficient to be satisfying. The same can be said of Peeta’s loyalties (though his name should have been spelled PITA, as in “Pain in the Ass,” for that is how his character comes across).  Directors, take note, the best use of Donald Sutherland is minimalism. The less said, the better.  Same can also be said of the score of James Newton Howard. His orchestrations of late have been serviceable without any real sense of thematic identity. Unfortunately, his score for The Hunger Games continues this trend. It works within the film, but is almost as generic as any of his other actioners.

Of course, there are two other books in the series which, given the profitable opening weekend the film has enjoyed, are surely due for cinematic adaptation. However, I am not left, if you’ll pardon the pun, hungering for more. This is not an indictment. It is, instead, a powerful recommendation.  The film is powerful enough to stand alone, and definitely one of those rare films that deserve multiple viewings. It is that nuanced. It is that meaningful.  It is that good.

I cannot recommend this film highly enough.  It is more than sheer entertainment, it is a powerfully allegorical cautionary tale. As our political climate devolves into subsequent petty squabbles, as freedoms seem to become eroded before our very eyes, as celebrities become the focus of national attention in the place of social problems, as the wealth and power of our nation become concentrated into the hands of a powerfully privileged few, this film is a warning, albeit a fantastical one, of the consequences of ignoring what is happening around us. The Hunger Games will not leave you feeling hungry. It will make you angry, it will make you fearful. It will entertain you and, ultimately, fill you with hope.

BROMANCE, ROMANCE, SHROMANCE: “This Means War” A Surprising Action Rom Com Flick

Men…go see the rom com This Means War.

You read that correctly, I said "men".

At the moment, I am hard pressed to remember a film that blends romantic comedy and action with such balance and panache; it is as much a “guy film” as it is a “chick flick”.

The premise is the standard romantic triangle: two buddies “FDR” (Chris Pine, Star Trek, Smokin’ Aces) and “Tuck” (Tom Hardy, Star Trek: Nemesis, Inception, Warriors, the forthcoming The Dark Knight Rises) vying for the affections of the same girl (Reese Witherspoon). The twist here is that they happen to be crack field agents in the CIA.

Chris Pine transplants his "Captain Kirk" persona into modern day Earth with the character of “FDR Foster” (with a couple of tongue in cheek references to the iconic character Pine has inherited, including his penchant for “intergalactic relations”). He imbues in his character a confluence of rakish charm of both Kirk and Harrison Ford’s “Han Solo” yet Pine plays it with a bit of guardedness. Hardy’s "Tuck" is the more “sensitive” of the two, but has enough macho swagger to balance it out. And one particular scene he makes a throwaway line given to Pine at the beginning of the climax especially poignant. He is a very talented actor, and it is surprising that someone who could play the sociopath Charles Bronson can juggle a role such as this. In their interactions Pine and Hardy have a wonderful chemistry together. It is easy to believe that these two have been practically brothers when you first meet them on screen. The comedy comes mostly from their knack of comedic timing coupled with their game of macho gamesmanship.  Their affability offsets the inherent discomfort one would get if one were to sit back and ruminate on the tactics they use to sabotage the other and insinuate themselves in their objective’s graces (misuse of government funds and equipment is an understatement here).

As the object of their mutual desire, this film is an interesting choice for Witherspoon. She may have top billing but her story takes a back seat to that of her co-stars. Yet she makes the most of what she has and holds her own. She defaults back to the plucky persona she’s managed to cultivate throughout her career but refreshingly absent this time is the smug self-awareness that tinged it. She is delightfully lacking in self-consciousness and gives the most natural performance she has in quite a while. Her “Lauren Scott” is competent, self-assured, and slightly neurotic, but none of these are played as stereotype. Complementing her performance is Chelsea Handler. While she is not a revelation as Tom Arnold was in “True Lies” so many years ago, her character is surprisingly nuanced. Her trademark delivery is in evidence but her persona is sublimated to suit the performance, which is marked with a surprising down to earth sensitivity. Rosemary Harris has little more than a cameo in her role as Nana Foster, but she brings a lot more spunk than she did to “Aunt May” in the Spider-Man films. It is easy to see where FDR got that aspect of his personality from.  

Sadly, the resolution the love triangle is practically telegraphed in the beginning of the film. If you’ve seen the original Star Wars trilogy then you will know how things will end up. In this case, however, the fun really is in the journey not the destination.

As a director, McG has been blasted for being all flash and having very little, if any, substance. However, with each subsequent outing, his films, while entertaining on the surface, begin to carry with them a little more emotional heft. One important theme in his films (and yes, this includes the “Charlie’s Angels” franchise) is the importance of familial relationships. This film showcases the importance not only of a fulfilling romantic relationship but that of the filial bond as well. As aforementioned, the “bromance” plot line overshadows the romantic one. In showing the agents as adversaries, the audience is treated to exactly why they need each other. They complement each other in a way only real companions can. Yet he also demonstrates why these men would go after the same girl and why she would be torn between the two. Quite possibly, despite the farcical ludicrousness of the proceedings, this may be McG’s most adult/mature film to date.

His pacing of the film is mostly balanced. The quiet moments are almost as gripping as the comedic ones, which come fast and furious and are genuinely funny. Where McG drops the proverbial ball is with his treatment of Til Schweiger as “Heinrich”, the film’s ostensible antagonist in the sense that his scheme of revenge is less than a “C” plot. The audience never feels any sense of jeopardy because his character is hardly present; he is more conspicuous by his absence. By the time he makes his move against the warring agents, it feels like almost a tacked on, deux-ex-machina afterthought. Also egregious having an actress of the caliber of Angela Bassett and give her what amounts to maybe two minutes of screen time as a Starskey and Hutch desk supervisor stereotype; an expositional plot device and little else. It seems as if the only direction he gave her was “do what you did in Green Lantern, but angrier.” The film could have arguably moved along fine without her, which is more indictment of the script than the talents of the pigeonholed Bassett.

This Means War is an almost perfect balance of what Hollywood looks for in its films: a film that will satisfy both genders. As of this writing it is lost in the shuffle of other, bigger budgeted and hyped films and that is to its detriment. Despite its minor flaws, it is a wonderfully executed film that is sure to please both genders and delivers on laughs and action.