A Million and One Problems but This Ain't One

Seth MacFarlane never really gets the respect he deserves.

Oh, don't mistake me, because if you've seen any of his work, you know it's entirely his own fault. If you can stand watching TV shows Family Guy or American Dad! for more than a few minutes at a time, it's obvious he's a smart, clever entertainer. In terms of wordplay, he can blow his contemporaries away with ease, and he his timing is so smooth and perfect that he will not only catch you off guard with his witty repartee, but do so in the best, most efficient way possible. But he torpedoes his own talent in two ways. One, he's at times excessively vulgar. A byproduct of the "extreme gross-out" comedy format that became big at end of the 1990's, MacFarlane lives and dies on his ability to deliver whatever shock value that the FOX network won't censor on his TV shows. Sometimes it works... and more often than not he goes a little too far, depicting gags that go on too long, or are so vile as to disgust. Naturally, this is only my opinion; your mileage may vary. The second complaint about the filmmaker is that he has one joke: the nostalgic non-sequitor accompanied by immediate visual recreation. Now, while I wouldn't say it's his ONLY joke, he used it so often on Family Guy that it's become his signature style, and since he definitely doesn't do anything in moderation, it gets old. Again, my opinion.

"Get on with it!"

So when MacFarlane's directorial debut Ted came out in 2012, what came as the biggest shock was that, from a first-time live-action filmmaker whose TV shows were VERY hit-or-miss, Ted's gags were mostly hits. The humor was creative, the storytelling was solid, and the material was approachable and understandable while also undeniably being MacFarlane's usual brand of adult-only entertainment. A Million Ways to Die in the West, however, is more like the director's previous work. That is, it tries really hard to force gags that don't work and winks for the camera to make sure you got it. If Ted was an example of MacFarlane successfully refraining from his too-frequently used vices, then this is his movie where he revels in them. Appearing live on the big screen for the first time, MacFarlane plays a Albert Stark, a cowardly sheep farmer in the 1882 who regularly bemoans the danger of living in the Wild West, where everything from nature to outlaws to sickness is out to get you. This thinking drives away the love of his life Louise (Amanda Seyfried), and as she was the only happy thing in Albert's life, he tries to get her back from her new douchebag boyfriend Foy (a hilarious Neil Patrick Harris). Along the way he befriends Anna, a tough-as-nails female gunslinger (Charlize Theron), pisses off a notorious outlaw (Liam Neeson) and take a drug trip with a Native American tribe. Truly, this is a story for the ages.

The moustache is the real star of the show.

There is a lot wrong with MacFarlane's second feature, but the most obvious is that the story is so... ordinary. The themes are readily apparent, most of them drawn from the usual Western cliches. The only think that makes A Million Ways unique is the treatment of Albert, who readily admits that he is not a hero, but "the guy in the crowd making fun of the hero's shirt." It's a refreshing change of pace to not see a John Wayne or a Wayne-wannabe taking the top spotlight in this kind of movie. However, there's a definite message here for the "nice guy" (that they don't finish last if they try), and while that's kind of unique for a Western setting, we've seen it a million times in teen comedies, and it's no fresher for the change of locale. And MacFarlane's attack on the romanticizing of the old west comes out as not timeless, but out-of-time; the average movie-going public doesn't care about the Western genre, so making fun of it isn't so much a whimsical nostalgic homage as it is kicking someone while they're down.

Obviously, Theron's on a new diet...

It doesn't help that the characters are a bit of a bore as well, with most actors not nearly used to their best effect. MacFarlane could almost be called the exception, but for the fact that a man known for doing funny voices never once alters his speech, even as a joke. It's like having Michael Winslow in a movie and NOT having him do his human beatbox routine. In fact, the actor/director's performance highlights the holes in his acting talent, as he's just not the lead actor type. He's got some charisma, but his screen presence is just off, since he doesn't know how to actually work in front of a camera after years of work behind it and doing voice-over work. At least Harris knows how to mug for the camera effectively, adapting well to MacFarlane's brand of storytelling. He really is the film's best performer, even if he's not given nearly as much to do. It's not that the rest of the actors are BAD, but that they're just written poorly and have little to do, playing nothing but stereotypes. Seyfried is a classic "bitchy ex-girlfriend". Neeson is the deadly outlaw with no sense of humor (he doesn't even get good dialogue). Giovanni Ribisi is the "mild-mannered best friend". Sarah Silverman is Ribisi's golden-hearted, dim-witted girlfriend (points off for Silverman's limp performance, but I'll give the character credit for being a prostitute who wants to wait for sex with her boyfriend until marriage because she's Christian. That's clever.). Theron is the "cool girl friend (not girlfriend)", and Theron doesn't so much play her as show up to speak her lines. And no, I don't think the Academy Award-winning actress was doing such a good job that I couldn't tell the difference. At least she seems to be having fun, which is a trait most of the cast seem to be sharing. Again, Neeson appears to be the exception, because he's playing the villain so straight. A bit TOO straight, in face, considering this production.

Neeson: a straight shot in a winding narrative.

Thankfully, the dialogue and humor isn't bad, and redeems some of the film's more lifeless efforts. MacFarlane (who teamed up on the script with his Ted co-writers Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild) delves full into his chosen topic, the variety of deaths in the American West, and has a lot of fun playing around with the concept. And when he focuses his the story here and not on the primary plot, THAT is when A Million Ways lives up to its premise, with Albert ranting on about the dozens of diseases rampant in the area (dysentery is referred to as "the black $#!&"), to the occasional off-handed comments about the hostility of local Native Americans ("...we're basically sharing the country with them 50/50.") to the numerous surprising cameos that I will not spoil, because they're just too perfect. Finally, MacFarlane has always had a good feel when it came to music, and he and composer Joel McNeely do a great job scoring this picture, mixing classic western music with more modernistic parody songs like "If You've Only Got a Moustache" and title track "A Million Ways to Die", for which you will want to sit through the closing credits to hear. This is where we get the upper level of MacFarlane's creativity. It's just too bad that the main story needed some work, as if the director had put as much effort into the plot that as he did making it anachronistic and edgy and fun, this could have been a great movie.

I know, I can't believe I'm giving this a decent review, either.

So no, it's no Ted, but A Million Ways to Die in the West isn't that bad, either. Does MacFarlane have the chops to be a lead actor? Absolutely not. Does he need a filter on occasion? Yes, the man never found a barrier he wouldn't cross just to say that he did. Is the script surprisingly and incredibly lazy? Yes, but the actors do try to have fun with it anyway. There are enough laughs to get you through the surprisingly long (nearly two hours, unheard of for a modern comedy) run time, and they hit more often than they miss. Heck, even when they miss, they aren't as bad as say... the worst bits from his Oscar hosting performance. There's no denying that those who do not think much of MacFarlane's brand will do best to stay away, but that's not to say that you have to be a fan to "get" this movie. It's harmless fun, albeit of a decidedly adult nature. The biggest complaint I have is that MacFarlane definitely half-assed this production, and that's the main reason it doesn't compare to even his best televised work. He relies too much on his usual schtick, and that's just not good enough to succeed at this level. Maybe one day he'll live up to his true potential (as he got close with Ted) but for now he'll just have to settle for not getting that respect a little bit longer.

Adventure Time

It's been two months since The Croods sauntered into theaters and became the first major children's hit of 2013 (Escape From Planet Earth might have technically been first, but just try and find somebody who actually remembers it). Now, just as the Dreamworks picture's theatrical run is just about wound down, who do you expect to pick up the slack? It's not Pixar, or Sony Animation, and certainly not Aardman. So who takes the reigns of children's animated theatrical showings now? Well, it's the blandly-named Epic, coming to us from Greenwich, Connecticut's own Blue Sky Studios (the makers of Rio and the Ice Age franchise). While animated movies that feature mainly action and adventure don't often do that well at the box office (Blue Sky's parent company 20'th Century Fox found that out the hard way thirteen years ago with Titan A.E.), Epic still had a couple of things going for it this past weekend. One - as I said - is that with the Croods effectively out of the way, the family film has no serious competition until the end of June. The second is director Chris Wedge, whose experience perhaps is not all that extensive (in this millennium he has only directed the first Ice Age and Robots), but he's still a talented filmmaker who can deliver impressive results. Sure, his name will never be featured among the likes of modern animation legends like Lee Unkrich or Brad Bird, but if he's going to make a movie, It doesn't hurt to take a look.

My, what a long neck you have...

M.K. (Amanda Seyfried) is a normal teen who moves in with her father Professer Bomba (Jason Sudeikis) after the death of her mother. Professor Bomba is an eccentric, constantly searching the forest to try and find evidence of a small, advanced society whose existence keeps nature alive and the forces of evil and decay in check. While M.K. scoffs at these theories, Bomba is in fact correct, as a war has long been raged between the destructive Boggans and their leader Mandrake (Christoph Waltz) and the noble Leafmen, led in battle by the noble Ronin (Colin Farrell) and ruled by the good Queen Tara (Beyonce Knowles). But the time is coming to name an heir, and an accident finds the skeptic M.K. shrunk down and joining the Leafmen in helping keep the balance in the forest, as Mandrake and his followers push to make the forest theirs once and for all.

The Three Amigos!

Epic has all the makings of a second-tier animated film, and it's not just because it comes to us from a second-tier production studio... actually, that might be the reason, so why don't I just move on? The animation is actually quite crisp... when the characters you're supposed to focus on are right in front of you. Character models are well-animated, with fluid movements, and look like they might have come off of the Disney or Pixar lots. The backgrounds as well are quite lovely, the lushness of the forest and the dark, Burton-esque bleakness of the Boggans' territory beautiful to behold. But when the "camera" pans back and we see characters moving at a distance, it's obvious where the animation budget was cut. Background characters or main characters moving at a distance appear to have jerky, simplified movements, completely distracting you from the rest of the world and marking the low-point of 3D animation. It pulls you out of the movie, and when the animation is this good, that's a shame.

Yes, he uses that sword. It's pretty awesome.

The story is another point of contention, not in that it's bad but in that the heroine-transforming, nature-saving tale it weaves cribs from bigger, oftentimes better fare. Obvious comparisons are James Cameron's Avatar and Fox's animated FernGully: The Last Rainforest, but the film also borrows heavily from epic adventures such as Star Wars and The Wizard of Oz with impunity. In fact, Josh Hutcherson's young Leafman Nod is almost an exact copy of Han Solo, right down to owing money to a crime lord. The characters are certainly a problem, as most of the talented cast can bring nothing new beyond the archetypes they are shoehorned into. They do the best they can, though some (such as Chris O'Dowd's snail who openly pines to join the Leafmen) are better than others (I'm looking at you, Aziz Ansari). Most of them, especially Seyfried and Waltz, manage do a great job regardless of the material. Still, there are a few question marks among the cast, most notably why they cast so many musicians in support roles. I mean, I get that Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler does the film's one (albeit truncated) musical number, and Beyonce of course provides a track for the closing credits (while doing a decent job acting-wise). But how did rapper Pitbull get in here? Especially when he couldn't even handle the half-dozen lines he was given? Was he supposed to provide something musically too? And if he did, what happened to it?

Christoph Waltz has never looked better!

But while there's absolutely nothing top-notch about Blue Sky's latest effort, it does enough, well enough, and prettily enough to be entertaining for families with nothing better to do. The story itself does solidly enough, and even picks up in the last act to provide sufficient entertainment for all ages. Throughout it is sweet and elaborate with it's message without getting too preachy for its own good, proof that the filmmakers didn't try to do too much with their decent idea. It's a shame that most people will forget completely about Epic  before long, as there's just nothing really memorable about the sub-two hours you spend in the theater. It's certainly good enough to take your kids to on a hot summer day as you await the arrival of Monsters University in a month, but by the same token it won't be something you'll need to see again, even when it eventually becomes available on DVD. Once again, this is a Chris Wedge production that is good enough, but not quite great. Never great.

Singing and Dancing

While my sister and I were growing up, our parents always wanted us to have a healthy appreciation for the arts and culture. Movies, museums and the theater were visited often, and those trips helped shape me into the man I have become, and continue to guide my perceptions of the world today. One I remember with some clarity was a showing at Boston's Wang Center of Les Miserables, the musical about poverty and revolution, crime and punishment in 1800's France. Even after all this time, I can remember the legendary musical numbers performed live by people who were masters of their craft. On Christmas, the whole country got a chance to see Tom Hooper's vision of that story on the big screen. Hooper, who could have done any project he wanted after scoring big with 2010's The King's Speech, decided to tackle the challenge of turning a story told 98% in song to a cinematic masterpiece. How did he do? Well, let's review.

Les Miserables follows Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) - a man who served 19 years in prison for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's children - after he is paroled. While he at first cannot find work due to his reputation as a "dangerous criminal", Valjean eventually catches a break and manages to make some wealth and do some good for the people of France after fleeing parole and taking an assumed name. His nemesis and the man chasing him is Javert (Russell Crowe), an officer of the law who rigidly enforces the law and cracks down on even the smallest infractions. Valjean finds a purpose in life when he attempts to aid the sick and struggling mother Fantine (Anne Hathaway) and adopts her daughter Cosette upon her death. Meanwhile, a revolution is building as the downtrodden common folk take up arms against the oppressive King and bourgeoisie.

Hope you enjoy Hathaway's performance... it's damned short

The good news is, if you love the musical as much as some people I know, you won't have any problems with the big screen rendition of Les Mis. Hooper changes almost nothing about what makes the musical so impressive, from its memorable musical score to its multiple-threaded story full of entertaining characters. He augments only in the tiniest bits, most notably in the addition of a new song for Jackman at the midway point. Like the musical, the actors rarely speak in anything but verse, and the director gets great vocalization from his cast by having had them sing live during filming, rather than recording it in post production. While it takes some effort to get used to, and at a few moments the singing doesn't quite match the music, the result is a largely authentic emotional response from his actors, who really get into their performances as though they were really playing on Broadway.

She dreamed a dream, and then she was gone.

The cast of course is a big reason for why the whole thing turned out nicely, and the main credit for that can be attributed to Jackman and Hathaway. Hathaway especially steals the show, and considering she has MAYBE twenty minutes of screen time in a two-plus hour movie, that says a lot. She's assisted somewhat by Hooper's direction (the fall into degradation of Fantine just happens to be the most masterfully shot sequence in the whole movie), but for the most part she deserves all the credit in the world for taking an important bit part and wringing everything out of it that she could. I didn't even know she could SING, and here she is belting out solos like a veteran vocalist. She's an Oscar guarantee at this point, bringing talents to the role that very few people could have expected. Jackman, however, has a history with song and stage, and so his excellence as Jean Valjean comes as absolutely no surprise. The part plays to the best aspects of his theatrical abilities, and anybody who is used to seeing him play manly men in the X-Men films or Real Steel needs to see his work here. The rest of the cast are a step down, though both Eddie Redmayne and debuting Samantha Barks will completely surprise you with their acting and singing abilities. Both have long, excellent careers ahead of them at this point. Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen put on strong performances as secondary villains (when am I going to stop being surprised by Cohen's talents?), and while Amanda Seyfried did not really impress me with her appearances, she was so barely present that it's hard to really give her a hard time. The only dud in casting was Crowe, who sports a fine singing voice but can't seem to loosen up and look natural for the camera. It's especially surprising when you consider what a good job he did in the unspectacular Man with the Iron Fists. Here, he puts on one of his lesser performances, the weakest part of an otherwise great group.

If it wasn't for Hathaway, everybody would be talking about her.

But while Hooper gets a lot out of his cast and puts on some great visuals, his story feels... exactly the same as the musical. At the core, you're getting pretty much the same experience you would on a stage, and while that is pretty impressive it also speaks to a glaring lack of individuality in his vision. The last time I saw a musical theater-turned-theatrical release, it was 2007's Sweeny Todd, which suffered from much the same ailment. There just wasn't enough to make it feel like more than they filmed a stage play. While Hooper's Les Mis is a far superior experience than Tim Burton's production, at times the director could have mixed things up a bit to make up for the play's... melodramatics, especially in the final act. The final ten minutes are largely underwhelming, shoehorning an obscene amount of plot into a few minutes of film, and the closing scene is almost as bad as Titanic's "applause" finale. So why did this make the final cut? Because it was that way in the musical, that's why.

And he's STILL the manliest man in Hollywood.

There are people who absolutely LOVE the stage version of Les Miserables. Usually when adaptations such as this are made, they alienate fans of the original by completely changing elements that made the original experience unique, whether major or minor. But fans of the stage Les Mis will have no such issues, as few changes and an excellent voice cast guarantee that diehards will walk out of the theater crying and sure they have just seen a masterpiece. For the rest of us, this musical is great, but doesn't live up to that impossible superlative. Keep Jackman and Hathaway earmarked for their exquisite performances, but otherwise this is "just" a great, deeply encompassing good time at the movies, not one of 2012's absolute best.

Time's Up

Sometimes a good hook is all a film really needs to capture its audience. When the majority of popular films out there are remakes or stories so derivative that they might as well be, anything that stands apart from the norm can, and more often than not will, excite and draw a real audience. That hook allows you to tell any story you wish, and if you do a good enough job, those people will turn to their friends afterward and tell them all about your movie, expanding your viewership at the next showing. That catchy, original idea is exactly the kind of film In Time aspires to be. When I first saw the trailer for this sci-fi thriller, it didn't matter that it starred two actors who don't do a lot for me (Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried). It didn't matter that the supporting cast sported a variety of not-quite-there names including Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde, Vincent Kartheiser and Johnny Galecki. It didn't matter that director Andrew Niccol's previous works interested me not one whit. What did matter was the concept; a society where time is currency and the rich live forever, while the poor constantly check their chronometers to see their last minutes ticking away. Sure it's an obvious analogy to the state of inequality in the world and especially the United States today, but that single element is what drove people to the theater this past weekend. All that was left was for the director to tell his story, and hope that it's good enough for repeat performances next time around.

The name's Salas. Will Salas. And I don't dance.

Will Salas (Timberlake) is a factory worker just trying to eke out a life in the ghettos of Dayton with his 50-year-old mother Rachel (Wilde). With his wages such that he is literally living a day at a time, Will finds himself faced with perhaps competing in illegal fights (think of them as arm wrestling matches to the death) to earn some time on the side. After he rescues 105-year-old socialite Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) from the wrong side of the tracks, Hamilton tells him that the system in place is there to keep the rich alive and force the little people into short lifespans, for purposes of population control. He also tells Will that he is tired of his empty existence and came to the ghetto because he wanted to die. After determining that Will would not "waste his time", Hamilton passes over a century of time to Will before killing himself. Now Will has enough time on his hands to mingle with the elite of New Greenwich, but Hamilton's death is tagged as suspicious by the Timekeepers, a police force led by Raymond Leon (Murphy). Leon launches a manhunt for Will, who eventually pairs up with a rich magnate's daughter (Seyfried) and the pair become a modern day (or would it be futuristic?) Robin Hood and Maid Marion, robbing Time Banks and redistributing all the time in the world to those who have none.

Silly concept, "stairs"...

While In Time certainly carries a strong message that likely appeals to the "99%", the story itself could have used a lot more work. The action is quick paced and natural, which is why it's so annoying that it takes so long to get to such a point where we are not overly-reliant on plot exposition and dialogue heavy with overtones just to get by. After a largely empty first act, the tale gets truly underway with the escaped couple doing everything they can to screw the man and eventually each other, though in different ways. Actually, the worst thing the film could have done was force a romance between Will and Seyfried's Sylvia, as the two actors have little in the way of chemistry to make such a coupling believable. It's a shame, as the things that Niccol does well as a director (action, a strong message) are almost ruined by his overemphasis on those strengths. The action is almost good to a fault, in which a few moments arise that are beyond his talent as a director and/or beyond the budget of the special effects department. And the message is so obvious that when the film's character's sit down and spell it out so that the audience without a shadow of a doubt "gets it", it's a simple yet exhaustive exercise in frustration to sit there and take it.

Hair has seen multiple technical advancements in the future

At least the silly dialogue and direction is delivered by something akin to a decent array of talent. Seyfried is the lone poor casting choice, as in my eyes she still hasn't done enough to prove that she deserves to be a leading lady. It's clear she has some talent, but so much of her dialogue is so thrown away and flat that you're not sure whether she's just raw or simply isn't trying. I certainly won't deny that she has the looks to be a star, but if she doesn't pick up the pace there are other pretty people would kill to be in her shoes. Timberlake meanwhile has a few dull moments but otherwise puts up one of the more impressive, stripped-down performances of his career. For once, as an actor he puts aside much of his natural charm and actually plays a role that is not a simply-adapted version of himself, and it works wonderfully. Cillian Murphy is as effective as his stone-faced demeanor can carry him, and considering the bluntness of his part that actually goes a long way. As a hard-nosed but honest cop, Murphy is one of the film's villains but not one you can hate, as he's just a working stiff doing his job to the best of his ability. There's almost something admirable about his character, and Murphy plays to that exceptionally well. More villainous but less featured are Mad Men's Vincent Kartheiser as Sylvia's wealthy entrepreneur father who doesn't care about the poor people who suffer under the system and Alex Pettyfer as the leader of a gang who kill people by stealing what time their victims have for themselves.Kartheiser is effective, but the almost seems out of place among all the far more attractive folk around him, ruining my "pretty people with problems" argument before it could even take off. Pettyfer's turn as a bad guy seems like an inspired move considering how poorly his last two films (I Am Number Four and Beastly) have fared with audiences. More likely it's a coincidence, but Pettyfer manages to be charming and snooty all at the same time, and comes off as a natural leader for others to follow. I'd love to see him headline another motion picture, but perhaps he needs more of these solid supporting roles to gain a following before he tries again. Olivia Wilde is wasted in yet another movie, her brief appearance at the film's opening quickly forgotten as the story continues on with her in absentia.

Not a face you want to see at a fancy soiree

Eventually the film comes to an end that is somehow both satisfying and disappointing as once again the glorious message of inequality makes itself known and characters meet their cliched stops. As least the ending itself wasn't predictable, as just enough was juggled to leave the true ending of the heroes in doubt until the film's final moments. Still, closing scenes of triumph hearkened back to earlier scenes of defeat, and the whole thing stunk of bleak writer's cramp stunting what could have been a good film. In Time is a good hook and a great IDEA, but as a story it never grasps what it needs to be most effective, instead relying on its actors to dredge it from the mire like some cheap Jedi mind trick. It almost works, but this film is definitely one that works better in theory than in practice. I enjoyed myself, but I'm not sure I'll be recommending it to my friends, and you can bet there will be others who feel the same. A perfectly okay film that will make for a nice rental or streaming download, but not something that needs to be seen on the big screen.

The Date Night sequel nobody wanted...

The Red Cloak of Shame

Ah, progress. Progress is the method by which we don't have to suffer the same things over and over again until the end of time. Progress means that what bores us can be replaced with something new and exciting. Progress means that we can ditch same-old, same-old for new, fresh, product. Movie monsters are no different; Frankenstein wore out his welcome decades ago, mummies died out sometime around the turn of the century, and the Swamp Thing never was as popular as some would have you believe. These days vampires are the cream of the crop, what with their outstanding popularity through widely differing sources including RPG games like White Wolf's Vampire: The Masquerade, television shows like The Vampire Diaries, and the books and movies of the Twilight series. As a result, blood-sucking leeches have never been more popular, nor nearly as sexually attractive. That can't last forever, of course, and studios are hard at work trying to figure out which mysterious creatures will climb the box office charts next. Trying to perhaps spin off some of the popularity of Twilight's character Jacob Black, werewolves seem to be Hollywood's new pet project. The going has been rough, however, especially the abject failure of last year's remake of The Wolfman, which starred Benicio del Toro and Sir Anthony Hopkins. Werewolves might not be ready to usurp Dracula's crown, as the newest attempt is the retelling of the popular folk tale Little Red Riding Hood. Called simply Red Riding Hood, the film was directed by Catherine Hardwicke (who also directed Twilight) and obviously re-geared to appeal to the same teen audience that enjoy the vampire films with such gusto.

"Got any Lycanthopic-brand condoms?"

In an unnamed village in the middle of nowhere, villagers have kept an uneasy truce with a local werewolf, leaving sacrifices - often small animals - to protect the people. It's the only life Valerie (Amanda Seyfried) has known. The daughter of a woodcutter (Billy Burke) and his wife (Virginia Madsen), Seyfried has lived in this place in relative peace, though the fear is always there. When her family arranges a marriage to have her married to Henry Lazar (Max Irons), scion of one of the richer families around, she conspires to run away with her secret love Peter (Shiloh Fernandez), but is halted when the werewolf attacks and kills her sister. It is the first time a human has been attacked by the wolf in recent memory. This results in the town's priest (Lukas Haas) summoning legendary werewolf hunter Father Solomon (Gary Oldman) to hunt and kill the beast. Solomon brings news that is hard for many to admit and causes consternation in the remote place: the werewolf is in fact not some beast confined to the wilds but in fact one of them.

Sure, it's a deep, dark cave. What's the worst that could happen?

If any of you nodded off after a sentence or two of the previous paragraph, then this film isn't for you. Meant to appeal primarily to teen girls, it's hardly surprising that you wouldn't want to see this particular film. For the rest of you... Red Riding Hood isn't for you either. Unless you're a true masochist, there's very little positive to draw from what amounts to little more than gummed-up drivel. It's geared towards teens but the idea that anyone could believe the foolish, cliched, and preposterous story is time well spent seems like a big, cruel joke. I admit I've never seen one of Hardwicke's films before now but seeing this doesn't exactly make me want to rush out and rent Thirteen or Lords of Dogtown. Her early career as a production designer does come off well here,  as the film uses colors to great effect (especially Valerie's red cloak against white, snowy backgrounds), but her direction style suffers at the hands of her pandering ways. The further you attempt to trudge through the mess that is the plot, the more you simply want all the suffering to stop as there's less and less to give any sense that the film hasn't run away without the director in full control.

One of many confused looks

If there's one bright spot that shines through the film's procession, it's Seyfried, who may be stuck in a limited role but does it well enough to be head and shoulders over the rest of her cast. Seyfried's part might be nowhere close to authentic (what kind of name is Valerie in mythological dark ages? It sounds like a Valley Girl moniker) but at least they cast the right woman for the part. Oldman I hoped would be hammy and entertaining as he was in last year's Book of Eli, but here his particular cut of pork is rump roast as the film's most vocal antagonist. Burke, like his role in Drive Crazy, doesn't quite do enough to justify his casting. Madsen, who has done little since being nominated for an Academy Award for her role in the overrated Sideways, shows either rust or exactly why that hiatus from major films was necessary. Same with Haas, who never has been a standout talent. Julie Christie is downright disappointing as dear old Grandmother, who doesn't have a lot to do besides be another suspect in the mystery of who the wolf might be. But most disappointing are the duo of would-be love interests paired off with Valerie. Max Irons tries to be the rich but sensitive soul, but comes off as bland and unworthy from the start for Valerie's love. He's slightly overshadowed by Shiloh Fernandez, but not by much. Playing the brooding outsider, Fernandez is the one that the few fans of this film will be cheering for, but he takes sullen to another level, completely uninteresting to the rest of us. Hardwicke stated that she cast for chemistry; she sure as hell didn't cast for talent. While it WAS nice to see refugees from famous sci-fi shows as Stargate's Michael Shanks and Battlestar Galactica's Michael Hogan and Jen Halley in small parts, they didn't manage to drag my opinion of the film from the deeper pits.

I'm surprised they kept the cloak red at all

Most insulting is the film's one-note romantic tale. Even with the danger of the wolf all around, the biggest problem would seem to be Valerie's decision between her two lovers. The film couldn't pass a Bechdel Test if it tried (Thanks to The Opinioness for introducing that term to me) and should come off as insulting to any intelligent X-chromosome-wielding individual. Seriously, all the women in this film can seem to talk about are the men. Even when talking about the damn WEREWOLF the conversation turns to men! That any rational, free-thinking person might be suckered into thinking this is high art is a frightening prospect indeed. It's sad how closely the film tried to capture the Edward/Jacob rivalry and make it work in this case, a desperate attempt to drag in that Twilight crowd.

Okay, am I the only one seeing a tampon commercial?

In the end, what remains of folk tale Little Red Riding Hood is merely a large portion of the title, a red cloak and a talking wolf. The film really owes nothing to the source material, using it instead as a means to an end, something familiar to drive people into the theaters. There's just not a lot more to say here. Barring mild brain damage, there is no good reason for you to waste your money on this film. Being the eleventh 2011 film I've seen, Red Riding Hood is the first to completely miss the Top 10 list. Even Drive Angry had campy moments that were fun to witness, but this film is lacking in even that brief humor or excitement. Bad direction, bad cast, bad story, this film indeed has it all. It might even hold out and become this year's worst film, though of course that's too soon to tell. The attempts to reign in the crowds seems to have failed miserably as well, with people seemingly not wanting werewolf films at this time. Perhaps someday that will change, and lycanthropes will occupy the same status currently held by vampires. Perhaps that will NEVER happen, and werewolves will be pushed aside to make room for some newer monster. Loch Ness, perhaps? Progress means things are constantly changing, but there's often no telling what will make us smile until we come across that line. Someday, vamps won't be the talk of Tinseltown. Until then, Edward Cullen - not Lawrence Talbot - reigns.