Bernard goes it alone in this week’s edition of the Way Too Indiecast, but have no fear: he’s bringing an extra dose of podcast love to the table (and a handful of Glade Plug-Ins, just in case it’s a stinker). Being that he’s Way Too Indie’s resident interviewer, Bernard shares two interview horror stories, one of which involves none other than the illustrious Jason Schwartzman. Plus, he shares his Indie Pick of the Week and asks the question: Is Joss Whedon indie?

So grab a seat at the campfire and join Bernard for some good ol’ indie story time (not because he needs the company; he’s been known to start forest fires and needs supervision)!

Topics

• Indie Pick of the Week (3:50)
• Is Joss Whedon Indie? (7:41)
• Interview Horror Stories (20:36)

Subscribe to the Way Too Indiecast

• Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes
• Subscribe to the podcast on Stitcher
• and don’t forget to leave us a rating and quick review!

Photo With Jason Schwartzman

Three years ago, Joss Whedon was given an awesome set of toys to play with: a bounding, hulking man-beast; a crimson-haired femme fatale; a hammer-wielding Norse god; a deadly archer super-spy; a ballistic man made of iron; a patriotic super soldier; Samuel L. Jackson with an eyepatch. He had a big sandbox to play in, too; 2012’s The Avengers ran a whopping 2 hours and 20 minutes, giving him plenty of room to smash his new toys together, give them quippy things to say and conjure up some villains (alien invaders and a smirking, meddling trickster) for them to save the world from. It was big, it was loud, it was a hell of a lot of fun, and all us kids standing around the sandbox showered him with applause once the dust settled and the show was over. Then, he called it a day, putting his action figures away until his next grand production of geek theater.

That brings us to The Avengers: Age of Ultron, Whedon‘s hotly anticipated encore performance. The super-sequel has got everything you’d expect: insane action scenes, clever one-liners, high-stakes drama and geeky easter eggs galore. It’s exciting to have Whedon return to the MCU playground, but there’s a problem: he’s got about twice as many toys as he did last time. Suddenly, the sandbox seems a bit crowded. With four major storylines going on simultaneously and a staggering number of superheroes and villains to keep track of, Marvel Studios’ latest summer blockbuster feels stretched too thin.

On the other hand, it never feels jumbled or messy; Whedon is a seasoned storyteller, and he somehow manages to make this tightly packed mega movie feel pretty well-organized, streamlined and easy to follow. He never loses command of his band of heroes, but what he’s lacking is prioritization. Each of the nine (!) primary characters is given a rich backstory and emotional arc to explore, which sounds cool until you realize that, due to time constraints, they have a mere handful of scenes to get the job done. As a result, the storylines feel abbreviated across the board.

It’s unfortunate, because there’s some really interesting stuff going on here that could have used more time. Robert Downey Jr.‘s Tony Stark sets up the main conflict early on, strutting unknowingly into a world of tech trouble when he and The Hulk himself, Dr. Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), inadvertently birth Ultron (the villain of the film’s subtitle, voiced by James Spader), a sentient A.I. designed to protect the world, but who instead decides to purge it of the “poison” that is humankind. What hath Stark wrought? A.I. panic is fascinating, relevant subject matter that Whedon unfortunately has precious little time to explore (look to Alex Garland’s recent Ex Machina for deeper insight).

Where Whedon excels is at building his characters in quick strokes with tasty details that stick to the back of your brain like bits of candy. It’s amusing, for example, when you realize that Ultron has somehow inherited Stark’s glib, quick-fire sense of humor: When a group of scientists run away from him screaming after he brutally murders several of their colleagues, he sarcastically pleads, “Wait! Guys?!” as if he’d made an innocuous party foul. The tyrannical robot is clearly his father’s son, and yet throws a fit at the slightest notion that he’s anything like his genius-billionaire-playboy-philanthropist daddy. Whedon’s always been great at giving his villains a human dimension (Buffy fans holler), and Ultron is no exception.

Iron Man’s robo-baby issues aside, the relationships between he and the rest of the Avengers are deepened and expanded. Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and Dr. Banner explore further the flirtation teased in the first film, providing an unexpected taste of romance. Captain America (Chris Evans) takes issue with Stark’s reckless exploitation of technology (setting the foundation for the impending Civil War), and Thor (Chris Hemsworth) does some extraneous soul-searching that’s mostly there to set up his next solo movie. Franchise newcomers Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor-Johnson join the fray as Wanda and Pietro Maximoff, a pair of “enhanced” twins who carry a deep-seated vendetta against Tony Stark.

Surprisingly, the film’s most poignant presence is that of Jeremy Renner‘s Hawkeye, who’s been significantly upgraded from his second-tier role in the first movie. We get to see a bit of his refreshingly ordinary home life; his wife is played by Linda Cardellini, who gives a terrific, grounded performance that comes completely out of left field. Through Hawkeye, who’s essentially a man amongst gods, Whedon defines both the story’s stakes and what being an Avenger truly means.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the thing most ticket-buyers will be paying to see: the action. The sweet, sweet, fist-pumping, “I can’t believe I’m seeing this” action. The movie opens with a snowy raid on a Hydra fortress in the fictitious Eastern European country of Sokovia. There’s a slo-mo shot (featured prominently in the trailers) of all six heroes charging through hoards of Hydra henchman phalanx-style, each Avenger locked in the most badass action pose you’ve ever seen. It’s ridiculously cool. On the other end of the film, we see Iron Man, Thor, and their new buddy, a monk-like floating android called Vision (Paul Bettany), attacking Ultron with laser beams and lightning bolts in unison. Again, ridiculously cool!

Moments like these are so slathered in comic-book awesomesauce my inner geek spontaneously combusted with excitement. Yes, the action can be a bit hollow and flashy, like watching the Harlem Globetrotters light up the court. But you know what? I love the freaking Harlem Globetrotters! (Especially when they were on Gilligan’s Island!) If I’m being honest, I could watch Iron Man pile-drive The Hulk through a skyscraper over and over without a word of complaint.

Avengers: Age of Ultron has no obligation to be the be-all-end-all epic most people want it to be. In reality, it’s nothing more than the action-packed culmination of three years-worth of superhero solo movies, and that’s fine by me. I did have problems with how evenly the narrative focus was spread across the main characters (I’d have much preferred Thor’s lame side story be cut in favor of more “Hawkeye at home” time), and I do feel like the existential quandary embodied by Ultron could have been fleshed out more.

But then I think about a fantastic party scene early in the movie in which the gang make a fun wager to see who can lift Thor’s precious Asgardian hammer, Mjolnir. Cap gives it a wiggle; a look of panic flashes across Thor’s face. The friends exchange Whedon-esque banter, sip some bubbly, talk a little trash and share some laughs as they use their incredible powers for cheap entertainment. It’s lighthearted, juvenile fun. Can’t be mad at that.

It’s hard to imagine now, but when Marvel Studios began erecting what we now know as the Marvel Cinematic Universe back in 2008, the mighty heroes that make up our beloved Avengers—Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Hulk, Black Widow–were generally regarded as B-list superheroes. Most people at the time were somewhat familiar with the characters, but very few in the general public obsessed over them like they did Wolverine, the X-Men, or DC Comics icons Batman and Superman.

Since then, Marvel has racked up an impressive catalogue of good-to-excellent superhero movies, building a thriving ecosystem and even managing to make D-list outcasts The Guardians of the Galaxy a worldwide phenomenon. But for comic book fans like myself, there has always been that one hangup that’s been needling at us since the MCU’s inception: Where’s Spider-Man?! It hurt my heart a little to watch the Avengers kick ass all over New York City without the web-head swinging around, making snarky remarks, and helping them knock out some baddies.

Now that our childhood dreams are coming true and Spider-Man is confirmed to be joining the MCU, there are a few questions on my mind as to how this will affect Marvel’s future plans, which had up until now been thoroughly mapped out through 2019. Peter Parker’s entry into the fold is going to shake things up big-time, so join me as I speculate what the Spidey-fied future of the MCU holds in store.

[Note: The most obvious question on some people’s minds is, “Who will they cast as Peter Parker?” While it’s an interesting question, I don’t feel particularly inclined to speculate since at this point we know so little and it’s so early on in the process. Maybe in a future piece. For now…]

Will Joss Whedon Stick Around?

Joss Whedon has been the mastermind behind the MCU since his debut directing 2012’s The Avengers, and since then he’s been a consultant on virtually every Marvel Studios production, helped create Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and taken on this summer’s gargantuan Avengers: Age of Ultron. He said recently that he “couldn’t imagine doing this again”, revealing that he has no intention of directing any more Avengers movies.

But Mr. Whedon is a comic book fan at heart, and like every other comic book fan on earth, he’s got to know how unbelievably perfect a candidate he would be to helm a Spider-Man movie, or at least write one. The prospect of him bringing Peter Parker to life with his witty, subversive writing style is the stuff dreams are made of, and if you’re a Buffy fan (or a Runaways fan–woot!), you know that he was born to make this movie. Teen angst, simultaneous wisecracking and skull-cracking, devastating deaths in the family–he’s been doing this shit for years. With hope, Joss will see this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deliver us the definitive Spider-Man experience.

How Big a Role Will Peter Parker Play in Civil War?

In Civil War, Marvel’s year-long mega-event that sold zillions of comics in 2006-2007, the super-powered population is split in two following the government passing the Superhero Registration Act, which forces individuals with extraordinary abilities to register and act under government regulation, and reveal their secret identities. Tony Stark leads the superheroes in support of the act, Steve Rogers leads those who refuse to register, and a cataclysmic war erupts across the nation with heroes fighting heroes and villains running amok like never before. Guess who’s right smack-dab in the middle of the conflict? Your friendly neighborhood Spider-Man, of course!

The third installment of the Captain America movie series, Captain America: Civil War, will focus on the popular storyline, and it was confirmed this morning that, now that Spider-Man is a member of the MCU family, the character will make his debut in the Joe Russo-helmed film. In the comics, he’s the face at the center of the debate over the Registration Act, and of the most pivotal moment of the entire storyline revolves around him, so it would be great to see him make a huge impact in the script. (Recreating the aforementioned pivotal moment in the film would be tricky, though, for reasons I won’t spoil here.) I’m keeping my fingers crossed that it’s not a shoehorned, throwaway cameo, which would hurt my soul. If the fine folks at Marvel can find a way to work him into the movie in a major way, it would serve them well.

How Will The Netflix Series Be Affected?

Marvel and Netflix are gearing up to unleash five binge-watchable shows on the streaming service, the first of which being the 10-episode Daredevil series (starring Charlie Cox as the blind crimefighter) launching on April 10, with the others–AKA Jessica Jones, Iron Fist, Luke Cage, and The Defenders–rolling out over the next couple of years. Like Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and Agent Carter, the five series exist within the MCU, though their stories will be mostly contained to the harsher corners of New York City.

With Peter Parker now fighting crime on the same streets as the Defenders, will he make an appearance on any of their shows? Daredevil and Spider-Man are frequent partners in the comics and share a common enemy in Wilson Fisk, a.k.a The Kingpin, who’s being played by the great Vincent D’Onofrio. (I wouldn’t rule out D’Onofrio making an appearance in the upcoming Spidey movie, by the way.) I know for a fact that I would lose my mind if I saw Peter Parker and Matt Murdock cleaning up thugs the NYC streets together, and now that it’s in the realm of possibility, I’m holding out hope for the crossover of my dreams.

Will J.K. Simmons Reprise His Role As J. Jonah Jameson?

Everybody knows that J.K. Simmons‘ turn as J. Jonah Jameson–the huffing, puffing, hard-ass editor-in-chief at the Daily Bugle and obsessive hater of Spider-Man–in Sam Raimi‘s original Spider-Man trilogy was one of the best things about those movies. He was so funny and so perfectly over-the-top that he made a bigger impression than characters that got triple his screen time. I left Whiplash craving more of Simmons screaming and fuming until his veins popped, and him returning as Peter Parker’s crotchety boss for the franchise reboot might be just the thing I need.

In a recent interview on Sirius XM’s The Howard Stern Show (credit to /Film for the scoop), he was asked by the legendary host if another Spider-Man movie was in the cards. His reply was cautiously optimistic: “I just heard that we…that’s a possibility.” When asked if he’d be interested in returning to the role, Simmons replied with an enthusiastic, “Absolutely.” Seems like a no-brainer.

Will the Release Date Shifts Affect Storylines?

The first MCU Spider-Man movie is slated for a July 28, 2017 release. Consequently, every movie after it has been moved one slot back on the release calendar. For example, Thor: Ragnarok, which was bumped off its July 28, 2017 release date by Spider-Man, will now release on November 3, 2017. What’s notable are the shifts to the movies releasing adjacent to Avengers: Infinity War, the two-part event slated for release May 4, 2018, and May 3, 2019.

Black Panther was originally coming out before Infinity War: Part 1, but is now scheduled to release after it. This either means that the events of Black Panther have no bearing on the events of Infinity War, or that the story will have to be tweaked to fit in with the grander MCU arc. It’s all very confusing, and it’s going to be interesting to see how it all plays out. I predict a sweep of raging migraines striking the masterminds at Marvel Studios any second now…

I’m not going to lie, the primary reason In Your Eyes caught my attention is that Joss Whedon wrote and produced the film. And I’m guessing I’m not alone. Whedon began earning fans many years ago with his high-concept sci-fi television shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly, and Serenity. Then he made The Avengers. His Marvel Comics film was a massive commercial success (reaching the third all-time highest grossing film at the box office), quickly cementing himself as one of Hollywood’s most powerful directors. Sadly, In Your Eyes is a disappointing melodrama, featuring a decent concept that gets compromised by a generic and familiar love story.

In Your Eyes begins with a young girl named Rebecca clinging her sled tightly as she studies the snowy New Hampshire hill with great focus. It’s apparent something bad is about to happen when the overly dramatic score kicks in right as her mother pleads for her to be careful. As she races down the hill, the film jumps to a boy clutching his desk at school. Suddenly he can somehow see exactly what she does. When her sled slams into a tree, they simultaneously get knocked unconscious. These two characters don’t share the inexplicable psychic connection again until twenty years later.

The film removes the soft focus filter to indicate present day, reintroducing the characters as adults now. Dylan (Michael Stahl-David) is an ex-convict who lives in a trailer home in the New Mexico desert, while Rebecca (Zoe Kazan) is unhappily married to a wealthy doctor in New Hampshire. On a random afternoon, their strange connection suddenly comes back, allowing them to see through each other’s eyes once again. As an added bonus, the two are now also able to talk to each other. Without really questioning these powers, the two soon become best friends and engage in flirtatious conversations. It’s easy to guess what happens next.

The running joke of the film is how others react to these two talking out loud to “themselves” in public. This is funny the first couple of times, especially when Rebecca interrupts Dylan’s romantic date with another woman, but the gig gets old pretty fast. When others catch them talking out loud, they often grab their phone to pretend they’re having a conversation on the phone. Because cell phones do exist in their world, I wondered why they didn’t just call each other, instead of looking like weirdos to everyone. Perhaps to save minutes on their cell phone plans?

Admittedly, trying to justify the logistics of the film is pointless. Regardless of how (or why) these two are able to communicate, the concept of a long-distance relationship between two people who’ve never met is enchanting and relevant. While films like Spike Jonze’s Her depict falling in love with someone you’ve never met more effectively, In Your Eyes does a good job exploring how love knows no bounds.

Despite the concept being moderately interesting, poor and straightforward execution renders In Your Eyes mostly ineffective. Many lines in the film are delivered unnaturally, making the dialogue sound painfully awkward and sometimes downright cringe-worthy. Also, the film never really feels like a true Whedon production. By establishing all the metaphysical fantasy elements at the beginning, the storyline eliminates all surprises by taking the safest and most predictable route the rest of the way. Therefore, the story lacks the fresh Whedon spin we typically receive from him. Unlike his other work, In Your Eyes consists of a dull, vulnerable, and powerless role for the lead female, and that’s highly disappointing.

For fun, Joss Whedon likes to hold late-night drunken Shakespeare readings with his friends at his Los Angeles home (because who doesn’t?). Much Ado About Nothing, his adaptation of Shakespeare’s (arguably) best comedy, is an elaborately staged movie version of the wine-soaked bard parties. This is Whedon’s vacation from the superheroes, literally—on downtime during filming The Avengers, when he was supposed to be on vacation, Whedon gathered his merry troupe of actor friends from the Whedonverse (Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse) and shot Much Ado About Nothing in 12 days (at his house, appropriately). Do the booze-fueled get-togethers translate well to the big screen? They sure do, thanks to the agile tongues and keen intelligence of Whedon and his chums.

The beauty of Whedon’s adaptation is that it respects the genius of the original work. Whedon takes the opposite approach of Baz Luhrmann’s flashy, over-stylized Romeo+Juliet—he trusts the power of the source material and is wise enough to not let unnecessary modern flourishes and bells and whistles obstruct Shakespeare’s work. This is a gracious, glitzy firecracker of a film that would make Ol’ Willie proud.

Though Whedon has trimmed a good amount of story off of the play, the original themes—about the many faces of love and the value of honor—remain intact. The plot is dizzying, but Whedon does a good job of making the scenes so entertaining that you dial in to each one, never missing a beat. From beginning to end, the film feels like a never-ending party, with bottles popping incessantly and sharp suits and cocktail dresses filling the screen. The film was shot in black and white, which lends itself well to the modern setting as it makes the house and everyone in it look more elegant and effervescent.

Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker play the timeless romance of Benedick and Beatrice like superstars, making the most of every moment (why these two haven’t had more successful film careers, I’ll never know). Their crackling chemistry (which had been developed over years on Angel) is as scrumptious as anything you’ll see this year. When Denisof tries to impress Acker by doing a cartoonish calisthenics routine in front of her while they have a casual conversation, it’s funny in the most unpretentious way, a nice palette-cleanser to the mean-spirited, sarcastic form of comedy seen in recent years. Denisof and Acker slip in and out of high drama and goofball comedy seamlessly, which is a skill the material requires. One minute they can’t stand the sight of each other, barking and verbally stabbing. The next, they’re declaring their undying love and rubbing noses. It’s all charming, all fluid, all convincing.

Though every cast member gets their moment in the sun, Franz Kranz is a standout as the animated, love-drunk Claudio. He’s given the most emotionally intense scenes in the film, and he brings energy to them that are off-the-charts. Though much less experienced in terms of theater time, Nathan Fillion provides the biggest laughs as the self-involved Chief-of-Police, Dogberry. He sings Shakespeare’s lines with a smirk and a curled eyebrow. “Remember that I am an ass. Though it not be written down, yet forget not that I am an ass.”

The modern Los Angeles setting is occasionally incompatible with the centuries-old dialog—hearing grand Elizabethan speech delivered in front of a refrigerator can be a little hard to swallow. The most difficult scene to digest is late in the film—Hero (Jillian Margese) is left at the altar by Claudio when he accuses her of squandering her virginity on another man. A pack of men then proceed to shout shockingly misogynistic insults at her, slinging their hate-filled scorn until she is so shamed she collapses. It’s hard to completely buy that this would fly in our time, though it ultimately doesn’t affect the drama of the scene significantly.

Much Ado About Nothing is light, good-humored fun. It’s sparkly and summery and full of laughs, though the modern setting doesn’t gel with the Elizabethan material quite as well as I’d hoped. The results are almost always delightful when Whedon works with his mates, and this outing is no exception. If Shakespeare were here to see it, he’d likely be pleased. “Twas a joyful romp, lord Whedon. But what, pray tell, is a ‘Buffy’?”

For years Joss Whedon (Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Firefly, The Avengers) has hosted Shakespeare readings at his Los Angeles home with his best friends, who all just happen to be actors he’s worked with on various projects over the years. Over time (and lots of wine), he got the idea to turn these now-not-so-secret shindigs into a film, the result of which is his ultimate passion project—an adaptation of Shakespeare’s timeless comedy, Much Ado About Nothing.

Shot in Whedon’s home to preserve the spirit of the Shakesperean meetings, the film is full of jovial fun, firecracker performances, and a certain verbal virtuosity that both Whedon and Shakespeare share an affinity for. It’s a respectful take on the play because Whedon tells the story in his own voice, not Shakespeare’s. Much Ado About Nothing is timeless, and Whedon appreciates that—he doesn’t inject dialog about iPhones or computers to make it feel ‘modern’. It’s a faithful adaptation, yet also deeply personal.

The stars of the film, Alexis Denisof (Benedick) and Amy Acker (Beatrice), worked with Whedon most famously on Angel, his excellent spin-off of the beloved Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I’m a long-time Whedon fan and absolutely adore Denisof and Acker’s work, so I’m not ashamed to say that I was thoroughly overjoyed to have the opportunity to chat with the duo about Much Ado, working with Whedon, and the benefits of low-budget filmmaking.

WTI: For years Joss’ friends, including you two, have been doing Shakespeare readings at his house just for fun. When he approached you about taking these readings and turning them into a film, was the thought that you wanted to share your little Shakespeare pow-wows with the world, or were you just doing it for fun and playing it by ear from there?

Alexis Denisof: Number 2, for sure. We weren’t even thinking [it would become as big as it is] now. As [filming] was moving along, we all sensed that something special was happening. During shooting Joss was like “Umm…this is looking good. This could be more than the straight-to-DVD or internet release I was thinking it might be.” Amy was saying she thought he was going to shoot it on his iPhone.

Amy Acker: He always said it would be fun to share the readings with people. He thought it would be nice if it was on PBS or something, like a taped reading series in the backyard (laughs). We didn’t know what we were doing, or else we would have probably cried making it! “We’re going to mess up!” (laughs)

AD: Not really knowing [where the project was headed] and not having that much time and having a lot to do, we just put our heads down and got to the business of making it. We didn’t think much about the outcome or get hung up on what it was going to be or how it was going to be received. We just put all our attention on being in the scene, bringing the scene to life, bringing the character to life, and bringing the relationship to life. That’s your favorite place to be as an actor and an artist, to be free of any expectation. There was no failing, you know? If [I wanted] to do push-ups in a scene, I could do push-ups in a scene. If [Amy] wanted to fall down the stairs, she could fall down the stairs. It was sheer joy from beginning to end.

WTI: Joss has his familiar troupe of actors he likes to work with frequently. He draws amazing performances out of you all, and he has a way of making you perform at your very, very best. You two, along with Joss, created one of my favorite television romances of all time as Wesley and Fred on Angel. There’s an intangible quality to a Joss Whedon actor—the way you speak, the way you move, the fine balance of drama and fun. When he looks for new actors to bring into the group, what qualities is he looking for?

AD: Ooh…I don’t think I’ve been asked that before! I guess Joss sees more than meets the eye in a person. He wants to share the hidden talents that an actor might not be getting the opportunity to share, and he sees that, celebrates that. That’s why actors love to work with him. If you’re lucky enough to work with Joss, he’s going to find areas to explore that he might not have even thought of himself if you haven’t been given the opportunity [in the past]. That’s one of the things we’ve loved about him.

AA: You don’t really have to say “I’ve always wanted to do this.” He’ll come to you and be like “I think people should see you do this.” Then, you realize in the back of your head “I was really wanting to be a blue demon!”

AD: That takes a lot of courage from a director and a writer because most directors and writers have a studio breathing down their back and the expectations of delivering something that’s guaranteed to work and deliver. [Studios] don’t want to be told “I want to try this with this actor, I want to find this side of them” or “I want to tell this story in a new way that’s never been told.” [If he went to a studio and said] “Would you like to give me money to shoot Shakespeare in black and white with actors who are good friends that I think would be great for the material, but aren’t necessarily box office [stars].” You know, what studio would put money into that? None of them. But, to Joss, that’s what it’s all about.

AA: I think the common thread of all the actors, especially in this movie, is that everybody is there one hundred percent. There was no one he brought into the project that was not fully invested, whether they had one line or soliloquies running up stairs. Everybody was there to help each other and to help make the movie happen. I think that was important to him.

AD: He sees the spirit of true collaboration, which is that serving the greater good of the project is as important as serving yourself. I think he knew that he could put people into the film that would work together as a team and bring it to life and do whatever was needed. [Much Ado About Nothing] is the definition of a passion project.

WTI: Everybody in the film delivers their lines very well, but you two actually have some great physical comedy moments. How much fun did you have with that?

AD: It was fun. We keep tipping our hat to Joss, but part of why is his love [for] Shakespeare and part of what is in his storytelling is exploring these great, lofty moments of beautiful poignant love or these dreadful tragic moments of self-loathing, but through all of that, there’s always time for a good pratfall or a good moment of slapstick. He’s not afraid to go to all of those places within the same story, and that’s the case with Shakespeare too. Some of it came out of us, the actors, but some of it came out of Joss seeing the scene a particular way. There’s a scene where I do some pretty silly calisthenics, and that came to me very suddenly [when we were setting up the first take.] I just had a moment of clarity with the character and I saw this physical thing that I thought would put a twist on the scene. We kinda tried it, didn’t we?

AA: That was one of the scenes we were practicing on our own while [the rest of the crew] was shooting something inside. He did [the calisthenics thing] and we were talking about it some more and we said “Let’s get Joss and see what he thinks!” (laughs)

AD: He was slightly concerned (laughs).

AA: He came around (laughs).

AD: He did it a little bit out of faith in us.

AA: I think we did one safety take without the crew (laughs).

AD: That was where the low-budget movie was in our favor because, you know, he had to say yes. We were all in this for the fun of it. He was very willing to go almost anywhere with [the project] within certain parameters, because he had a strong vision for the movie and a strong feel he wanted to bring to it. With that safety he gave us he made us incredibly free. I think that’s part of why the movie’s so infused with fun and joviality and so approachable and easy.

Make sure to catch Much Ado About Nothing when it hits select cities this Friday (June 7th )

On Saturday night, SFIFF was all about the screening of Joss Whedon’s much buzzed-about Shakespeare adaptation, Much Ado About Nothing, and the excitement emanating from the gorgeous Sundance Kabuki Cinema was infectious. There was a line stretching down the block of excited Whedon-ites (and Shakespeare…um…heads?) who were itching to pile into the theater to watch the highly-anticipated film.

The film’s stars, Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof, were in attendance, and I was waiting for them on the red carpet, shaking with anticipation. Why the shaking, you ask? The two also starred in Angel, Whedon’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer spin-off, which is one of my favorite television shows of all time. I’m a huge Joss Whedon fan (my wedding invitations were Buffy-themed), so it was a special (and surreal) moment for me to take their picture as they posed in front of the SFIFF banner.

Before the screening, Acker and Denisof were asked to introduce the film and thought out-loud that they wished Mr. Whedon were there to help, as he is better at this kind of thing. So, naturally, they called his cell, put him on speakerphone, and had a hilariously awkward conversation in which Whedon seemed to have absolutely no idea what was going on. It was one of the most bizarre film introductions I’ve seen, but it was fun and entertaining nonetheless. They held a Q&A after the film and spoke at length about their previous roles together on Angel, much to my excitement.

Now, on to my impressions of the film.

Much Ado About Nothing

Contrary to what you may have read about Joss Whedon’s take on Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing isn’t simply a ‘contemporary’ interpretation—it’s a purely Whedon interpretation. It’s full of his playful wit, his best friends (who happen to be fantastic actors), and gorgeous views of his home, in which the entire film was shot. The film feels personal because of its history—Whedon and his friends have been holding Shakespeare readings at his house for years, and this film had always been a dream project for him.

Benedick (Denisof), Claudio (Franz Kranz) and Don Pedro (Reed Diamond) arrive at the home of Leonato (Clark Gregg). During their visit, Beatrice (Acker), Leonato’s neice, and Benedick engage in a biting war of words (it’s revealed in the opening scene that they’d had a one-night-stand) while Claudio finds himself falling for Leonato’s daughter, Hero (Jillian Morgese). The two pairs flaunt, taunt, and flirt with each other until calculated deceptions by the malevolent Don John (Sean Maher) introduce deadly implications into the game.

Whedon’s take on the story is as timeless as the source material, which can be mostly attributed to Whedon’s uncanny ability to create on-screen magic with his actors. Denisof is simultaneously dashing and bumbling, and Acker is a silver-tongued vision in a summer dress. Their wordy quarrels are as engaging and vicious as a fight scene, but when they fall for each other, they morph into juvenile, giddy sweethearts. The duo’s charming, Chaplin-esque physical performances are highlighted by Whedon. There are almost too many noteworthy performances to mention, but Kranz is a surprising standout, with his impassioned delivery and ability to handle any mood or tone thrown at him.

Shot in classy black and white, Whedon’s photography is super-smooth, and he proves that he knows how to use his camera wisely (an eavesdropping scene with Denisof is spotless.) Much Ado About Nothing is the perfect alternative to the modern ‘rom-com’, and is a joy to watch with an audience. Whedon handles the cherished source material with finesse and makes it look like he was born to do it.

Stay tuned to Way Too Indie for our full review and an interview with Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker!

Let me start off by saying that I love movies of any genre, from any decade, from any country. But I love the horror genre more than any of them. I don’t know what it is about them. Most of them are retreads of other films. But to me there is an enduring quality of watching a group of teenagers entering a house knowing full well only one will make it out and the rest will meet their untimely demise to a demon or a stalker. Or say, zombies rising out of the ground then proceeding to slowly walk over to someone and eating them. Or a vampire intricately seducing a young woman only to bite her as the moon is fully lit.

Having said all this, I will probably make this the shortest review I ever write. It’s not that there isn’t much to say about The Cabin in the Woods, it’s that there isn’t much I want to say about it. The hype going into this movie was pretty big I must admit trying to step around reviews and spoilers in this day and age can be like coordinating yourself through a mine field. But I managed and am so glad I did because what happens throughout The Cabin in the Woods and its final 30 minutes are very, VERY refreshing to the horror genre. As I write this I’m trying to curb any details that will even remotely hint at what happens in the film.

The movie starts out in a massive underground office that looks like a villain’s lair straight out of a Bond movie. Two guys are discussing their lives and their jobs (the latter of which they don’t reveal ANY details). One is played by the ubiquitous Richard Jenkins and the other played by the vastly underrated Bradley Whitford. They both give the film’s best performances. A smash cut to grinding violins over the title of the film stops the scene dead in its tracks.

Now we meet our protagonists as they are packing and getting ready for a trip to, you guessed it, a cabin. The cabin happens to be located in, you guessed it again, the woods. The characters are all here: the athlete, the slut, the virgin, the bookworm and the conspiracy slinging pothead.

As soon as they drive off in their Winnebago, they are being watched. Watched by whom though and for what purpose is the mystery. The movie builds like a normal horror movie interspersed with scenes involving our two mystery men from the opening scene. They sit in a room with tons of monitors and multitudes of buttons and things that go bleep and blop. The cabin our heroes arrive in is being completely watched, bugged and ran by these two men.

What happens from here on out is completely organic and REFRESHING in a genre so stale and mostly bland. Most importantly, the movie is just so much fun. It never for one second takes itself seriously. It has fun with its roots. It embraces the history of its genre and sets out to obliterate it in one foul swoop. The ending does not have a cop out and stays true to its story.

I don’t think The Cabin in the Woods is perfect. It’s just on the edge of being great. Maybe in time, I will appreciate it even more. The movie is tons and tons of fun and like I said earlier, it’s above all refreshing. The movie will probably be appreciated more by horror hounds that get what the filmmakers were trying to do. The movie in my opinion is one of the most original in the genre to come out in some time. And if you know the genre, then you know that is saying something.

It has been nearly 50 years since Thor was originally created as a comic book hero by Marvel Comics. In what seems as a last effort to milk the comic book turn movie trend, Hollywood gives us Thor. Speaking of trends in Hollywood, Thor does not seem to skimp in the product placement department (Acura being the main offender). Having never read the comic books, I can only base my review off this film. It seems fair to assume that a film would give you the proper background for those in that position. Spoiler alert, it does not.

The film takes place in Asgard, a fantasy realm where Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is about to become King in. Thor is a chiseled god whose muscles are as large as his arrogance. Odin (Anthony Hopkins) who is Thor’s father and current King, is interrupted moments before he announces the news of a new King by an attack on Asgard by the Frost Giants.

Thor is more of the act first think later type of character, which leads him to strike an attack on the Frost Giants against his father’s wishes. Thor is not the smartest god of Asgard, but I suppose you do not have to be when your special weapon is a large hammer. Odin decides to punish Thor by banishing him from Asgard to teach him to wise up. This benefits Loki (Tom Hiddleston), who is the outspoken but mischievous brother of Thor as he is now in position to become the ruler.

Thor’s banishment sends him to a small town in New Mexico. The film does not explain as to why that location but I can only presume it is because that is where the comic books sent him. Upon being transported to New Mexico he is hit by Jane Foster’s (Natalie Portman) van. Inside the van are Foster’s crew who are essentially weather chasers that have been noticing strange patterns in the sky.

Thor’s hammer also is transported to earth by Odin who renders it unless until it is in possession of a worthy persons hands. Luckily, the hammer happens to be transported close by just a little after Thor was. However, the hammer was lodged into the earth so firmly that nobody can pull it out. In an admittedly amusing scene, many of the locals make it an event to try pulling this large mysterious hammer out of the ground. But they all fail obviously because they are not worthy enough.

Jane is enthralled with Thor but does not start out on a good note. Literally moments after he is out of the hospital where Jane caused him to be after hitting him with her vehicle, take a guess at what happens again? Yep, she hits him again with her vehicle. The film is riddled with these types of cheesy, over-the-top events perhaps aimed to unsuccessfully entertain young children.

Still somehow Jane and Thor predictably fall for one another even after Thor makes a fool of himself trying to fit in on earth. Even before Thor suddenly decides to wise up and actually start helping others out, Jane seems to be in love with him. This proves that looks are clearly the most important feature. Thanks Hollywood.

Thor eventually realizes that he can use his special powers not only for his own advantage but also to help others in need. It was hard to care too much for the main character, because of how arrogant he was for most of the film. I know the idea was to ultimately show how he has grown from boyish acts to adulthood, but viewers must first have vested interest in the character before they can root for them. I suppose this a nice twist among most other comic book characters. It seems like most often the superhero is using his powers to help others before being tempted to use for their own good.

Almost always Natalie Portman’s roles in films are done fantastically, like her Oscar winning role in Black Swan. However, Thor managed to make Natalie Portman look dull and uninspired mostly with terrible dialog. I hate to say it but even her sidekick Darcy (Kat Dennings) had a much more memorable character even though her character was completely pointless other than some random comedic relief lines now and then.

Something that stood out to me was they did not go into as much detail as they could have. We see Odin without an eye but are never told how exactly that happened. Also, how did Loki just appear in the room in New Mexico then all of a sudden leave without being questioned by anyone? Why was Thor’s recently wounded face immediately heeled when he was transported back to his realm? Why did it take his hammer to transport to earth longer than it did for Thor?

At the very least, you will get a few laughs as were thrown in to perhaps keep the film watchable. But good luck trying to decipher what was meant to be funny and what was just an awful and cliché dialog that makes you laugh.

As much as I did not enjoy Thor, I cannot help but assume that if you are very into the comic book series of it that you may like this film much more. Although, my favorite film critic Roger Ebert once said that just because you like a film it does not mean that it is a good film. So perhaps hardcore fans may only better understand what is going on than actually consider it a good film.