Saw Review

"Most people are so ungrateful to be alive, but not you, not anymore..."
-Tobin Bell "Saw" 2004


Released in 2004 under the direction of James Wan and distributed by Lionsgate Entertainment on an estimated budget of $1,200,000, "Saw" was a horror film made with the idea of doing a low budget thriller involving two men locked in a room together while being told they have to kill one another. What Wan did not intend Saw to be was a franchise as he was trying to make it a mystery thriller that had horrible things happen to people to make a metaphorical point on the victims of the movie. What surprises me the most is how a complete unknown director.writer managed to acquire the acting talents of Cary Elwes, Danny Glover and Tobin Bell for a low budget horror film like this. The film I've bashed on so much without really seeing it in it's entirety, I'm finally gonna give it justice.

Plot: Waking up in an decrepit old bathroom, Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and Adam (Leigh Whannell) discover that not only have they been chained to the pipes and there is a dead man in the middle of the room but they are informed via audio tapes that by 6 o'clock, Dr. Gordon must kill Adam or else, not only will Gordon's family die, he will be locked inside the room forever. Trying to keep a steady mind and understand what's going on, Dr. Gordon theorizes this is the work of the Jigsaw Killer (Tobin Bell) a serial killer who forces his victims to do horrible things to themselves to survive, like going through a maze of barbed wire or putting their head in a metallic mask called a "Reverse Bear Trap". Detective David Tapp (Danny Glover) is obsessed with catching this killer that it has cost him his job and his partner, is under the assumption that the killer is Dr. Gordon. But who is the killer what does he want? Let the game begin.

I admit, for a film that is credited with kickstarting a popular franchise, this one seems rather tame, but wickedly brilliant. Oh yeah, you heard, don't think that was a typo, this film is surprisingly brilliant. It reminds me of something like"Se7en" but here, the focus is on the victims rather than the police detectives. The whole film is told mostly from the perspective of these two guys who barely know each other and their attempts to work together to figure a way out while trying to escape without going too radical. It's played out effectively, even down to the torture scenes which are rather tame. They seem to employ the "Tell than Show" rule here for some of the traps when it is revealed via flashback the other traps in the film. Two examples include two victims found dead and only brief hints show what occurred in their tests but everything is shown via snapshots and police reports with the sounds of Jigsaw's voice exhaling the test to them. The one example where they do show what happened involves Amanda, a former drug addict, telling police detectives how she survived her trap, not only do the filmmakers show what happened, they jump back and forth to see Amanda telling the story to the police detectives. It's not terribly gory except for when she pulls out the organs of her drug dealer to get the key but the film doesn't show her cutting him. 
This sense of tame violence ensures that the focus is not on the violence itself, but on the mystery element of who is the killer. Because of this, it works well as a mystery thriller. We care about the characters we are given and we are invested in what's going on and trying to understand the role they play in this mystery. The traps themselves are symbolic of the people they are inflicted upon. Take for instance, Paul, a perfectly normal man who decided to slit his wrists, presumably for attention; Jigsaw puts him in a maze of barbed wire, telling him that if he wants to survive, he'll have to cut himself again. It's almost a form of dark humor that reflect on the unappreciative people. It's clever really, very much so.

Characters:

Cary Elwes:  British actors continue to astound me how they well they can drop their British accents and give full American accents. Such is the case of Cary Elwes, okay, so his English accent slips in a few times but he manages to keep a level head for most for the film before he finally breaks down and saw his own foot off (which you never see him actually doing, they only show blood splattering in between cuts back to a panicking Adam). He was the guy you root for the most, he has a family so his reasons for wanting to survive make the most sense to us. He also is the only one with the sense to not panic but as the film progresses, we all are given just as much reason that he could be the killer as it could be Zepp the creepy orderly from the hospital. Regardless, whatever theories he comes up, we take said theories to try to complete the mystery as it progresses on screen.

Leigh Whannel: I know this guy wrote the screenplay but this guy is annoying as hell. He's so whiny and neurotic that I really wanted Dr. Gordon to just kill him when he had the chance. Sure, he is somewhat vital to the story's narrative but I just wanted to slap him for being annoying. I assume he represents the average man and how panic can set in so fast. Yet, I found him so annoying that he didn't want to work together with Dr. Gordon, the most easy-minded guy IN this movie for most of it. He has a few twists and turns as the story progresses but my rule of thumb is that if you are given a character that annoys the hell out of you and you want to see him/her die, then you're not going to care all that much whatever happens to him/her.

Danny Glover: Sorry to say but I think this was wasted potential on Glover's part. He's not bad, to say, it's just the character he plays. We've seen this character before, an obsessed cop hell bent on turning in the serial killer (Detective David Miles or Agent Ethan Thomas anyone?) to the point of stalking Dr. Gordon. Danny makes the most out of the role but I find him, for lack of a better word, to be a token black guy. But looking beyond tokenism, what he actually serves is being the perspective of the murders from an authoritarian stand-point and how the Police are looking into the murders, this gives information to the audience. So, it is fair to say he does the job and he doesn't half-ass it; but because I've seen this character a lot that it doesn't seem new to me.

Tobin Bell: I'm not gonna comment on the role he plays physically since we barely see him through most of the film but instead how he performs vocally. Anyone who's even heard of the "Saw" franchise probably knows of it for the traps, it's "Hello Zepp" theme and voice that can be heard on the tapes. He has such a gravely yet eerie voice that really sends a chill up your spine. It's cold yet also helpful if you can hear the double meaning to what his traps. His voice sound very rather electronic, almost mechanical sound, giving the impression that it could be anyone. 
See clip below for example.

The rest of the casting are not worth mention since they fail to leave an impact other than just being the roles the script calls for. Zepp is all right, but very little is seen of him, the same with Detective Sing, nothing memorable about him other than his rather clever way of saving a Jigsaw victim from getting drilled in the head by shooting the drills. Dr. Gordon's wife and daughter are all right, they play the roles they're given and they do it well. The acting is not Oscar-worthy but it works considering it's genre and budgeting.

Production: For a film that is infamous for starting the torture porn craze from the last decade, the film is surprisingly tame. True, there is gore, but what surprises me is how limited it is. This can be attributed to the low budget the filmmakers had to work with, but what shots they do show, it's rather effective in just giving the idea of gruesome violence than just showing it. These include the dreaded foot removal scene, we only briefly see Dr. Gordon starting to cut into his foot until it cuts away to show his face being squirted with blood. Afterwards, we never see his foot and his pants cover his leg to hide away the fact that Mr. Elwes clearly did not cut off his own foot. It's shocking but very effective in generating the idea that our minds form. Considering the very tight schedule director James Wan had to endure as he could not film everything he wanted so he had to use photographs and voiceover with sped-up surveillance camera-like footage to tell the story. The soundtrack (created by Charlie Clouser) is a mixture of industrial rock that sounds like rejected Nine Inch Nails demo tapes (ironically enough, Clouser WAS a former member of Nine Inch Nails for the 90's. Go figure) it works for the scenes to instill the mood but the music composition everyone remembers is the track called "Hello Zepp" and, honestly, since it plays at the end, it's so effective in bringing the concept of revelation as all the pieces fall together. It's timed dramatically and effectively gives this feeling of desperation and importance, hence why it's been used in certain trailers such as the Tom Cruise film "Valkyrie." Any more I would have to say is, with the budget James Wan was given, I'm impressed with what he did manage to film. 

Bottom Line: For someone who has always ranted on the Saw films as being "garbage," I'm glad at least gave this film a try. However, because I already knew about the sequels and their premises, some elements felt spoiled to me, but if I was an audience member back in 2004, I would have been really shocked and possibly thrilled without feeling spoiled. Still, the way the film paces itself is clever until it comes to it's last surprise to show a character you never really suspected. However, even if "Saw" is clever enough, it's not "The Usual Suspects" clever, which can boast great acting performances with a slick story. "Saw" isn't perfect but I was really engaged and I found the idea of a serial killer that does kill you directly but puts you in horrible situations where you inflict harm upon yourself to be interesting and terrifying in concept. Sure, it's pacing could be better and the acting could be a bit stronger. Still, for what it's worth, this is a movie I would like to see again with some friends who are up for it or if they have a strong stomach.

Final Rating: 3.75 out of 5

Dark Shadows Review

"My name is Victoria Winters. My journey is just beginning - a journey that I am hoping will somehow begin to reveal the mysteries of my past. It is a journey that will bring me to a strange and dark place - to a house high atop a stormy cliff at the edge of the sea - to a house called Collinwood; to a world I've never known with people I've never met - people who tonight, are still only vague shadows in my mind, but will soon fill all of the days and nights of my tomorrows."
-Alexandra Ises "Dark Shadows" 1966

Released in 2012, directed by Tim Burton and distributed by Warner Bros; "Dark Shadows" is a dramatic comedy based off the Dan Curtis soap opera from 1966 and ran at least five years but left behind more episodes on daytime programming than Doctor Who and Star Trek at the time as well as a large cult following and nostalgic memories for it's viewers. To prepare for this movie, I took it upon myself to watch the original series, and from watching full episodes next to half of the episodes, I can confirm quite distinctively that THIS SHOW SUCKED! THIS SHOW SUCKED!! THIS SHOW SUCKED!!!!!!!

Good Lord, how the hell did anyone even tolerate this crap back in the day? The stories are melodramatic to the point where you just wanna slap the characters in the face and say "Get over it!" and "Are you seriously THAT stupid?", the acting is hammier than "Flash Gordon" and the fact that they could force out 5 episodes over this one stupid plot point was just ridiculous. But for what I hated about the show's episodic format, I admired in it's cheap yet detailed gothic set designs and Jonathan Frid's performance as Barnabas Collins. While he was no Lugosi, he was elegant, compelling and at least far more interesting than any of the other characters in the show. So you would think a film adaptation of this soap opera would be a catastrophe, right?

Plot: 1776, Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) has the worst times of his life. His mother and father died in a mysterious accident where a statue fell on their heads, leaving him the sole proprietor of Collinsport's fishing industry and his love-to-be Josette DuPres (Bella Heathcote) is bewitched and thrown over the edge of a cliff by a jealous witch named Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green) who also curses Barnabas by turning him into a vampire and rallying the townspeople to bury him alive. 196 years later, Barnabas is dug out of his grave by construction workers as he discovers Collinsport has been taken over by Angel Bay Seafood run by Angelique and the Collins Family has fallen to dysfunctional ruin. Striking a deal with the family matriarch, Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer), Barnabas agrees to help restore the family name while agreeing to not harm any of the residents of the Collins household, rebellious and frustrated teenaged Carolyn (Chloë Grace Moretz), the greedy and thieving Roger Collins (Jonny Lee Miller), his mentally disturbed son David (Gulliver McGrath), drunken groundskeeper Willie Loomis (Jackie Earle Hayley), David's caretaker and Josette's double Victoria Winters (Bella Heathcote) and the drugged-up self-conscious live-in psychiatrist Dr Julia Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter). But danger is afoot for the Collins' when Angelique discovers that Barnabas has escaped and she will not stop until she has extinguished the Collins name and any honor that title had.

You know, I'm impressed the screenwriter, Seth Grahame-Smith who's famous for writing the books "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" and"Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter," was able to take a rather melodramatic and ongoing plotless soap opera and manage to still retain elements from the show, such as Julia's blood transfusion experiments, David's Sixth Sense and Victoria's similarity to Josette; it's impressive that he managed to at least incorporate all that in this film. But from what I've been reading from critics and movie-goers alike, all these elements only makes the film feel aimless with no sense of direction. My response is; "dude, did you even SEE the show? No? Then shut the f*ck up." and if you did see the show and you still complained that it didn't do the show justice, I say "Shut the f*ck up."
Honestly, I will admit, there are things I felt didn't work. The biggest complaint you'll hear from me is the ending; I won't spoil it but if you thought the ending to "Alice in Wonderland" was contrived, this really takes contrivance to a whole new level to where it barely makes sense and it only makes you wish the movie was over already. But the journey we were taken on to get to that point? It's worth it. The beginning is very strong, almost coming out from a completely different movie but moves to play a one-note fish-out-of-water joke of a 1700's vampire in 1972; but you know, I thought this joke worked well at times. Some of the better jokes were revealed in the trailer while other jokes are hit-and-miss; such as Barnabas mistaking Alice Cooper for being a female singer and is horrified when he performs "No More Mr. Nice Guy" in his home (note that if you look carefully, you can see cameo appearances from Johnathan Frid, Lara Parker David Shelby and Kathryn Leigh Scott, actors form the original show) saying aloud "That is the ugliest woman I have ever seen!" and a scene where Barnabas interacts with hippies where they misinterpret his dilemma as being deep philosophical messages. I've read reviews of people who don't think the jokes are that funny; to this I say, you know what, you pretty much know what I'm gonna say; seriously guys, lighten up and be more open than you give the film credit for because the show was not nearly as funny as this film plays itself out to be.
Is the screenplay perfect? Of course not, the show was crap and the Seth had to work with crap to make something that would reach out to today's audiences; the jokes will probably get old unless you can put yourself in that time frame and just sit back and go with the flow. Sure, there is a point at the end where the film is just running on fumes but mileage you at least used up should be satisfactory enough to pull through.

Characters:

Johnny Depp: No pun intended, but Johnny gives a deliciously engrossing performance. Say what you will about the story's pacing, but Johnny's performance as Barnabas Collins is the strongest thing this film has to offer. Even if you get annoyed by his attempts to adapt to the culture shock of 1972, his interactions with Michelle Pfeiffer are the juiciest slabs of acting you'll ever have the pleasure of watching. Every time Barnabas is onscreen, your attention is fully on him, his elegant proper English manner, his mannerism that derive from other famous Hollywood vampires from Count Orlock's fingers to Lugosi's posture to even some elements of Lee's charm (speaking of which, for real ciniphiles, prepare to squeal like a fangirl when you see Johnny Depp and Christopher Lee in the same scene for something that feels like looking in a 40-50 year mirror). To put it bluntly, he sells the show, his mannerism and expressions are priceless, his elegance is impeccable; clearly, this Depp/Burton team-up is still strong today and it shows.

Michelle Pfeiffer: It's so great to see Pfeiffer reunite with Tim Burton after they last worked together 20 years ago for "Batman Returns", I liked her a lot more than I expected to. Unlike many of the other characters in the film, she plays her role straight but with authority. When she is told by Barnabas that he is a vampire, she is clearly intimidated but she keeps her tough complexion regardless to keep up her position. She's strong but still keeps a level head when the sh*t hits the fan. Plus, how often do we get to see Pfeiffer wielding a shotgun? Not often enough in my opinion, to quote a certain badass "Shop Smart; shop S-Mart."

Eva Green: Hey everyone, remember when Eva Green played that sweet and nice hot Bond chick from "Casino Royale?" Did you ever want to see her play a sadistic slut? Well, now's your chance! She was so good at being despicable that I hated her form the minute I saw her. Hell, for most of the film, I mistook her for Anne Hathaway, but that would be too ironic since she's playing Catwoman in the upcoming Batman film and she wouldn't want to be caught dead in the same room with the REAL Catwoman, Michelle Pfeiffer (screw all of you, Michelle will always be the real Catwoman to me). But regardless, her performance leaves me rather cold as I feel there was nothing for me to feel bad for her or even feel anything for her apart from disgust, offering nothing complex outside of just being someone who wanted to be loved. Nothing much offered, nothing much gained.

Chloë Grace Moretz: I thought she was going to be the most interesting character in the film, but turns out, she's the least interesting character in the whole film. She just bitches and moans about how nobody understands her while just sitting in her room all day listening to the current rock stars of the time, from Black Sabbath to T. Rex. Sure, she gets her share of funny lines like "I'm pretty sure he called me a hooker." but I found her to just be a bitch with very little reason to be so outside of some incredibly stupid reason that's not brought up until the ending that adds to the contrivance of the ending. I miss the Grace Moretz that was in "Hugo," hopefully this girl can find more interesting roles in the future.

Bella Heathcote: Again, another really uninteresting character who has so much given to her backstory but by the end, you find yourself caring less and you just wanna say "yeah, yeah, that's nice honey, now leave me alone." She has some backstory about a mental institution but it's never touched upon again and we never see her again until the ending which feels like a middle finger forced down your throat. I found myself caring so little about her.

Helena Bonham Carter: I have to wonder if Tim Burton is regretting having Bonham Carter as his spouse because (Spoiler alert incoming*) he seems to keep killing her in his movies. She was burned alive in "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street" by Johnny Depp and she was already dead in "Corpse Bride" and if you have a gambling thing going on with your friends if she'll die in this film (SPOILER! SPOILER!)_shedoes(SPOILER OVER).What is interesting is that she manages to adopt an American accent for this film when not 2 years back, she had a proper English accent. The strangest thing she's sprouted in this film is a blazing-red head of hair despite her pale skin; odd, yes; out of pace, certainly, but this wouldn't be a Tim Burton film if it wasn't in the film. Does she help the plot any? Not so much, she just drinks, gives a blood transfusion to Barnabas (oh that's not all she gives him…) while he watches Scooby-Doo and then….yep, that's it. Huh…now that I think about it, Burton probably could have hired anyone else and they could have done the job. Eh, guess he just wanted an excuse to put Helena and Johnny back together even though they probably must see each other every week, considering that Johnny is the godfather to Burton's kids. But I'm getting off track.
Everyone else wasn't really memorable, the guy playing Roger Collins was a dick, the kid playing David is just weird, Jackie Earle Hayley has his moments as Willie but he made me think of Argus Filch from Harry Potter, only less magical and creepy. Really, the stronger of the cast is Johnny Depp, who clearly had an ambition to play this character and he's worth the ticket price, everyone is hit and miss.

Production: Well, it's a Tim Burton film, let's bring in the usual suspects, shall we? Rick Heinrichs, production/set designer for "Sleepy Hollow" and"Edward Scissorhands," Colleen Atwood, costume designer who received an Oscar last year for "Alice in Wonderland" and has been doing the costumes for Burton's films since "Edward Scissorhands" and "Ed Wood,"Chris Lebenzon, film editor who's been editing for Burton since "Batman Returns" and "Ed Wood" also serves as an executive producer for "Dark Shadows" and let's not forget, Danny Elfman, former songwriter for Oingo Boingo and film composer for all of Burton's works minus his produced films and "Ed Wood," all mentioned folks make their marks to create the visual world of Tim Burton. Where storytelling may have failed in this film, the production may hopefully entice you to stay in your seat as the visuals are as surreal as any Burton film, but they're a step-up from the cheap production of the original show, that was so cheap you could see the boom mike get into the shot once too many. Here, the money clearly goes into the incredible details from Collinwood Manor to the details to create the authentic feel of the 1970's, look carefully and you may notice a movie theater playing the Burt Reynolds film "Deliverance" (though this film is taking place in October and "Deliverance" was originally released on July 30th). 

It captures the gothic feel the cheap production managed to capture in 1966-71 and goes beyond that while the use of 70's tunes from "Nights in White Satin" by The Moody Blues, "No More Mr. Nice Guy" by Alice Cooper, "You're The First, The Last, My Everything" by Barry White and a cover of "Go All The Way" by The Killers can even be heard. It may be distracting to some, but mood-settling to me since I'm a music-lover, however, this comes at a cost where you barely even pay attention to Danny's score, which disappointed me since I kept expecting to hear the Dark Shadows theme from the show but never once heard it event hough there are plenty of shots of waves crashing onto the rocky shore.
Regardless, a solid production keeps this film afloat to instill the gothic feel of the original show as well as the 1970's setting, is it corny? Maybe so, but those were the 70's after all.

Bottom Line: I have no idea why people are being too harsh on this film while they're just glancing over the pros; the production is the strongest suit here and Johnny Depp's performance is mesmerizing. While he is wandering aimlessly trying to find something of a cohesive plot, it's only confusing if you haven't done the research like I have about the original show (no TVs were broken while "studying" this soap opera) and I managed to follow through with it just fine. The only time the story got aimless was the ending, it brings in all these elements that are built-up or barely looked upon and then just thrown in just to serve as the conclusion to the conflict which nearly made me swear out loud in the theater. Tim Burton's Worst Film? Heavens no."Alice in Wonderland" is his worst in my opinion, this film at least isn't trying to play out a gimmick with a weak story, this film entertained me and I wasn't disappointed in seeing it. If this is not how you want to start off your summer, go see "The Avengers" to bring in the summer bang, if not, give this film a try and f*ck what the Critics out there are saying because this film should be seen by anyone whose interested in this genre of film or by Tim Burton.

Final Rating: 3.5 out of 5

Until next time, I'll continue to stoke the fires for when we burn through celluloid.

The Avengers review

"Avengers, assemble!"

Released in 2012 under the direction of Joss Whedon and distribution by Disney on a budget of $220 million, "The Avengers" is a film adaptation of the comic book series made by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko in 1963 and this weekend has been the weekend that everyone has been waiting for. It's been hyped up since 2008's "Iron Man" and it's been handed from Jon Faverau to Joss Whedon, as a reward, it's had the biggest opening for any film debut on it's opening weekend, grossing nearly $200 million, just in it's opening weekend. Impressive to say the least; this would indicate that this film is everything that we've all hoped for, right?

Right?

Plot: After the theft of the Tesseract (or Cosmic Cube as it bloody well should be called cause that's what it f*cking is) made by the newly-powered Loki, Norse God of Mischief (Tom Hiddleton), Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) the head of SHIELD (Supreme Headquarters International Espionage Law-Enforcement Division) decides to respond by compiling a team of heroes to overthrow Loki's plans to bring a race of ugly-as-hell aliens called Chitauri to Earth so he can rule over it. The Avengers Initiative calls forward billionaire playboy techno-genius Tony Stark AKA Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), recently revived World War II superhero Steve Rogers AKA Captain America (Chris Evans), brilliant radiation scientist with a powerful and destructive alter ego Bruce Banner AKA The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), agile and deadly russian assassin Natasha Romanoff AKA Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), the powerful Asgardian God of Thunder Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and the archery marksman Clint Barton AKA Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). Together, they must band together to stop Loki's plans and learn to put their egos aside for the greater good if humanity is to survive.

Well, that's pretty much the plot in a nutshell, somehow it's just as I expected it, even before the trailers for The Avengers started coming up. Are you surprised that it was gonna be a "learn to work together and stop bickering" story? Couldn't expect less from Disney of all companies. What bugs me though is how long it takes before we finally get to that point where they finally put their egos on hold and work together to save the day. It works to establish characters, it works to build up a plot, yet, why am I am not praising this film like it deserves to be praised? Perhaps all the expectation and hype got to me and I expected a wildly original story that could throw me for some twists and turns. Were there things I didn't expect? Oh absolutely. I didn't expect this amazingly great scene where Loki is bragging at the Hulk about how he's just a god and he's a brute and the Hulk just grabs him and throws him around like a wet towel before dropping him and quoting out "puny god."

Speaking of quoting, I should address that the dialogue is sub-par but what works astoundingly well are the one-liners from the heroes, especially from Robert Downey Jr. who continues to show of his snarky character that has never gotten tired to me. Great lines will be remembered from this blockbuster like "Loki is still my brother!" "he killed 80 people in two days." "…he's adopted…." while other lines, just confuse me. But what bugs me the most is how self-aware the characters seem to be that Loki can't win and that he won't win, it feels like the movie is giving us the ending before the movie actually ends. Quite maddening.

Characters: They arrive, they work together, they learn. The end.

There, summed it up in one sentence, but might as well go in more in-depth.

Clearly, this film was not intended for anyone who had not seen the previous Marvel movies to just come in and expect to know everyone when they had been developed in the previous films, "Iron Man 1 & 2", "The Incredible Hulk", "Thor", and "Captain America: The First Avenger." In this film the characters have already been developed so therefore, it's not needed, hence, that should leave room to develop characters that are introduced in this film, namely Hawkeye. Instead, the only person who gets actual character development is Black Widow, which is nice but I was hoping for more depth from Hawkeye, instead, due to brainwashing by Loki, he ends up as the bad guy for the majority of the motion picture.

The biggest change Joss Whedon made was the inclusion as Mark Ruffalo to replace Edward Norton. While I've openly stated that I was not fond of Norton's subdued performance as Bruce Banner, compared to Ruffalo, I would prefer Norton than him. Not that Ruffalo is bad but my biggest complaint that I've had with that he's a little too mellow as Banner, while he spews out some techno-babble, I just can't buy it when he appears brilliant and yet he looks a little too beefy and, most of the time, I thought he looked high, even in this pivotal scene where he describes that "his secret is, he's always angry" (a line which only makes me ask, then how do you keep calm?)

Regardless of my complaints, the chemistry between the actors is superb, each character feels like a person to connect to; they're amusing, they're complex but they play off one another wonderfully. This is something that is hard to do in movies that has numerous characters and make them integral to the story as well as flesh them out and if Joss Whedon does one thing right, he can flesh out characters well, whether it's his successes like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" or the short-lived "Firefly", he knows how to flesh out people to make them identifiable and make us care for them. Well done Mr. Whedon, you're not my favorite writer in particular, but you did a nice enough job.

Production: Hmm, how can I sum this up without going overboard with text?

It didn't suck. 

Nice details on visual effects for the large aliens, the helicarrier, the iron man suit, the Hulk, etc.

The sound editing was a problem, seemed to be off at certain time, not matching up with the action at times.

Music was all right, cinematography was all right; 3D was surprisingly good for a post-conversion.

Not bad, but nothing really that made me say "oh wow! that was awesome!"

Bottom Line: I was expecting more for this "most expected film" and Rotten Tomatoes already has it described as "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." personally, I was wishing for a lot more action, I was hoping for a lot more development, I was hoping for more action, I was hoping for more wow, which I got some of, but not enough that would have satisfied my appetite.

That allegory is probably the best way to describe this film; like a nice bountiful meal in front of you, it appears to be too big for you to eat in one sitting, but after 2 and a half hours, you find yourself finishing with the taste you were looking for but you didn't get enough of the flavor and you leave the dinner table craving more.

What's really painful to me is that my sister, who wants nothing to do with me or my passions to film, loved this film labeling it the best film from the last 10 years. I've had to just sit and agree that it's awesome, which it does have it's moments to kick ass, but best film from the last 10 years? I'm sorry sis but for me, it's close, but no cigar.

Final Rating: 3.5/5

Until the next time, I'll keep the fires stoked for when we burn through celluloid.