Scarlett Johansson

Review of “Black Widow”

Please note: There will be some “Avengers: Endgame” spoilers in this review. If you haven’t seen that film yet, it’s available on Disney+, for rental on several platforms and for purchase in stores that sell DVD’s/Blu Rays.

Nothing says “SUMMER” like sitting in a movie theater with overpriced popcorn and soda and a superhero movie on the screen. There hasn’t been a Marvel movie in theaters since “Spider-Man: Far from Home” in July 2019. Now, with the pandemic beginning to ebb (get your vaccination) and the world is reopening, we are treated to a long overdue solo movie for the only women to be included in the early MCU: “Black Widow.”

Natasha Romonoff (Scarlett Johansson) is on the run from US Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) following her actions in violation of the Sokovia Accords. She slips away to Norway with the help of Mason (O-T Fagbenle) who sets her up in a trailer isolated in the wilderness. Going into town to buy fuel for the generator supplying power to her housing, Natasha is attacked by a warrior who mimics her fighting style called Taskmaster. Taskmaster isn’t interested in her, but a case in her car. Natasha escapes with the contents of the case, several vials of a red gas. Since the items containing the case came from a safehouse in Budapest, Natasha returns to the city from which she and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner) just barely escaped. At the safehouse, Natasha runs into Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), the young woman Natasha has known since they were children in the Black Widow training program called the Red Room. Yelena tells Natasha the red vials are a gas that severs the mind control the Red Room has over the female assassins. The training program was run by General Dreykov (Ray Winstone), the target Natasha thought she killed to prove her loyalty to S.H.I.E.L.D. Yelena says he survived and is still running the Red Room in a secret location that no one knows. Natasha and Yelena decide to reunite Alexei Shostakov (David Harbour) who pretended to be the girls’ father in an espionage mission in 1995. Alexei is Russia’s only superhero, the Red Guardian, who was given a super-soldier serum similar to Captain America and worked for Dreykov. Dreykov has put Alexei in a prison in a frozen wasteland. Getting a helicopter from Mason, Natasha and Yelena break out Alexei and travel to meet up with Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz), who pretended to be the girls’ mother in 1995. Melina is the scientist that developed the mind control used on the Widows from the Red Room. The reunited faux family goes on a mission to end Dreykov’s control over the Widows and end his plans for world domination.

While “Black Widow” is more focused on the espionage angle, the story from Jac Schaeffer and Ned Benson, and the script from Eric Pearson, includes a great deal of family moments as well. Unlike “F9,” there are some actual expressions of love and tenderness shown to provide some evidence that the four unrelated people are the closest thing to family any of them has known. Despite them not seeing each other for 25 years, and after some initial discomfort from long simmering resentments, the four main characters slip easily into the roles of parents and children and all the friction that can cause for the youngsters that are now adults. To put it more bluntly, the family dynamic of “Black Widow” actually works, unlike “F9.”

While the rest of the movie is mostly car chases, fist fights and things blowing up, the scenes between Natasha and Yelena are the most fun in the film. They snipe at each other and complain about the choices each makes but in a way that feels sisterly than out of any real anger. The pair are reconnecting and dealing with their actions and the choices they’ve made, some beyond their control, that have cost lives. While the Red Room made them deadly Black Widows, it couldn’t completely eliminate their feelings of guilt.

Diving into this aspect of being an assassin for the State is a concept that was lightly touched on by the “Bourne” films when they weren’t fighting and blowing things up. In “Black Widow,” the notion of being a terminator for a government that will eliminate you when you’ve outlived your usefulness is central to the story. Between Red Guardian being shipped off to prison and the Widows being forced to kill themselves when they might be captured, “Black Widow” shows the unglamorous side of being a spy, even if all the Widows are beautiful.

“Black Widow” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence/action, some language and thematic material. There are numerous fights featuring acrobatic flips, knife play and shootings. There is very little blood, although we see a tracking device cut out of a Widow’s arm or leg, I don’t remember which. There is a graphic, but comedic, description of the forced hysterectomies Black Widows must have. We see a wrist broken during an arm-wrestling match and a leg broken in a fall. Foul language is scattered and mild.

Some have argued the last third of the movie falls into the superhero trope of being all action and very little story or character moments. That isn’t wrong. The big action set piece that concludes the movie is very “Marvel,” with the heroes saving the day and the bad guys vanquished (sorry if you consider that a spoiler, but come on, it’s a Marvel movie). There is a bit of peacemaking with Taskmaster as its identity is revealed. There’s also a very nice moment, wrapped up in action, involving Yelena and Natasha that cements their affection for one another. And the post-credits scene sets up the future of Black Widow that we’ll probably see in the Disney+ “Hawkeye” TV show. It’s not the best Marvel movie, but it isn’t “Iron Man 2” or “Thor: The Dark World” and this one is certainly overdue.

“Black Widow” gets four stars out of five.

Subscribe, rate, review and download my podcast Comedy Tragedy Marriage. Each week my wife and I take turns picking a movie to watch, watch it together, then discuss why we love it, like it or hate it. Find it wherever you get podcasts.

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan.

Review of “Jojo Rabbit”

Johannes Betzler, better known as Jojo (Roman Griffin Davis), is a 10-year old boy in Berlin, Germany near the end of World War II. His father is off in Italy, either fighting for or against the Nazis, and his older sister died of influenza, so Jojo lives with his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson) in their home. Jojo and his best friend Yorki (Archie Yates) are going off to Hitler Youth camp to learn fighting and survival techniques to protect the Fatherland. Jojo is nervous but gets words of encouragement from his imaginary friend Adolf Hitler (Taika Waititi). At the camp, Jojo is ordered by some older boys to wring a rabbit’s neck to prove he’s willing to kill to protect Germany. Jojo refuses and is tagged with the nickname Jojo Rabbit. Adolf tells Jojo the rabbit is cunning, fast, can outthink his enemies and isn’t a coward at all. With renewed confidence, Jojo runs back to the group where they are being taught how to throw grenades by the leader of the camp Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell). Jojo grabs a grenade and throws it, but it bounces off a tree and lands at his feet. Frozen in fear, the grenade explodes, injuring Jojo’s leg and scarring his face. Because of his perceived incompetence, Captain Klenzendorf is assigned a low-level job posting propaganda posters and collecting metal, and once he has recovered from his injuries, Rosie takes Jojo to the office so he can feel included and help. Arriving at home before his mother one day, Jojo hears noises coming from his sister’s room. He investigates and discovers a panel in the wall granting access to a hidden compartment. Inside he discovers Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie), a Jewish teenager Rosie is hiding from the Nazis. Jojo threatens to turn her in but Elsa warns he and Rosie might get in trouble also. Jojo and Elsa declare an uneasy truce, but he demands she share all her “Jew secrets” so he can write a book and one day present it to Hitler.

“Jojo Rabbit” is a sweet and funny coming of age film set against the horrors of World War II. Writer and director Taika Waititi, who also plays Jojo’s imaginary friend in the form of Hitler, downplays most of the atrocities in his film as it’s not really based on historical facts, but loosely on a book called “Caging Skies” by author Christine Leunens. Combining childhood imaginary friends, the priming of a generation to hate Jews and others seen as inferior, and a worldwide conflict that cost millions of lives is difficult to turn into a comedy, but Waititi succeeds…mostly.

Viewed with over 70 years of hindsight, films of Hitler giving speeches, wildly gesticulating and puffing out his chest as thunderous applause washes over him from adoring followers, seems almost comical. None of us can understand the circumstances that led to the rise of Nazism since we didn’t experience the German economic collapse due to reparations demanded by the Allies as punishment for World War I. We can’t understand a country’s fanaticism and willingness to follow the orders of madman, demanding the expulsion, then extermination, of a race of people. Despite America’s current political climate that draws dire comparisons, the conditions that led to nationalism, fascism and genocide are unknown to modern people (except for those unfortunate ones that live under totalitarian regimes like in North Korea). Portraying Hitler as a child’s imaginary friend takes the sting out of the dictator’s crimes against humanity. While there are some atrocities shown, like the public hanging of people considered traitors or enemies of the State, the last weeks of European campaign look pretty calm, peaceful, almost idyllic.

And that’s my biggest complaint about “Jojo Rabbit.” Director Waititi puts a glossy finish on a dark and horrific period in world history. Yes, he’s showing the end of the war through the eyes of a child, but there were many things children of the time saw that could have been incorporated. We do see young people given guns and told to kill invading troops. Rebel Wilson, playing a trainer of Hitler youth named Fraulein Rahm, sticks a grenade with the pin pulled down the belt of a young boy and tells him to go hug an American. These scenes are played for the sake of dark humor and we never see any children die as a result. The approach is more like Monty Python-lite. There’s no dismemberment, no obvious dummy bodies blown up, as the death always happens off screen. I think this approach cheapens the story. We all know the Nazis were murderous brutes, but we aren’t shown that except is snippets that fail to connect. Perhaps I’ve watched too many World War II documentaries with footage shot of bodies lying in the street, but I think Waititi owes it to the victims of this bloody war to show the suffering caused by a group of people suffering the delusion of being a superior race.

All that said, “Jojo Rabbit” has a great to going for it. The performances of the cast are lovely. Roman Griffin Davis is a joy to watch as Jojo. He undergoes a great deal of growth as the film progresses. Jojo is a fanatic with a dream of serving on Hitler’s personal guard. He believes all the lies he’s fed about Jews having horns, sucking the blood of victims, eating babies and the like. Davis can put a cute face on fascism as we follow him through his transition to decent human being.

Thomasin McKenzie is affecting as Elsa. The young woman forced to hide in a wall is broken when we meet her. She plays with Jojo’s opinions about Jews, confirming what he believes to educate him about how silly the lies he’s been told are. A scene where Jojo is trying to hurt her by reading a fake letter from her boyfriend will break your heart as the hateful words heap more damage on an already fragile soul. McKenzie’s is possibly the best performance in the film.

Director Waititi steals every scene he’s in as Hitler. Portraying the dictator as a childish oaf works well. Waititi is gifted in both his script and performance, shaming Nazis for their ridiculous beliefs of supremacy. Jojo’s Hitler is a stand-in for his absent father, providing support and guidance as Jojo navigates his way through a world that’s falling apart. Waititi doesn’t shy away from making Hitler an aggressive jerk towards Jojo. He puts on a Beer Hall Putsch flourish to some of his pep talks, likely based on speeches Jojo heard on the radio. While I have an issue with how in general the subject matter was presented, I have no problem with Waititi’s take down of Hitler.

“Jojo Rabbit” is rated PG-13 for mature thematic content, some disturbing images, violence, and language. There are a couple of scenes showing bodies hanging in the town square. The end of the film has some battle scenes showing a few people getting shot and laying amongst the rubble. Jojo is shown being injured by a grenade. Anti-Semitism is featured throughout the film. Foul language is scattered and mostly mild.

I enjoyed “Jojo Rabbit” a great deal, however the softening of the horrors of war was something constantly nibbling at my mind. I understand the film’s main characters are a 10-year old boy and a teenage girl, but I also know young people were witness to awful things at the end of World War II in Europe. They had suffered through food and medicine shortages and then the brutality of Soviet troops looking to exact revenge for all their people lost on the Eastern front. Taika Waititi sweeps most of this under the rug with a few offhand comments. I think dealing with it more directly would have made the humor of the movie more effective and a relief from the horrors of war. It’s a difficult balance to strike and Waititi partially failed.

“Jojo Rabbit” gets four stars out of five.

I am taking some time off so there probably won’t be a review this week (probably) but here’s what’s opening in a multiplex near you.

Black Christmas—

Bombshell—

Jumanji: The Next Level—

Richard Jewell—

Uncut Gems—

Listen to Comedy Tragedy Marriage, a podcast about life, love and entertainment. It’s available wherever you get podcasts. Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman132@gmail.com.

Review of “Avengers: Endgame”

Following their defeat at the hands of Thanos (Josh Brolin), the surviving Avengers are in different stages of grief. Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) is floating in space with Nebula (Karen Gillan) onboard the Guardians of the Galaxy’s ship. They are out of power and will soon be out of breathable air. Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), James “Rhodey” Rhodes (Don Cheadle) and Rocket (voiced by Bradley Cooper) are at the Avengers’ headquarters trying to figure out how to track down Thanos and mount another attack, gain control of the Infinity Stones and reverse “the Snap” that wiped out half of all life in the universe.

That’s all I can really tell you about the story of “Avengers: Endgame,” otherwise people will yell at me about spoilers. There is a great deal going on in the film and a proper synopsis would likely take a couple of pages, even if I left out the ending. It’s an expansive movie that takes advantage of a decade and 21 films in the canon of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It is an achievement unlike anything in comic book movie history and movie history in general. The closest thing to what Marvel has accomplished here is the coming end of the Skywalker saga in the “Star Wars” movies. It is a feat of movie universe creation that will be difficult to repeat.

“Avengers: Endgame” is certainly about the enhanced abilities of dozens of people as they face an impossibly strong opponent with a fervent belief what he’s doing is correct. But what makes this film especially effective is the little human moments of emotion, grief, fear, remembrance and joy that highlight important turning points in the film. The first, a very, very minor spoiler, is Jeremy Renner’s Clint Barton enjoying a family cookout when his wife and kids become victims of Thanos’ snap, leaving him frantically searching for them. Joe and Anthony Russo, the directors and architects of several MCU films, treat the capturing of this moment like a found-footage film. The movements of the camera are somewhat shaky, and we feel as if we are eavesdropping on a private scene that quickly becomes a catastrophe. There are several moments like this throughout the film that are to varying degrees much like this opening shot. For such a massive film, spanning across space and time and including so many heroes, the Russo’s still find ways to bring it all down to a personal level, one on one with a couple of characters chatting about how the snap destroyed their lives.

All the surviving characters are broken in some way, but Thor is the most obviously damaged. Again, no spoilers, but the God of Thunder is little more than the pop of a balloon for most of the film. He’s given up being a hero and just drinks beer and plays video games. Seeing the character turned from a grandiose blowhard to a drunken coward is something I can’t say I expected but enjoyed as Chris Hemsworth expertly molds Thor’s stately demeanor into that of a pathetic lush that has given up on saving the world and himself.

Returning to Jeremy Renner, his Clint Barton is put through the emotional wringer by the film. After losing his family, Barton becomes a murderous avenger, pardon the expression, who in the comics is known as Ronin. This leads to the reunion with Johansson’s Natasha as seen in the trailer. Renner hasn’t been given much to do in his previous appearances in the MCU other than make a life-saving archery shot and be brainwashed by Loki’s Infinity Stone-powered scepter. This time however, Renner is in the center of the action and forced to deal with more loss. He delivers a powerful performance, exposing his raw feelings and becoming a reflection of the audience’s emotional turmoil.

There are more scenes like that in “Avengers: Endgame,” but telling you about them would be a spoiler, so I won’t ruin the movie for you. I will say the film is more emotionally deep than any MCU film before it and has plenty of laughs as well. Despite its three-hour run time, the movie has no wasted space and no filler. You may have seen the articles online telling you when you can take a bathroom break and these scenes are not the most earthshattering or the most important to the plot, but they don’t feel like a waste of time either. I’ve seen far shorter films that could have used a trim, but there is almost nothing in the movie that could have been legitimately cut.

“Avengers: Endgame” is rated PG-13 for sequences of sci-fi violence, action and some language. There is some blood shown in the more violent scenes. An arm gets chopped off in battle, but it isn’t bloody. A head gets lopped off, but it is hidden and not graphic. A throat is slashed with a sword, and while it does bleed a great deal it doesn’t spurt blood like in an R-rated film. There are numerous fights and battles throughout the film. Foul language is scattered and mild.

I clearly loved the movie, the story, the performances, the visuals, it all worked for me completely…except for the way Steve Rogers story was wrapped up. Again, no spoilers, but there was just something too cute about how Captain America’s long tale was ended. Yes, I’m giving this fantastical story way too much thought, but there are some questions in my mind if the way things end for him is even possible and not undo everything we know about the character and his adventures in the MCU. I should ignore it, but the more time passes, the more I’m confused and want an explanation. Actually, I have an explanation…it’s a movie based on a comic book. Nothing else needs to be said.

“Avengers: Endgame” gets five stars.

Now that “Avengers: Endgame” has snatched up all the box office money, four new movies are opening this week to look for the change hiding under the cushions of your couch. I’ll see and review at least one of the following:

El Chicano—

The Intruder—

Long Shot—

Uglydolls—

Listen to The Fractured Frame podcast for the latest in movies, TV and streaming, available wherever you get podcasts. Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman123@gmail.com.

Review of “Ghost in the Shell”

Mira Killian (Scarlett Johansson) was injured and her parents killed in a terrorist attack. Her body was so badly damaged the Hanka Robotics decides to use her in their experiments to put a person’s brain (also called the ghost) in a cybernetic body. Human enhancement with cybernetic components is commonplace in this future world but this is the first time a brain is transplanted into a synthetic body. The program, overseen by Hanka CEO Cutter (Peter Ferdinando) tells head researcher and cybernetics designer Dr. Ouelet (Juliette Binoche) Mira will be turned over to Section 9, a counter terrorism unit, to serve as a soldier. One year after the procedure, Mira, now referred to by her rank, Major, is fighting against a cyberterrorist known as Kuze (Michael Pitt) who is killing Hanka scientists and announcing those that work with Hanka will die. The Major along with fellow soldiers Batou (Pilou Asbaek), Togusa (Chin Han) and others are working to put an end to Kuze’s reign of terror; however, when Kuze captures the Major and reveals secrets of his past she begins to question her existence, her memories and who the real terrorists are.

Based on the manga and anime of the same name, “Ghost in the Shell” is supposed to be about how it doesn’t matter how much technology becomes intertwined with people, humanity will always win. This movie adaptation, with a fair amount of criticism over the casting of Scarlett Johansson as a character most fans of the source material consider Japanese, is more about looks over substance. The movie is visually impressive but it doesn’t seem to have much going for it under the surface.

The whitewashing controversy was more of a story in the western world than Asia. According to various news stories with people involved with the original manga and anime, it was assumed a Western adaptation of the story would likely involve a well-known Western actress as the budget of the film would likely require someone of a certain stature to acquire funding. While there are certainly many examples of white actors playing roles originally created as Asian or other ethnicities, I’m not sure the amount of criticism levelled at Johansson and the producers of the film is warranted. The Major is a synthetic body housing a Japanese brain. Her appearance in the movie is western and female. She could have just as easily looked African and male. If it had been a white man in the role, then there would have been something to really complain about. As it stands, the quality of the movie has far bigger problems than the casting.

Pardon the comparison but Johansson’s acting as the cyborg Major is painfully robotic. There are flashes of humanity, such as her encounter with a prostitute and feeding a stray dog, but otherwise she plays the part like one of the animatronic characters in a Disney park. Her face is generally frozen in a mild scowl with occasional flashes of confusion. Johansson is giving a whole-body performance as she moves somewhat robotically when she walks. Her head is thrust forward like her brain is in a hurry and her body is trying to catch up. Other than in fight scenes when her moves are more graceful and athletic, Johansson looks stiff in ways both physical and emotional.

The rest of the cast, given very little to do by a script that went through at least five known writers and possibly six or seven more providing notes and punch-ups, are mostly on hand to provide exposition or the occasional visual flair to a battle scene. Since almost everyone in this world has cybernetic enhancement, many supporting characters have some bit of technology glued to their faces or mechanical arms or legs. High jumps and falls are on nearly constant display in the movie with characters losing limbs without expressing any pain. All of this future-tech is supposed to be so impressive we don’t worry about how painfully dull these people are.

The most interesting character is one of the least seen: Kuze. I don’t want to give away too much of his story as it is at the heart of the movie, but I wish the film had been more about him than Scarlett Johansson’s Major. His look is interesting and he speaks with what sounds like Steven Hawking if he got a more expressive voice generator. His movements are also robotic but also more fluid. As we learn more about him he becomes the most sympathetic character in the movie. I wanted to know more of his story but we only get a little information. While I doubt there will be a sequel, if there was I would want it to be about him.

The story is a well-worn combination of corporate greed and revenge. There’s nothing terribly unique or imaginative in the plot. Aside from the setting the story of “Ghost in the Shell” has been done a thousand times and has been done better.

“Ghost in the Shell” is rated PG-13 for some disturbing images, intense sci-fi violence and suggestive content. There are numerous shootings but most show no blood. There are some fist fights and also a stabbing or two. We see the Major as her body is rebuilt after she is injured on a couple of occasions as well as when her brain is placed into her synthetic body. We also see an injection performed directly into her brain. There is a brief scene between the Major and a prostitute that is more sensual that sexual. There is very little if any foul language.

While a great deal of thought, effort and imagination was put into the look and style of “Ghost in the Shell,” the story and script appear to have been slapped together afterthoughts. From dull characters to a dull story, the only thing going for the film is impressive eye candy and in this case, that doesn’t refer to Ms. Johansson.

“Ghost in the Shell” gets two stars out of five.

Three films of faith, friendship and little blue people come to theatres this week. I’ll see and review at least one of the following:

The Case for Christ—

Going in Style—

Smurfs: The Lost Village—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Reviews of “Hail, Caesar!” and “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”

Hail, Caesar!

Movie star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is kidnapped by a group of Communist script writers who feel they are undercompensated for their work. Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) works for the studio as a “fixer” who tries to keep movie production running smoothly by taking care of any problems for the actors and directors. Mannix gets a ransom note asking for $100,000 for the return of Whitlock. Whitlock is the star of a big-budget Roman Empire film called “Hail, Caesar: The Story of the Christ” and is needed back on set as quickly as possible. He also wants to keep Whitlock’s disappearance out of the two gossip columns written by feuding twin sisters Thora and Thessaly Thacker (both played by Tilda Swinton). Mannix is also dealing with the pregnancy of unwed starlet DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson), and monosyllabic cowboy actor Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich) being shoehorned into an upscale costume drama much to the chagrin of director Laurence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes). As if this wasn’t enough, Mannix is also considering a lucrative job offer from aircraft manufacturer Lockheed and is also trying to quit smoking.

Joel and Ethan Coen are the talented writers, directors, editors and producers behind some of the best movies in history (“Fargo,” “No Country for Old Men,” “Raising Arizona,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?,” “The Big Lebowski,” “True Grit” to name a few). They have also given us some interesting films with unique characters and a skewed view of the world. These films aren’t quite great but are certainly worth a look. Where “Hail, Caesar” falls on the list from worst to first will probably require some time to decide and may depend on your mood when you see it but, for me, it doesn’t quite reach the heights of their best efforts.

Right off the bat, you know you’re watching a Coen Brothers movie. The look of the sets, the way the characters are filmed and the often amped up energy between the actors are all signatures of a Coen Brothers joint, especially one of their lighter films. Adding to the mood is the utter self-absorption of some of the movie’s characters. They cannot see past their own wants, needs and desires to consider all the trouble they are causing. They need someone like Mannix to take care of the problems they are ill equipped to handle or blindly stumble upon. The film, set in the late 1940’s or early 1950’s, gives the audience a peek behind scrubbed clean facades and into the dirty lives of Hollywood stars from the era. Reading a little of Hollywood history shows there were plenty of pregnancies, closeted gays and lesbians, and substance abuse to cover up keeping the real versions of Eddie Mannix busy. Watching the small emergencies and major catastrophes Mannix deals with fill his day made me wonder if what he does only enables the actors and directors bad decision making. Of course, the answer is “yes” since he was hired by the studio to keep the actors and directors working, on schedule and within budget.

Watching Mannix work is probably the most interesting thing about “Hail, Caesar!” making the subplot about the kidnapping of Baird Whitlock almost an afterthought. Sadly, that part of the story is written that way as well. There is a great deal of Communist ideology spewed by the group of writers holed up at a beachside bungalow. Granted, it’s all done in a friendly fashion, leading to a case of Stockholm syndrome for Whitlock. Nothing about this group is terribly interesting aside from the petty sniping between members. I suppose I expected a more aggressive gang hoping to convert Whitlock as a vocal and public advocate for their cause. Instead, Whitlock doesn’t really get it and is treated like the slow cousin at the family reunion with everyone just nodding and smiling as he tries to play along. Pretty much everything at the beach house feels like filler and tends to bring the movie to a bit of a narrative stop.

Far more entertaining are the films within the film being filmed. A water ballet featuring Johansson’s pregnant DeeAnna Moran in a mermaid costume and a big dance number with Channing Tatum’s Burt Gurney leading a group of sailors tap dancing on tables at a bar the night before they ship out contain dazzling visuals, impressive choreography and catchy tunes. I almost wish they had just made a movie that stitched these scenes together with a Hollywood backlot story about Eddie Mannix and left the Communist kidnapping plot out. Even watching Clooney chew the scenery in the sword and sandals epic his character is filming beats anything that happens after his kidnapping. It’s the dichotomy between what Hollywood is trying to sell us and what this movie is trying to show us about the real world that drags the film down a peg or two. It’s far from awful but I could have used a bit more screwball action and a lot less Communist manifesto.

“Hail, Caesar!” is rated PG-13 for some suggestive content and smoking. The suggestive content is very mild and hardly noticeable. Smoking is common throughout the film.

One of my favorite Coen Brothers movies is “Raising Arizona.” It is goofy and sweet and features some very memorable characters. From time to time, for no reason, my wife will just suddenly announce, “Short of Edwina. Turn to the right!” which is a line Holly Hunter’s character says on her first meeting with Nic Cage. “Raising Arizona” has more memorable lines. Perhaps that’s what “Hail, Caesar!” lacks…scenes and dialog that burrow into your brain and pop up for no particular reason in conversation. While that isn’t a requirement for a great movie, it does help.

“Hail, Caesar!” gets four guitars.

Pride and Prejudice and Zombies

The Bennet family lives on a nice estate in the English countryside. The five Bennet daughters have all been schooled in Chinese martial arts as all good young women should be in a land plagued by a zombie scourge. Elizabeth Bennet (Lily James) meets and takes an instant dislike to Col. Darcy (Sam Riley), a well-known zombie killer, at a reception at the home of Mr. Bingley (Douglas Booth). Mr. Bingley sees Elizabeth’s sister Jane (Bella Heathcote) and is instantly smitten, making Jane’s mother, Mrs. Bennet (Sally Phillips), quite happy as she hopes to marry her daughters off to wealthy families as her own is not as financially secure as she would like. The zombie plague is beginning to overrun most of London’s defenses and Mr. Wickham (Jack Huston) is brought in to improve them. Darcy and Wickham have a strained history going back several years that Wickham blames on Darcy. This drives a further wedge between Darcy and Elizabeth.

“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,” henceforth to be referred to as “PPZ,” is a brilliant idea on paper. The juxtaposition between the mannered and stuffy British upper class and the mindless hunger of zombies should have been a no brainer (pardon the expression). Sadly, this theatrical representation of a genre mashup is about as dry and dull as a British costume drama without the ravenous undead.

“PPZ” isn’t funny, isn’t scary and isn’t otherwise much of anything. It seems to have taken more of the tone of the original Jane Austen work and left any of the excitement of Seth Grahame-Smith’s modification on the page. While there are moments when Austen’s words are said during a fight scene between two characters and that does provide some visual humor it doesn’t translate into actual laughs. Perhaps Grahame-Smith’s book wasn’t intended to be funny; however, if you want a film like this to appeal to a broad audience, it needs some laughs that aren’t the polite chuckles this film only occasionally provides.

The movie isn’t scary in the least. These zombies still possess some of their former intelligence and can maintain their composure at least until they consume human brains. After they get their first taste of grey matter, they become ravenous and aggressive. The world of 19th Century England dealing with zombies is somewhat interesting and the modified history, construction of a massive wall and deep moat to block zombie progress, is a nice touch of background; but it doesn’t do much to carry the story past the opening credits.

I suppose the filmmakers were hoping to attract fans of Austen’s work AND people that enjoy “The Walking Dead.” The Venn diagram of those two audiences doesn’t have a great deal of overlap and you need an audience big enough to justify making the sequel suggested in the film’s closing image. Considering the anemic opening weekend box office, a second film seems unlikely.

“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” is rated PG-13 for zombie violence and action, and brief suggestive material. We see a few zombie heads explode when they are shot. An arm is severed and zombies often appear to have severe injuries to their faces. We also see some corpses with large holes in the tops of their heads and their brains removed. Suggestive material is limited to the occasional sight of the tops of a heaving bosom.

When I heard “PPZ” was being made I was actually a little excited to see it. I believed it might be possible to turn a one-note premise into an entertaining movie. Sadly, I was wrong. With such a serious tone and ignoring its humorous potential, “PPZ” is largely a lifeless mess.

“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies” gets two stars out of five.

This week, comic book fans get what could be a cinematic Valentine’s card from a much anticipated character. There is also a comedy about dating and a revisit from Blue Steel! I’ll see and review at least one of these films.

Deadpool—

How to be Single—

Zoolander 2—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “Avengers: Age of Ultron”

While raiding a HYDRA base in the small eastern European country of Sokovia to retrieve Loki’s mind control scepter, the Avengers, Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), Steve Rodgers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) and Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) in the form of the Hulk, encounter the Maximoff twins Pietro (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Wanda (Elizabeth Olsen).  He possesses super speed while see can manipulate minds and emit energy pulses.  Their powers have been enhanced due to HYDRA experimentation that has killed all other test subjects.  The raid is ultimately successful and the scepter is recovered but Wanda plants the nightmarish image of all the Avengers dead in the mind of Stark.  This leads him to restart a program to create, in his words, a suit of armor around the world.  The Ultron program was stalled due to software issues but Tony believes he and Banner can use the mind-control stone in the scepter to rewrite the program and create an automated defense system.  Tony’s helpful computer program J.A.R.V.I.S. (voiced by Paul Bettany) continues working on various configurations of the program and it comes to life.  Confused, J.A.R.V.I.S. tries to aid Ultron (voiced by James Spader) in understanding his existence.  Ultron quickly overwhelms J.A.R.V.I.S. and takes control of Tony’s robotics lab, creating a rudimentary body for himself.  Ultron has misinterpreted Tony’s intensions and decides the only way to protect the Earth is to destroy all human life.  During a celebration party in the Avenger’s tower, Ultron makes his presence known and attacks the team but they are able to defeat him; however, the program of Ultron escapes into the Internet and finds facilities to create more versions of himself.  Ultron also approaches the Maximoff twins about helping him destroy the Avengers.  The pair has a particular hatred for Tony as their parents were killed by weapons from Stark Industries.  They agree to help and the three, along with several robots, head to the African nation of Wakanda to meet with arms dealer Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis) who possesses a huge amount of the super strong metal vibranium.  The Avengers show up as well and a major battle ensues.  Wanda is able to place spells on nearly all the Avengers and each is shown devastating images of either their past or their greatest fears.  Banner is transformed into an out of control Hulk causing him and Tony, in his Hulk-Buster armor, to battle and nearly destroy a Wakandan city.  The world is turning against them due to all the property damage they cause, the team is in shambles and questioning if they can still be an effective fighting force and if they can defeat Ultron.

If you see “Avengers:  Age of Ultron,” strap in and leave the large soft drink at the concessions stand as you are in for a 140 minute rollercoaster of action and special effects.  You may also want to bring ear plugs as the film is quite loud with all the metal clanking and various things exploding nearly all the time.  It is a visual spectacle that works well within the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU); however, if you are looking for meaning on a deeper level you may be disappointed.

The early trailers made it appear “Avengers:  Age of Ultron” would be a dark and serious affair.  That worry is unfounded as the trademark banter between the characters is fully on display even in more serious moments.  Each character has a chance to lighten the mood with the interplay between Stark and Rodgers delivering the most lighthearted moments.  Thor, Natasha, Barton and Banner also get opportunities to make the audience smile and chuckle.  Even the newly added Maximoff twins get a chance to throw off a quip.  It can’t be considered a full-on comedy but the film is much less dour than first looks suggested.

The quality of acting is about what you expect in any Marvel film but having Spader provide the voice of Ultron raises the quality of the villain’s performance.  James Spader gives Ultron a level of gravitas that might have been missing from another actor.  Ultron’s commanding baritone voice ringing with condescension, his ease in dancing verbal rings around Stark and the others and the cold calculation of his ultimate plan puts him head and shoulders above most other Marvel villains.  Plus, the robot Ultron is literally twice as tall as anyone on screen.  That physical dominance of the frame only adds to Spader’s voice acting.

The acting of Scarlett Johansson and Mark Ruffalo is put to the test in the film’s biggest flaw:  The will-they-won’t-they romance of Natasha and Banner.  While an unknown length of time has passed since “The Avengers,” the notion of these two becoming a couple seems a bit out of left field.  Perhaps this is writer/director Joss Whedon’s attempt to humanize these bigger than life characters.  Since we know very little of their lives outside of teaming up to fight a world-threatening evil, this might have been an effort to bring these demigods down to our level.  Quite frankly, it feels a bit tacked on.  Banner and Natasha are probably the two most dangerous members of the team.  She has been trained practically since birth to be an assassin and he fears he will hurt innocent people when he transforms into an out of control rage giant.  The two of them together strike me as a disaster waiting to happen.  It also doesn’t help that she was flirting with Rodgers in “Captain America:  The Winter Soldier” and in the comics has been romantically connected to him and Barton.  Of course, I don’t understand how anyone could turn down the affections of Natasha who is probably the sexiest woman in any of their lives, but that’s just me.  While the romance sections of the movie pay off by the film’s end, they tend to bring the story’s momentum to a halt.  They probably could have been incorporated in a different way to fit better within the narrative.

Then there’s the problem with all the Marvel movies and superhero films in general:  The concept of meaningful stakes for the characters.  So far, nearly every MCU film has followed a predictable pattern of a worldwide threat bringing out the hero or heroes, that threat nearly defeating the hero then with one final effort the hero wins.  Marvel has a slate of films mapped out over the next decade that involves these characters.  Since we know they will be around in 2018 for whatever sequel, where is the danger to the protagonist?  It simply isn’t there.  We know Iron Man, Captain America and the rest will live to fight another day since they have a contract calling for them to appear in however many more movies.  The only mystery is how the villain will be defeated and that’s not nearly as satisfying as truly being in doubt as to if the hero will survive the final attack.  This formula make get a shakeup in coming films as both Robert Downey, Jr. and Chris Evans are nearing the end of their contracts.  Also, the next Captain America film is based on the comic book storyline of a battle between factions within the superhero community where not everyone survives.  The fiscal realities of increasing star salaries and actors desire to work on different projects may be what puts some real threat into the evil plans of the villains.

“Avengers:  Age of Ultron” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action, violence and destruction, and some suggestive comments.  There are fights throughout the film between robots and Avengers, Avengers and Avengers and Avengers and others who are not robots or Avengers.  It is all fairly mild as film violence goes.  There is very little blood and no gore unless you count the robot guts that are displayed when one is destroyed.  During the Hulk vs. Hulkbuster fight, a building under construction is demolished, some people in an elevator are nearly killed and the Hulkbuster suit has a piston-action fist that repeatedly punches the Hulk in the face.  All the suggestive comments are between Natasha and Banner except for one ancient reference by Stark during the scene where each Avenger tries to pick up Thor’s hammer.  Foul language is widely scattered, very mild and used as the set up for a running joke.

The weirdness of business agreements between companies is on full display in the film.  In the comics, the Maximoff twins are the children of main X-Men villain Magneto; however, since Marvel sold the movie rights for the X-Men and the use of the term mutant to Fox, their heritage could not be mentioned.  You might wonder how the characters could be used at all.  It comes down to the fact that the pair has been in both the X-Men and the Avengers so the lawyers decided both companies could use the characters.  Clear as mud, right?  Then, here comes Spider-Man who had been the cinematic property of Sony but can now appear in both Marvel and Sony movies.  It is enough to make one’s head spin; but if the complicated storylines of superhero movies don’t induce vertigo then legal issues between movie companies should be a piece of cake.  What does this have to do with whether “Avengers:  Age of Ultron” is worth your time and money?  Nothing, I just thought it was interesting.  Since most Marvel movies are critic proof, it really doesn’t matter what I think.  I will offer this one bit of advice:  Don’t pay for the 3D.  There is a few times it makes items on screen really pop out but most of the time it is hardly noticeable.  See the standard version and enjoy the ride with Earth’s Mightiest Heroes.  It isn’t art but it’s fun.

“Avengers:  Age of Ultron” gets five stars.

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Just a couple of new films this week and both are comedies.  Maybe I’ll review one of them or maybe it’ll be another film.  Stay tuned.

D Train–

Hot Pursuit–