Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) is a vampire, buried for 196 years and awaken in 1972. The witch who cursed him to this fate, Angelique (Eva Green), has control of the town that his family built from the ground up. Can Barnabas rally his existing family to defeat Angelique and save the fishing industry?

Director Tim Burton has assembled his troops. Dark Shadows features Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and composer Danny Elfman. All of whom are vets of his films. To retain talent at this rate, Burton must be doing something right. Unfortunately Dark Shadows isn’t one of their brightest moments.

The 1972 setting is mostly disclosed through song. Dark Shadows is no musical, but the classic rock and pop soundtrack carries the movie more than any other single element. Don’t jump too fast at dolling out credit; it’s not that difficult to select songs most patrons are going to enjoy when they’ve had 40 years to grow on us.

Depp is good as the fish out of water. He’s not fantastic and frankly, like most of Dark Shadows, his performance will go forgotten soon after viewing. It’s not for a lack of production value, but more for an effort to mimic TV format. Now I’m not familiar with the television show Dark Shadows which this film is based, but it’s too obvious that TV plotlines dominate the film. It boils down to Barnabas sleeping around and murdering to the point that a happy ending isn’t just. If you’re expecting a dark comedy, the trailer will suffice.

I honestly struggled to recall if I had fallen asleep, missing several touching scenes of between Barnabas and Victoria (Bella Heathcote), the young governess who has arrived in town just as Barnabas has returned. Perhaps the context is lost when it’s glossed over via montage, one that focuses more on Barnabas struggling to find suitable sleeping quarters than their blossoming romance. It’s something that a love story skips out on the heart.

There’s a bevy of characters I’m not even going to bring up because they simply have no impact on the story as individuals. The writing seems to know this, making one a werewolf just to have something interesting occur. Again, I’m sure the TV series had time to hint at this surprise while this movie throws in an unwanted twist.

Tim Burton was at one time an auteur of unique vision, but for over a decade he’s done nothing but remakes, reboots, and adaptations of established works. Dark Shadows certainly looks like his movie, combining a morbid scenario with white makeup and giant eyes. I can’t help but think how magnificent it could be for Burton to apply his trademarks to new concepts. **

The Avengers is a juggling act, drawing heroes from across the Marvel Comics universe. Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), join Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) and his S.H.I.E.L.D team to defend New York from Loki, the god of lies and mischief. Never before had a film been alluded toward in four movies.

The expansive 143 minute runtime packs plenty of action punch with set pieces so grand it defies logic how they can be quickly brushed aside. There’s an underground facility that gets blown, a flying aircraft carrier that gets sieged, and the ubiquitous romp in New York City. Any one of these could function as the climatic showcase of a lesser film.

There’s also a lot of dull therapy to be dished out. Everyone has an issue with the next guy. Some are more understandable than others. Take Tony Stark for example, whose mouth is as much a weapon as his suit. Scholars will appreciate a subplot analogy that paints the USA as Iran, developing our weapons of mass destruction to defend against a perceived threat.

Considering that neither Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) nor Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) have a stand-alone films series, it’s understandable that they get the bulk of emotional development—or rather Hawkeye aids Black Widow. The loose star of the show is Iron Man, getting the reward of having his entire support staff in attendance. Speaking of staff, all of a sudden Fury has a new sidekick named Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders). He already has agent Colston (Clark Gregg) and in Iron Man 2 Black Widow filled this void. I challenge anyone to show how agent Hill is a necessary character. Everything she does could/should have been accomplished by Black Widow or resulted in one more baddie for Fury to shoot.

Director Joss Whedon makes for a hotbed of geekdom street cred—enough to name a day in his honor. Largely a television creator, Whedon’s last feature helmed as a director was the 2005 space western Serenity, a wrap for the grossly underestimated series Firefly. Whedon’s comical, yet serious, trademark shines through. Of course smart aleck Tony Stark makes use of his time, but the best laugh comes from the Hulk’s tremendous lack of patience. There are also some unprofessional gags aboard their floating base, and let’s face it when a movie incorporates gods on Earth, along with the aforementioned, there needs to be a funny bone. I’ll go out on a limb and declare the unreleased The Dark Knight Rises as 2012’s dramatic comic book film. Unfortunate for The Avengers the abuse gods like Thor and Loki take doesn’t mesh with the sci-fi aided characters.

Loki has a plan to bring war to Earth and it’s not too dissimilar to Megatron’s seen in Transformers: Dark of the Moon only a year ago. The plot is not as super as the heroes, never leaving the audience guessing or twisting in the wind from confusion.

My chief concern for The Avengers revolved around the lack of superpowers found in some members. So what if Hawkeye is good with a bow and Black Widow is flexible? Captain America’s scalp barely breaches the threshold for this ride. What should have raised eyebrows further is the lack of villains. These franchise players are pulled together to fight Thor’s adopted brother, whom he defeated by himself last summer. Most of the Avengers take on busy work like bashing aliens, the stand-in for the fodder ninjas of the ‘80s. It’s too bad these super heroes don’t have a super story. **½

This film caught my attention some time ago for a couple of reason. First, director/writer/star Lena Dumham is younger than myself. Second, it’s shot on an affordable Canon EOS 7D DSLR camera. Indeed, a studio isn’t backing production making Tiny Furniture a truly independent film. Its budget is noticeably lacking, but it doesn’t look as cheap as a Redbox renegade from Steven Seagal. We’re spared fakish explosions and post-heavy color correction. The screenplay is comfortable for the budget, or maybe the budget simply isn’t sufficient for a quality screenplay. We all know “lights, camera, action!” but when there isn’t any action it’s all of a sudden easy to set up the lights and camera. Action, in any manifestation, is time consuming to stage and therefore adds expense. If the writer doesn’t have kinetic energy in mind then the story simply isn’t worth sitting through. There doesn’t need to be a has-been firing a gun, but the simple sense of urgency. For Tiny Furniture to win best narrative feature at SXSW is either indicative of feminist favoritism or a lack of competition.

There’s a myth I’d like to debunk. I was under the impression that Aura would be a YouTuber that makes videos about tiny furniture and this film chronicles her journey. That’s not the case. Tiny Furniture is not the first movie to work YouTube stardom into its script. There is a young man in the film whose YouTube channel drawing attention. Aura attempts to start a relationship with him only to learn that he’s every bit as dull as her whilst also, and rightfully, having zero interest. No, it’s a movie about being spoiled and hopeless. I don’t know if that’s exactly what Dunham was going for, like this is a cautionary tale of how entitlement leads to doldrums or if this is her idea of a struggle.

Dunham captures all the joy of a being in a rut, but is that really worthy of a cinematic experience? Dullness does not translate well to the screen… well actually it can, sometimes too often, but it’s not something evocative of quality. It’s not entertainment, escapism, magical, or inspired. Frankly the biggest problem facing independent cinema is the tendency to create that which shouldn’t exist. Studios know there is no market for a selfish, anxiety-ridden pity party, but somehow filmmakers are able to get just enough people on board to fulfill their agendas.

Having thoroughly trashed Tiny Furniture, I should say that it’s somewhat respectable. The goal was to deliver a sense of boredom—mission accomplished. It’s 89% well lit, 75% of the sound is audible, while 50% of the acting is believable. Having viewed on average 300 independent films over the last few years, I can say with confidence that much worse efforts exist and are currently in production. If this was for a class, you’re not going to fail. As a showcase of skills, maybe with the right tutelage something can be made of Dunham. **

Tom (Jason Segel) and Violet (Emily Blunt) are ready to get married, but life has other plans. When new fiancée Violet pulls him to Michigan, Tom has to give up his life as a chef in trendy San Francisco. Their wedding gets delayed, interrupted by the funerals of grandparents, and out right forgotten.

Director Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Get Him to the Greek) reunites with producer Judd Apatow as well as co-writer/star Jason Segel for more shenanigans. The track record of producer Judd Apatow should make it clear that some of the humor is dirty. At least it’s creative, witty, and in a turn from his usual methods doesn’t objectify women. There’s no fiery sexpot ready to lead Tom astray. Many jokes can be played on TV. My personal favorite comes when Violet and her sister Suzie (Alison Brie) have an altercation in front of a small child who requests they channel Sesame Street characters. Even the slapstick is rhythmic, not dwelling too long on the setup so as to give away the fall. Jason is something of a giant sponge damp from absorbing abuse, and his (for the most part) steadfast loyalty is endearing.

Structurally the romcom is a predictable genre. There are only two ways The Five-Year Engagement could end, but I have a feeling that given the fun factor the opposite conclusion would have been satisfying. The ride is worthwhile and every bit character receives exploration, be it the drunk creep at work, the emasculated stay-at-home dad, or fellow grad students.

As the credits roll I see the now ubiquitous declaration of carbon footprint offsetting, the American Humane Association’s approval (deers shot by Tom while hunting are comically fake) and a series of thank you shout-out. Many of these included locales, but no real confirmation of filming in Michigan. Maybe that explains the use of some of the worst stock footage every put in a nationally released film. Several exterior shots entirely fail to match the appearance of the A roll. They’re upscaled video clips, and in at least one case interlaced. Combine this aesthetic suicide with a rather lengthy running time that spills over the 120 minutes and you’ve found my primary gripes. However, isn’t an elongated runtime appropriate for a movie titled as such?

As a male observer I find myself relating to Tom and Violet equally. His charm and her smarts are apparent and unforced. It’s early, and this isn’t the typical fodder but I would hope that perhaps Emily or Jason receive some nominations for their roles and/or writing. Harking back to the early statement, The Five-Year Engagement is thus far the best movie of 2012. ***½

The Pirates! Band of Misfits is another wonderful addition to the Aardman Animations family of stop motion adventures, masterfully fulfilling the needs of children and their parent’s alike.

Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) wants the Pirate of the Year award desperately. After seeing the booty pulled in by Black Bellamy (Jeremy Piven) and Cutlass Liz (Salma Hayek), Pirate Captain goes on a looting spree. After attacking worthless ships, Pirate Captain and his crew encounter Charles Darwin (David Tennant) who informs him that the real treasure may be under his nose, but to claim glory the pirates will have to enter London where Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton) wants all pirates dead.

The last family friendly film I reviewed was Arthur Christmas, another Aardman animations productions from Sony. Arthur Christmas wasn’t quite as suggestive with the humor, and tried to make up for it with sheer volume. Much of the humor in The Pirates! plays out in the background and well beyond the comprehensions of the children in attendance. They can grasp the plot, the fun of the sight gags, and the lively characters, but the parent can appreciate the grander aspects and dare I say historical elements.

It’s nothing for a computer generated animated film to do the impossible, or rather what would be impossible with conventional means. It’s far more the feat when modeled figures do just as much. Stripping away the dialog, which is great, leaves a visual art that can still make a spectacle. Director Peter Lord is to his craft as Jim Henson was to puppets. As amazed as this reviewer is of the animation, I wish those promoting it had as much faith as the poster is computer rendered.

Hugh Grant wasn’t entirely necessary to make The Pirates! Band of Misfits enjoyable, and his American pirate may be a misnomer. Piven and Hayek might have 10 lines between them, and typically when a character gets the star entrance, as they did, you expect them to have a more prominent role. There might even be some fall out from feminists for the lack of emphasis on the character known as Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate, but I find it refreshing to have such a character included without making her an agent to introduce an agenda.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits breaks the mold. What we have here is a fun family film that entertains the kids and parents don’t have to simply tolerate it. There’s going to be a lot of sequels and remakes this summer, even an original computer animated movie or two, but there surely won’t be another feature like this. ***

At the beginning of Lockout, a film from directors James Mather and Stephen St. Leger, there is an opening credit declaring the film as based on an “original idea” by Luc Besson. That’s what entertainment has come down to, opening titles trying to justify a ripoff.

Snow (Guy Pearce with range fully extended) is an ex-government operative who gets caught up in the wrong place at the wrong time. His options are 30 years in a cryogenic prison (honestly I’m not sure the writers are fully grasping the punishment aspect of prison because this sounds like a much better alternative to living out one’s days behind bars) or rescue the president’s daughter, Emily (Maggie Grace) who is being help hostage at the same orbiting super max.

Snow has attitude, more so than Snake Plisken, higher brow than Duke Nukem. The guy seems to enjoy getting knocked around during interrogation while wearing a printed t-shit reading “Warning: Offensive” while smoking a cigarette in the 2070s—maybe in the future they’re known as health sticks. He’s chiseled and has a mind ready to dispense comebacks. No doubt about it, Pearce’s performance and the Snow character take prominence in any argument supporting Lockout.

As solid as Pearce is, and as acceptable as Grace comes off, the smallest supporting performances are down right pathetic. At one point Emily gets herself locked into a room. The prisoners go through a rolodex of engineers, each given the chance to fix the control panel to open the door with death coming to those who fail. You’d think with two directors, one of them would have inspired believable fear from these guys as they do have speaking roles. What I saw was non-actors nonchalantly walking onto a set with no sense of the stakes.

There’s some relief that FilmDistrict is behind Lockout, initially anyway, almost giving the allure of niche cinema with less compromises. Sure the budget doesn’t fully support all the action, such as the PlayStation 2 rendered cycle chase seen early, but Lockout doesn’t otherwise look cheap. The world is paper thin, but visuals either pay homage or are based on those from The Matrix and Blade Runner.

I already mentioned the cigarettes, but should a movie set in the future have iPhones, coffee, wood stock shotguns, or even especially eyeglasses? As utterly thin as Lockout comes across I highly doubt these are efforts to evoke a cyberpunk world, more like lazy art direction.

There really isn’t much to speak of beyond the setup because the action aboard MS One isn’t memorable. The two goofs that have seized control of the station only managed to do so because of an equally inept Secret Service agent. Cliché get set up and played out to the point that anyone with mild experience in viewing the action/sci-fi subgenre feels like a psychic.

Snow has an hidden motive to clear his name through a source stationed at space prison. This subplot is stronger and more original than the one-man army rescue mission that takes precedence throughout the film, that Lockout could have done without. I can’t stress how highly it speaks of Guy Pearce that Lockout can be considered a recommendation to those individuals motivated to see some attitude. **½

Being Elmo is the story of Kevin Clash’s rise from fan to show runner. As a young boy watching programs like The Wonderful World of Disney and The Muppet Show, Kevin set himself on the goal of being a puppeteer like his heroes. Not only did Kevin teach himself from how to control puppets, he also had to construct his own. Early efforts to knock-off Henson’s creations aren’t shabby, and most will be shocked at young Kevin’s affluence with textiles.

There are of course odds to overcome. What Being Elmo does best is highlight, but not dwell upon, the obstacles Kevin faced. A poor, black high school kid from Baltimore playing with dolls goes against the norm. Some teasing is brought up, but it’s a non-issue for Kevin and his support system at home.

With other worldly foresight, mostly afforded by the entertainment aspect, Being Elmo pulls together archived footage of not only Kevin’s early charitable gigs but also his first meeting with Muppet designer Kermit Love. I also appreciate the amalgamation of still photos cut together in 3Desque space. Overall the visuals and audio are consistent with the best and almost everyone relevant to Kevin’s story gets an interview.

There isn’t a lot of conflict, but not every life needs a drug addiction to overcome. For Kevin the biggest obstacle comes when his loyalty to the TV shows who hired him causes him to pass on a movie with his idol. It’s a forgone conclusion that it all works out for the best, but there are surprises. Even after learning of Kevin, I was shocked as to how he wasn’t the original Elmo.

It’s refreshing that someone as accomplished as Kevin can get his story told without having to hit rock bottom. It’s also amazing that Kevin isn’t famous, or garnering the public recognition one expects from talent.  Director Constance Marks assembled an appropriately positive film kids, fans both past and present, or even a jaded individual like myself can enjoy. Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey offers fantastic insight into the world created by Jim Henson and a boy’s dream to join it, showing that hard work and a kind heart still have a place in this world. ***½

There most certainly is a lesson to be learned from The Hunger Games making a mockery of the debuts of Wrath of the Titans or even Mirror Mirror. In its second week The Hunger Games grossed $61.1 million at the US domestic box office. This followed a $152 million opening weekend. Mind you this is a non-3D film that isn’t taking advantage of the trend in price gouging established by Avatar at the end of 2009. How did The Hunger Games get this done? Girls.

I’m not saying that The Dark Knight Rises is actually going to make less money, but Batman Begins didn’t start the trilogy as strong. By making a blockbuster with teenage girls in mind, Hollywood was able to also capture the attention of boys. A little bit of violence, some sci-fi elements, and a girl wanting to go to the movies with you are too much for the average bloke to resist. On the other hand, good luck guys dragging your gal pal to a movie that you wanted to see.

The trend starts now. Hollywood, as they will spin it, will listen to the female audience and produce more action-esque, sci-fi/fantasy films with strong female leads at the center since it’s already a given that guys will buy into it. It’s more efficient to fill a theatre with couples and families than just a bunch of guys. Easy money. Fellas, the long run you had dating back to Star Wars is coming to an end.

The Hunger Games benefits heavily from movie-by-marketing filmmaking, at least in terms of exposure. Sourced from a series of popular young adult novels by Suzanne Collins, the opening weekend is expected to make bank if not rewrite records.

Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) has volunteered to take her sister’s place in the upcoming Hunger Games, a state sanctioned gladiatorial event for kids ages 12-18. Presented as a TV show that keeps the 12 districts involved from uprising, Katniss is trained in both survival skills as well as presentation. Her mentors consist of Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), and most importantly Haymitch (Woody Harleson).

Sadly there’s at least a solid hour of buildup for a rather lackluster blood sport. Blame the PG-13 rating if nothing else. The entire film is shot with a disproportionate shot selection. If you’re into seeing the wrinkles on Elizabeth Banks, The Hunger Games is your movie. I haven’t seen this many close-ups since Speed 2: Cruise Control. If the audience is seeing nothing but a blur of faces, they sure aren’t seeing violence. Another thing they’re not seeing is set decoration.

As the story develops it becomes painfully obvious how this tale panders to the female psyche, resulting in a concoction that drives them to theatres. There’s Katnis, the working class yet stylish heroine. She’s talented with a bow and arrow, though I wonder how this futuristic society has overlooked the developments we have in compound bow technology. The men are cowardice. especially Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) who is teemed with Katnis as her counterpart to represent District 12.

In just the realm of cinema it’s obvious there are two sources of inspiration. The gorific reality TV comes from The Running Man (1987). The kid vs. kid aspect is found in Battle Royale (2000). It’s the latter that compares best. Kinji Fukasaku’s Battle Royale is a tighter, more action packed, more dramatic, even funnier film. A classroom of children think they’re going on a trip, but land on a deserted island with orders to kill each other. They watch a comical training video instead of sit through days of flashy interviews, chariot rides, and jungle gym exercise. The wildcards thrown in to keep the game progressing are truly fearsome and endless more probable than a computer program’s summed canines. With each death in Battle Royale emotions pour out. We learn that everyone is connected, that some feelings need to come out, the value of friendship, and the price sustaining one’s life. With The Hunger Games there are some bounds forged, buy the adventure puts them through few tests.

The casting of Academy Award nominee Jennifer Lawrence does so much for the film that I wouldn’t be shocked in the least if she didn’t receive and Oscar nomination. You’ll note how Kristen Stewart leads the fangirl series that is being unseeded, and that no one has ever considered her Bella Swan for anything other than a Razzie. If not for the eyes that speak without words of Lawrence, The Hunger Games would be a complete disaster. I can’t stop you from seeing it but I’d like to encourage you to check in on the true source material, the aforementioned films. **½

There was a time, the 1990s, when a huge budget was a selling point. The publicity drummed up by then biggest movies ever made Terminator 2, True Lies, Waterworld, and Titanic made seeing them events. Perhaps the world’s financial crisis has changed opinions. I didn’t know of the immense budget supporting John Carter until after news of its performance. Is it possible that the money put into building a spectacle is no longer newsworthy in of itself?

Maybe it’s my lack of experience in production, but I know that if I was given the task of producing a $250 million feature-length movie I would gets some big draw stars involved. I haven’t seen John Carter so it’s unfair to say that Taylor Kitsch’s performance is to blame for the low turn out. What I do know is that most people don’t know his name. Therefore it’s a given that buying a ticket to John Carter had little to do with seeing Kitsch in action. The smart play is to back the film with a star whose name can sit above the title. At heart that’s the point of having movie stars. Many Americans don’t see a movie for it’s higher level storytelling merits; they want to see a star. Sadly, even grandpa wants to see the new Adam Sandler movie just because it’s someone familiar.

In just the last couple of years there has been a huge deterrence from maxing out the budgets for blockbusters. This could be because of the easy access to pirated copies, an echo of the Twilight phenomena, shorter theatre life, or maybe even a disdain for wanton spending.

The sci-fi genre has been in a pickle for some time. It’s one of the more expensive genres to tackle correctly and in doing so studios have to figure ways to recoup the money. This usually results in marginalized elements. The story can get dumbed down, there needs to be a love interest the audience will find sexy, violence needs to be conveyed in a manner that’s kid-friendly, etc. The golden child of today’s sci-fi, Avatar, isn’t simply guilty of conforming; it preys on audiences. Even without star power it wraps minds up in a love story meets holy war of green environmentalists versus occupying soldier analogies.

Despite some perceived similarities to Avatar. I hoped John Carter would fair better than it had. From my understanding of it, this is no new story but at least it’s not a franchise reboot. The next time someone wants to swing a $250 million movie rock at the public you can bet it will feature two it leads, be based on a presently popular book, relate to today’s audience by forfeiting an envisioned fantasy setting, and/or be the re-imagining of a comic book saga that had a major film a mere 5 years earlier. Bottom line, it will be a sure fire hit conceived from the already popular in a world where risk and reward are becoming old methods.