The movie started, and it was pretty clearly not anything the audience had ever seen before. Borat was funny, daring, disgusting and infinitely quotable, like the perfect intersection between Daily Show-style social commentary, Colbert Report character dedication, and gross out, goofy humor of the Will Ferrell variety. The movie instantly sparked “high fives!” and bad accents from college students across the nation. It forever changed the way my friends talked to each other (we wore out the accent and the quoting so completely that the one friend who didn’t attend the screening with us STILL refuses to see Borat because we ruined it for him). But lost in all this chatter about Borat’s surprising success was often the real content of the movie, the justification behind all the “did you shrink this woman, gypsy?” stereotype comedy, and the thing that made Sacha Baron Cohen’s big jump into the mainstream so remarkable. By the time Bruno came out a few years later, Cohen was too big a name to slyly trick yokels into believing in his antics, and the result was kind of a mess- a movie that had all the gross-out humor of Borat, but with the social satire necessarily dumbed down by both inflated expectations and Cohen’s own notoriety.

And so now, after Cohen took a few years to do excellent work in smaller roles, he returns in another outlandish, controversy-courting outing, this time scripted. But let’s get this out of the way: The Dictator is nowhere near as smart, surprising or funny as Borat. The satire that exists is mostly muted by the film’s goofy aesthetic and ridiculous caricature of a modern dictator. The film ends with a fantastic takedown of modern American politics delivered in a diatribe by Cohen’s General  Alladeen, but with that exception most of the jokes poke at easy targets (like dictators’ excess, vacuous celebrities, and organic-living brooklynites).

The movie also lacks a lot of Borat’s heart (another problem I had with Bruno). It sounds goofy, since the major set piece of the movie involved the two’s naked wrestling match, but during Borat I actually bought into the friendship between Borat and his rotund friend, Azamat. In The Dictator, all the proceedings are held at such an ironic, satirical distance that there’s not really a relationship in the film that works. I loved seeing Anna Faris getting to play a character NOT defined by how hot she is, but she’s pretty much wasted playing the goofy local organic food co-op manager.  The relationship between Alladeen and the nuclear engineer who he tried to have executed could fill the Azamat void, but the film is more interested in undercutting the traditional story beats than in allowing genuine emotion between the two. It’s not that sappy friendship storylines are essential to comedy (far from it), but the few scenes of the two friends goofing around, trying to save the world for Dictators everywhere, are some of the most fun in the whole movie.

Still, though, Cohen’s a great comedic performer whose Alladeen is actually pretty funny. If you chuckled during the trailer, then you’ll laugh during the movie. It’s a solid, Mel Brooks-lite farce, with some clever jokes. Plus, Ben Kingsley plays a completely straight-faced antagonist hell bent on selling Alladeen’s oil rights, and it’s fun to scream “YOU HAVE A FUCKING OSCAR!” in your head every time he comes on screen.

I know this is not Jason Segel and Emily Blunt. It's better this way.

I was really looking forward to The 5 Year Engagement. I was convinced it would be the movie that would finally make me love Emily Blunt (I’ve never warmed to her, but remain convinced that John Krasinski would never marry a cold fish). And she fares pretty well. She’s just goofy enough to shed that cold thing (besides, the sublime Alison Brie takes that over for her to great comic effect) and she plays the conflict well enough to remind everyone that she’s a Golden Globe winner who’s not typically in romantic comedies.  She (and Mindy Kaling, obviously, who is the best of all the humans) are the highpoints of the film (oh, and Alison Brie, and Chris Pratt-whom I will literally never stop loving – it’s been since Everwood Season One already- they’re funny and wonderful but not funny and wonderful to the degree I was expecting from the best of Community and Parks & Rec). The lowpoint, for me at least, (and it really does pain me to say this) is Jason Segel. I know, I know- he’s so adorably sincere! How can you not love Jason Segel? – I do love Jason Segel, or I used to, or I want to? I don’t know. I just more and more am finding him annoying. What played as grown-man romanticism and open-heartedness in early How I Met Your Mother (and the teenage version of the same thing in Freaks & Geeks) is beginning to feel not unlike that SNL sketch where Jonah Hill plays a 6-year-old at the grownup table. I will concede that I’m not exactly of the right temperament to love the Segel (that’s Rachael, who literally shares a laugh-for-laugh sense of humour with the guy), but I just feel like Segel needs to grow a lot more than he has (especially for someone who’s been famously restless in his sitcom day job).

Hi, Mindy! Congrats on your Fox greenlight. We should hang out some time! Text me.

In this particular typical-Segel film, he’s excitable and sweet then moody and schlumpy (taking quirk past the point of acceptability) then heartbroken and douchey, then covered in potato salad, then happily-ever-after-y. Yawn. There’s nothing at all notable about The 5 Year Engagement apart from Alison Brie’s accent, Chris Pratt singing ex-girlfriend names to the tune of “We Didn’t Start the Fire” (both spoiled in the trailer) and the mesmerizing fact that Rhys Ifans seems to be in Literally Everything (he’s interesting here, stretching his smarmy-academic muscles). The best scenes all belong to Emily Blunt’s fellow psych-department eccentrics (led by but not including Ifans). A rag-tag crew of highly competitive academic oddballs, the Psych Department at The University of Michigan almost saved the movie for me- from their insane experiment suggestions to their insistence that Ratatouille is the ultimate gourmet commentary to the sub-sub-subplot conflict between Ming and My Best Friend! (Mindy Kaling, but she’s so spectacularly awesome and her book peered so thoroughly into my soul that she shall heretofore be referred to as “My Best Friend!”, with the exclamation point).

That’s really all I’ve got to say about The 5 Year Engagement, it was that boring. Jason Segel- grow up; Emily Blunt- better, but still no; Alison and Chris- I will always love you; LONG LIVE MINDY! That is all.

Think Like a Man

Unlike He’s Just Not That Into You, a film which, like TLaM, was based on a self-help book, TLaM doesn’t fly directly in the face of said book’s fundamental principals. It doesn’t blindly accept them either. Instead, the screenwriters incorporate their source material’s existence into their story to allow the character to process, adhere to and reject its ideas as they will. There are women in the film who think Steve Harvey’s dating guide that teaches women how to “think like a man” is degrading and stupid, and there are women who live by its every suggestion. The men ignore the book, reject the book, call Harvey a traitor and then start using the book to improve their lives (in a sort of rebellion-meets-submission backwards kind of way).

The film’s biggest problem is its tendency to equate relationships with war. There are a lot of references to the men being “under attack”, which is stupid at best, insulting at worst and keeps honest simple interaction unhelpfully at bay. However, the elimination of the film’s second biggest problem actually eradicates the first- since said unenlightened metaphor comes almost entirely in narration. Kevin Hart and his narrating imbecile of a character (Cedric) are the worst things to happen to a movie since James Cameron decided to write his own scripts. As my mother would say, “he’s not funny, he’s not cute, he’s just rude”. The problem isn’t so much that last one (because, let’s face it, if all movie characters were nice and polite, there would never be much plot), it’s that Hart just isn’t funny and he certainly isn’t cute. No, that’s not a dig at the comedian’s height, it’s a dig at his massively unappealing Everything. Every single other man in the film is charming and endearing in some way (even frumpy married sidekick Bennett, even TURTLE!). But Cedric (Hart), he just whines and mooches and generally adorns the soundtrack with the most high-pitched ridiculous misplaced anger doofiness I’ve ever heard. He’s ridiculous and his elimination would raise the film from a solid B- to a B+ easy.

A few of the women are a little nuts too, but tolerable crazy, not Cedric all- I-need-is-Wendy-Williams-to-make-me-sane crazy. Meagan Good’s “90 Day Girl” (aka outrageously hot person #1) takes Harvey’s suggested 90 Day Rule (a sensible, useful tip) to insane extremes (he came up to your door, waiting for you and walked you to the car and you’re going to dump him because he didn’t open the door? Learn some priorities, woman!) and Taraji P Henson’s “Woman Who Is Her Own Man” dumps literally the perfect man because he doesn’t drive a Benz (basically). Otherwise, sensible single mom Candace (Regina Hall) and completely reasonable 8-year girlfriend Kristen (Gabrielle Union- aka outrageously hot person #2) are sensible, complete reasonable and generally helpful in their sanity and basic likability.

The non-Cedric men, on the other hand, are the key characters, and they are significantly better written than their female counterparts, on the whole. Romany Malco’s “Player”(aka outrageously hot person #3) is so smooth that he actually sells the usually ridiculous character of “the player”. In order to play someone, you have to first hook them, and Malco is pretty hard to resist. “The Mama’s Boy” (Terrence Jenkins- aka outrageously hot person #4) is so idyllically lovely that his mother-related antics really do inspired internal debate rather than a definitive dump verdict. Even Turtle’s looking good lately. TURTLE! Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sentence looks to me now that I’ve typed it? Freaking Turtle (real name: Jerry Farrara) plays long-term boyfriend to freaking Gabrielle Union- how on earth did he swing that? But here, Turtle isn’t Turtle. He’s sweet and sort of dorky and a little bit lazy and his biggest fault is that he’s essentially a big kid not in a rush to grow up. Also, he literally looks nothing like Turtle anymore. The last outrageously hot person (king of the generally outrageously hot cast, actually) is Michael Ealy as aspiring chef-meets-perfect boyfriend-meets sexiest man alive Dominic. This is the man freaking Henson breaks up with for No Reason At All. I’d never heard of Ealy before but now I’m a little bit in love with him.

Dominic aside, what makes the non-Cedric male characters in TLaM great is that they’re all good guys but do have substantial flaws (again, not Dominic, he’s perfect). They’re slightly skeezy, a little bit manipulative, unable to grow up or completely commitment-phobic, but they’re not caricatures of those adjectives. They’re kind of great in a real-guy way, which throws an interesting curveball at the film’s central premise. Harvey’s book suggests that there is a singular way men think and it’s like a key to be used to the advantage of women. If the film would drop its central romance-as-competition motif, it would realize that if the men within its frames are too complicated for an all-encompassing thought process, the non-fictional ones surely are too.

So when I was stranded uptown near my go-to movie theatre last week and found that I’d already seen almost everything they had playing (and couldn’t bring myself to see The Hunger Games a FOURTH time- love it though I do), I decided to try out American Reunion, just to see if my age-old fondness for the series could possibly overpower my grownup Apatow-allergic sensibility. (At least in my 90s-raised mind, the Apatow brand and the American Pie franchise have a gross-out immaturity and male-centric commonality that makes them unique, together).

To my utter delight (and slight amazement) I really liked American Reunion. Sure, there’s a certain predictability to it (though, only Cabin in the Woods has managed to surprise me this year) and that childish humour is still there (Stifler poops in a cooler. Why? I honestly couldn’t tell you), but there’s a lot of heart to the American Pie characters (especially the 5 core guys, who get the focus in Reunion over their less-developed lady loves like the always under-written Michelle). The core friendship that makes up the foundation of the franchise is key to the film’s success and the fact that the franchise overlords allowed their characters to grow up is what sets American Reunion apart from similarly boyish comedies. Two of the group’s former teen dopes are married (mostly happily, too, which is notable) and one is a father. All five of them have steady jobs, even if they are unglamourous, unfulfilling or demeaning (even Stifler is an office temp, meaning he changes jobs all the time but Stifler is Working In An Office). Each American Pie film (the theatrical releases, I wouldn’t touch those straight-to-DVD ones with a ten foot pole) does a remarkably good job of speaking to a different phase of life. When the original hit theatres, it was a uniquely frank take on highschool desperation. The second and third installments, in their own way, explored college life and your marrying twenties with similar tongue-in-cheek silliness. And American Reunion, one of the franchise’s better-received installments, is all about the settled-down disappointment of honest-to-god adulthood. The humour has grown up with the characters, while still staying true to its and their founding sensibilities. In Reunion, the old friends watch a group of high school seniors raising havoc on the beach and wonder “we weren’t like that at that age, were we?”. Anyone who saw the original American Pie knows they were, but they honestly aren’t anymore, because they grew up.

Each character’s arc shows them revealing and simultaneously grappling with that reality. Jim (and, by extension, Michelle) is having libido problems in his marriage since the birth of his son. A silly and slightly forced A plot surrounding the possibility of his cheating with his recently 18 former babysittee plays out relying on too many plot contrivances to work (no way uber-cool Michelle would flip out after one misunderstanding). But the contributions of Eugene Levy (usually so annoying as Jim’s dad) are lovely as he attempts to give Jim advice in the wake of his wife’s death (3 years ago- he’s still not sure what to do with himself without her).

Kevin has the smallest of stories as he worries about the temptations of having his highschool sweetheart Vicky around to complicate his imperfect but loving marriage. The allure of his roots is, for Kevin (and Jim, in a way), what’s making him second guess his present-day happiness. Oz, meanwhile (thankfully restored to the cast after skipping out on American Wedding), rediscovers who he is when he reunites with Heather, his highschool soulmate. Unlike Jim and Kevin, for whom adulthood brought self-assurance and purpose, Oz got a little lost in his own success- the impressive job, the hot girlfriend, the sellout slot on “Celebrity Dance-Off”… all five guys are stuck in a different adult rut and Oz’s unfulfilling success is just as revealing as the unimpressiveness of the other guys.

Speaking of which *spoiler alert*, it’s Finch who gives literal voice to the “I thought life would be more than this” theme that rides through all the characters’ complaints. He enters the film with his usual pretentious, worldly panache (calling Jim “James” for no reason, as per usual) and eventually reveals that he’s basically full of shit. I love Finch. There’s a certain awkwardness to that moment when you realize that you would pick the silliest of the acceptable four if given the choice (including Chris Klein and his Clark Kent-ness), but I absolutely would (if only because he’s the only one who can identify the pretty girl behind the bar who was not so pretty in high school). How very ashamed Finch is to work at a Staples gets to the heart of American Reunion’s “grownup problems” motif.

Stifler, as usual, is the show stealer and is, wonderfully, far more palatable than he’s previously been. The main focus of his story is his isolation- made all the more interesting when you realize that you too would leave him out just like Jim, Kevin, Oz and Finch do. Stifler’s working for Lester from Chuck (Vik Sahay, playing, as he usually does, an egomaniacal devil man) and is even less successful than the other guys who are so worried about how unsuccessful they are. But Stifler wants one thing, and that’s the one thing the other guys refuse to give him- unconditional friendship. Often the loudest guy, that obnoxious one who alienates everyone, is the person who just wants to fit in the most. Stifler’s story is just plain sad, but he’s such a determinedly fun character that he forces you out of that feeling, cause he just wants you to be having as much fun as him. It’s a great part, really, the writers have done Sean William Scott a great service by giving him more than just the go-to gags and he plays that heart on his sleeve with great conviction. You just want to give him a hug… then pull away really fast because he’s probably trying to unhook your bra.

Cameos from the great John Cho (good for a handful of the film’s loudest laughs), Jennifer Coolidge (as Stifler’s MILF mom), snippy Natasha Lyonne, hot exchange student Shannon Elizabeth and a couple of gay lacrosse players from the first film are incredibly welcome, as is the Stifler’s Revenge button when we’re introduced to Finch’s own MILF mom. Mena Suvari (Heather), Tara Reid (Vicky) and the great Alyson Hannigan (Michelle) all return to their roles and Better Off Ted’s Jay Harrington drops by to make Oz jealous as “DRon”, Heather’s cardiac surgeon boyfriend. The soundtrack is wonderfully nineties (it is their 13^th reunion, after all) and the series callbacks are fantastic.

More than anything, American Reunion is sweet. It’s got a grownup honesty and trademark humour, but mostly it’s a compelling and heartfelt story about characters who are honestly worth watching. The comedy’s not my style, but I liked it anyway and that’s high praise.

But SCREW IT, because Peter already reviewed The Avengers, so I can be as unobjective, gushing, and unapologetically in love with Joss Whedon as my little heart wants. Therefore I give you, with very little apology, The Top 10 Reasons why Joss Whedon Was the Perfect Choice to Direct/Write The Avengers

10. Black Widow

It feels reductive to point out that Whedon is good with female protagonists, but it should be said. Scarlett Johansson has never been my favorite actress, and I found her boring in the second Iron Man installment. But I left The Avengers kind of in love with her. Whedon knows how to layer on the pathos, like hinting at a tragic, violent past for Black Widow without hammering it home, or creating just enough tension between Hawkeye and Black Widow that I want to watch a buddy comedy about them killing bad guys. It’s not that Whedon created Black Widow- it’s that he invested enough of the story in her very human struggle and very human skill sets that it helped to ground all the high-falutin melodrama going on in the skies above her. (see also: grounding the military scenes in the perspective of Cobie Smulders’ Maria Hill, giving us a human face while Loki smashes things)

9. He made the Hulk interesting

A lot of this credit will and should go to Mark Ruffalo’s laid back dialogue (and the adorable story he tells about getting his Hulk motivation from watching his 8 year old son struggle to act correctly in public is just the right side of heartwarming), but Whedon also understands how to make outlandish ideas feel real. The biggest problem in the other Hulk movies has been trying to make Hulk feel compelling on both sides of his transformation. As much as cheesy CGI held back the other installments, I think they had just as big of a Bruce Banner problem as an actual Hulk problem. By clarifying Banner and what makes Banner important outside of “The Other Guy,” Whedon created the single most iconic character in a movie full of them.

8. He gives Good Villain

Again, credit needs to be given to Tom Hiddleston’s masterful performance as Loki. But I saw and loved Thor, and I thought Loki in Avengers was eons above the cool factor of Loki in Thor. Joss has shown time and again his ability to give villains believable motivations (see also Faith, Lilah, the entirety of Dollhouse’s anti-heroes), and the attention paid to Loki’s struggle pays off here. There’s a moment early on when Thor offers Loki a way out of his evil path, and a moment of such naked longing and hope passes across Hiddleston’s face that you believe for one tiny moment that he might just turn around and head back to Asgard (despite the fact that this would end the movie). Such is the brilliant melding of Hiddleston’s performance and Whedon’s script.

7.  He refuses to rest on his laurels

There’s a lot of cool factor in The Avengers. Nick Fury is cool (Samuel L. Jackson is cool). Iron Man is cool. Captain America is cool. Hawkeye is cool. But the movie is never content to be like “oh look, Jackson just said something cool. Now laugh monkeys, laugh!” Instead, Fury has to fight for his heroic status. He has to learn a valuable lesson about government and violence, and about the innate goodness of humanity. He has to climb onto the deck of an airship with a damn rocket launcher in his hand and try to shoot down the bad guys. Tony Stark doesn’t get to just quip his way through the movie, he has to dismantle himself in order to win.  There are a lot of easy moments that Whedon avoids or intentionally undercuts. It makes the easy, amazing moments like Captain America’s “and Hulk… smash,” feel all the cooler, because we know that Whedon didn’t go for the easy one-liner when he could have so many other times.

6. He shoots pretty action scenes

Whedon may have mostly TV directing credits, but he has a unique relationship with the camera when he’s behind the lens that is far more sophisticated than typical network tv fare. When Whedon shoots an action scene, it’s like a dance in which the camera is an active participant. The shot is never static, but not in the new-wave shaky cam way. Instead, Whedon uses his huge budget to allow him to zip around expansive sets, giving a full sense of both the devastation being reeked on New York City and the size of the force that The Avengers are facing. He’s not a showy director, but he has a unique visual signature that serves the action scenes and the dialogue scenes equally well.

5. Best use of “Jossing”

Although he claims it wasn’t him that came up with it, the use of the SPOILER ALERT death of Agent Coulson to motivate our heroes is a pretty classic Joss trope.  It also speaks to how deeply invested Whedon’s script is in the emotional journey of the superheroes at its core.

4. Whedon Humor-to-Gravitas Jump

In Whedon’s now-classic Dr. Horrible’s Sing-A-Long Blog, the goofy title, peppy songs and constant superhero jokes are merely casing for a story that is actually as dark and tragic as a Shakespearean drama. Throughout his television output, he has perfected the art of the abrupt jump from gravitas to humor, in a way that serves to make both the jokes funnier and the emotions more honest. One of my favorite Avengers examples of this comes from a moment where Thor and Agent Coulson are discussing the role of Asgardians on Earth. Thor starts off very somber, talking about the devastation wrought by his people, until he starts babbling about a goofy looking creature called a bilchsnipe (no idea if that is spelled correctly). This is followed by some awesome physical comedy by Chris Hemsworth, making a goofy face and putting fake horns on his head. The giggles this elicits only serve to strengthen the metaphorical power of what Thor’s saying, though, as he quickly regains the depth of his point, explaining that these creatures’ battles destroy everything in their path.

There’s a lot of really, really funny moments in The Avengers. In fact, it sort of felt like a 200 million dollar comedy at times. But it only serves to further illuminate the heroics and the emotions of the characters, as well as endear them to us. Contrast that with the use of humor in worse films, like last year’s Green Lantern, where the jokes allow the movie a quick out for the ridiculousness of its world. Humor in The Avengers makes the characters feel more real without sacrificing the legitimacy of this world. It also provides a cathartic release, like in that aforementioned “Hulk smash” or in the adorable Iron Man monologue about shawarma.

3. TV Plotting

One of the great benefits of television over movies is in the ability to wait on a story until its proper moment. Every episode does not need every detail explained in order to function as an episode. In allowing their universe to come together slowly over the course of a couple of movies, Marvel basically set up a big screen TV show. Bringing in the king of serialized genre television to write and direct it was probably the best decision they made. Whedon was able to take the best elements of all the disparate Marvel stories and distill them into one hell of a season finale. On top of that, he has the confidence of a great television story teller to leave a ton of details either to the obsessive fan’s imagination or to future installments. Take Black Widow’s backstory, or history with Hawkeye. Take the way that Avengers shifts our view of the final moments of Thor- where once we saw our hero triumphant over adversity, we now understand that this moment led SHIELD down a dangerous path. Take the way it uses the pathos of Pepper Potts and Tony Stark’s relationship to add depth to Tony’s sacrifice, without needing to really spell out their relationship or how hard it was for them to get to the point where Potts sports an engagement ring. There was a lot of story that went into The Avengers, and, somehow, even more coming out of it.

2. The man has a bitchin’ grasp of metaphor

I could probably write ten pages on the clever use of metaphor in The Avengers and still not hit on all of them. Some of them were there in the comics (Captain America’s shield being a great metaphor for the way he looks to protect the world, with Thor’s hammer being more indicative of his desire to conquer it, not to even get into all the anger-issues Hulk stuff), but Whedon is able to masterfully tease them out of the source material without ever feeling over-lofty. Whedon gets how to create fully-rounded characters out of ideas, and tells us loads about them without needing dialogue (like the quiet ways that Bruce Banner and Steve Rogers take in SHIELD’s airship for the first time, or the way that Thor and Iron Man make each other stronger when they attack each other).

The greatest example of the way that Whedon used literary metaphor to strengthen a supposedly straightforward superhero story, though, is in the overall battle. On the surface, The Avengers spend this movie fighting Loki and the Chitauri (his army) who come through a hole in the sky in order to help Loki take over the Earth and take away freedom.  But it’s not Loki that Iron Man almost sacrifices himself to stop. Nope- the most insidious bad guys in The Avengers are the mostly-faceless conglomerate of people that keep bugging Nick Fury all movie. The Avengers take down the Chitauir and Loki with some well-timed smashing, but the damn establishment almost nukes New York City. Whedon has a strong distrust of authority, especially of the nameless and faceless variety, and by melding that with the occasionally fascist ethos of the superhero story, he creates a compelling argument for why all these different superpowered men and woman are essential checks and balances for each other to protect liberty. Loki early on makes the argument that humanity secretly wants to be controlled, that he brings freedom from choice to the masses. The nameless faceless committee, however, may be technically on SHIELD’s side, but they agree with Loki. It’s up to the Avengers to stop them as much as it is their job to stop Loki.

1. Because of the love

Whedon loves the story he’s telling. The story has such a profound sense of heroism that it is infectious. Every main character, from Maria Hill to Agent Coulson to Bruce Banner to Tony Stark, has a moment where Whedon demonstrates a unifying theory of heroism: these people run into danger while everyone around them runs from it, and in so doing they justify the continued existence of our species. It makes the triumph of The Avengers the triumph of humanity.

Whether Whedon’s dipping into Shakespearean melodrama or absurdist humor, whether he’s once again employing a 100-pound girl to kick the ass of people three times her side or reveling in the overwhelming physicality of The Hulk, whether he’s undercutting audience expectations with a down-to-earth “huh, so that’s what that does” or playing to the rafters with a perfect Samuel L. Jackson one-liner, every moment of The Avengers speaks to his love of this property and this universe, a love that forces him to transcend a typical story and the commercial expectations heaped upon the film, and instead tell a surprisingly personal story about heroism, loss, and really cool people with really cool superpowers. It provides a moment when geek expectations and geek skepticism can momentarily come together in joyous relief.

The Avengers probably should have sucked. Each character needed to get enough set up to continue in their own franchise. Action figures needed to be sold. Bottom Lines needed to be buoyed up. Best case scenario, I figured, Whedon pumped in some good one liners while making an engaging story. But The Avengers is instead a testament to the joys of comic books and superhero characters, and to the capacity for depth in stories that, far from being somber reflections on the darkness of our times, are a fun, love-filled, often hilarious way to bring a really cool idea to the big screen.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: This is not a movie review. I could tell you why I thought Thor got the short end of the stick with The Avengers, or that I thought the final action sequence is overlong. But when a movie ends with a speechless scene of superheroes eating in a decimated diner, it’s hard to complain.

Editor’s Note:  To add to Rachael’s list of wonderful things Joss Whedon brought to The Avengers, the character voices in his whip-smart script are spot on. He carefully resisted the temptation to over-do Stark’s witticism while maintaining his unique characterization from the previous films. Whedon also used careful syntax to differentiate the grandiose speech of the Asgardians, the straight-edged oldschool tones of Rogers and the soft intelligence of Banner’s lines. Apart from being a superbly directed and cast film, The Avengers script is truly brilliant for more than just its plotting.

For more of Rachael’s thoughts on Joss Whedon, check out Episode 2 of the My Entertainment World Podcast in which she and Kelly discuss the other great Whedon film currently in theatres- Cabin in the Woods. 

We follow a middle aged man named Frank, performed perfectly by Joel Murray (Shameless, Dharma & Greg). After learning that his ex-wife is about to remarry, Frank is fired from his job for something that seems a little too politically correct and then finds out later that same day that he has an inoperable brain tumour that will end his life sooner than later. Rather than take his own life, Frank is convinced to take his anger and frustration out on the people he thinks truly deserve to die, going on a shooting spree of reality TV stars and hateful political pundits who spread fear on their shows. Frank then finds himself the focus of an admirer and confidante in a young sixteen year old girl named Roxy (Tara Lynne Barr) who shares his hatred for how the scum of the country are put on a pedestal and worshipped by countless TV viewers. As we watch this interesting duo go on their murderous road trip, we can’t help but root for them despite the fact what they’re really doing is wrong. We understand their frustration and relish their actions as a fun fantasy that is the brainchild of a sadistic writer/director.

Bobcat Goldthwait

The amazing film from the mind of Bobcat Goldthwait (that crazy dude from the Police Academy movies) offers enough food for thought while being thoroughly entertaining. God Bless America is a harsh evaluation of where society is today and how out-of-hand pop culture and reality television are getting just to score some high ratings and a few extra bucks. The movie almost reminds me of Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers but with more of a moral message and the dry wit of Office Space.

Another standout performance in the movie comes from young actress Maddie Hasson (who plays Willow on Fox’s new show The Finder) as Chloe, the most spoiled brat on television who becomes Frank’s first target. Having watched Chloe’s repeated temper tantrums on tv, a little part of us doesn’t feel any remorse when Frank takes a gun and puts that spoiled brat into the ground. I’m sure many people have wished they could do that with a lot of crap that’s being spewed out on every network as ‘entertainment’. Frank acts out that fantasy, taking out as many perpetrators as he can leading up to a grand finale that is both shocking and hilarious when it unfolds.

Bobcat shows us here, as he did in previous projects, that he has a real gift for mixing childishly dark humour with scenes that are very dramatic. God Bless America is also one of the funniest and most thought provoking films I’ve seen all year. The cast is great, the scenes are funny and at the same time leave you with something to chew on months after watching it. If you enjoyed movies like Natural Born Killers and even Falling Down and at the same time have a deep rooted hatred for shows like American Idol and any show that stars someone named Kardashian, you will get a huge kick out of this movie. This film peels back the many layers of our pop culture, analyzing the place of media propaganda, reality TV and even people who don’t behave themselves in movie theatres. It showcases what people consider entertainment these days for the cultural cancer that it really is and never apologizes for it. It’s hilarious and a film that leaves you thinking and wanting more. What more could you expect when seeing a movie? Bobcat has delivered a cinematic gem, check it out when it releases in select cities this weekend!

While American politicians abjectly deride the Scandinavians for being ‘pinko commies’, Hollywood has been taking notice of their considerable cinematic talent, finding every opportunity to import some of their best films for American remakes. David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Matt Reeves’ Let Me In are excellent examples, but no Scandinavian film will appeal to North American sensibilities more than Norway’s Headhunters.

The film stars Aksel Hennie as the titular headhunter, an enigma of a man who recruits corporate talent by day and steals valuable art pieces by night. When his wife (Synnøve Macody Lund), herself an art dealer, introduces him to an ex-intelligence mercenary turned electronics tycoon (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) at an art exhibit, his interest is piqued when he learns said tycoon is in possession of an invaluable painting.

Things take a turn for the worse, however, when, while trying to steal the painting, he discovers something at the man’s house that turns him into the prey in his very own manhunt.

In the beginning, Headhunters is an engrossing character study. Vain, libertine, bourgeois, and unabashedly pretentious, the film’s protagonists is the Norwegian equivalent of Don Draper, an introvert who rationalizes his deep emotional problems by indulging in decadence and debauchery.

At only 1.68 m tall, it’s suggested that his proclivity for extravagance stems from a hyperactive Napoleon complex (his wife is stunning, and considerably taller). In fact, sexuality becomes a driving force in the film, elucidating character motives and thematic concepts. Although not as comprehensive as American Beauty, the film’s use of sexuality as a leitmotif provides an interesting dimension to what is otherwise a straightforward thriller.

So it’s bittersweet, really, when the film eventually departs from this careful dissection and moves onto the aforementioned manhunt. But even then, the film still manages to surprise.

Initially, the sense of foreboding and trepidation mirrors that of Michael Clayton, creating an amazing amount of tension and suspense. But somehow, the film pulls off an unfathomable tonal shift, making the devolving misadventures and dark comedy in Fargo pale in comparison.

The film’s ability to seamlessly switch back and forth from these antithetical tones is one of its major achievements, never allowing itself to feel redundant, tedious or banal. Taken as an experience, the film excels in entertaining, and as an intellectual exercise, it also succeeds with social and political commentary, as well as with Freudian ideas of sexuality.

With a lead character named Roger Brown, an actor that looks like a young Steve Buscemi, and a narrative that borrows from well known Hollywood thrillers, Headhunters not only merits a remake, it’s all but inevitable.

But with Mark Wahlberg set to star in the Hollywood version, the remake (by definition) will be inferior, so see the original Headhunters first, so you can be a snob to all your friends by saying the Scandinavian version was better.

The self-aware script, penned by Michael Bacall, contains a plethora of interesting side characters who all have their own voices and sense of humor.  Almost every scene contains something to laugh at and the dialogue is sharp and smart.  While lowbrow humor is present, the fun both the writer and director were having is palpable.   It really shines in the lead actors who have intense chemistry.  It’s nice seeing Channing Tatum remove himself from the normal muscular pigeon hole and work both physical comedy and friendly moments.

If the story has a downfall it’s the pacing for the first ten minutes.  You can tell they were pressed for time in the 110 minute film and most scenes are cut so fast we cannot take hold of the story until the police officers are hiding as high school students.  Once the story settles, it lingers and lets the actors work with each other and the surroundings.

Overall, the story is goofy but exactly what you want from a popcorn summer film.  While the stakes are small in the grand scheme, the film delivers and subverts every scene you expect from a Cop film and adds high school conventions to the mix to spice it up for a demographic of 18-24 year old males.  One large critique would be how “white” everything on screen is.  There is little to no racial diversity in the film and, even when addressed by the adroit script, still feels a bit stilted.  Most people play into their stereotypes which are comfortable but lack the hilarity of a film that gets most of its jokes across by changing what we expect.

When watching these cameo scenes at the end of each film, I remember sitting in my local theatre thinking that it would take a lot of balls to pull off a film like The Avengers. I also remember thinking it would take a very gusty director to want to take on this project and all the heroes that could possibly be involved. Turns out, Marvel Studios found the perfect director to take on this project when they hired Joss Whedon (who also co-wrote the script).

I’m a huge fan of the Whedon-produced Firefly and the brilliant film based on it called Serenity, and when watching The Avengers, I could see Whedon’s fingerprints all over it- from the small quirky moments that each hero has as the film goes on (no spoilers here) to the easy flow of the film’s action scenes. Even the villain seems more believable in the hands of a great writer and director. To the fans who are worried that The Avengers is too big to live up to expectations, fear not. Not only did The Avengers live up to my bloated expectations, it exceeded them by a mile and is one of the best movies I have seen so far in 2012. Joss Whedon has delivered a masterpiece of character development and action. The film even progresses the story ahead nicely going forward for the next several action sequels. I walked out of the theatre not only eager to see another Avenger movie, but eager to watch other movies based on the characters in the initiative.

The cast, it goes without saying, is incredibly impressive, especially when working together. Sure there are some scenes when it doesn’t look like the screen will be big enough to hold everyone, but the actors really  do mesh very well together. In the comics and the animated series, The Avengers are a very dysfunctional group, only really gelling together when it all hits the fan. That dysfunction is carried to the screen and looks just as good here in the Avengers film. Our heroes don’t get along very well in the beginning and it’s fun to watch them joust amongst one another, whether physically or verbally. Watching all the heroes from the previous films like Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans) and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) on the same screen is pretty awesome, as is the return of SHEILD’s assassins in Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) who had appeared in previous Marvel films. Yet what really gels this film together are the supporting actors within the SHEILD organization. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury returns along with of Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg), but are this time joined by another scene stealing SHIELD agent named Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders, aka Robin from How I Met Your Mother). Agent Hill is a stand out in The Avengers, giving me the impression that her character will be a major player in future Marvel productions.

The role amongst the heroes that stand out for me the most was Bruce Banner, recast for a third time but played brilliantly by Mark Ruffalo. The approach Ruffalo and Whedon use with this version of the Hulk is so impressive that I hope Marvel Studios seriously considers making another Hulk film with Ruffalo. For the first time, Hulk’s true destructive force is finally used to his full potential on screen. The green monster’s power and rage truly makes him the most powerful and dangerous member of the Avengers, just as he is in the original comics. When Stark brags about the fact that he has ‘a hulk’ in his arsenal, it’s not an idol threat as the Hulk does an insane amount of damage in this movie in just a short period of time. No one is safe when the Hulk goes into a rage, not even his own teammates.

Despite the Hulk’s scene stealing presence, all the superheroes in the film are given a fair amount of time to build on the character that they established in previous films. Fans of each film are going to leave The Avengers satisfied that their favourite hero was given a good amount of time to reveal new details and cool hints to what we can expect in that character’s upcoming sequels.

Now we come to the villain of this film, which comes in the form of Loki. Thor’s younger ‘adopted’ brother plans to use a burrowed alien army to take over the earth and make it his own kingdom. Prior to seeing this film, I had some heated debates with some people who were disappointed that a villain we’ve already seen was being used for the first Avengers film. I actually thought that was the best villain to use, because if you’ve seen Thor then you don’t need to waste time in this movie introducing the villain and use 20 minutes for his origin story. To see where Loki is coming from, all we need is two flashback scenes that barely take up five minutes, saving the rest of the time for the people we really want to watch.

In order to watch this movie, however, you must do some homework. If you haven’t seen Iron Man 1 and 2, Thor or Captain America prior to watching The Avengers… you’ll be missing some serious intel and be lost when trying to find out what’s going on. Watching The Incredible Hulk would also provide some good background, but it’s not required since The Avengers does a good job filling in the blanks of the Bruce Banner character.

There are scenes in this film (some very funny) when you know Whedon is having a lot of fun with these characters- the petty comments, the witty returns. It’s all good fun, which makes The Avengers the early front runner for the best film of the Summer, if not the entire year. Joss Whedon takes on an enormous project and returns with pure cinematic gold. This movie is all that and then some, exceeding all expectations and delivering on an epic scale. I really hope that Marvel seriously considers not only allowing Whedon to direct the next Avengers film, but to helm some other Marvel projects in between. He did such an amazing job on a film that I thought would be too difficult for any director and came back with a genuine winner. In all, The Avengers is everything you would want from a summer blockbuster and more. It has all the action you could want but oodles of character development and story progression to keep any fan fully satisfied. The Avengers is definitely worth checking out in theatres, especially in IMAX if you have the chance to do so in your area. It will possibly be the best movie going experience you have this summer.

We start with May, which for the record, is also not really a summer month. But it is indisputably the start of summer movie season, what with featuring a movie guaranteed to be a blockbuster hit, an uproarious comedy, and a throwback sequel that’s probably not necessary. Let’s delve in, shall we?

The Hotly Anticipated
The Avengers – On May 4^th, to start off the summer movie season right, buy yourself some early-sale tickets and lean back to watch the culmination of years of Marvel Big Screen fantasticness. Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk, Scarlett Johansson, Jeremy Ritter, Robin from How I Met Your Mother, Samuel L. Jackson’s right eye, and many others will band together to fight the forces of Loki, and something that looks kind of like a Transformer in the trailers. The trailers so far have been pretty great (despite the Transformer) and also pretty cagey about what the film will be about. Despite a couple of individual movies that have failed to live up to their promise, Marvel has been doing a pretty good job of compiling their universe and getting the pieces in place for this climactic event. Add to that a smidgen of behind the scenes of talent (notice how I went this long into my preview without even mentioning Joss Whedon? Maturity, people), and this movie is guaranteed to be, at the very least, a fascinating and exciting superhero caper.

The Dictator- March 11^th I sort of feel like I should be over Sacha Baron Cohen by now. Dumping “Kim Jong Il’s” ashes onto Ryan Seacrest was not nearly as funny as falling ass first onto Eminem, nor was it as insightful (the latter playing off of Eminem’s perceived homophobia, the former playing off of… Seacrest’s normal lack of ashes all over him?). Plus, even five years after the release of Borat, I still can’t stop saying “Very nice” and “High Five” in the voice. It’s annoying, even to me, and I blame Sacha Baron Cohen. But The Dictator looks like fun, and Cohen is a unique comedic voice who is given a surprising amount of free reign to make his movies. While I doubt The Dictator will reach the satirical bite that Borat perfected, it looks like a funny, challenging early summer comedy. But, as someone who has ended up sitting next to her friends’ parents at both Borat and Bruno, maybe be careful who you see it with.

Moonrise Kingdom- May 25^th (Limited Release) Wes Anderson’s latest offering looks, from the trailer, patently Wes Anderson. For me, that isn’t a bad thing, especially when it features new-to-the-Anderson-talent-pool Edward Norton and Bruce Willis. Plus, at the very worst, we will get likable characters acting strangely in beautifully shot and intriguingly colored landscapes, as is the case with all of Wes Anderson’s films (Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore, The Life Acquatic with Steve Zissou).

The Lukewarmly Accepted
Dark Shadows- May 11^th. It’s not really a good sign when a movie that features Johnny Depp collaborating with Tim Burton has pretty much no press before hand. I was shocked to find out Dark Shadows was even coming out this year. And the decision to set this remake in the 70s makes me worried it will just be a campified rehashing of an already pretty campy property. But I like the Burton aesthetic despite its dilution over recent years, and I’ll probably end up shelling out money just to see what he did with this strange story. Plus, vampires.

Hysteria- May 18^th. Look at Maggie Gyllenhaal in that picture over there. Doesn’t she look all nice and bundled up? You’d never guess that Hysteria was anything other than a nostalgic throwback in the Downton Abbey era. But don’t let the fur collar fool you- Maggie Gyllenhaal stars in this 1800s-set sex comedy about the invention of a vibrator to cure female “hysteria.” Although not garnering a huge amount of pre-release buzz, the trailer for this looked really funny and possibly insightful.

Men in Black III – May 25^th. This is not an essential sequel. I have no real desire to find out what K was like as a young lad, even if Josh Brolin does do a remarkable Tommy Lee Jones impersonation. And Will Smith has played his Men in Black character in pretty much every action movie he’s been in since the first Men in Black, so it’s not exactly exciting to think of him retackling the role (especially when Smith could be expanding as an actor). But… I really liked MIB, and still do, and can’t really complain about such a fun series coming back into my life. And if they pull off the impossible, and actually make a good film? Well that’s just a bonus.

The Coldly Avoided
Battleship- Not even the inexplicable presence of Liam Neeson and the face of Alexander Skarsgard can convince me that this movie will not be one of the weirdest commercials for a children’s toy ever.

What To Expect When You’re Expecting- Although not exactly on my must-watch list before, seeing the recent “Dude Squad” ads for this feature has only served to make me want to see it less. I’m just not sure who they made this movie for. The advertisements seem designed to minimize the role played by the ladies in this picture, in favor of some cool/put-upon dad comedy featuring Chris Rock (really, Chris? Really?), but despite my normal love of dude comedy, it’s only served to make me want to see this film even less.

The Other Movies About Which I Know Very Little
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel- a lot of British people are in this.

A Little Bit of Heaven- a cancer romantic comedy featuring Kate Hudson

The Samaritan- if you only see one Samuel L. Jackson film this May, probably make it The Avengers. But if you see two, maybe check out this IFC Films release.

Lee Hirsch (the Director) set out on a mission to focus on three children and two families affected by bullying.  His results are nothing short of shocking and elevate Bully to be one of the only MUST SEE  films for the entire family.  Most of Bully’s publicity came from an MPAA rating of R (which has since been overturned) but the real message of the film is suitable for everyone.  It’s simple, sweet, and beautiful: Don’t be an asshole.

If it sounds like I am poking fun at the moral, I’m not.  I’m being sincere.  The culture in America is cutthroat and it starts in today’s schools.  The film depicts kids harassed on the bus, by their lockers, and waiting to be picked up in the morning.  The one thing I took away from the entire film is that bullying is a curable epidemic as long as elders set an example.  Many of the kids in the film are mirroring adult behavior or copying what they have heard at home.  From homophobia, to exclusionary actions, to hating people because they are plain different, the so called “bad guys” in this film learned their tactics from adults.

One of the hardest aspects of the film, one that I would suggest is bridged quite nicely, is the accessibility the filmmakers have to these subjects.  We see families whose kids have committed suicide within weeks of filming and they give the purest and most honest moments.  Most are chilling counts of how depressed their children were, how they tried to make the home environment a safe one, and how the school administration turned their backs.  Your heart will bleed for these families and, in my theater, the impassioned pleas of two deceased boys’ fathers and one incarcerated girl’s mother brought the house to tears.  If you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.

This brings us to the moral of the story: Don’t be an asshole.  If what you read made you angry, I guarantee seeing this movie will make you furious.  Kids are mean.  I get it.  I was teased and I teased back.  One of my mother’s favorite stories involves a Nun making fun of her for being too tall and calling her the Jolly Green Giant.  Life is hard.  Growing up is harder.  Humiliation and humbling moments make us who we are, but they’re not the moments that should decide whether we live or die.  Kids have knobby knees, buck teeth, acne, hairy legs, webbed toes, hunch backs, eczema, nub noses, loud personalities, quiet demeanors, vivid imaginations, and absent-minded follies.  Until generations of like-minded people make a forward step to act like human beings with compassion, empathy, and, above all else, not be assholes, we’ll continue to have bullying in schools.

Author’s note:
If there is a problem with this film, it’s not in message but in production.  Shot in digital, the focus and depth of field change mid-scene.  It takes a while to adjust and may take a tiny bit away from the overall film.  As per personal preference, I wish they kept the focus as open as the message.

There’s a group of college kids. They are attractive. One of them has a relative that owns a cottage. It’s in the middle of nowhere. They all hop into an RV. There’s no cellphone reception. Or GPS.

They get lost. They pull up to a dingy, suspicious looking gas station. Out comes the proprietor. He is equally dingy and suspicious looking. He doesn’t like them. They don’t like him. He vaguely foreshadows impending doom. They don’t listen. He has a Southern accent.

They get to the cottage. Strange things start to happen. They don’t notice. People start dying one by one. Now they notice. They try to escape. But they keep making stupid decisions. Now there’s only one left.

What happens next? Does she live? Or does she die?

Chances are, you’ve seen countless films with a similar conceit. Writer-director Drew Goddard probably has to, and although his film, The Cabin in the Woods, starts off with the very same aforementioned premise, he ends up with a picture that will categorically be known as the horror film to end all horror films.

Aside from the cottagers, we are also introduced to two seemingly ordinary office workers. They talk about their marriages, drink coffee, and engage in office banter. Everything seems normal, but when we find out the true nature of their profession, their laidback, nonchalant behavior takes on a dark, sinister tone. They work for a corporation responsible for orchestrating the deaths of the vacationing college kids, in the most ostentatious ways possible. As things don’t go according to plan, their desperation to kill them is matched only by their potential victims’ desperation to survive.

Although many might disagree, it’s not hyperbolic to call The Cabin in the Woods the greatest horror film of recent years. Because conventional scary movies perpetually fail to scare us, there have been a slew of self-referential, tongue-in-cheek horror satires that carefully dissect these failed cinematic offerings. The original Scream and Shaun of the Dead are perfect examples.

The Cabin in the Woods, however, is more comprehensive than all of them. Every unintentional laugh in lesser horror flicks is obviously intentional in Cabin, taking every opportunity to introduce laugh-out-loud clichés and comically derivative dialogue. In one notable case of ambitious cheekiness, the film has cojones to have the obligatory stoner as the voice of reason. Observe,

Chris Hemsworth: “I think we should split up”

Jesse Williams: “That’s a good idea”

Obligatory Stoner: “Really?!”

Even he sees the ridiculously faulty logic of his counterparts.

But for all of the film’s smarts, the most impressive thing about Cabin is its incredible moral complexity. To take being Meta even further than its predecessors, Cabin openly questions the morality of what’s happening in the film. As the office workers are all watching the murders Truman Show-style, one in particular starts to ponder the ethical ramifications of deriving entrainment from another person’s suffering.

We later find out that the killings are actually ritual sacrifices designed to appease the ambiguously named ‘The Ancients’. We never see these ‘Ancients’, but from the characters, we learn that they are primitive, sadistic creatures, whose bloodlust can only be indulged by increasingly depraved acts of inhumanity. It’s clear what, and whom, they’re talking about, but for those who aren’t quite sure, a quote from the similarly themed Gladiator will surely suffice.

Maximus [after swiftly dispatching another gladiator]: “Are you not entertained?!?”

If you happen to be watching The Cabin in The Woods, the answer is an emphatic ‘yes’.

And that signature tag: “I love your faces”, awesome. We love your face too, Philip.

Visit his website HERE for more great videos (I particularly like the one where he just answers rapidfire questions) and audio (his 2 and half minute Hunger Games review is just uninsightful enough to be funny).

I had this revelation while watching the super duper awesome and totally worth the $17.50 I paid for it 3D version of Titanic. For years (14 to be exact), I have maintained that James Cameron’s opus to ridiculous ambition was a vastly overrated, teen-girl-obsessing mess, who earned its place in the exalted history of cinema not by artistic merit but by the fact that normally reasonable people couldn’t be heard over the din of pre-pubescent screaming.

This hipper-than-thou attitude started the first time I saw Titanic in theaters. It was about four weeks into its original run, and I was seeing it with my super cool film-school cousin. This was long before I would admit that Justin Timberlake had any musical talent, and just following a tough three year stretch that caused me to constantly need to point out why Hanson and The Spice Girls were inferior to Green Day and Blink 182 (I also loved Ace of Base, but even at 11 I knew I wasn’t supposed to tell people that).  So in a ridiculously packed theater, I sat for three and a half hours and patiently REFUSED to find what I saw on screen compelling. I think I even cheered when Leo died. If you had asked me, I would have told you that I respected Cameron’s vision and special effects mastery, but the love story was boring (yes, I talked like that at 11. Explains a lot about my recent articles, doesn’t it?).

Then, for the next four years, I had to endure COUNTLESS slumber parties where inevitably one girl, whose damn parents spent WAY TOO MUCH on piano lessons, would jump up and play “My Heart Will Go On” on an out of tune Casio keyboard.  Even if I had fallen for the dreamy way that Leo’s hair fell across his face all movie, this would have killed any love I had for the movie. There’s just no way NOT to hate something that has forced you to listen to five tone deaf tween girls screaming out Celine Dion lyrics. Add to that the constant parodying, replaying, and ridiculousness that I associated with Titanic, and my little hipster heart couldn’t handle it.

But something fascinating has happened to me: I’m more of an 11 year old girl at age 25 than I was at 11. So when I sat down on Friday in another overly-packed cinema to watch another over-long opus to ambition and love, I swooned. I didn’t just appreciate James Cameron’s technical mastery (although, Oh. My. God. This movie is gorgeously shot and ridiculously cool looking). And I didn’t just enjoy the performances of young Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, now with the benefit of years and Oscar nominations to help legitimize them.

Nope. I full-heartedly, teen-girl swooned over the scope and beauty of Jack and Rose, fighting for survival against all odds. When Rose jumped off the life boat in order to stay with Jack, I really, really wanted to mutter cynically that she was an idiot. I wanted to think, “And now you just doomed you both, you child.” But you know what? At that point, I just wanted Rose back with Jack. Plus it really pissed off Billy Zane, which is always a plus.

There are still truly ridiculous parts to Titanic. No movie should be that long. I find the parts with old Rose ridiculous and not compelling (and her throwing the diamond back into the ocean at the end of the movie just seems like a douche move). And “My Heart Will Go On” still makes me want to sneak to the kitchen and surreptitiously call my Dad to come pick me up from the sleepover. But you know what? I take back years of whining over the Oscars handing out 11 awards to this film, and I definitely take back all the times I scoffed at friends who wanted to watch it. Removed from the pressures of actually being a too-cool-for-my-age 11 year old, and planted squarely within the range of being a not-even-a-little-bit-cool 25 year old, Titanic 3D may be one of my favorite cinematic experiences in ages.

SIDE NOTE: The 3D really does bring out the movie fantastically, and the scope and ambition of Cameron’s original really benefits from the added dimension. But honestly, it’s just worth it to see the movie on the big screen again, because I don’t think Titanic really benefits from being seen at home.