Thor: The Dark World

(Oh me, oh my, here I am slacking on reviews again. Forgive me while I play catch up.)

I don't much care for Thor and his 2011 debut feature did nothing to change my feelings for the character. Actually, with the exception of Iron Man, I wasn't really a huge fan of any of the Marvel Studios films prior to The Avengers. I just don't get why some people go gaga for the Thunder God, but I think it has something to do with a few factors: First, he's super hot, so you've got your female audience in the bag. Second, he's got an awesome hammer, so fanboys can geek out whenever he brings an almighty smackdown on his enemies. Third. Um, well, he has a cape. It's red....And he has a beard. And gorgeous, golden locks. Other than that, I don't really get it. He doesn't have much of a personality and he's kind of invincible, so suspense is hard to come by.

Suffice it to say, I didn't have a lot of stake in his second cinematic outing. If it had been awful, I'd just heave an exuberant sigh and carry on with my life. If it was a pleasant moviegoing experience, I'd be pleasantly surprised and then carry on with my life. I'm happy to say that Thor: The Dark World manages to fall on the latter end of the spectrum. It's serviceable entertainment and its second half is a whole lot of fun. With Alan Taylor, director of numerous Game of Thrones episodes, at the helm, we also get some more impressive visuals than those of its predecessor.

Its plot is nonsensical, as these kinds of plots tend to be, involving a dark elf played by none other than the 9th Doctor himself (Christopher Eccleston in yet another thankless role that does very little to showcase his talents as an actor) who wants to gain control of a mystical object known as the Aether so he can destroy the universe. Why does he want to destroy the universe? I haven't the foggiest. You'd think that in the interest of self-preservation the bad guys in these movies would be a little more concerned with their well-being. Either way, the motivations of the villain don't matter too much because we never really find out enough about him to care. Somehow, Natalie Portman's character Jane Foster gets infected by the Aether and the 9th Doctor will stop at nothing to kill Jane to obtain it! Naturally, it's up to our hero Thor to save the day!

Okay, yes, it's all a bit silly and the first half is bogged down by mind-numbing exposition. But, once Loki gets more involved with the story in the second half, the movie really takes off. It's actually fun enough that it makes up for the dullness/confusion of the first half. Even though Thor is kind of a lame character, Chris Hemsworth is a charming lad and he instills this part with a great deal of charisma. Natalie Portman does her due diligence as Jane Foster and Kat Dennings is here, unfortunately, still playing the Jar-Jar Binks of the franchise. But, let's not kid ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, this is the Loki show and I sincerely wish Tom Hiddleston had even more screentime. His character is far more interesting than Thor's.

CONCLUSION: Thor: The Dark World isn't a genre-bending revelation, but it's better than its predecessor and a rollicking good time at the movies. Another solid base hit for Marvel Studios!

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

And Everything is Going to the Beat: Reviews for Big Sur and Kill Your Darlings

BIG SUR

Jack Kerouac is without question one of the greatest authors of all time. You don't absorb his writings so much as they absorb you. I can't even count the number of times I've read passages of his, gotten to the end of a long stream-of-consciousness rant and realized I couldn't recall whatever it was I'd just read. And yet, despite this, I was utterly captivated as I read it.

The main issue with adapting a writer like Kerouac to film is that it's not so much about the images as it is about the words themselves. Without the power of Kerouac's words, words which reflect the thought process that runs through his head as he analyzes life and those caught up in his story, you lose a great deal of what makes Kerouac so special. This was one of the primary issues with Walter Salles' recent adaptation of what is arguably Kerouac's best work On the Road. That film, totally drained of the enormous spirit which inhabits the novel, was a miscalculated disappointment. What Michael Polish's brilliant adaptation of On the Road's spiritual sequel Big Sur understands is that the beauty lies in the words themselves. The images come as a natural response.

Written at the tail-end of his life, Big Sur is Kerouac's personal account of his frustration with the popularity of On the Road and the Beat Generation wannabes it spawned. It also examines his personal struggles with alcoholism, an affliction which would ultimately bring about his untimely death. His clear, level-headed descriptions of his binge-drinking and the hallucinations that result from a particularly dark evening at a friend's cabin in Big Sur, California are haunting and fascinating. Even more disturbing is how matter of factly Kerouac describes his addictions with a knowing tone, as if he was well-aware that he was slowly but surely killing himself and there could be no escape.

The film adaptation of Big Sur has a great deal of voiceover narration, a cinematic tool that, when used inappropriately, can end up distancing you from the subject matter on display. Here it does precisely the opposite. It actually serves as the bridge between us and the story being told. Utilizing a large number of verbatim passages from the text itself is a stroke of genius and by viewing the world through Jack's words, we develop a keen understanding of how he viewed life, pain, love, friendship and all the other subjects that come into play over the course of the film.

Jean-Marc Barr seems an unlikely choice to play Kerouac, but he embodies the role effectively. His performance reflects the cool madness of a desperate man pushed beyond his psychological limits to discover unsettling truths about himself and humanity. Barr lends a great deal of humanity to the role with a sympathetic and moving performance. The supporting cast is strong - Josh Lucas is boyish and charming as Neal Cassidy and Kate Bosworth is quite good as Kerouac's brief romantic interest Billie.

Director Michael Polish typically works with his brother Mark and I believe this is the first project he developed on his own. I haven't seen the work he did with his brother, so I don't have a point of comparison, but it's not too much of a stretch to say that Polish is immensely talented as a writer and a director. With the aid of M. David Mullen's gorgeous cinematography, he has a beautiful, hypnotizing visual aesthetic that pulls us right into the head of Kerouac in his darkest moments. The images are evocative and unforgettable.

CONCLUSION: Big Sur may work better for those who are fans of the novel and its author, but one cannot deny its effectiveness as a moving examination of alcoholism and the crushing effects it can have on one's soul

FINAL RATING: 4/5 

KILL YOUR DARLINGS

Kill Your Darlings tells the story of a young Allen Ginsberg who has just been accepted to Columbia University. During his first year, he met and fell in love with a charming, mischievous lad named Lucien Carr. Carr would introduce Ginsberg to Jack Kerouac and William Burroughs, the authors with whom he would pave a new pathway in literature. And while this film does feature some enjoyable sequences in which these legendary artists goof off and encourage each other to create, its main focus is on Ginsberg's coming-of-age and his relationship with Carr. It also concentrates on a particularly disturbing chapter in these young writers' lives - the murder of a troubled individual at the hands of Carr.

Writer/Director John Krokidas, with the assistance of his writing partner and old college roommate Austin Bunn, has crafted a rather entertaining tale. It's got some great moments, particularly when it focuses on the relationship between Allen and Lucien and the young Beat Generation's interactions with each other. The melodrama involving the murder of David Kammerer (Played quite well by Michael C. Hall) seems a bit tacked on in some ways, even though it played a major part in the lives of these individuals. I found myself more involved with the characters and their relationships with each other than with the standard plot that ends up taking over about halfway through.

Performances all across the board are strong with Daniel Radcliffe being the particular standout as Allen Ginsberg. I've always admired Radcliffe as an actor and he continues to prove his skills, making Ginsberg relatable and quite likable. Dane Dehaan is Radcliffe's equal as Lucien Carr. He is charming and immensely attractive. Ben Foster nails Burroughs and Jack Huston is a serviceable Kerouac (Though, as an enormous Kerouac fan, I'm a bit bummed that they portrayed him as more of a hunky lunkhead than the thoughtful, shy individual that he was). The cast is easily the strongest part of the film. The screenplay leaves a bit to be desired, but as a first time effort, it's admirable and Krokidas has a steady hand as a director that promises an intriguing career.

CONCLUSION: Kill Your Darlings can't be considered a rousing success, but it's a modest one and it is very much worth your time thanks to excellent performances from Radcliffe and Dehaan. Give it a looksee and then I highly recommend rushing out to grab some of the Beats' literary works to see what these crazy kids would produce.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

Playing Catch Up: Mini-Reviews for Blue Jasmine, Don Jon, The World's End and World War Z

BLUE JASMINE
I confess, I've never really understood the appeal of Woody Allen. I enjoyed Annie Hall, but I only got about halfway through Manhattan before deciding I'd rather do anything else. I did get a chance to see Midnight in Paris a couple years back, but found it underwhelming and dull. I had a similar reaction to Allen's latest Blue Jasmine, which is only a marginal improvement. Sure, Cate Blanchett gives a great performance, but she's about the only great thing in this movie. The scattershot plot is frustrating and unsatisfying and the characters come across as shallow and pompous. Allen keeps the viewer at arm's length with his pretentious sensibilities and annoying self-aware dialogue. I'm so busy being frustrated with his inane attempts to come across as 'intelligent' that I can't even bother to invest in this sorry excuse for storytelling.

FINAL RATING: 2/5

DON JON
Is there anything Joseph Gordon-Levitt can't do? His feature film debut as a writer/director is bursting with creativity and boundless energy. Don Jon is funny, sweet and features great performances from an excellent cast. It's not without its fair amount of flaws, though. It feels as if it was two acts of a story in desperate need of a strong third act and its final thirty minutes feel a bit uncharacteristic considering everything that precedes it. Regardless, the film is a modest success and Mr. Gordon-Levitt shows great promise as a writer and director. Count me in for his next feature.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

THE WORLD'S END
The World's End is, if nothing else, a whole lot of fun. Sure, it's missing the manic energy and zaniness of its superior predecessors Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, but this final entry of the superb Wright/Pegg/Frost Cornetto Trilogy is still a worthwhile trip to the movies. It takes quite a bit of its precious time getting warmed up in the first act, but once it gets going, the laughs and excitement rarely let up. One of the best trilogies around!

FINAL RATING: 4/5

WORLD WAR Z
WWZ could go down in history as the blandest zombie movie ever made. Actually, calling it a movie is giving it way too much credit; it's barely even that. The whole enterprise gives the impression that someone had a half-assed idea for an identityless, boring zombie movie and Brad Pitt, desperately wanting to star in an adaptation of the worldwide bestseller World War Z, snagged the screenplay and plastered the novel's title all over it in the hopes that it might make a buck or two. It looks like the plan worked, but any smidgen of creativity ends there. I haven't had a chance to read the book yet, but I can only presume you're better off checking that out or watching The Walking Dead than you are wasting your money on this nonsense.

FINAL RATING: 1.5/5


 

Gravity, a stunning and emotional masterpiece

I wanted to start this review with something cliched along the lines of, "I have seen the future of cinema and it is Gravity," but that term 'future of cinema' is tossed around so casually, it feels as if it's lost much of its significance. Besides, simply referring to Gravity as 'the future of cinema' does it a bit of an injustice, like it's an achievement that could possibly be repeated in a future age. This is a once-in-a-lifetime moviegoing experience and I don't think the 'future of cinema' will spawn many movies quite like it. I wish I could adequately describe in words just how captivating, thrilling and genuinely moving this latest masterpiece from Alfonso Cuaron is, but I find myself incapable of doing so. Besides, a picture says a thousand words and Gravity is chock-full-o' some of the best you'll ever see on a movie screen, so I'll just let the film itself do the talking.

The main plot of Gravity is about as straightforward as they come: Two astronauts (George Clooney and Sandra Bullock) get stranded in outer space after satellite debris disables their ship. Over the course of 91 minutes, we pay witness to their desperate attempts to survive and get back to earth in one piece. The simplicity of the story is refreshing in the wake of so many convoluted plotlines that big budget fare seem to demand these days. Alfonso Cuaron and his son Jonas have crafted a screenplay that trims anything extraneous, focusing on the primary journeys of these characters and their struggles. This is a survival story pure and simple and while the images that Cuaron, his cinematographer Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki and the visual effects team have crafted are thrilling and groundbreaking in every which way, a large amount of Gravity's beauty is due in no small part to its intimate look at the nature of humanity and our will to survive.

Sandra Bullock may deserve all the mockery this side of the Mississippi in regards to the Oscar she was awarded for her obnoxious performance in The Blind Side, but her performance as astronaut Ryan Stone in Gravity is no laughing matter. She gives would could arguably be the finest performance of her career and one of the best of 2013. Watching her struggles and her pain as she fights for her life is just as mesmerizing as the visuals on display. Likewise, George Clooney is fantastic, bringing all his trademark charm and humor to his performance as veteran astronaut Matt Kowalski.

Gravity has no precedent. It's been compared to Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, but the comparison kind of ends with the fact that they both take place in outer space. I assure you, you've never seen anything like this before and unless you actually decide to take a trip to outer space in the near future, I sincerely doubt anything will come close to the experience of watching this film. Cuaron crafts images so spectacular they'll bring tears to your eyes and with Bullock's performance providing an emotional anchor for the visual splendor and endless thrills, you'll find both your brain and your heart totally engaged and overwhelmed. This is visual storytelling at its finest and it not only belongs near the top of any list of 2013's best films, it belongs amongst the ranks of the greatest films ever made. Let's keep our fingers crossed that Cuaron doesn't opt to wait another seven years before releasing his next feature.

CONCLUSION: A glorious cinematic achievement in every sense of the word, Gravity is an experience like no other. You aren't just watching these astronauts in space; you're right there with them, participating in their struggles. See it. See it on the biggest IMAX screen you can find. See it in 3D. Whatever you do, just SEE IT. This is a game-changer in every conceivable fashion.

FINAL RATING: 5/5

The Spectacular Now - Not Spectacular, but Solid

Does anyone else feel like this summer has been dominated by the coming-of-age genre? Seriously, people complain about the superheroes taking over, but I'm pretty sure we've had just as many coming-of-age tales as comic book flicks in 2013. First you've got Mud, which is easily one of the best films of the year; there's also The Way Way Back, which isn't quite as amazing, but still heartwarming and showcases a knockout performance from Sam Rockwell. You've also got The Kings of Summer, which I still haven't seen, but hear good things about. I should probably get on that.

Finally, we have The Spectacular Now, the latest release in this overflowing category. I'm a fan of the genre though, so I'm not complaining. At its best, these kinds of stories remind us of the bittersweetness of being young and uncertain. At its worst, the genre is middling, hazy, nostalgia-fueled reminiscing that can be both obnoxious and sappy - A deadly combination. The Spectacular Now falls firmly in the middle of these two extremes, leaning more towards the good side. It's neither a revelation as some reviews might lead you to believe, nor is it a schlock-filled failure. Not even close. It's touching and heartbreaking - a tale of romance and the effect it can have on young people finding their way through the treacherous, winding roads of life. It also throws in an examination of alcoholism for good measure, which causes the story to lose focus, dimming its overall effectiveness. But even with this sudden turn, The Spectacular Now is largely successful thanks to its honest look at teenage love and the superb performances of its two main leads.

The story follows Sutter Keely (Miles Teller), a high school senior who's as charismatic as he is self-obsessed. He and his girlfriend Cassidy (Brie Larson) are super popular and dominate every social gathering they attend. Things take a turn for the worse when Cassidy dumps him after an unfortunate misunderstanding. He presumes they'll get back together like they always do, but this time she's firm in her resolve and ends up dating someone else. After discovering this, Sutter proceeds to get drunk and pass out on someone's lawn. This random lawn belongs to one of his classmates Aimme Finnecky (Shailene Woodley), an adorable girl-next-door type who loves reading sci-fi and manga who hasn't had a boyfriend in all her life. Sutter takes to her immediately and the two strike up a friendship that eventually leads to romance. Of course, things grow more and more complicated as graduation looms on the horizon and Sutter shows no signs of pursuing anything remotely resembling a future outside of his hometown. He also manages to sneak conversations with his ex into his daily routine, not-so-subtly attempting to win her back. He tries to brush off his relationship with Aimme as a passing thing (His friend keeps labeling it as a rebound which, initially, seems to be the case), but as their relationship continues to grow and Aimee's affection for Sutter deepens, things become more complicated.

For much of its running time, The Spectacular Now is pretty darn spectacular. James Ponsoldt's direction is on point and unobtrusive. The screenplay, written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber of 500 Days of Summer fame, is earnest, funny and totally genuine. These two guys are becoming quite a force to be reckoned with in the writing world. (Not too shabby for a pair that broke into Hollywood by penning the screenplay for The Pink Panther 2 starring Steve Martin) Of course, the natural dialogue would be nothing if the two leads weren't capable of delivering strong performances, but, thankfully, both Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley are revelations. The supporting cast, featuring the likes of Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kyle Chandler, and Brie Larson, is also strong, but this is the Teller/Woodley show and they are easily two of the finest young actors I've ever seen.

Teller has the more difficult challenge of making a slightly unlikable protagonist on the verge of flat-out alcoholism charming and relatable. His performance is a success in every way, reminiscent of a young John Cusack. It's not too hard to understand why everyone would find Sutter to be such an awesome guy. Woodley brings her a-game as sweetheart Aimme and it's heartwrenching to watch her fall for someone like Sutter, knowing full well what kind of guy he is. Their chemistry is natural and flawless. It's so refreshing to see two such well-drawn characters played so well by two talented actors in a genre so often plagued with insincerity. The development of Sutter and Aimme's friendship and eventual romance feels real and it's so fascinating to watch that when the plot suddenly takes a jarring sharp turn into contrived melodrama focusing on Sutter's alcoholism, it very nearly derails the whole experience. Thankfully, the performances, dialogue and direction are strong enough to keep things on track even as The Spectacular Now stumbles across the finish line.

CONCLUSION: The Spectacular Now may not be the rousing success I was hoping for, but it's a strong effort from Ponsoldt and gets by on some excellent writing and wonderful performances from Teller and Woodley. If the plot had kept its focus on their relationship, it would have been a strong effort. As is, it's still worth seeing and one of the better coming-of-age tales to be released this year.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5

Apparently, Wolverine's Healing Factor Can't Save Him from Sucking

Oh boy, here we go.

It is taking every bit of writing commitment I have to compose a review for The Wolverine, because, quite frankly, it's so unbelievably dull and idiotic I can barely muster the energy to write about it. It's not even particularly awful; it's just boring and unfailingly stupid. The characters aren't compelling and the plot is nothing more than an excuse for uninspired action sequences. For most of its running time, I was longing for the sweet release of sleep so I wouldn't have to put up with it any longer. At certain points, I actually wished I was watching X-Men Origins: Wolverine for the sheer laugh factor it elicits. This is pretty insane, considering that under normal circumstances, I would NEVER elect to watch that travesty. And sure, when it comes down to it, The Wolverine doesn't reach X-Men Origins levels of awfulness. It's not even as terrible as X-Men: The Last Stand, but it's only a marginal improvement over those two and being the best of the worst is nothing to be proud of.

So, what exactly is The Wolverine about? Apparently, Wolverine saved a Japanese soldier's life during World War II and now that soldier wants to repay Wolverine by scooping up the mutant's infamous healing factor in order to save his own life. In exchange, Wolverine will get the mortality he's always longed for and a chance to die and be reunited with his one true love Jean Grey. (Who appears in various dream sequences throughout the movie) Through some convoluted plot developments, Wolverine ends up becoming a bodyguard for this guy's granddaughter and gets involved in some sort of scheme to...I don't know...take over the world or something. Along the way, our hero engages in some PG-13 slashing, which equates to shaky-cam action sequences shot in close up. He also gets to sit around and stare at the vastly uninteresting supporting characters who seem to desire nothing more than to deliver exposition and backstories in the most mundane way possible. Seriously, I can't even count how many times a character would say, "I remember when..." and go off recounting some overlong, dreadfully dull story about their past while Wolverine looked on, listening intently, as my eyes glazed over.

Oh, and in some odd attempt to fabricate suspense, the screenwriters see fit to rob Wolverine of his regenerative powers for most of the film's running time. This isn't so much an exciting story development as an excuse to shoot slow-motion close-ups of Hugh Jackman looking constipated while the bad guys beat away at him with baseball bats. Poor Jackman performs admirably in the role that made him a star back in 2000's vastly superior X-Men, (God I miss Bryan Singer...) but he just doesn't have a story or much of a character arc to work with. I suppose it's too much to ask to actually care about the people occupying your standard summer blockbuster, but it sure would have made this slog a bit more enjoyable to watch.

Director James Manigold also does the best with the nonsensical screenplay he's given. I'll give him credit for trying to avoid standard superhero film pratfalls and turning up the exotic factor by filming in Tokyo and other exciting locations. At times, it feels more like You Only Live Twice than a comic book inspired flick. That's both a good and bad thing. Manigold also manages to craft The Wolverine's one exciting action sequence - A fight atop a speeding bullet train. The only thrills the movie has are to be found in this scene, which takes place early in the film, leaving you with another hour and a half of non-stop boringness.

But maybe the issue isn't really Manigold's direction or the lackluster screenwriting. Maybe the real problem is that Wolverine just isn't a very interesting character. Yeah, okay, I get it - He looks cool on the comic book page and, let's face it, who doesn't love the concept of a total badass who goes into berserker rages and slices up his enemies with metal claws that extend from his knuckles? But beyond these ideas, Wolverine just doesn't work well as a story-driving device. He's most effective in a team environment, working with other characters who have ideals that stand in stark contrast with his own. This allows for actual genuine character conflict, something that is sorely missing here. On his own, Wolverine is just a guy who doesn't go much deeper than his growling, slicing and dicing and re-healing just to do it all over again. What little character development he has comes from a mysterious past that haunts every moment of his waking life, but I can only take so much of a guy running around saying, "Who am I???"; "What have they done to me?" before I begin to desire an adamantium bullet to the brain.

Look at the six X-Men movies that have been made. Out of all these, only one has not focused on Wolverine as the central character. (The refreshing, if not entirely successful, X-Men First Class) Whatever slimmer of character development existed within him has been exhausted twenty times over. Give me a pulpit and I'll preach it loud and clear: We don't need anymore Wolverine-centric entries in this series. There are far more interesting characters to dissect in this canon; let's get on with it.

It's disappointing that the X-Men franchise is now nothing more than another money-grubbing series with nothing to prove. Under Bryan Singer's guiding hand, these movies paved the way for the whole superhero genre to make a huge comeback and, more importantly, his heroes had heart to match their astonishing abilities. I can only hope Singer's return to the series with Days of Future Past will bring the franchise back to its former glory. For now, we'll have to suffer through this nonsense.

CONCLUSION: The Wolverine, with its total lack of engaging story or interesting characters, is a lackluster mess of a flick. It's not only one of the worst films in the X-Men movie series, it's one of the lamest movies of 2013.

FINAL RATING: 2/5

The Way Way Back is Way Way Charming

If you were to go down a checklist of all the standard characteristics of a coming-of-age story, you'd discover that nearly every single one applies to The Way Way Back. It adheres to a rigid formula and manages to hit just about every one of the genre's obligatory story beats before it reaches its conclusion. You've got your main protagonist: the awkward teenage boy searching for his identity; you've got the mean 'stepfather' who tries to bully him into submission; you've got the cute girl next door who said protagonist pines over and who, for some explicable reason, seems to take a liking to him; you've got the zany, outgoing friend who helps him overcome his awkwardness and the summer job they work at together, which will contribute to the main character building his confidence. The list goes on and on and on. And yet, almost despite itself, The Way Way Back succeeds at overcoming its more generic tendencies and ends up being a rather poignant little tale thanks to its first-rate performances and some solid writing/direction.

The story involves a 14-year-old social outcast named Duncan (Liam James) who is stuck with his mom (Toni Collette), her overbearing bully of a boyfriend Trent (Steve Carell) and Trent's daughter (Zoe Levin) at a beach house for a summer excursion. The excursion is mainly an excuse for Trent to meet up with some old buddies and get drunk and high on a regular basis. Duncan's mom reluctantly joins him for these activities, leaving Duncan to fend for himself. Seeing as how he doesn't have much of a place amongst the group (A fact he is reminded of constantly by everyone around him), he spends most of his time alone listening to music and belting out REO Speedwagon tunes like it's nobody's business. The closest thing he has to a friend is his next door neighbor's very pretty daughter Susanna (AnnaSophia Robb), but his attempts to converse with her are more embarrassing than anything else. After he finds a bicycle in the garage and takes an extended ride, he stumbles upon a water park and its goofy, fun-loving manager Owen (Sam Rockwell) befriends him, offering a job at the park and helping Duncan discover his self-confidence in the process.

The Way Way Back starts off rather awkwardly, taking far too much of its time setting up the situations and characters before the plot actually progresses. But, not unlike Duncan himself, it overcomes its initial gawkiness and manages to come into its own. The script, penned by Nat Faxon and Jim Rash and directed by the pair as well, is simple and entertaining even as it's plagued with the more common pratfalls that regularly infest this genre. It's unfortunate that Faxon and Rash all-too-often resort to contrived sequences in order to elicit an emotional response from the audience. (Typically right as whatever song is playing over the soundtrack reaches its most celebratory point) They are both clearly very invested in the material, so one wishes they had spent some more time developing its story structure. Regardless, its heartwarming nature and excellent cast help it get over these little bumps in the road.

The performances are especially to thank for The Way Way Back's overall success. Liam James does a superb job playing the troubled teen Duncan. On paper, the character is practically a blank slate, doing little to make him appealing in any way, but James' sincere performance makes him empathetic and even charming. Carell is surprisingly good at playing the total jackass that is Duncan's mom's boyfriend Trent; AnnaSophia Robb is delightful as Duncan's crush and she's super cute to boot. Everyone plays their parts with great gusto, but the real standout is Sam Rockwell as Duncan's friend Owen. Sure, it's easy for Rockwell to be the standout seeing as how his character is the most inherently energetic of the bunch, spouting hysterical one-liners as if it's a regular pastime. But Rockwell keeps his performance grounded and makes the character totally believable with a passionate, thoughtful performance.

Jim Rash has stated that The Way Way Back is very autobiographical and it's clearly a passion project of his. It may not reach the heights it so frequently aims for, but its heart is in the right place and it has enough going for it to make it an endearing moviegoing experience. Your life might not be changed, but you'll certainly walk out of the theater with a smile on your face.

CONCLUSION: The Way Way Back doesn't revolutionize the coming-of-age genre due to its over reliance on familiar story beats and characterizations, but thanks to a decent script and some excellent performances, from Sam Rockwell in particular, it manages to charm its way out of its conventions.

FINAL RATING: 3.5/5