The Hopper #9

"Edge Of Tomorrow" (2014)



Sometimes a film works out better when you go in with zero expectations. When I saw the trailer for "Edge Of Tomorrow," I had no interest in seeing it. To me, it looked like a sci-fi/action version of Harold Ramis' "Groundhog Day" while replacing the hilarious deadpan of Bill Murray with the aging and out-of-place Tom Cruise.

But, much to my surprise, I began to hear people saying it was a fun and enjoyable film and worth a viewing. So, since I hadn't been to the movies in a while, I decided to go see a couple of films, and "Edge Of Tomorrow" was the first on my list.

I went in expecting to be put to sleep or be insulted by how it portrayed our militaries, but came out having a good time. Part of this was because, like myself, the film did not take itself seriously at all. It recognized the ridiculous situation of Tom Cruise reliving the same battle again and again and decides to have as much fun with it.

For the last few years, Europe has been slowly overtaken by a race of aliens, known as the Mimics, with military forces trying their best to combat them, with no success. Now these aliens threaten to overtake the rest of the world, which leads the armies of Earth to launch an all-out strike against the Mimics before they can fight back. The United States even brings in a new military weapon that makes even the most untrained rookies become expert soldiers.

Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) gets sucked into this attack, even though he faints at the sight of blood. After being branded a deserter and reduced to the rank of Private, Cage is enlisted and set into combat, only to be killed like every other soldier sent in. So it surprises Cage when he finds himself at back at the base, living the day again.

The enjoyment of the film comes out of logical path Cage takes as he relives the battle countless times. We are never given an exact number of how many times he has done this, but it is enough to try to save everyone in his company from being squashed, burned alive or shot, as well as learning where each of his platoon members comes from, how they got their nicknames and why they enlisted.

The snarky comments that Cruise develops over repeated outcomes is what brings a smile to my face and show that he is having fun with this. That Cruise is not treating this like another action role, but as a distinct character who has lived this moment far too many times.

Rather than focusing on the philosophical implications of this, "Edge Of Tomorrow" instead decides to joke around with the scenario. Cage never complains about wanting out of this, but embraces this opportunity as a way to help the human race.

This is what I mean by the film not taking itself seriously. This could have been a dark and gritty tale about a cursed man who is being tortured to live this nightmare for all eternity. Yet, this is about a man's struggle to save the world with his unique gift. For that reason, this film is fun to watch.

Final Grade: B-


"22 Jump Street" (2014)

Oh boy. I can tell this is going to be another bad year for comedies.

My biggest complaint with 2013 was the lack of good comedies, with the two films that made me laugh the most being "The Wolf Of Wall Street" and "Iron Man 3." If "22 Jump Street" and the trailers before it are any indication, I get the feeling 2014 is going to go the same way.

Here's the thing about comedy in films: While these types of movies are created to make us laugh, they are still like any other work of cinema. If they fail at storytelling and filmmaking, then no amount of comedy is going to save it.

For whatever reason, most comedies over the last few years have simply become excuses to have a few gags or stand-up comedians try their routine on a grander scale. This is why movies like "Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" and "This Is The End" fail as movies. They might make you laugh, but that doesn't make them good films, just good joke-fodder.

"22 Jump Street" falls into the same class as many other comedies of the last few years, by having some jokes that work, some that don't, and all wrapped up in a plot that is nonsensical, convoluted and does not amount too much.

After the success of their last undercover operation, Schimdt (Jonah Hill) and Jenko (Channing Tatum) try to do some bigger police work, only for it to fail spectacularly. This leads them to be reassigned to do the same operation they had done, by being sent in as college students to investigate a new type of drug that has led to the death of a student.

As I mentioned, there are jokes that do get a good laugh, and those are mostly when the film is being as meta as possible. For example, Jenko wants to do something more with his career, like becoming a member of the secret service and protect the president, an oh-so subtle nod to Channing Tatum doing just that in Roland Emmerichs' "White House Down." Or that the boss of Jump Street (played by Ice Cube) gets a brand new office...that looks like a giant ice-cube.

But the funniest moments come during the closing credits, when the filmmakers clearly state that they are not going to make anymore "Jump Street" movies, and instead decide to throw out every ridiculous idea for possible sequels, with names like "25 Jump Street" or "2121 Jump Street." This includes the role of Schimdt, at one point, being replaced by Seth Rogan and back to Jonah Hill.

Yet, there lies the problem. The funniest part of the film comes during the end credits. I don't know about you, but I think that's sad and says a lot about how unfunny the rest of the movie is. Even more so since these credits have nothing to do with the rest of the film.

The plot is a jumbled-up mess. It wanders around aimlessly, trying to find a point and reason for all the comedy to exist, but spends no time developing these characters that it becomes pointless. When "22 Jump Street" tries any sort of drama, it fails miserably because there is no resolution to any of it.

It all becomes an excuse just to lead to more unfunny comedy, like Jenko trying to join a Frat house or both trying to discuss their feelings as "partners" with the school psychiatrist.

So while there are certainly funny moments in "22 Jump Street," it is not worth sitting through the rest of the movie to get there. Just wait for those scenes to come out as clips on YouTube and you won't miss a thing.

Final Grade: D+

Movie Review: "Jason And The Argonauts" (1963)

It should be known that I've only before watched one other Ray Harryhausen film, "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms." It did not go well.

While I do believe that Harryhausen's effects were the best part of that particular movie, it certainly was not enough to save it from being a bad movie. The story was forgettable, the characters were laughable and the pacing was all over the place. So while I do not blame Harryhausen for what made the film unbearable, it was still a painful monster movie to watch at times.

Yet, I could still understand the genius behind what Ray Harryhausen did in the film. While stop-motion animation existed long before he did, Harryhausen took it to an entirely different level by creating detailed and intricate creatures which moved with their own breath and heart beat.

This is why I believe "Jason And The Argonauts" is often called Harryhausen's best work. In earlier films, you get one or two creatures with this beautiful animation, but in "Jason" you get no fewer than four distinctly diverse monsters, each with their own movement and sequence.



During the time of the Greek Gods, the greedy Pelias attacks the city of Thessaly, kills King Aristo, and takes it for himself. This angers Zeus and his wife, Hera, because Pelias goes against the orders of the gods and kills an innocent woman in Hera's temple. Out of this, a prophecy is born, where the child of Aristo would be the one to rise up and kill Pelias.

Twenty years later, the only remaining child of Aristo, Jason (Todd Armstrong), has now reached manhood and intends to get his kingdom back from Pelias by obtaining the Golden Fleece from the far off land of Colchis, at the end of the world. After an meet with Zeus and Hera, Jason promises to get the Fleece his own way, but praises the gods for their generosity.

And so, Jason assembles the strongest and bravest men in Greece to join him on his journey to the end of the world, where they face many threats, including some from within his own crew.



Like with "The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms" the special effects work in this film is the real highlight. There are so many sequences that stick out in my mind, and each one has a difference in size and scope.

Some are compact and tight-fisted, like the battle with the Harpies or the sword-wielding skeletons. While others are massive and must quick thinking over brawn, like the copper statue of Talos or crossing the chasm of the Clashing Rocks, only to be saved by the sea-god, Triton.

The struggle against Talos sticks out to me more than most others, because of how Talos moves and his appearance. I say Talos is made of copper, because he appears brown and shiny on some surfaces, but is rusted and green on others, much like the Statue of Liberty. Talos is not some creature with an armor coating, but a statue given life and acts so. He is massive, impenetrable, dense and uncaring.



Each of these sequences gives the movie character and adds to this world of gods and monsters. The diversity is what makes the film worth watching over and over.

However, if "Jason And The Argonauts" falters on anything, it would be the lack of development for characters and story. We get some story in the beginning of the film, but only enough to set up the basics: Jason is pissed off at Pelias and wants to get his kingdom back, so he'll get the Fleece to do just that.

Everything else is an excuse to lead into the next action sequence, as Jason and his crew travel across the world and meet many dangerous obstacles along the way. After awhile, it becomes predictable and makes the non-action sequences forgettable and not worthy mentioning.

This gets even worse when few of the Argonauts have any sort of character. We hardly learn the names of any of these brave and fearless warriors, let alone what the offer to the group. The only ones we do learn about are quickly abandoned in the story, like Hercules and the young intelligent man that he befriends. While their bonding is nice to see, we only get a scene or two of that before the film focuses on other aspects.



Which is rather disappointing, since the scene where Jason holds a contest to see who gets to sail with him was an enjoyable sequence, with a wide ranger of characters showing of their unique talents and how cocky they were because of their skills. It shows there was a chance for good characterization in this film, but it was forgotten in favor of other aspects.

In the end though, I got a similar feeling from "Jason And The Argonauts" as I did from a good Godzilla film: A film that takes itself rather seriously, but still has a good sense of adventure and fun. It is not afraid to pull any punches, but it knows that people are here to see some exciting action sequences and delivers on that.

For what "Jason And The Argonauts" does with its monster and sword sequences, the film excels, with wonderful work by Ray Harryhausen and a fitting score by Bernard Herrmann (composer of "Vertigo" and "Psycho") that amplifies the tension and direness to many fights. The problem comes with just about everything else being lackluster or forgotten. The film is fun to watch for its towering Talos statue or skeleton sword fight, but don't expect that level of excitement throughout the entire movie.

Final Grade: B

Movie Review: "How To Train Your Dragon 2" (2014)

Sometimes, a great film lies in the little details. The small, sometimes insignificant pieces, that when on their own don't add up to much. But when you put them all together, you suddenly realize all of the time and craft put into developing the world of the movie and making it fully fleshed out.

One such film is "How To Train Your Dragon." On the surface, it is a by-the-numbers animated film with some impressive 3D effects and a cliched story. But then you realize how each dragon moves and acts differently from any other creature. They all have their own strengths, weaknesses and personalities, and all without ever hearing these dragons speak a word of dialogue.

It also helps that the film never once relied on pop culture references, like so many other animated films restort to these days, especially other Dreamworks films. Nothing dates your film more than a Honey Bobo reference or trying so hard to be like the Genie from "Aladdin," the granddaddy of animated pop culture references.



Yet the strength of "How To Train Your Dragon" lied in how developed its world was. This mythological hole-in-the-wall where dragons have been attacking Vikings for generations, yet now they learn to tame and befriend these beasts to learn that everything they knew about them was wrong.

Its recent sequel, "How To Train Your Dragon 2," follows up on the story of its main characters, but seems to miss other aspects that leave the audience wanting more.

In the far off land of Berk, a land of Vikings, dragons have now been living there comfortably for five years, with each citizen now having their own dragon. Hiccup (Jay Baruchel) has now become the dragon rider master of Berk, alongside his own dragon, Toothless, and constantly goes out to explore the surrounding land to locate new types of dragons.

But when dragon raiders show up to capture Toothless, Hiccup finds out about the mysterious Drago Bludvist, who intends to enslave every dragon and conquer the world through fear and fire. Now it is up to Hiccup and his father, Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler), to stop Drago before he gets to Berk, while also finding some help a cloaked figure who seems to understand all dragons.



The animation in this film was stunning, to say the least. It captured the breath-taking visuals of the flying sequences in the first film, but it seemed to work even harder on simple things, like facial emotions. I don't know what they did, but the emotions on so many characters faces were so distinct and poured out that I could tell exactly what they were thinking.

There's a scene where Hiccup discovers who the cloaked figure is, and the look of initial shock slowly turns to excitement and happiness and then back to sadness. All without saying a word, I can tell what Hiccup is going through. We connect with him through our emotions alone, something quite rare for animated films.

That being said, the film is so wrapped up in the story that it has no time to develop the world around it. In the last film, we had only a handful of different types of dragons, but we got a distinct flavor of how each one worked. In "How To Train Your Dragon 2," we are introduced to countless new dragons, yet we learn nothing about them.



The cloaked figure, for example, has a four-winged dragon that has multiple scars on it, but we get nothing more than that. There is clearly a story to her behemoth but they leave us empty-handed.

The only characters in "How To Train Your Dragon 2" who get any sort of development are Hiccup, Stoick, Drago, the cloaked figure and Hiccup's girlfriend, Astrid (America Ferrera), sort of. Everyone else is there to be comic relief or a weak romantic subplot that doesn't go anywhere.

It is "Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2" all over again.

Now don't get me wrong, the story in "How To Train Your Dragon 2" is just fine. It is handled nicely and serves as a great development for Hiccup, where he must be the bridge between the worlds of savage Vikings and animalistic dragons.

But like the first film, the story is not the main draw for "How To Train Your Dragon 2." The far more interesting aspects were the world, its varying cast of bumbling young vikings and the sprawling landscapes during the flying sequences.



The story may serve its purpose, but everything else seems lacking. While the flying scenes are still majestic, we only get glimpses of the world outside of Berk and the cast is forgotten in favor of story.

Then again, it is a give-and-take. We lose the world of dragons and vikings in favor of a story about combining the two worlds. In the end, that is not a bad tradeoff, yet it does leave me wanting more out of the film.

Final Grade: B-

Blog Update & Big Changes

So yeah, it has been a few weeks since I last updated the blog here. I'd just like to keep my readers updated on what is going on and what to expect in the future.

First of all, Seeing Is Believing is not dead. My day job has been keeping me quite busy over these last few weeks, so I haven't had the time to go see any new movies.

I did recently see "How To Train Your Dragon 2" but just haven't found the time to write a full review on it. Short review: It was enjoyable, but not up to the level of the first film.

You also may have noticed that I have brought in a new contributor to the site, Jaime Williams. Jaime is a wonderfully creative person who I met at my time at my college newspaper. He was the online editor and web designer for the online version of the paper.

I have brought Jaime on for many reasons, but the main one is to help redesign the website. Now that I've been providing consistent content for this site for over a year and have over 120 articles, including reviews of nearly 100 movies, I've decided that its time for a better look for the site.

Jaime and I have been collaborating for weeks now and have been working behind the scenes to update the website. So even though I haven't been providing content, I have been working on making the blog into something new. In fact, here is the new banner for the site:

But that is just the beginning of the many updates to this site.

I don't want to reveal all of the changes that will be coming, because I want to keep it a secret. What I will tell you is that I wish to expand my articles to more than just Blogger. I also wish to create a community within my blog, if possible. To allow my readers the opportunity to speak up and be heard on their opinions of movies. To let readers give their input on my work and say what they do or don't like about my articles.

Because I wouldn't have gone anywhere without you guys. I am entirely grateful to everyone who has ever read my blog. Without you guys, I don't know where I would be. You allow me to do what I love and have so much fun with movies.

But the last thing I will tell you guys is that I am working on adding ads to the site. I hope that when these updates are finished, I will have a higher traffic rate and more people will be reading my blog. Putting in ads to the site would allow me to bring in ad revenue and let me make some money in the process. I promise that they will not get in the way of my content and I will stay focused on providing you with articles and insight that people want to read.

With how much time I already invest into making articles, having an incentive like money would only push me to making even better content, as well as more frequently.

So stay tuned. Within the next week or so, Jaime and I hope to have everything up and running, and Seeing Is Believing will return better than ever before.

The Morale Of The Story Is... - Dreamworks Edition

The morale of a story is one of the most basic fundamentals of storytelling. By the end of your story, the characters must change, usually by learning something about life that they did not know before. Like not following strangers or not going off into the woods alone.

So I feel it is important to establish what the morale of every story is. Because that is the final impression that the story wants to leave on you. Something that the audience should walk away knowing more than anything else. Which is why I've returned with another installment of "The Morale Of The Story Is..."

This time around, I'll be looking at the library of Dreamworks animated movies, including their 2D and 3D works. Like the last one, these are fairly simple morals that even most children can figure out. Hopefully you were able to spot them as well.

Let's get started with...



"Antz" (1998)

The perfect compliment to the narcassitic Woody Allen is Slyvester Stallone. If this had been a buddy cop film about those two, this would easily overtaken "A Bug's Life." It could be called "Whine and Brash."

"The Prince Of Egypt" (1998)

When all else fails in your reimagining of the story of Moses, you can always rely on Steve Martin and Martin Short to liven things up.

"Chicken Run" (2000)

Chickens will rise up to conquer us all some day. This world shall not become the planet of the apes, but the planet of the fouls. All hail our feathered overlords, for they shall conquer the skies and rain delicious pies on us!

"Shrek" (2001)

Smash Mouth is the true star of the movie. Because only shooting stars break the mold.



"Spirit: Stallion Of The Cimarron" (2002)

That horse needed a cough drop or something, because his voice was raspy.

"Shrek 2" (2004)

"Prey for mercy from Puss In Boots!" just doesn't have the same effect when you try to sound threatening in the real world. Trust me on this.

"Shark Tale" (2004)

Will Smith-fish is one of the scariest things I've ever seen in my life. It still haunts my dreams.



"Madagascar" (2005)
Even zoo animals understand references to popular Charlton Heston movies. That's how ingrained they are, not just into our own society, but all flocks of life.

"Wallace & Gromit: The Curse Of The Were-Rabbit" (2005)

We are one bad lab accident away from destroying ourselves. Whether through gene splicing, chemical explosions, bacteria exposure, or switching your brain with a rabbit. All are just as likely to happen, but mostly the rabbit one.

"Shrek the Third" (2007)

Justin Timberlake is the answer to every problem ever. Want world peace? Just throw JT at it and he'll have it all sorted out. Crappy fantasy movie? Just make him King Arthur and something will work out.



"The Bee Movie" (2007)

An entire movie about bees? What's the deal with that?!?

Okay, the true morale is that a Jerry Seinfeld impression doesn't work as well through text.

"Kung Fu Panda" (2008)

Don't judge a movie by its title.

I'm serious on this one. What? I can't throw in an honest one? Work with me, people!

"Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa" (2008)

When your escape plan relies on a group of secret agents who are also penguins, it is about time for you to rethink your life. Either that, or find better drugs.

"How To Train Your Dragon" (2010)

All dragons are actually working for one gigantic bully dragon, so don't pick on the little dragons because they get enough of that already from the pudgy one in the corner.

"Shrek Forever After" (2010)

Shrek backwards is Kerhs. The more you know.



"Kung Fu Panda 2" (2011)

Don't release your awesome animated movie on the same weekend as a crappy remake to a comedy. Because then everyone will overlook your movie and no one will talk about how great it is.

Sorry, I'm still upset about that.

"Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted" (2012)

All you need to be in the circus is an afro and bright colors and then sing about having a circus afro. Thanks Chris Rock. Truly you are the wisest of us all.



"Rise Of The Guardians" (2013)

Santa is Russian, loves to fight, has giant tattoos of the naughty and nice list on his names and sounds a lot like Alec Baldwin. The more you know.

"Mr. Peabody & Sherman" (2014)

Dogs are naturally smarter and better than humans. Give them a week and they will invent zumba and auto-tune.

So really, the morale of all Dreamworks films is that animals are superior to humans in every way. From the chickens in "Chicken Run," to Gromit, to Donkey and Puss in Boots, to the endless hordes of dragons and even Mr. Peabody. These animals will lead the charge against the humans who will never see them coming. No longer will they be subjegated to our every whim but be free to live their beasty lives to their hearts content. The creatures of the world shall unite one day, so prepare for the worst.

With that being said, those are the morales to the many Dreamworks movies out there. If you don't see these morales, then I don't know what else to say. It's not that I'm reading too deep into the film, because these are simple lessons. I'm surprised everyone doesn't get these lessons out of the movies.
But I'm an open kind of guy. So if you have a morale to a film that you'd like to share with me, send it my way and I just might use it in the next edition of "The Morale Of The Story is..." Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to prepare myself of the animal apocalpyse, which will surely be led by its front of pandas that know kung fu.

Movie Review: "Maleficent" (2014)

"Sleeping Beauty" is one of the classic Disney animated features for a few different reasons. One is the artstyle and how drastically different it was from any other animated film at the time, going for more of a medival tapestry look. But the main reason most people remember the film, including myself, is the villain, Maleficent.

She is everything that makes villainy exciting to watch. She is quiet, subtle, manipulative, but can also be quite boisterous, loud and over the top. She can have her way with either a flick of her wrist or by turning into a fire-breathing dragon. She loves everything she does and takes great pride in her power. This makes her one of best, if not the best, Disney animated villain.

Notice that I said villain. If she were trying to be anything else, Maleficent would not work. In "Sleeping Beauty," her motivation to become a villain is lame: She wasn't invited to a party, so now she's going to make the whole kingdom suffer. But we forgive this motivation because of how effective she is at being the villain.



When you try to take that motivation and develop it further, fleshing her character out, suddenly you take away one of the things that made her character so great in the first place. The ambiguity of what she'll do next and the lengths that she'll go to. We don't know why Maleficent has it out for Sleeping Beauty, just that she'll make sure Aroura will fall into that deep sleep.

This is part of the reason why the new Disney film, "Maleficent," only holds up for so long. The movie works for a while with its detailed world and character development, but over time it loses coherence and gets lost.

A long while ago, there were two kingdoms that lived adjacent to each other, one of greedy men and other of mystical creatures and fairies. The watchful protector of this kingdom is the mighty winged fairy Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), as she guards the kingdom from men who wish to snatch the vast treasures and magical objects.

One day though, the human love of her life returns to Maleficent, only to be betrayed and have her wings stolen. This leads her former love to become king, with Maleficent vowing for revenge. When the king's daughter is born, Malficent shows up uninvited to her festival and casts the famous curse upon the baby, setting off a cascade of events and the king promising to slay Maleficent once and for all.



Angelina Jolie is both menacing and comforting as Maleficent. When she wants to be villainous, she goes all out and often looks gleeful when being the bad guy. Her wide eyes work to full effect here, because when you see the whites of her eyes she looks like a shark about to strike.

Over the course of the film, Maleficent takes a liking to Aroura and her kinder side shines through. This gives the audience a good idea of why the magical creatures came to appreciate Maleficent and why they accept her as their guardian.

When the film is focusing on Jolie, it is at its best. She is able to capture the charm of the original character while still making it feel like her own creation.

It's just too bad that the film spends so much time on other characters who don't add anything. The other fairies, for example, are tasked with protecting Aroura until her sixteenth birthday, and are reduced to petty slapstick that clashes with scenes of Maleficent being maniaical. By the time she does get to that spinning wheel, the fairies storyline is all but forgotten.



This becomes a problem for many characters throughout the film, with subplots being created but ultimately forgotten by the end. The king, for example, starts out as a boy with nothing but a friendship with Maleficent who becomes a greedy king. That friendship is lost by the end of the movie and means pratically nothing. It is never mentioned during the climatic battle, nor do either characters feel remorse for what they are doing.

Other characters, like the prince who saves Aroura and the queen are thrown away as quickly as possible and add nothing to the movie. Much like with "Sleeping Beauty," Aroura and the prince have zero character. They are merely vehicles to move the plot along instead of feeling like people with emotions and desires. The best we get is that Aroura is curious about the world, and that's it.

"Maleficent" has many of the same problems as "Sleeping Beauty" but also introduces several new problems. The story is all over the place, with characters motives and goals wildly changing for no good reason, subplots and characters going unaddressed and many scenes serving no point at all other than to pad out the film. Near the end, Maleficent must traverse a maze of iron, as fairies are weakened by iron. But she gets through it with no problem and this maze is never brought up again.



While Jolie is great as Maleficent, she can only take this film so far. Too much focus on other characters who aren't as interesting drags "Maleficent" down. It starts out well enough with the relationship between the two kingdoms, but by the end the movie has lost its point and forcibly drags from scene to scene.

If you're a fan of "Sleeping Beauty" or the character of Maleficent, or like Angelina Jolie, then give this one a try. But if you go in expecting a medival tale of knights and witches, this probably isn't the film for you.

Final Grade: C-

Movie Review: "A Million Ways To Die In The West" (2014)

I don't care for Seth MacFarlane at all. While I do believe the first three seasons of "Family Guy" were well-made and consistently funny with clever character writing, MacFarlane has decided to drop that style of comedy and instead go for something along the lines of "South Park" by insulting whoever is popular with cutaway gags that have nothing to do with the show.

Like "South Park," I decided to keep watching "Family Guy" long after it stopped being funny. But unlike "South Park," which just became insulting and disrespectful, "Family Guy" got repetitive and relied way too much on cutaway gags and turning its diverse cast into caricatures of their former selves. Which is why I stopped watching the show around season seven in 2009.



Since that point, MacFarlane has created several new shows that try desperately to do the exact same thing as "Family Guy" by taking character tropes and making them as obscene as possible and going overboard in the process. This would include shows like "The Cleveland Show" and "Dads" as well as the movie "Ted."

However, the one bright spot in all of this is that MacFarlane has relapsed into his older self, especially with his other animated show "American Dad." In that show, MacFarlane can actually have characters be themselves without coming off like clichés or stereotypes. Essentially, he is recapturing the comedy of the first three seasons of "Family Guy" and showing that he still has what it takes to be funny, instead of obscene.

MacFarlane's latest comedy, "A Million Ways To Die In The West," finds a way to reach a middle ground where it is sometimes fresh, while other times is a rehash of his other work, leaving an overall feeling indifference.

Albert Stark (Seth MacFarlane) is a sheep farmer in the old Arizona west, around 1882, and is a complete coward who is quick to point out how much this time period sucks and that everyone and everything is trying to kill you. This attitude becomes grating on his girlfriend, Louise (Amanda Seyfried) and breaks up with him to get together with the local mustache guru (Neil Patrick Harris).

But when a new family rolls into town, the sister, Anna (Charlize Theron) takes a liking to Albert and teaches him a few things about how to shot a gun. This surprises everyone in town, but not as much as when the most vicious gunslinger in the territory, Clutch Leatherwood (Liam Nesson), comes to town to look for his wife.



The biggest complaint against this film is that it does not try to be funny as much as it should. Oh, there is plenty of comedy, but there are also many scenes where there are two people will talk normally and have a rather rational conversation. This is then broken up by Albert and Anna talking about how black people like women with huge rear ends.

There is no sense of continuity in this film, and as a result the pacing is all over the place. Sometimes the jokes will come hard and fast, like when Albert has his life flash before his eyes or talks about how the west is terrible, while other jokes take their sweet time to pan out, such as when they are at the town fair or Albert and Anna share a pot cookie.

You are often left wondering if you were supposed to laugh at that scene or not and whether it had a point to it at all.



In a similar film, like "Blazing Saddles," another comedy about the old west, that film takes every opportunity to cram a joke in there. The film never slows down to give the characters depth, because their jokes become their character.

But here, the characters are nothing new. We've seen people like Albert, Anna, Louise and Clutch a million times in other movies before this. The coward who has to step up for himself. The shallow girl who wants to be with the popular guy. The skilled bully who thinks he is the best around and wants to prove it to everyone.

So when there are so many scenes devoted to fleshing these overdone characters out, it just puts the audience to sleep rather than being dramatic. They merely serve as a distraction from the comedy.
That being said, there are plenty of worthwhile jokes throughout the film. Like I said, when the comedy comes at you fast, it usually hits the mark. When Albert describes why the west is so bad, there are many gags of people dying right before their eyes, including a guy dying of his own farts and face-planting right onto a poker table.

But the best one has to be the body of the mayor just lying in the street, with no explanation of why it is there, but no one doing anything about it. This is made even better by MacFarlane's over the top reaction, realizing that the leader of this town is a corpse, and having his body get dragged away by hungry wolves.



These jokes prove that there is a worthwhile sense of humor out there, but that the film keeps getting bogged down in other distracting details, like an unnoteworthy story about cliché characters. When the film wants to be funny, it can be hilarious. When it tries to do anything else, it drops the ball.

If you like "Family Guy," "Ted" or any other work by Seth MacFarlane, then you'll enjoy "A Million Ways To Die In The West." You will know what to expect from MacFarlane by now, and this is more of the same.

Final Grade: C